| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PatrickSMcNally
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| duane wrote: | | I see the difference is that what you see as a "natural outgrowth" I see as a cancer. |
To the extent that cancer is an effect of old age, one can use that description. The fact remains though that no one has ever really been clear about what is meant by "local economy," "local government" and the like apart from a specific period of economic development, a period which has decisively passed into history for most of the world. Either way, global economy is the unavoidable trend of the future. As long as capitalism persists, it will continue to create social chaos. But there is no "third way" to be found in a return to older anachronistic forms of a once-developing economy.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/cho1-f21.shtml
Marxist internationalism vs. the perspective of radical protest
A reply to Professor Chossudovsky's critique of globalization
By Nick Beams
21 February 2000
The World Socialist Web Site is publishing here the first part of a three-part article by Nick Beams, national secretary of the Socialist Equality Party of Australia and member of the WSWS editorial board, replying to an article by Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Seattle and beyond: disarming the New World Order,” which was posted by the WSWS on January 15, 1999. Beams is the author of numerous articles and lectures on modern capitalist economy, including Marxism and the Globalisation of Production and The Significance and Implications of Globalisation: A Marxist Assessment.
Part 2 of Nick Beams' article was posted on Wednesday, February 23 and the third and final part on February 25. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
city trader
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 373
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
''a sustainable, ecological approach to local energy and food production is
you need a reliable supply of food and fuel''
Patrick, what did Karl Marx's ideologie have to say precisely about this local part of society and not the broader national society please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wu Li
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In this argument between Global vs. Local as usual I see a happy mediation between the two.
Any local area by mandate of the community should have it in their right to deem their community self sustaining as a simple matter of longevity.
What Patrick seems to suggest is the very simple implication of "letting the cat out of the bag" scenario which as someone who "plays" (invests) the markets well knows that even if fundamentals look great it does not create a windfall make.
I understand Patricks point of view in this matter but I still may side with a more grass roots point of view of the building the better mouse trap.
Patrick seems to be laying down to the inevitable based on a corrupt system instead of attempting to change the systems construct.
This reminds me of "Chomsky" who has always maintained a stance of truth but tacitly still suggests working within the construct of the current system.
I get the point of this but if attempts are not constantly and consistently made by the sovereign to control or evolve the system to sway a bit to the other side then we will never find a happier medium for which to work.
I am a true believer that locally grown foods (as an example) should be understood and mandated locally for the better of all the world society. We now have a situation where food is passed across oceans for the purpose of greed when the recipient of the food in any given community could have done so themselves without the usage of fossil fuel to enrich the Power brokers. A false premise of smoke and mirrors based on a fiat monetary process which must be curtailed. Crisis arises when local communities utilize their base as a means for global production and intern leave very little to the state in order to better the livelihood of the inhabitants. Most of what I see today done on the backs of the little guy is nothing more than a shell game or pyramid scheme. As a man who was born and raised in the heart of Brooklyn USA I know the game play and the outcome is nothing more than catastrophe.
While fair play practices are being dismantled all over the world I would suggest that this upheaval does not look good for the free thinking sovereign individual. Capital being in the hands of the few without any accountability for the local community to me is a sure step towards complete control over every aspect of human sensibility as it is and has become more and more absent. International Law (for example) should be governed by association ones state may wish to hold and not by any bureaucratic world body as a centralized entity. If you wish to hold an association with any free sovereign and/or individual you may do so (just as on a micro level you do in your every day life) and may be judged accordingly. In this way possibly as a world community we may better begin to understand each other instead of forcing communities to either comply by force of a false social construct or die off at the whim of the almighty monetary creation.
To many dam "ISMS" and not enough solutions.
I think we all may search for that equilibrium which may open up new realities.
Chaos abound thanks to the internet and the realtime solution slowly being pushed upon this community is profit taking in the name of progression when I believe we have jumped light years in our growth since it's inception. To me it shows the classic case for the belief of the sovereign. Great ideas always bubble to the top when the elimination of shear greed is not completely at play.
But I guess what you "Patrick" are suggesting is the way it is with no look for move towards a new paradigm. Straight mathematics possibly or just a discontent or liking of the world we created thus far.
or possibly it is a future of further "Just the way it is" mentality based on predictions of the way it was and has become.
Either way I could understand your arguments but just think that their may be a better way to a more enlightened civilization.
I believe all must begin to see themselves more by the company they keep then by the things they have and will buy. I think you may agree with some of my points.
Maybe a happy medium will be the eventual outcome either way.
Either by chaos and death or by slow understanding and reconciliation.
I hope for the latter although your thought processes may be more correct.
_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickSMcNally
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wu Li wrote: | | Patrick seems to be laying down to the inevitable based on a corrupt system instead of attempting to change the systems construct. |
That description probably fits Chossudovsky's perspective better, insofar as Chossudovsky seeks to return to an earlier era of nation-state capitalism. To speak of changing a system one must first clarify what changes have been brought about by the system itself, which of these changes are the kernel of positive change and which reflect the backward tendencies of the system, and then begin to put together plans for going forward. The brand of anti-globalism which Chossudovsky advocates rests to heavily on an idealization of an older era without recognizing why the decline in the rate of profit had to bring that era to an end. There's no way of building a forward-looking program on the basis of that.
| Wu Li wrote: | | This reminds me of "Chomsky" who has always maintained a stance of truth but tacitly still suggests working within the construct of the current system. |
Chomsky is a byproduct of the post-WWII era when the economy was growing at such a fast clip that the ruling class itself was widely open to ideas of social reform. In that era it really seemed possible that protests would simply pressure the ruling upper class into accepting the betterment of everyone's lot. People stopped thinking about building new independent parties and simply lapsed into accepting the Republicans and Democrats as given and fixed. Chomsky definitely bears the imprint of that way of thinking and this has always been his worst weakness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wu Li
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickSMcNally wrote: | | Wu Li wrote: | | Patrick seems to be laying down to the inevitable based on a corrupt system instead of attempting to change the systems construct. |
That description probably fits Chossudovsky's perspective better, insofar as Chossudovsky seeks to return to an earlier era of nation-state capitalism. To speak of changing a system one must first clarify what changes have been brought about by the system itself, which of these changes are the kernel of positive change and which reflect the backward tendencies of the system, and then begin to put together plans for going forward. The brand of anti-globalism which Chossudovsky advocates rests to heavily on an idealization of an older era without recognizing why the decline in the rate of profit had to bring that era to an end. There's no way of building a forward-looking program on the basis of that.
| Wu Li wrote: | | This reminds me of "Chomsky" who has always maintained a stance of truth but tacitly still suggests working within the construct of the current system. |
Chomsky is a byproduct of the post-WWII era when the economy was growing at such a fast clip that the ruling class itself was widely open to ideas of social reform. In that era it really seemed possible that protests would simply pressure the ruling upper class into accepting the betterment of everyone's lot. People stopped thinking about building new independent parties and simply lapsed into accepting the Republicans and Democrats as given and fixed. Chomsky definitely bears the imprint of that way of thinking and this has always been his worst weakness. |
AHH I see what it is with you
NO Point!
_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickSMcNally
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wu Li wrote: | AHH I see what it is with you
NO Point! |
Not a very clear statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duane
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick wrote
To the extent that cancer is an effect of old age, one can use that description. The fact remains though that no one has ever really been clear about what is meant by "local economy," "local government" and the like apart from a specific period of economic development, a period which has decisively passed into history for most of the world. Either way, global economy is the unavoidable trend of the future. As long as capitalism persists, it will continue to create social chaos. But there is no "third way" to be found in a return to older anachronistic forms of a once-developing economy.
1. as we all know, cancer is not just an effect of old age, people of all ages get it.
2. cancer is a relationship disease, one part of the system self/whole hologarchy decides it more important than the whole. the liver, for example, decides its the most important , thinks the entire body should be a liver and sends it cells everywhere to convert the other organs.
3. as i tried to say in the previous post, economic theory, market forces, the hidden hand, etc is just a pile of horse shit. it is all made up by those who want to justify greed. Capitalism is an artificial, manmade system with NO basis in nature. Spenser lied about Darwin.
4. all the mathmatical models used to justify economics and predict markets are bogus and rigged. the so-called scientific population dynamic models may work with molecules in a chemical reaction, bacteria in a petri dish, or in the action of a herd of sheep. these models only work when the population isn't aware it is part of the dynamic. the individuals do not try to "game the system". Humans, on the other hand, always try to beat the system.
5. Economics is a pseudoscience set up to fleece the sheep. all this talk about capitalism, communism, socialism, and all their variations is a smoke screen. the only difference is who is in charge.
6. Human activity should be based on the natural model of how things work and are organized.
7. A world of villages instead of a global village
_________________
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atm
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3578
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wu Li
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickSMcNally wrote: | | Wu Li wrote: | AHH I see what it is with you
NO Point! |
Not a very clear statement. |
My point would not be a race back in time or to eliminate the Global free market as a cancer upon society. It would be a fight against International laws governed by bureaucrats who hold no allegiance to any formally and lawfully constructed governing body which the sovereign has a say in matters affecting their every day lives.
I am all for people around the world placing their goods and services out on the " truly free " market. What we have now is a forced chain of events put upon people of all nations in order to promulgate a lie therein known as "The Free Market".
This is utilized to bring down nation states through monetary manipulation and commodity speculation.
That in a nut shell without going on a long diatribe.
Again, I do understand where you are coming from and this led me to say what I did above.
You seem to either play devil's advocate at times or really believe their is no other way.
I do agree that our world is getting smaller and we are slowly moving towards a Global economy but that's really not the issue at hand.
The issue would be as such;
Is this "Globalist" economy the best we can do?
OR
Is this just a major power play by many Power Brokers who wish to once again divide the world up into different controlled economic blocks with no recourse or accountability to the people?
I say no to the first and think the latter is mostly true in most accounting.
Yes we need stability in our world for the betterment of all except I do not believe this current structure being created will be to everyone's benefit.
The Irish people have shown what the average hard working people think in this matter. They wish to have a say in their local community structures. This is not only about state sovereignty but class struggle first and foremost. This is a slow evolution which I believe the people of any given jurisdiction should be allowed to somewhat control. Sensible solutions do not get resolved by keeping some players out of the game. We may be best to understand that if you are allowed no say in the steering of your world their may be some hi-jinx afoot.
Anyway you just seem to push the whole "global system" as if it may turn into a sudden benign entity that we all may enjoy. I happen to believe as I have stated before that you may just see the shit hitting the fan and have resigned yourself to this fact. (contextually speaking of course)
I sometimes just look for more than some historical analysis when writing on this board.
Although, I enjoy your contributions and mean no disrespect.
_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wu Li
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickSMcNally wrote: | | Wu Li wrote: | AHH I see what it is with you
NO Point! |
Not a very clear statement. |
My point would not be a race back in time or to eliminate the Global free market as a cancer upon society. It would be a fight against International laws governed by bureaucrats who hold no allegiance to any formally and lawfully constructed governing body which the sovereign has a say in matters affecting their every day lives.
I am all for people around the world placing their goods and services out on the " truly free " market. What we have now is a forced chain of events put upon people of all nations in order to promulgate a lie therein known as "The Free Market".
This is utilized to bring down nation states through monetary manipulation and commodity speculation.
That in a nut shell without going on a long diatribe.
Again, I do understand where you are coming from and this led me to say what I did above.
You seem to either play devil's advocate at times or really believe their is no other way.
I do agree that our world is getting smaller and we are slowly moving towards a Global economy but that's really not the issue at hand.
The issue would be as such;
Is this "Globalist" economy the best we can do?
OR
Is this just a major power play by many Power Brokers who wish to once again divide the world up into different controlled economic blocks with no recourse or accountability to the people?
I say no to the first and think the latter is mostly true in most accounting.
Yes we need stability in our world for the betterment of all except I do not believe this current structure being created will be to everyone's benefit.
The Irish people have shown what the average hard working people think in this matter. They wish to have a say in their local community structures. This is not only about state sovereignty but class struggle first and foremost. This is a slow evolution which I believe the people of any given jurisdiction should be allowed to somewhat control. Sensible solutions do not get resolved by keeping some players out of the game. We may be best to understand that if you are allowed no say in the steering of your world their may be some hi-jinx afoot.
Anyway you just seem to push the whole "global system" as if it may turn into a sudden benign entity that we all may enjoy. I happen to believe as I have stated before that you may just see the shit hitting the fan and have resigned yourself to this fact. (contextually speaking of course)
I sometimes just look for more than some historical analysis when writing on this board.
Although, I enjoy your contributions and mean no disrespect.
_________________
"Fear is the passion of slaves." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duane
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
well said Wu Li,
my points have been that a corrupt artificial system of globalism that has been thrust upon us. so called "economic theory" has been used to justify it. I pointed out the lies used to create the theories (Spenser and the misuse of mathmatical models) . since these theories are false we can and should ignore them when we look for ways to live together.
furthering the analogy of the body, the different countries can be seen as different organs of the earth. each has a different function to contribute to the health of itself and the earth. just the loss of an organ reduces the overall health of the body, the loss of a country with its unique ability to process inputs and deliver outputs reduces the overall health of the planet.
local economic activity with local control (by those doing the activity) ensure diversity and health to the countries.
another way of saying it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8
_________________
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duane
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.bfi.org/
Bucky had it right. “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
don't wait for their permission, throw the bastards out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
_________________
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickSMcNally
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wu Li wrote: | | This is utilized to bring down nation states through monetary manipulation and commodity speculation. |
In practice, it's very unlikely that the classical nation-state system will ever be openly disposed of by the various ruling classes of our modern world. The contradiction facing all privileged elites in every part of the world today is that, on the one hand, modern economy has been developed to such a high degree that the older nation-state framework is too restrictive on modern economy. On the other hand, invoking national passions has always been a principal method by which people are stirred to wars which may then be used to advance special interests. It really is not likely that all of that is going to be abolished in any way.
The differences among states with the United States are instructive with regards to this. The previous forms of local state economy have become steadily intertwined with the national economy which today is increasingly bound into the global economy. But creationism and intelligent design are still promoted within a number of states as a form of local identity politics. Politicians like Bush often attach themselves to such sentiments as a way of gaining support for war in Iraq while encouraging the local identity politics. There's no reason to think that such patterns are going to suddenly end as part of any globalist plot. The same is true on a wider scale. For the great powers to be able to manufacture a cover for intervention in the Balkans they had to stir up a Kosovo identity crisis. There's no reason to believe that national identity differences which were essential as a cover for armed intervention in the Balkans are going to suddenly be abolished by some globalist declaration. These are just some of the internal tensions of the system at large. That such brands of local identity and national differences are often a very useful tool to be manipulated as a cover for other purposes, yet at the same time the need for expanding economy can just as often require that such forms of local identity be swept aside. This tension will remain within the system as such and not be suddenly removed by the general declaration of any "global government" anywhere.
| Wu Li wrote: | Is this "Globalist" economy the best we can do?
OR
Is this just a major power play by many Power Brokers who wish to once again divide the world up into different controlled economic blocks with no recourse or accountability to the people? |
A word like "this" suggests a very specific form. The trend of the world's economy to steadily merge together is a very long running pattern in human history which has continued across epochs which have seen the end of older privileged classes and the rise of new ones. Specific forms of merger were presented for vote in the recent referendum on the Lisbon treaty. These forms were clearly designed to facilitate current elite interests by sanctioning the wholesale privatization of public services while overturning labor protections and seeking to promote a unified European military to be used in inter-imperialist rivalry with the United States. Such specific forms had to be rejected by any progressive-minded person. But the broader tendency towards economic unification is a positive trend and won't be altered by the outcome of the vote on Lisbon. The problem today is that the only overt programs for dealing with this as a reality are programs designed by and for the upper classes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickSMcNally
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duane wrote: | | Bucky had it right. “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” |
Wasn't the vote over Lisbon a prely negationist act which does not provide any new model but merely rejected an existing reality? So presumably you mean that no one should have voted in the referendum? The reality is that every attempt to assemble a new model of anything necessarily involves many acts of simple negationism as building blocks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickSMcNally
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duane wrote: | | Capitalism is an artificial, manmade system with NO basis in nature. Spenser lied about Darwin. |
Herbert Spencer was only born in 1820, at which time capitalism as a developing social system was already well-launched. It wasn't created by Spencer, though he added his own ideological elaborations to it. Early capitalist entrepreneurialism simply grew out of the need to break the limits set by the old feudal order.
If one wishes to get into questions of human psychology, the human psyche has always been torn between collectivist and individualist impulses and that will likely continue for as long as a human psyche functions. The early human societies were tribal collectivist types, but people realized a need to reorganize human labor power and that led to the appearance of feudalism with slaves and serfs. When the limits of that system became apparent the next innovative step was made by the middle classes which had developed under the old monarchies which now sought to break out of the restrictions previously placed on them by the monarchy. Herbert Spencer may be accused of overly prettifying the significance of this as a stage in development, but it's not like all of this came into existence because of some trick played by Spencer or anyone like him.
The problem with the modern economy and its relationship to current capitalism is simply in the highly developed nature of our society. In the underdeveloped society of 100 years ago there were much better opportunities to be found for deriving profit by creating something new which people could really use. When society has such a rich set of tools for servicing human needs as we do today, it's also much harder to gain an honest profit by doing something useful. Enron-type activities offer a much clearer way of deriving a quick profit without wondering too much how to really make something new and useful. Spencer in his day overdid it on the bit about making it seem as if every case of a rich person becoming richer was enacting some natural law of development. But to be fair, in his day it was more likely that even robber barons would somehow contribute to the growth of industry in a way which was of benefit to society at large. Simple scams ala Enron were not unknown then, but were much less prevalent in the broad economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
