[vtsnowedin]

Remember at that time not too many people could read and relied upon the Church to interpret and spread the word of God.

I can't say as I remember it not being 2000 years old but from what I gather they didn't do a very good job of that.

[americandream]

AD will say this is because those that believe thus are not yet fully conscious. I make the claim that there is a certain percentage of the population that may never really want that level of consciousness and prefer following a moral and ethical architecture devised by others.

There is something of a nightmare as well imagining a global population that becomes one huge homogenized population of cerebral rational beings.

In evolution, your are either a quadruped species or not. If a species decided that it preferred to be biped and systematically removed 2 of its limbs, that does not remove it from the genus. Man being a conscious species is equally ranked irrespective of how far along that continuum specific sub groups are via the cultural mechanism.

To seek to arrest that process for whatever subjective state including those that subliminally yearn for pristine subjectivity runs counter to the evolutionary mechanism and will, if in sufficient numbers, remove that species from the evolutionary pathway.

edit: and pure logic does not contemplate cold calculating dispassion. It contemplates an objective relationship with commodities and organic life, the latter involving the inculcating of full sensuous relationships with all life forms and our planet based on relations that are not mediated by objects or value.

[Tanada]

I find your defense of church actions during this time period inexplicable and out of character for you. The church's dithering on the issue that they could easily have affirmed by honest observation delayed human progress for decades. The dark ages were dark because the church routinely burned or otherwise destroyed anything that conflicted with a soon to happen second coming or challenged the authority and position of the priesthood.

I clearly failed to make my point. Copernicus' book was banned because he was a person in a church leadership position who gave reasons why then current church doctrine could not be a correct interpretation of the Bible. If he had been Joe6P he would have been more or less ignored, but because he was a significant member in leadership in a Cathedral his book cast doubt, which was not allowed. About the time the leadership of the church wrapped their heads around the ideas put forth by Copernicus along came Galileo who first built upon those claims, them mocked the Pope for not accepting those claims immediately if not sooner.

Galileo would have been more or less ignored if he had just published his theories and the results of his experiments, but as an older man who was frustrated by the slow progress of the Church he went out of his way to provoke a response, and he got one. Galileo is frequently held up as this brave brilliant scientist who was downtrodden by the Church, but in reality he was approaching the end of his life and he was a rather cantankerous old coot who thought his fame as a scientist made him immune.

It is rather like any angry person who makes threats against high political office holders. There are laws against that sort of thing and the FBI/USSS do not hesitate to use those laws when people cross the line. Galileo crossed the 1630's version of that line in a spectacular fashion. If he had first moved to England or Sweden and then mocked the Pope nothing would have come of it.

With the Protestant Revolution the Catholic Church no longer had final say on what was acceptable for publication and what was not, which is a big part of why the Renaissance took place when it did. Personally I am opposed to all monopoly Churches with hierarchies deciding doctrine in committee somewhere far away from the congregations. Of course in the USA this has lead to the multitude of splits within each Catholic derived denomination. You can find any flavor of Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Episcopalian, Calvinist denomination to match your particular beliefs if you believe in big hierarchical church organizations. Or if you want you can be a Buddhist or Baptist, or Hindu, or Shinto, or Taoist, or Marxist, or Atheist, or Theist, or Agnostic, or whatever floats your boat.

[radon1]

as Marx contemplated

At Marx's times the workers were exploited absolutely shamelessly and openly, living in striking poverty and despair, and indeed having little to lose "except their chains". This obviously led him to some emotional lines in his thinking, particularly on the political side, such as the class struggle argument. At present, we do not observe that kind of the living conditions, at least within the visible distance.

Another great thinker, relatively little talked about, Rosa Luxemburg, was the first and, until recently, the last one, who comprehensively demonstrated that "expansionary reproduction" is not possible in a closed economic system. A consequence from this conclusion is the impossibility of generation of capitalist profits in such a system. She basically described the nature of all present crises.

She is little talked about because, on one hand, she wrote in marxist terms and therefore was rejected by the western economic orthodoxy. In addition, her conclusions were not particularly flattering to the orthodoxists, obviously.

On the other hand, her conclusions delivered the class struggle argument redundant, as they demonstrated that capitalism was going to hit its limits naturally. This was anathema to Lenin and Co because they needed the legitimacy of the class struggle argument in order to substantiate and de-personalize their own power grab. Lenin argued with her bitterly and, as a result, she was rejected in the marxist part of the planet too.

So, when reviewing Marx's/Lenin's etc. political rants and visualizing the picture of raging hordes seeking to expropriate your dear private property, do not forget that they lived at times where the working class suffering and despair was very visible, along with arrogance and self-indulgence of the ruling class, and that those conditions could indeed produce emotional responses. These emotional responses were not necessarily a part of the objective reasoning behind the newly born economic theories.

[americandream]

Thankyou radon. Nice explanation.

[onlooker]

I think a way to see this is to account for the objective struggle of all men to be treated with respect and to be dealt with in a decent, just and equitable manner. It is natural in so much as humans seek a certain level of happiness and lack of misery and suffering. In acknowledging these human requisites we can proceed forward knowing that any system must account for these needs and wants. As for our sensuous interactions they are borne I think out of the basic understanding that we all are the same or in other words empathy.

[Pops]

I think there are 2 problems with a market economy, the first is people can get what they need only if they can afford it, the corollary is if they can afford so much that most goes to waste they can do that too.

The problem with a non-market economy is there is no market. So there must be organization to decide production and allocation. Who produces what and who gets what.

Granted, lots of people don't mind being told what to do. They punch the clock, put in the time and punch out. They get a job, stick with it and are happy. They don't see worrying about keeping the lights on, making payroll, getting biz, etc, as fun. But they do like the idea of choosing a trade, choosing a boss, choosing how hard to work, and choosing which of 48 brands of deodorant to buy.

Adam Smith, Ricardo, Madison, etc, thought that property rights were incompatible with democracy. Poor people who could vote would make sure there were no rich people:

In Adam Smith's words, "For
one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor .... The
affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often
both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions."4
Madison warned against the "danger" to the rights of property
posed by "an equality & universality of suffrage, vesting compleat
power over property in hands without a share in it."5 David Ricardo
was willing to extend suffrage only "to that part of [the people] which
cannot be supposed to have any interest in overturning the rights of
property."6 Thomas Babington Macaulay went further, portraying universal
suffrage as "incompatible with property" and "consequently incompatible
with civilization. '7

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie ... cholarship

I think that's all Marx was saying, just from the opposite side; rich folks appeared to him to have the upper hand at the moment but poor people and revolution would eventually make sure there were no rich people.

I'm not sure how democracy plays into the whole Marxist bit, from what I can tell he didn't write much about it, he was all about Revolution! "Dictatorship of the Proles" is the line I think, universal suffrage, etc. But no actual mechanism to replace capitalist markets, he's sorta like a movie critic in that respect, LoL.

The fact that no one here has popped up with a better system off the top of their head kinda makes that point that it is marxism that seems to be inconsistent with democracy because at it's heart is the organization that must replace the market.

The 20th century has proved that although democracy and markets are messy and far from Nirvana, they can co-exist and do so pretty successfully. Perhaps too successfully although that sorta remains to been seen.

--
It dawns on me...
At the turn of the 20th century industry was kicking ass, new products and processes were rolling off the line (actually the line was just starting to roll off the line) and technology was advancing so fast in the late 1800s that some factories were razed before producing one item because the factory was already obsolete. There were great rounds of deflation, the good kind, the price of stuff was falling because the cost of production was falling and competition was increasing. Labor productivity was skyrocketing because of the added FF muscle and steel tooling advantage (and lots of other junk) but wages were still influenced to a great extent by the fact that most folks worked on the end of a hoe grubbing weeds.

Seems like the increases in productivity as a result of automation/containerization/labor globalisation has kind of put us in a similar position these last 40 something years. Labor's share of profit has been falling compared to ownership but prices of all sorts of stuff has been falling as well.

I think that's where Marx came in and said capitalism would be limited because there is a limit to how great a percentage of workers output the capitalist could take. Then revolution, blah, blah. Turns out that Karl didn't foresee the problem we may be getting into, that labor is increasingly just not required for production.

[Tanada]

I think that's where Marx came in and said capitalism would be limited because there is a limit to how great a percentage of workers output the capitalist could take. Then revolution, blah, blah. Turns out that Karl didn't foresee the problem we may be getting into, that labor is increasingly just not required for production.

Aye and there's the main problem. I keep seeing 'futurists' like Ray Kerzweil talking about the Nirvana of the near future where only 10 percent of the population works and they will all be computer programers telling the robots where to mine and what to manufacture.

So how do the other 90 percent 'make a living'? People at least where I grew up have a sense of self worth tied into the idea of working. What are we supposed to do, pay the 10 percent who work all the money, then tax them at 95 percent and redistribute the money as basic support payments to the rest of the population? This is where these utopian theories always run aground, if there is no point in working maybe 50 percent of the people will go into their cheetos and beer coma and not bother anyone. The other 40 percent will get bored and act out just because they are bored, or because they have a grudge against someone else or for some other unpredictable reason. In America riots in the last 30 years have never been about starving, or being homeless. They have been about being slighted, whether you think those social slights were intentional or not. How much worse when Unemployment goes from 20 percent to 90 percent?

[Timo]

.... if there is no point in working maybe 50 percent of the people will go into their cheetos and beer coma and not bother anyone.

HEY! I take that remark personally! I had to lick the flavor dust on my Doritos off of my fingers just to type this reply! Now i have a sticky, wet keyboard!!!

[Timo]

On your larger point, though, BINGO!

Maybe we can develop some artificial intelligence to solve that problem for us. With AI, we won't even have to think anymore! Cheetos and beer comas for all, indeed!

I know this has been discussed on several threads here before, so i hate to bring it up yet again, but the Mennonites seem to have a well oiled machine in place that hums along quite nicely for everyone involved. If you removed the theology from their way of life, would it still function at all????

[kanon]

Well whatever the qualities of the Fed it is but a cog in the wheel of Capitalism and it is Capitalism which has bought us to this point. The vitality and power which you speak of K, is precisely what has become the enemy of Earth and of the future. We have continued in this insatiable and all out pursuit of growth and status and wealth.

I am not trying to argue that the FED is superior. I am saying that no matter how perfect a post-capitalist scheme may appear there is a requirement that the population adopt and participate in the scheme. I believe that each person must perceive some advantage to motivate their actions. Experience shows that "protecting the environment" or some other utopian ideal is not a sufficient motivation. Not only must the plan be a good one, but the population has to act accordingly whether or not they like the plan or even know there is a plan. I would really appreciate it if someone would show how typical impulsive, unthinking, instinctive behaviors are to be directed in a way consistent with the post-capitalist plan.

[Tanada]

On your larger point, though, BINGO!

Maybe we can develop some artificial intelligence to solve that problem for us. With AI, we won't even have to think anymore! Cheetos and beer comas for all, indeed!

I know this has been discussed on several threads here before, so i hate to bring it up yet again, but the Mennonites seem to have a well oiled machine in place that hums along quite nicely for everyone involved. If you removed the theology from their way of life, would it still function at all????

Mennonite (and Amish) communities hum along so well because they have a shared belief in an immutable source (the Bible). They also have the safety valve that anyone from their faith who wants to depart and not live their way is free to do so.

Do you happen to have a way of life based on a written down culture you could use to start a community that works as well? As much as people resist the Buddhist, Hindu, and many other cultures and/or religions can work the same way. The key point is the shared belief of the community in their guiding cultural documents/practices. Even the old Santeria (voodoo) style belief structure provides guidance and purpose for those who believe in its structure and rules of organization. IMO the reason most 'transition towns' failed is they did not have a foundation culture to build upon. The people who signed up did not all adhere to the same set of 'social/cultural values' so every time an interpersonal conflict arises they have to either fight it out or seek arbitration, neither of which is conducive of harmoniously sticking together in the face of existential threats.

[Timo]

Mennonite (and Amish) communities hum along so well because they have a shared belief in an immutable source (the Bible).

Understood. Ibon, tell us how to get there without the Bible! How do we all share a universal belief in an immutable source( the planet)?

With regards to everythying else you wrote about other religions (however appealing they may initially appear), the constant Achilles Heel is always human nature. Are we simply a flawed species that cannot/will never accept a constant, but yet sustainable way of living for the whole, at the expense of personal, individual desires? Humans do care about the whole, but the caveat seems to be that we care about ourselves even more. Given the choice between the whole and the individual, the individual always supersedes the whole.

Is that choice psychological? Cultural? Instinctual?

[Pops]

Actually the Amish community I was near to in MO hums along because they do the humming, not energy slaves. They have a fine community spirit, self educate, self insure, etc but they are not a collective in that they are each very much for-profit.
--

The thing I've been expecting all the programmers here to say is that direct digital democracy is within reach and constitutes the modern option to the choice between the market or the oligarchy. Facebook Apps that decide how many loaves the robots should bake and what flavor they should be.

[Timo]

Actually the Amish community I was near to in MO hums along because they do the humming, not energy slaves. They have a fine community spirit, self educate, self insure, etc but they are not a collective in that they are each very much for-profit.
--

The thing I've been expecting all the programmers here to say is that direct digital democracy is within reach and constitutes the modern option to the choice between the market or the oligarchy. Facebook Apps that decide how many loaves the robots should bake and what flavor they should be.

Diebold will compromise all of the voting apps to swing in the favor of the aristocracy.

The digital world is (emerging as) a very flawed, imperfect world, worse than the tangible, physical world (in many respects). Anyone could hack the app that chooses what flavor all of the loaves should be. Anyone could hack the app to dictate that those loaves be naan instead of Jewish Rye.

Yes, a digital democracy is within reach, but according to many Secretary's of State around the US, not everyone is permitted to vote at all. I do have an undocumented cell phone.

[Pops]

Trump is going to deport that phone!

But I'm saying the way you could actually implement Marxism is with a FB app. It would be the commie agency that determines supply and demand rather than a totalitarian regime, which afaik has been the only thing anyone has been able to think of so far to replace the practical side of markets.

[Tanada]

Trump is going to deport that phone!

But I'm saying the way you could actually implement Marxism is with a FB app. It would be the commie agency that determines supply and demand rather than a totalitarian regime, which afaik has been the only thing anyone has been able to think of so far to replace the practical side of markets.

The problem goes straight back to human nature. You have to trust that the programmers are actually making the program as unbiased as possible and not slanting it to benefit whatever choices the programmers favor.

I can't eat wheat and be happy so I would be biased towards oatmeal, rye and corn bread with no wheat in it. Take all the other zillion decisions any programer makes whether consciously or not into account and any program would be skewed at least somewhat, and possibly a great deal.

[Pops]

This is the Commie App.
The programers work for the state or I guess, for the "democracy."
If the democracy decides the app makers are rigging the app to prefer rye, they just click the "Like" button on the #OustProgramers page.

[onlooker]

Just be careful cause your cellphones are wiretapped or bugged so they know who voted to oust the Programmers and they know much more about you. Well does not Facebook already know much about its members.

[Timo]

Trump is going to deport that phone!

But I'm saying the way you could actually implement Marxism is with a FB app. It would be the commie agency that determines supply and demand rather than a totalitarian regime, which afaik has been the only thing anyone has been able to think of so far to replace the practical side of markets.

The problem goes straight back to human nature. You have to trust that the programmers are actually making the program as unbiased as possible and not slanting it to benefit whatever choices the programmers favor.

Millenials!!!