[MD] freedom is for the rich

[gav]

hi laramie,

--- LARAMIE LOEWEN <jeffersonrank1 at msn.com> wrote:

> [G]:
> under capitalism only a small percentage of people
> are
> ever going to be rich and therefore free. their
> wealth
> depends on the relative poverty of most. their
> wealth
> is generated from the labour of the poor. this is a
> law of capitalism. 
> 
> [L]:
> Capitalism implies separation of economics and
> State.
> Big business in bed with government is the cause of
> our problems, 
> not Capitalism. 

gav, again: 
marx's 'das kapital' is probably worth a look. not
that i have read much of it...the huge thing is still
idle in my bookshelf.

 anyway one thing i am sure of is that the labour of
the workers generates the wealth of the 'owner' class.
this is a fact of capitalism. this is how capitalism
actually works, its operational logic. no economist
will argue with this.

 laramie you can't have everyone being rich and at
leisure to do what they will under capitalism. it is
impossible. wealth is created through the products of
labour. under capitalism the workers are alienated
from these products. 

the british empire, at its peak, was built upon the
industrial revolution and the wealth and leisure time
this generated for the ruling class. the ruling class
was therefore able to educate itself very well,
travel,  enjoy the fine things in life. they became
refined and relatively enlightened individuals. they
even practiced colonialism with a genuine belief that
they were helping improve the countries they occupied
(eg india).

now instead of having a tiny fraction of the world
being able to lead a quality life, how about we try to
maximise quality for all? this seems in line with the
ethos of the MOQ.

to do this we need to increase free time for all
people. at the moment most are wage slaves; and in the
3rd world slaves full stop.

this improvement is definitely possible. why? the
great majority of work is unnecessary. arms are the
biggest industry, then pharmaceuticals, then illegal
drugs. all these things are actually symptomatic of a
sick society- a society that is killing itself. fix up
the society (through individual intellectual/spiritual
evolution) and these areas become virtually
unnecessary.

this is to say nothing of bureaucracy, which is
unbiquitous  and labyrinthine and again virtually
dispensable if we move to local control of affairs.

i mean why are we working more hours now than 20 years
ago? it is ridiculous. it really is man. i said when i
was 15 that i was never going to work for the man -
the 9-5 thing. i didn't quite keep my promise:  in the
last 18 years i have worked about 18 months of 9-5
stuff.

we have a responsibility (to ourselves) to not engage
in immoral economic activity, or as buddhists might
say 'unright work'. in other words, work that doesn't
help society because it produces
non-useful/detrimental goods and services. not working
at all is better, but best of course is work that is
positive, that helps people/the planet.

some work that i consider immoral:
banking for profit
advertising/marketing
most pharmaceuticals
most mining
arms production/armed forces
illicit chemical drug production/distribution
woodchipping for paper
politics (those that seek power over others' lives are
exactly the wrong people to hand it to)

the commodification of everything possible, to be then
brought under the aegis of corporate
production/distribution, is a disease. it is SOM pure
and simple (subject = consumer; object = commodity).
this is the spectacular society (situationists) - we
are but passive consumers.
fuck that.
 i refuse to be some docile moron whose ego
maintenance is the be all and end all of life.

'in the eyes of anyone who has read history,
disobedience is man's original virtue'
 sweet oscar wilde





Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com