When the Rich say, "Eat shit!", we say, "OK!" Why?

[Karmadillo]

It's not like it has to be this way.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=26&ItemID=8385

In capitalism, owners together with about a fifth of the population who have highly empowered work decide what is produced, by what means, and with what distribution. Nearly four fifths of the population does largely rote labor, suffers inferior incomes, obeys orders, and endures boredom, all imposed from above. As John Lennon put it, "As soon as you're born they make you feel small, by giving you no time instead of it all."

Capitalism destroys solidarity, homogenizes variety, obliterates equity, and imposes harsh hierarchy. It is top heavy in power and opportunity. It is bottom heavy in pain and constraint. Indeed, Capitalism imposes on workers a degree of discipline beyond what any dictator ever dreamed of imposing politically. Who ever heard of citizens asking permission to go to the bathroom, a commonplace occurrence for workers in many corporations.

Capitalism's ills are not due to antisocial people. Instead, capitalism's institutions impose horrible behavior even on its most social citizens. In capitalism as a famous American baseball manager quipped "nice guys finish last." More aggressively: "garbage rises." Witness Washington's White House.

Participatory economics, or parecon, is an alternative way to organize economic life.

Parecon has equitable incomes, circumstances, opportunities, and responsibilities for all participants. Each parecon participant has a fair share of control over their own life and over all shared social outcomes. Parecon eliminates class division.

more...

[deutsey]

1. They are our superiors, after all.

:sarcasm:

[villager]

2. that's a great sig graphic, btw!

n/t

[anarch]

3. the threat of starvation...

I guess eating shit seems better than eating nothing, which is what we are palpably threatened with if we decide not to cooperate.

Besides, we can watch some nice television programs while we dine on our shit! I wonder what those crazy television characters are up to tonight...

well, all that and the fact that them what have all the gold also tend to have all the guns...or at least have the support, for some reason, of them what actually have the guns. So they can force this shit down our throats. At gunpoint.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Nail on the head

[smirkymonkey]

4. Kicked and Recommended!

Together, we are more powerful than all of them.

[dean_dem]

5. Could you be a little more vague?

"Parecon has "balanced job complexes" in which each worker does a fair combination of empowering and rote labor, so that all participants have comparably empowering circumstances instead of 20% of the workforce monopolizing all the empowering tasks and 80% doing only subordinate labor. In a parecon there is still expertise. There is still coordination. Decisions still get made. But there is no minority monopolizing empowering information, activity, and access to decision making positions while a majority is made subservient by doing only deadening daily tasks with no decision making component. "

So...does this mean after three years of grad school, I'm still supposed to allocate a portion of my day cleaning office toilets in order to ensure a "fair combination of empowering and rote labor?" Indulge me, seriously. This doesn't sound like any better of a system than a free-for-all capitalist system.

[Karmadillo]

6. Only poor people who've never had the opportunity

to go through four years of college (let alone three years of grad school) should clean up your poop, right? You must be free to focus on the elevated thoughts and tasks reserved for those with the appropriate credentials. Clean hands for the intellectual elite!!!

Seriously, what's wrong with your doing a certain amount of rote labor? Why should others devote their lives to cleaning up after you and others similarly privileged?

[dean_dem]

7. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you from my golden throne

over the noise of the poor children who constantly fan my feet.

Don't assume I've never cleaned up poop because I've done plenty. And I've done more "rote labor" than I care to think about. Incentive enough for me to go to college as far as I'm concerned, and don't think I don't realize how lucky I was to have the opportunity, in spite of the shit I've had to climb to get there. So don't give me that class warrior shit. If you just want to rant uninterrupted fine, I'll let this thread alone, but did you actually bother reading any of the essays on that website before you jumped down my throat?

All I said was this economic system doesn't seem any better than the capitalist system it criticizes. You're the one throwing insults and making assumptions.

[Karmadillo]

10. While I respect your climbing whatever shit it is you've climbed,

I'm not sure that justifies your embrace of capitalism over Parecon. So far, your only objection to Parecon is that you would be required to do rote labor despite your impressive academic credentials. Given the far greater flaws of capitalism, I would hope you have more significant objections before rejecting Parecon. I look forward to your discussing them.

[dean_dem]

15. Objections? Sure.

I'm in a hurry here, but I'll try to get at some of my problems with this system. Let's start with the inital snip you posted:

"Capitalism destroys solidarity, homogenizes variety, obliterates equity, and imposes harsh hierarchy. It is top heavy in power and opportunity. It is bottom heavy in pain and constraint. Indeed, Capitalism imposes on workers a degree of discipline beyond what any dictator ever dreamed of imposing politically. Who ever heard of citizens asking permission to go to the bathroom, a commonplace occurrence for workers in many corporations."

It does? How? All I see is just a blanket assertion with aboslutely nothing to back it up. Seems that capitalism provides much more equity than a system of rigidly defined labor or class structures. And I have never, ever, from retail slave to dishwasher to corportate drone, have had to ask permission to use the bathroom. So it's a "commonplace occurrence?" Fine, name me some corporations where this is a commonplace occurence.

And since using my example of going for higher education automatically brands me as the "intellectual elite" (I wish), I'll use another example. How about friends of mine who are right now following a pipefitters apprenticeship? Or the ones who are training to get certified as mechanics? Should they then have to be required to continue doing the same jobs that were the motivation to get the new training in the first place? How is that "equitable?"

To go back to the discussion of parecon, there's still plenty of problems that I see with the theory. Two articles in particular are "Defending Parecon"(http://www.zmag.org/parecon/writings/albertold16.htm) and "Response to Criticisms"(http://www.zmag.org/parecon/writings/hahnelanwers.htm)

So, does anyone care to explain to me what is meant by "Consumption rights?" If they are rations or vouchers, while they may have done away with the money system they are only replacing it with something comparable. I'm not sure what that accomplishes. Further, if some people are still entitled to greater consumtion rights than others, seems that they have addressed none of the inequities they accuse of existing in the capitalist system.

Further, he goes on to say that even without the promise of higher pay, people will still seek higher education and training. Why? Apparently so they can achieve "social esteem and recognition," instead of "material incentives." So...I go to college so that everyone will think I'm smart? For all the money and time I've put into it, that's a crap reason. I go to college, and my friends follow their own training simply to be able to do something they enjoy and to ultimately make more money. Simple as that. This system appeals to none of those desires.

Further, check the evidence. To date, one of the best ways to encourage innovation has been through a capitalist system that rewards entrepeneurship and advancement. That's the same trend that led Marx to label as "expansionary" like a cancer is expansionary, but I think history has proven him wrong. Look at what country leads the world by far in Research and Development. And it's not simply because we're inherently smarter than the Chinese.

Finally, they seem to suggest replacing a capitalist hierarchy with a parecon hierarchy. And I fail to see how their's is better. There is still a top-down, rigid hierarchy of supervisors and directors, and the people that work under them. Granted, its labels itself participatory, but I fail to see how the capitalist system is less particpatory in that regard, and they don't address that at all.

Moving on, I liked the article "Response to Criticisms" because it directly addressed a lot of the overall concerns with this system, instead of getting caught up in a bunch of nonsense about "empowerment" and other nice-sounding, but abstract terms.
Unfortunately, most of their responses to the flaws in their system is that capitalism has the same flaws. So, they've essentially replaced capitalism with a system with that fails to address most of the flaws and inequities of capitalism? I'm not impressed.

Further, in the question of how "consumption rights" (i.e income) will be set, they reply that it will be set the same way wages are set under the current market economy. Well, under the current market economy, the market is largely what sets those wages. An attorney can charge $200/ hour because people will pay it. A janitor is paid minimum wage because that's how much a company values the worker (but that's another argument). If you take out the market altogether, that eliminates the mechanism which sets those wages. So, are we going to have worker federations that pay janitors $100,000 a year, while attorneys make minimum wage? Who determines what jobs are valued and what are less valued. And again, you still have a hierarchy which is inherently unequal.

Look, don't get me wrong, the motivation behind this is admirable. People bitch and complain about no one gets involved anymore, and this basically comes up with a system where people are able to have more direct control over the distribution of goods. Great. But most of these changes could be made if people were more involved in how they benefit under the current system. Push for a living wage, expansion of labor unions (especially in the retail industry), anti-trust legislation, increased worker protections, aggressive enforcment of anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action in college admissions, free trade agreements that actually benefit people other than the rich and powerful, national health insurance, higher taxes for the highest percentage of income earners, all those are practical solutions to the inequities and flaws that I fully admit plague current american capitalism. Those changes can be made, without a bunch of talk about "empowerment" and "self-management" that sounds really good, but ultimately provides no real practical solutions.

[theHandpuppet]

22. I find this portion of your post rather sad

"Further, he goes on to say that even without the promise of higher pay, people will still seek higher education and training. Why? Apparently so they can achieve "social esteem and recognition," instead of "material incentives." So...I go to college so that everyone will think I'm smart? For all the money and time I've put into it, that's a crap reason. I go to college, and my friends follow their own training simply to be able to do something they enjoy and to ultimately make more money. Simple as that."

Actually, some folks still seek higher education primarily because they have a thirst for knowledge and a greater understanding of the world. Not that a quest for knowledge and making money are mutually exclusive, mind you, but the latter goal should be tempered by the former, don't you think? A life of riches isn't necessarily or solely measured in dollars and cents.

[Selatius]

23. Exactly! You understand it! [n/t]

[dean_dem]

31. Did I say I was only motivated by money?

No, but after taking out $30,000 in loans that I'm going to have to pay back, I better figure out some way to pay it back, right? The college loan office isn't going to give a crap about my thirst for knowledge being quenched.

Nevermind the fact that you're latching on to one little piece I said that does nothing to address my argument. I still don't go to school just to seek the approval of everyone else.

But I digress. Or maybe you did, either way, back to what you said:
The "thirst for knowledge" as you put it is the biggest and best thing I get out of a higher education. But you better be thinking practically at the same time, otherwise you could be like some of my liberal arts friends who are $40,000 in debt and still working construction. Not all of us have trust funds and rich parents.

[theHandpuppet]

20. dean_dem...

I have to tell you, I can see why Karmadillo reacted to your post in the manner he/she did. The arrogance reeking from that post literally took me aback. If your post was misinterpreted please consider the tone in which it was written.

[dean_dem]

34. Look, I'm not trying to be arrogant.

However, I am defensive about it. I'll readily admit that. That inital essay, as well as a few posters that have responded to me, have made blanket assumption about me and what I've said. But for an economic system that seems to punish personal acheivement, when applied to my life, I think I can take it a little personally.

For example
|
|
|
|
|
V

[Selatius]

12. But that's the way the world works nowadays

He's simply following the mental programming the system, the matrix if you will, has been putting into his head since childhood.

[dean_dem]

16. And see my argument above.

I don't think this even deserve a response, but what the hell:

Right, that's it. I'm just a capitalist robot. Since you seem to know so much about me, continue to wow me with your psychic powers. What's my favorite flavor of ice cream, smart guy?

[Selatius]

19. Not defending parecon, but I don't think you've thought things through

Example:

Further, he goes on to say that even without the promise of higher pay, people will still seek higher education and training. Why? Apparently so they can achieve "social esteem and recognition," instead of "material incentives." So...I go to college so that everyone will think I'm smart? For all the money and time I've put into it, that's a crap reason. I go to college, and my friends follow their own training simply to be able to do something they enjoy and to ultimately make more money. Simple as that. This system appeals to none of those desires.

Ultimately make more money? Simple as that? I guess Einstein was in it purely for the material gain, huh? I guess the same went for Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and all the multitude who came before known and unknown, as if the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge as opposed to the pursuit of more money was never really a worthy goal or reward however it came.

Frankly, I do agree that "social esteem and recognition" fail to encompass why people do things even though they may not derive any material benefit from it. The pursuit of knowledge, for example, is something people do despite capitalism or socialism (of which Marx only represents one faction out of several within the school) or parecon or even a mixed economic system, and one does not necessarily derive any material enjoyment out of such persuits, especially with folks like Galileo who were persecuted and deprived for challenging the existing order.

Why do they do it? It wasn't for material wants, nor was it for ego-tripping recognition and esteem. It was something else entirely, and I'll tell you I'm not sure I have the answer to that. I've talked to enough people and know enough in the field of science and mathematics, though, to tell you that, for instance, crunching mathematical equations with a mind-numbing amount of variables describing the way a phenomenon of nature works or trying to advance the field of quantum mechanics isn't exactly their idea of "enjoyment" or "fun" as much as it is a "challenge," the itch that needs the be scratched, the impulse, the urge to know and overcome. That, if anything, is neither the want for recognition and esteem nor for material wealth or enjoyment. That, I would say, is an innate force, a "force of nature" if you will, found within man that makes us who we are. It cannot be measured, quantified, or categorized into neat little boxes such as to "make more money."

As far as this particular point goes, both capitalism and parecon seem to fail as far as I can see. Parecon failed to grasp it, while capitalism simply plays to the lowest common denominator of greed as the basis for the advancement of knowledge, not advancement for the sake of advancement, for the sake of knowing and understanding. Why build the better mousetrap? To corner the market, control it so I could make more money?

I honestly wasn't trying to insult or ridicule you, but the world you know is fed to you from the day you are born to the day you will die. It applies to me as well as you and everyone else on this board. Whether you question it is one issue, but how much you question it is another. If you're just going to stand there and throw ridicule and scorn my way, there's no more point in replying to you.

Capitalism as the way? I question that. It will end when we deplete the planet from overconsumption. It will end when my email account is filled with 100,000,000 emails from spammers who are looking to make that legendary extra buck through the control of my personal information to be sold for a fee for the privilege of access to said information to spam me further, and it will end when we have truly mastered the art of making profit off of human misery and suffering through war.

[dean_dem]

32. See, just like the post above, you conveniently ignored...

...the other part of my argument. Notice I also said, "geting to do something I enjoy." But eh, selective hearing, what can you do?

Getting to do something I enjoy (while I'm in college and beyond) is equally as important for me. However, as I said above, my own sense of self satisfaction isn't going to pay off the tens of thousands of dollars in debt I've racked up. Sure, I've known plenty of kids that go to college not keeping that little part in mind. They rack up $40,000 in tuition costs, graduate with a sculpture degree that is utterly useless and end up being a temp in a dead end job. Of course, they had rich parents, so they could afford to play around. Some of us don't have that luxury. The thirst for knowledge sounds all well and good, but the loan officers aren't going to want to here about how much you've enriched yourself as a person. Such is life.

And since you brought up Newton and Einstein, I'm sure they were'nt just in it for the money. However, I also don't think they were in it for the approval of other people. Proving my original point, which was conveniently ignored.

I'm not trying to ridicule anybody. But when my posts are met with condescending crap about how I'm "stuck in the matrix" for no other reason than I don't agree with you, what do you expect my reply to be? Not only that, you didn't even bother to respond to my post, you just posted about my supposed ignorance to someone else as if I wasn't even involved.

Now, should we discuss parecon, or do you want to go off on another tangent about how sad and materialistic I am?

[dean_dem]

35. Couple more things...

"I honestly wasn't trying to insult or ridicule you, but the world you know is fed to you from the day you are born to the day you will die. It applies to me as well as you and everyone else on this board. Whether you question it is one issue, but how much you question it is another. If you're just going to stand there and throw ridicule and scorn my way, there's no more point in replying to you."

And where did I give you the idea that I simply accepted capitalism because I was raised on it? Where did I imply anything about my background? For all you know, my parents could have brought me over from the Soviet Union or China. So maybe you weren't trying to ridicule me, but that's exactly what you did by making assumptions about why I feel the way I do. That's not my idea of debating.

For another thing, what makes you assume I haven't questioned capitalism? Does it seem so odd that I may have questioned it, and still settled on it, given the other available options? Liberalism does not necessarily have to be synonymous with socialism.

[annabanana]

28. (ad hominum). . . . . n/t

[Orsino]

9. 'Cause they're the shit.

Let's eat.

[shockra]

11. I thought this was going to be a Fast Food Nation thread.

"In the USDA study 78.6% of the ground beef contained microbes that are spread primarily by fecal material...There is shit in the meat." p.197 Fast Food Nation

[Warren DeMontague]

13. While you're at it, get everyone to speak Esperanto.

What I mean is, um, good luck.

[Karmadillo]

14. Might as well try to end feudalism, too, right?

One goal of hierarchical dominance is to make those who are oppressed believe change is impossible. I wouldn't pretend change would be easy, but I wouldn't pretend, either, that change is not absolutely necessary if we are to create a more socially and economically just society. Plus, we'd be able to stop the destruction of the planet by the excesses of capitalism.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. I dunno. Can't we just agree to call Communism "Communism"?

I mean, renaming KFC doesn't mean it's not still Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Call me old fashioned, but I'm of the opinion that the more you try to contol that pesky, funky, hard-to-put-in-a-box thing called "human nature", the more trouble you're outlining for yourself. I think there are plenty of legitimate ways to mitigate the obvious inequities inherent in our capitalist system without trying to do away with things like free enterprise, which are going to take place anyway.

Biggest problem I see with the way things are right now has to do with Corporations and the god-like status they are accorded in our system. We grant all kinds of "rights" to corporations while we simultaneously take them away from individuals. Reverse that up-is-down trend, insist on regulations and taxation that make corporations pay their fair share, and develop a TRUE level playing field (as opposed to one where old-boy cronies write the laws which benefit only them) where everyone is FREE to pursue whatever it is they wish to pursue, even if they happen to be motivated by greed or competition... Throw in a Single Payer Health Care system, progressive taxation, a liveable minimum wage, solid environmental standards and a real social safety net, and I certainly don't see why freedom and social equity can't co-exist in a left-libertarian capitalist/free market society.

[rman]

21. You seem to be contradicting yourself;

First you say it is pointless to try and control human nature, then you say corporations should be regulated. Ie "solid environmental standards" = regulation of corporations.

Corporations are operated by humans, and there is not that much difference between "control" and "regulation"; you regulate in order to control.

I'd say the reason why corporations should be regulated is because if we don't, the nature of the humans that run the corporations will cause those corporations to misbehave (actually it's the humans that run the corporation that misbehave). Only controling/regulating human nature can prevent such misbahaviour.
There's plenty of opportunity for private entrepeneurship within regulations, same as there is plenty of opportunity to go where you want to go while not going over the speedlimit.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Allow me to rephrase;

it's not pointless to have regulations, particularly on corporations- which, although (as you say) they are made up of individuals, they are actually considered in the law to be entities in and of themselves. Entities which are strangely absolved from responsibility when they cause havoc and damage. For example, has a corporation ever gone to jail? Even in the case of, say, Union Carbide in Bhopal?

My point is, corporations -being these uniquely immune entities legally that can cause damage, environmental or human, on a large scale- should also be subject to stricter regulation than they are now. Individuals, I think, are over-regulated, at least in terms of their private affairs. In an ideal world, I think maximally de-centralized free enterprise is a preferable state of things, and I think when you make it easier (not harder) for the little guys to participate, everybody wins.

...With regards to the OP, maybe "control human nature" wasn't the proper way to phrase what I was trying to say- lets say, "redefine human nature-- from the ground up"

[Bluerthanblue]

30. key word- CORPORATION-

where in the founding fathers documents does it ever mention the 'rights' of 'corporations'?-

AND- the consititution DOES assign the RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to ALL men(people now)---- ie- UNIVERSAL 'basic needs met by the collective 'abundance' of the 'group' without shame, judgement, or selective acceptability.

Will that mean some will abuse the 'free- ride'? human nature would say yes- history will say yes- but should that deter the 'ideal'- the 'more perfect union'? Absolutely not- would that make it unlikely that there would be people with 'more' and others with simply the 'basics'?
Likely-
But not the absurd and inconciveible imbalance of 'wealth' and 'poverty' and the abuses of power that money can and does buy, in order to propogate and perpetuate the inequality- Obsene wealth is like a cancer, it devours all in it's path, and seeks only to 'grow' and 'grow' and take over anything in it's path, until it kills off all- including itself-

Investing ever increasing public money in 'defense' and 'security' may offer the 'illusion of safety' -- but at what cost? the continual suffering, death, destruction and demoralization of the 'working classs' Where is the 'quality of life' in that?

Paranoia is no way to live- being safe, while dying of cancer, aids, poverty, homelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction is a poor trade-

[ArkDem]

17. The only system that is truly equitable is, of course,

Anarco-Syndicalism. Everything else is slavery!

[Disturbed]

24. Life is like a shit sandwich.

The more bread you have the less shit you eat.

The RW wants Amerika to go back to the early 1800's model of Capitalism.

[ArkDem]

27. Help! We are being repressed!

[Hubert Flottz]

25. It's how fascism works.

And it works to perfection here in Bushworld!

When will the masses say, ENOUGH OF THIS FOUL SHIT?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

26. Not only do we say "Okay!" We tell them how good it tastes.

Unfortunately the number of stupid people is so great that we are a nation of lemmings.

[maxrandb]

29. That's An Easy Question and it Also Explains Why Americans

continue to vote against their own self interest.

Over the past 20 - 30 years, the right in this country have convinced enough Americans that if they keep voting for Republicans, then at some point, they too will be millionaires, and can tell the rest of us to "eat shit".

Seriously, I've actually talked to and met people who have no problem getting a $600 tax cut (eaten up in about a month with inflation and increased property taxes), while Dick Cheney gets a $275,000.00 tax cut, because they think that soon they'll have as much money as Cheney, and will reap the rewards.

:crazy: -ier than a shithouse rat

[rniel]

33. So far they have attacked it with

Anyone who doesn't want to bow down to our corporate masters and get a fair shake in society are all communist, marxist, hippie birkenstock wearing, tofu eating, latte drinking, vegetarian, jane fonda loving, green party members.

But the truth is even red neck, cheap beer drinking, trailer park living, poorly educated, southern, gun carrying, flannel shirt wearing, republican americans are getting fed up too.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I'm a tofu-eating, latte drinking, vegetarian (well, mostly) hippie

who thinks that the socialist democracies of Europe are, in many ways, on the right track..

Yet I think attempts to "manage", much less "redefine" large-scale economic behavior are doomed to fail, and in the case of this kind of thing, pretty much solipsistic, sophomoric mental wank-fests. No offense.

Yes, if we could run the clock back to the hunter-gatherer era, and rebuild human society from the ground up, anarcho-syndicalism would probably get my vote. Sad truth is, once the Babylonians or whoever developed "money", Western socitety was all pretty much screwed into the collective head-trip we have now.

Agitate to colonize the planet Mars; there will be plenty of space to try out alternate economic theories and organizational structures there. (I'm not kidding, either. It'd be nice to have something there other than more Big Box stores and Starbucks.)

But if you're talking about Planet Earth in the 21st century, I think you're better off forming a co-op, moving to the country and starting a collective (or a commune, as we used to say), or building a business which attempts to operate on more equitable terms.