Going to hell in a hand basket

[coberst]

Going to hell in a hand basket

In the world of natural science existence is that which is measurable. If it cannot be measured it does not exist--except as that which must be exorcised--in any important way in the world of natural science. In the world of capitalism existence is that which correlates with commodity (an object of commerce). A person has value because s/he produces and/or consumes commodities.

The ideology of capitalism determines what is valuable and the nation’s institutions are determined by this ideology. Our schools are designed to produce good workers and hardy consumers. If a person wishes to be more than a producer or consumer s/he must find a way to do so without a great deal of help from the nation’s institutions.

To a large extent we are puppets of an ideology but we retain a degree of self-determination depending upon our strength of will, character, and intellectually developed desire.

Every capitalistic nation is on a trajectory greatly determined by the logic (principles) of capitalism. The logic of capitalism is constructed to facilitate the production and consumption of commodities. If we study the logic of capitalism we can, I think, accurately predict the trajectory of society.

I predict that we (the world) are “going to hell in a hand basket”. What do you think about this bit of prophecy? If you agree, what can you and I do today to help start a change in trajectory?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I think that prophecy is really more of an educated guess And I agree with it.

What can we do today? Live more frugally. Be more reponsible consumers. Sit down to think carefully about the consequences of our lifestyle on the wider world and take responsibility for such consequences. Study a bit so as to expand, focus and inform the mind. Be proactive but at the same time strive to be realistic rather than idealistic. Make a decision to do all these things for more than just a day.

 

[Tigress]

I think that I wouldn't fit in a hand basket.--Sorry, that's all I've got for now. Continue all...

 

[michel]

Going to hell in a hand basket

In the world of natural science existence is that which is measurable. If it cannot be measured it does not exist--except as that which must be exorcised--in any important way in the world of natural science. In the world of capitalism existence is that which correlates with commodity (an object of commerce). A person has value because s/he produces and/or consumes commodities.

The ideology of capitalism determines what is valuable and the nation’s institutions are determined by this ideology. Our schools are designed to produce good workers and hardy consumers. If a person wishes to be more than a producer or consumer s/he must find a way to do so without a great deal of help from the nation’s institutions.

To a large extent we are puppets of an ideology but we retain a degree of self-determination depending upon our strength of will, character, and intellectually developed desire.

Every capitalistic nation is on a trajectory greatly determined by the logic (principles) of capitalism. The logic of capitalism is constructed to facilitate the production and consumption of commodities. If we study the logic of capitalism we can, I think, accurately predict the trajectory of society.

I predict that we (the world) are “going to hell in a hand basket”. What do you think about this bit of prophecy? If you agree, what can you and I do today to help start a change in trajectory?

I can understand from which angle you are seing this; I am not sure that I agree with you entirely.

It almost looks as if you are focussing entirely on the negative aspects of our society; whilst I admit that 'Capitalism' is likely to make people 'money orientated' in their thoughts, I think you are missing the fact that there are good people around. It isn't the 'whole' of society.

My own sons are on that 'capitalist' bandwagon; I am glad that they are. They need to get the best job with the best income at this stage when they are first entering into the 'world outside of home'; if they were not ambitious, I would be worried for them.

I think there is a certain age at which all we individuals slow down, and look behind the veneer of society, and think "What is it all about?". I dare say this age differs greatly from individual to individual.

As far as I myself am concerned, I joined the 'capitalist' bandwagon, worked very hard, saved my money as best I knew hard for my family's sake (not even really my own sake). As a husband and father, I wanted to be able to say, at the end of my working life, "There, I have done my best, I have provided for the now, and for the future. Now, let's stop, jump of that treadmill, and think about life" - although, to be fair, I have always been aware of the spiritual side of my existence - but, until about eight years ago, I didn't feel I could allow myself the indulgence of spending too much time on the spiritual; I needed to make a nest - and I gave that 110%. Now, I can lean back, and learn, and think............

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I think there is a certain age at which all we individuals slow down, and look behind the veneer of society, and think "What is it all about?". I dare say this age differs greatly from individual to individual.

I think this is a good point to make. Young people are driven by a need for economic independance and at the same time the status that money brings (though the context of this is very much within the framework of a society than can be changed). Its actually unusual for people to slow down and contemplate the less materialistic side of living. I only began doing this myself when young because illness prevented me from persuing my own materialistic ideals.

Nevertheless we are in trouble. We do have to think very carefully about the excesses of Capitalism and what they mean for the future. I've quoted something by Noam Chomsky it elsewhere on this forum but it seems suited here also.

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival."

 

[coberst]

I contend that Wal-Mart is ‘the logic of capitalism’. I mean that if one follows the principles of capitalism the result would be Wal-Mart. To me this means that in a capitalistic society Wal-Mart is acting logically.

When I say that most nations in the world are trying to stop Iran from making a bomb and that this is a rational action I mean that they are following the logic of their principles. Likewise Iran is following the logic of the principles of a sovereign nation.

So, when both entities are doing what they are doing we have a situation that if we follow the logic of the matter we will in short order have a world wherein almost all nations will have the bomb or we have a war between the two entities, the group and the one, ad infinitum.

The logic of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was all we could depend upon during the cold war. It appears to me that today we still only have the logic of MAD. When the world is filled with nations with the bomb will not the logic of human action, as we perceive that logic to be from past history, dictate that the bomb will be used?

 

[Scuba Pete]

We are not merely going to hell in a handbasket: we are already there.

Consider that waging war for economic gain as the height of capitalism gone wrong. I submit for your consideration: Haliburton's war. Conceived and prosecuted with commerce at the forfront. At no other time has a corporation been able to propel us into a violent conflict just to produce profits. Sucks to be us.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

The logic of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was all we could depend upon during the cold war. It appears to me that today we still only have the logic of MAD. When the world is filled with nations with the bomb will not the logic of human action, as we perceive that logic to be from past history, dictate that the bomb will be used?

On a tangent, ever seen BlackAdder comedy series set in the trenches of World War I? That MAD thing reminded me of something from the last episode

Baldrick: Permission to ask a question, sir?

Edmund: Permission granted, Baldrick, as long as isn't the one about where babies come from.

Baldrick: No, the thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?

Edmund: Do you mean "How did the war start?"

Baldrick: Yeah.

George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.

Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. (aside, to Baldrick) Mad as a bicycle!

Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.

Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort *not* to have a war.

George: By gum this is interesting; I always loved history -- The Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII and his six knives, all that.

Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick: But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Edmund: It was bollocks.

 

[Æsahættr]

Our schools are designed to produce good workers and hardy consumers.

This is the issue that most worries me out of those that arise from a philosophy of allowing the free market to dictate our institutions. Learning for its own sake seems all but dead. Huge numbers of teachers say now that there are lots of areas of their subject that they would love to teach their students about, but can't afford to, because they aren't on the curriculum. Numbers of students taking science subjects are declining because they are perceived as too hard, but that isn't because students now are less able to understand the subjects, its simply that most don't feel they can afford to take a subject that they won't get a high grade in. It's very difficuly to predict exactly what effects this will have in the long run, but it can't be good.

 

[coberst]

This is the issue that most worries me out of those that arise from a philosophy of allowing the free market to dictate our institutions. Learning for its own sake seems all but dead. Huge numbers of teachers say now that there are lots of areas of their subject that they would love to teach their students about, but can't afford to, because they aren't on the curriculum. Numbers of students taking science subjects are declining because they are perceived as too hard, but that isn't because students now are less able to understand the subjects, its simply that most don't feel they can afford to take a subject that they won't get a high grade in. It's very difficuly to predict exactly what effects this will have in the long run, but it can't be good.

I think that a bullfight might be a useful analogy here. The Matador is the oligarachy runing the country (US) while the bull represents the people. The Matador wiggles the cape a little here and a litle there and th foolish bull, who is big and strong but unenlightened, strikes at the air until the Matador dispatches him. Until the big strong bull begins to comprehend what is going on then life and death will continue in this manner.

 

[Æsahættr]

I think that a bullfight might be a useful analogy here. The Matador is the oligarachy runing the country (US) while the bull represents the people. The Matador wiggles the cape a little here and a litle there and th foolish bull, who is big and strong but unenlightened, strikes at the air until the Matador dispatches him. Until the big strong bull begins to comprehend what is going on then life and death will continue in this manner.

I dunno...that analogy seems to suggest too much conscious effort of control on the part of the matador/leaders. For the most part, I don't think that leaders set out to exploit and control their citizens. They only fall into a habit of doing so if their citizens do not hold them accountable. I don't see it so much that people have to realise that they are being deceived by their governments, more that they simply have to remember to keep them under pressure so they do not start to fall into bad habits.

 

[michel]

I contend that Wal-Mart is ‘the logic of capitalism’. I mean that if one follows the principles of capitalism the result would be Wal-Mart. To me this means that in a capitalistic society Wal-Mart is acting logically.

I agree with you; the point is, there is more to life than logic. With logic, there needs to be compassion, love, all those other traits that a society needs to run effectively.

That (IMO) is a change that has come about since the late 70's or early 80's - the 'logic of greed' unadulterated, with no trace of feeling. That is what has gone 'wrong'.

 

[coberst]

I dunno...that analogy seems to suggest too much conscious effort of control on the part of the matador/leaders. For the most part, I don't think that leaders set out to exploit and control their citizens. They only fall into a habit of doing so if their citizens do not hold them accountable. I don't see it so much that people have to realise that they are being deceived by their governments, more that they simply have to remember to keep them under pressure so they do not start to fall into bad habits.

That is a very remarkable statement. One of us does not comprehend human nature very well.

 

[Æsahættr]

That is a very remarkable statement. One of us does not comprehend human nature very well.

I won't dispute that.
I assure you, as a rule, people who have just aquired power do not wake up thinking "I think I'll oppress people today." The history of every oppressive government shows that it tends to happen gradually. People oppress others when they start to think that it is not immoral to do so. They might have already partly reached that stage when they come to power, but it's a process that continues while they stay in office, if they are not restrained from doing so.
I really think it's quite an obvious part of human nature. If you don't ever tell off a child for misbehaving, they get into a habit of doing it without feeling guilty.