[Arraya]

Romanticizing bitterly resisted 19th century capitalism as a vision of the future is bat shit insane. Seriously, narrowing down a critique of modern industrial society to the “government” or the “Fed” is monumentally simplistic and entirely fanatical.

[Arraya]

Man, late-stage capitalism is going to be interesting.

I hate to break it to you guys but it doesn’t fucking matter what you believe but we are a multifaceted, slow motion social train wreck.

It’s like you are all in some mass hallucination and can’t see the glaringly obvious.

[Arraya]

No, a revolutionary movement doesn’t spread by contamination, like rioting and looting, but by resonance.

[Arraya]

To repeat what I said in Feb.

[quote=Arraya]

All over the Arab world, as a precursor to, all over the world, the psychic locks that have held the populations in stasis have now been broken. [/quote]

[Arraya]

This is another bubble based off of predation and profit that is going to fuel the youth revolution. Here’s a hint to all those that want to blame the kids for thier huge debt loads and low job prospects – it will blow up in your faces.

[Arraya]

“people” don’t laugh at sociologists. Right wing ideologues do because serious sociological study leads to certain conclusions that they don’t like. Sociology departments were countered with “think tanks”.

[Arraya]

[quote=bearishgurlThere’s no “free lunch” in this life . . . only delayed karma.[/quote]

Getting something for nothing

In the distribution to the public of the products of industry, the failure of the present system is the direct result of the faulty premise upon which it is based. This is: that somehow a man is able by his personal services to render to society the equivalent of what he receives, from which it follows that the distribution to each shall be in accordance with the services rendered and that those who do not work must not eat. This is what our propagandists call ‘the impossibility of getting something for nothing.’ Aside from the fact that only by means of the sophistries of lawyers and economists can it be explained how, on this basis, those who do nothing at all frequently receive the largest shares of the national income, the simple fact is that it is impossible for any man to contribute to the social system the physical equivalent of what it costs the system to maintain him form birth till death–and the higher the physical standard of living the greater is this discrepancy. This is because man is an engine operating under the limitations of the same physical laws as any other engine. The energy that it takes to operate him is several times as much as any amount of work he can possibly perform. If, in addition to his food, he receives also the products of modern industry, this is due to the fact that material and energy resources happen to be available and, as compared with any contribution he can make, constitute a free gift from heaven. Stated more specifically, it costs the social system on the North American Continent the energy equivalent to nearly 10 tons of coal per year to maintain one man at the average present standard of living, and no contribution he can possibly make in terms of the energy conversion of his individual effort will ever repay the social system the cost of his social maintenance. Is it not to be wondered at, therefore, that a distributive mechanism based upon so rank a fallacy should fail to distribute; the marvel is that it has worked as well as it has. Since any human being, regardless of his personal contribution, is a social dependent with respect to the energy resources upon which society operates, and since every operation within a given society is effected at the cost of a degradation of an available supply of energy, this energy degradation, measured in appropriate physical units such as kilowatt-hours, constitutes the common physical cost of all social operations. Since also the energy-cost of maintaining a human being exceeds by a large amount his ability to repay, we can abandon the fiction that what one is to receive is in payment for what one has done, and recognize that what we are really doing is utilizing the bounty that nature has provided us. Under these circumstances we recognize that we all are getting something for nothing, and the simplest way of effecting distribution is on a basis of equality, especially so when it is considered that production can be set equal to the limit of our capacity

[Arraya]

[quote=Jacarandoso][quote=Arraya][quote=Jacarandoso]My question about the people protesting is: Where was all their do-gooding when we were bombing the hell out of Iraq? Probably hoping we would get cheaper gas and an economy, maybe a welfare state that was a bit better than what they seem to be facing.[/quote]

Well, having been to 3 occupy protests by pure happenstance I would say most of them were in Junior high when we were “bombing the hell out of Iraq” while the others were probably in one of the many uncovered war protests at the time.[/quote]

If we are to chalk this all up to youth I guess that fits with your poetic call for a new non capitalist pollyanna world that you posted earlier too? Don’t get me wrong, I really liked it,but these kids will grow out of it. Give em a few bandaids and most of them will jump right back into the dog eat dog fight.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not – the metanarrative is changing due to our scientific understanding of self and our place in the world.

The forces of old and evil are up against the wall again and this time the economic structural crisis is to severe to ever have a “recovery” that sustains. So people will keep getting kicked out of the system(at least in the west) until it alienates the majority of the population.

Granted, the future is fragile and human behavior can go to dark places. But if I don’t put on my idealist hat I turn into a nihilistic fatalist. So, I really don’t have a choice.

[Arraya]

[quote=Jacarandoso][quote=flu][quote=Jacarandoso]What exactly is wrong with class warfare FLU? Why should the rich guys go unchecked in their own campaign against the rest of America and the world.

My question about the people protesting is: Where was all their do-gooding when we were bombing the hell out of Iraq? Probably hoping we would get cheaper gas and an economy, maybe a welfare state that was a bit better than what they seem to be facing.[/quote]

because fingerpointing is a political agenda…Everyone was to blame for the financial crisis…Banks wrote shoddy loans…But obviously there was a market for them because people wanted them…

Anyone who wants to rail against wall street probably should come clean and boycott all their dependencies on “wall street products”…no different than if one really is so anti-china, to boycott products from china…Boycott your 401k, IRA, Roth IRA’s, stocks, bonds, derivatives are all a product of Wall Street more or less…And boycott big bank and move to a local one (preferably one that is still solvent)….[/quote]

I agree that there is a lot of sour grapes, hypocrisy and begging going on in all of this. Certainly, it is political. Still, it’s very unreasonable and unfair to expect people to be quiet unless they opt out of the system and cultural aspects of it entirely. Everybody should have a right to argue for their definition of what a just society is.[/quote]

The cause of the crisis is the capitalist world system itself. Which is where all fingers should be pointed. The extremely bad, irrational, corrupt and violent behavior by the elite is because they serve a system of endless capital accumulation. It’s like some kind of acceptable psychotic delusion. The have to keep feeding this system or it will collapse. Their behavior will only get more erratic and dangerous as time goes on. Their paranoia and decaying mental faculties is palpable – which is a hallmark of all societies in decay.

[Arraya]

[quote=Jacarandoso]My question about the people protesting is: Where was all their do-gooding when we were bombing the hell out of Iraq? Probably hoping we would get cheaper gas and an economy, maybe a welfare state that was a bit better than what they seem to be facing.[/quote]

Well, having been to 3 occupy protests by pure happenstance I would say most of them were in Junior high when we were “bombing the hell out of Iraq” while the others were probably in one of the many uncovered war protests at the time.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdrealtor]It looks like OWS is turning into quite the party

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_nyc_lam_sterdam_bmE4vlV5aDUWhBRv9IbaiK%5B/quote%5D

Quite the shocker. Sex and drugs at a youth anti-establishment protest. I blame it on that darn rock and roll music. lol

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]

We are getting sidetracked here. It’s not about overthrowing the rich or the establishment, or class warfare.

I personally believe that the establishment is the repository of culture, knowledge, beauty and wealth. Overthrow the establishment and you’re got nothing but chaos, poverty and redneck jungle culture.

It’s about reforming the system so we have more equity. It’s about preventing companies such as Capital One from making profits by dumping toxic credit on the American people and charging 40% interest for that privilege.[/quote]

Actually, rednecks are very supportive of the establishment, so you are inline with them there. They will fight to uphold the monetary pecking order.

[Arraya]

It’s not about overthrowing anything except an outdated, unscientific and irresponsible world view.

Capitalism as a social system and ideology is in it’s terminal stage. Human understanding has evolved past it’s dictates. Not only are the structural problems worsening, it’s foundational assumptions are shown to be hugely unscientific and erroneous.

All our institutions are invalid and that is a bitter pill to swallow for those closest to the top of the wealth pyramid.

Class warfare that has been waged successfully towards the bottom 80% for the past several decades does not come close to the ontological shift that is taking place.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Come on, do you really think people who are protesting against corporate greed, rich people’s excesses are really protesting FOR financial frugality??? [/quote]

How about some regulations to prevent banks from dumping toxic products on the American people at usurious rates, regulations championed by Elizabeth Warren. If those regulations result in less credit available to those who can’t afford the credit, then all the better. We would then end up with more frugality.[/quote]

Frugality increases unemployment and decreases profits. We can’t have that in a consumption growth based system because of it’s economic consequences.

[Arraya]

http://www.realitysandwich.com/occupy_wall_street_no_demand_big_enoughLooking out upon the withered American Dream, many of us feel a deep sense of betrayal. Unemployment, financial insecurity, and lifelong enslavement to debt are just the tip of the iceberg. We don’t want to merely fix the growth machine and bring profit and product to every corner of the earth. We want to fundamentally change the course of civilization. For the American Dream betrayed even those who achieved it, lonely in their overtime careers and their McMansions, narcotized to the ongoing ruination of nature and culture but aching because of it, endlessly consuming and accumulating to quell the insistent voice, “I wasn’t put here on earth to sell product.” “I wasn’t put here on earth to increase market share.” “I wasn’t put here on earth to make numbers grow.”

We protest not only at our exclusion from the American Dream; we protest at its bleakness. If it cannot include everyone on earth, every ecosystem and bioregion, every people and culture in its richness; if the wealth of one must be the debt of another; if it entails sweatshops and underclasses and fracking and all the rest of the ugliness our system has created, then we want none of it.

No one deserves to live in a world built upon the degradation of human beings, forests, waters, and the rest of our living planet. Speaking to our brethren on Wall Street, no one deserves to spend their lives playing with numbers while the world burns. Ultimately, we are protesting not only on behalf of the 99% left behind, but on behalf of the 1% as well. We have no enemies. We want everyone to wake up to the beauty of what we can create.

Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for its lack of clear demands, but how do we issue demands, when what we really want is nothing less than the more beautiful world our hearts tell us is possible? No demand is big enough. We could make lists of demands for new public policies: tax the wealthy, raise the minimum wage, protect the environment, end the wars, regulate the banks. While we know these are positive steps, they aren’t quite what motivated people to occupy Wall Street. What needs attention is something deeper: the power structures, ideologies, and institutions that prevented these steps from being taken years ago; indeed, that made these steps even necessary. Our leaders are beholden to impersonal forces, such as that of money, that compel them to do what no sane human being would choose. Disconnected from the actual effects of their policies, they live in a world of insincerity and pretense. It is time to bring a countervailing force to bear, and not just a force but a call. Our message is, “Stop pretending. You know what to do. Start doing it.” Occupy Wall Street is about exposing the truth. We can trust its power. When a policeman pepper sprays helpless women, we don’t beat him up and scare him into not doing it again; we show the world. Much worse than pepper spray is being perpetrated on our planet in service of money. Let us allow nothing happening on earth to be hidden.

If politicians are disconnected from the real world of human suffering and ecosystem collapse, all the more disconnected are the financial wizards of Wall Street. Behind their computer screens, they occupy a world of pure symbol, manipulating numbers and computer bits. Occupy Wall Street punctures their bubble of pretense as well, reconnects them with the human consequences of the god they serve, and perhaps with their own consciences and humanity too. Only in a hallucination could someone imagine that the unsustainable can last forever; in puncturing their bubble, we remind them that the money game is nearing its end. It can be perpetuated for a while longer, perhaps, but only at great and growing cost. We, the 99%, are paying that cost right now, and as the environment and the social fabric decay, the 1% will soon feel it too. We want those who operate and serve the financial system to wake up and see before it is too late.

We can also point out to them that they sooner or later they will have no choice. The god they serve, the financial system, is a dying god. Reading various insider financial websites, I perceive that the authorities are flailing, panicking, desperately implementing solutions they themselves know are temporary just to kick the problem down the road a few years or a few months. The strategy of lending even more money to a debtor who cannot pay his debts is doomed, its eventual failure a mathematical certainty. Like all our institutions of exponential growth, it is unsustainable. Once you have stripped the debtor of all assets – home equity, savings, pension – and turned every last dollar of his or her disposable income toward debt service, once you have forced the debtor into austerity and laid claim even to his future income (or in the case of nations, tax revenues), then there is nothing left to take. We are nearing that point, the point of peak debt. The money machine, ever hungry, seeks to liquidate whatever scraps remain of the natural commons and social equity to reignite economic growth. If GDP rises, so does our ability to service debt. But is growth really what we want? Can we really cheer an increase in housing starts, when there are 19 million vacant housing units on the market already? Can we really applaud a new oil field, when the atmosphere is past the limit of how much waste it can absorb? Is more stuff really what the world needs right now? Or can we envision a world instead with more play and less work, more sharing and less buying, more public space and less indoors, more nature and less product?

So far, government policy has been to try somehow to keep the debts on the books, but every debt bubble in history ultimately collapses; ours is no different. The question is, how much misery will we endure, and how much will we inflict, before we succumb to the inevitable? And secondly, how can we make a gentle, non-violent transition to a steady-state or degrowth world? Too many revolutions before us have succeeded only to institute a different but more horrible version of the very thing they overthrew. We look to a different kind of revolution. At risk of revealing the stars in my eyes, let me call it a revolution of love.

[Author]

Posts