INTEGRAL ANTI-CAPITALISM, pt. I (an expanding multi-forum meta-thread) - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T13:16:18Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A50628&feed=yes&xn_auth=noPart II is continued here.tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-09-01:5301756:Comment:577762014-09-01T17:40:56.114ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Part II is continued <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism-part-ii" target="_self">here</a>.</p>
<p>Part II is continued <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism-part-ii" target="_self">here</a>.</p> This idea of commodity fetish…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-05-14:5301756:Comment:562632014-05-14T18:48:31.775ZJoseph Camosyhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JosephCamosy
<p>This idea of commodity fetishism gone metaSymbolic is similar to Habermas' term: the "Colonization of the Lifeworld"</p>
<blockquote><p><em>The problem of the colonisation of the lifeworld occurs as the system ceases to be simply a means to an end, and thus something that can ultimately be checked by the life- world, and instead becomes a means in itself.</em></p>
<p><em>[...]</em></p>
<p><em>Once complex societies are organised through systems, the autonomous logic of those systems will…</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This idea of commodity fetishism gone metaSymbolic is similar to Habermas' term: the "Colonization of the Lifeworld"</p>
<blockquote><p><em>The problem of the colonisation of the lifeworld occurs as the system ceases to be simply a means to an end, and thus something that can ultimately be checked by the life- world, and instead becomes a means in itself.</em></p>
<p><em>[...]</em></p>
<p><em>Once complex societies are organised through systems, the autonomous logic of those systems will begin to direct what is possible and how anything is achieved within that society.</em></p>
<p><em>[...]</em></p>
<p><em>Here, then, is Habermas's point. The use of systems in a modern society is necessary, and indeed to a degree highly benefcial. But, as economic systems and administrative systems intrude more and more into everyday life (for example, as the state increasingly regulates private and public activities, and as economic values are placed upon all activities), so the instrumentalism inherent in systematic activity begins to erode the communicative skills that are grounded in, and that serve to maintain, the lifeworld. Good intentions may be perverted by the system, and the possibility of challenging the system, through communicative rather than instrumental reason, is inhibited.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas : The key concepts (p. 183). London; New York: Routledge.</p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A55988&xg_source=activity#5301756Comment55988"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Has anyone watched "Marx Reloaded"?</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Has anyone watched "Marx Relo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-05-12:5301756:Comment:559882014-05-12T19:27:45.229ZJoseph Camosyhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JosephCamosy
<p>Has anyone watched "Marx Reloaded"?</p>
<p></p>
<p>The blue pill or the red pill, comrade?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Trotsky: <em>"Do you want to know the truth comrade? You're a slave to a liberal ideology that goes deeper than you can possibly imagine. Ideology is everywhere. When you read Shakespeare, when you pay for your daughter's acting classes, when you buy your hemorrhoid cream. No one can be told what an ideology is Karl. You must see it,…</em></p>
<p>Has anyone watched "Marx Reloaded"?</p>
<p></p>
<p>The blue pill or the red pill, comrade?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Trotsky: <em>"Do you want to know the truth comrade? You're a slave to a liberal ideology that goes deeper than you can possibly imagine. Ideology is everywhere. When you read Shakespeare, when you pay for your daughter's acting classes, when you buy your hemorrhoid cream. No one can be told what an ideology is Karl. You must see it, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">not</span> to believe it. Take the blue pill and you'll wake up in Cologne as the editor of a provincial newspaper and join a Masonic lodge. Take the red pill and I will show you how far the permanent revolution goes."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10329237_10152372183079675_3841657565349558675_n.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10329237_10152372183079675_3841657565349558675_n.jpg"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><iframe width="475" height="267" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UI9SAbPTDPk?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p></p>
<p>A few excerpts:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Norbert Bolz: <em>"The Theory of commodity fetishism is Marx's most important discovery. Ironically, most of his admirers have only read those chapters because they begin his famous book "Capital." Maybe they're most valuable because they reveal a secret. They explain why, even today Capitalism still functions so well. And the secret is that goods in the capitalist marketplace satisfy more than simple needs. They also convey a spiritual surplus value, and this value is the real reason for the purchase. "</em></p>
<p></p>
<p>"Commodity fetishism" has to do with the feeding of collective complexes. This relates to a post of mine on Integral Life <a rel="nofollow" href="http://integrallife.com/node/200765" target="_blank">"The Shadow of Postmodern Culture."</a></p>
<p>I wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Whether you call them memes, media viruses, corporate brands, or contagious cultural complexes, it's important to understand the changes which have taken place in mass culture over the last 80 years as society has moved from modern to post-modern. It's one thing to choose products based on ideas of quality, durability, function, fun, etc... but quite another to derive one's self-identify from such things.</p>
<p>This is the shift from the symbolic to the metaSymbolic; from the complex to the autonomous complex where the logo, brand, meme, signifier, or sliding chain of signifiers becomes like a dissipative structure (from chaos and complexity theory) feeding and accreting images, experiences, and meaning to itself. It doesn't "have" a meaning, it "creates meaning" by drawing to itself the individual's desires, drives, and aspirations and ultimately their sense of self.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Back to the video:</p>
<p></p>
<p>20:25 Peter Sloterdijk also sees ongoing relevance in Marxist theory of commodity fetishism in our modern consumer way of life. <br/><br/><em>"The theory of commodity fetishism or fetishism as such is probably the immortal part of Marxist doctrine simply because Marx is among those who discovered the fact that things live."</em><br/><br/>21:50 [narrator] <em>The theory of commodity fetishism describes how we accept value as a natural quality of things. But according to Marx, such belief is an illusion. Every commodity, like every value, must be produced. Even something seemingly natural as water is commodified, purified, packaged, and transported to the customer, a process from which the capitalist duly extracts a profit. </em><br/><br/>"<em>Value is in the eye of the beholder. Value doesn't exist in objects"</em><br/><br/><em>"What I would say is commodity fetishism is only the capitalist version of a type of objectification which is humanly universal." </em></p>
<p></p>
<p>This also relates to the idea of the golem or homunculus.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Joe</p>
<p></p> Today I think I added a piece…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-24:5301756:Comment:545912014-03-24T22:11:35.445ZDarrell R. Moneyhonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DarrellRMoneyhon
<p>Today I think I added a piece to the effective strategizing puzzle. Front line activity needs to be just robust enough to capture the adversary's attention. But if you put too much into the high-resistance frontal attack you end up losing too many resources, plus your adversary sees you coming. </p>
<p>But if you use a relatively modest (but sufficient for distraction purposes) degree of head-on activism while investing most of your resources to out-flanking (especially the Trojan Horse…</p>
<p>Today I think I added a piece to the effective strategizing puzzle. Front line activity needs to be just robust enough to capture the adversary's attention. But if you put too much into the high-resistance frontal attack you end up losing too many resources, plus your adversary sees you coming. </p>
<p>But if you use a relatively modest (but sufficient for distraction purposes) degree of head-on activism while investing most of your resources to out-flanking (especially the Trojan Horse variety), then you have an optimal strategy for scoring from the "weak side." Remember the goal is not to win in the area of voting or other obvious fronts. The goal is to engage the adversary enough to distract him/her/it so as to then outflank. Similar to a magician's redirection of attention while pulling off the magic trick. </p>
<p>Rifkin's "right under our noses" changes taking place in the Internet portion of the marketplace might be the main change agent. All the green activism might however, create enough distraction to allow the Internet peer-to-peer, interdependent, resource-sharing, lateral power (Rifkin's term) troops into full (but seldom seen or appreciated) force. Like ancient Chinese culture which historians claimed to have conquered its conquerers. </p>
<p>I call it my "just enough activism" strategy to positive social transformation. </p>
<p>d<br/> <br/> <cite>Darrell R. Moneyhon said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism?page=9&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54805&x=1#5301756Comment54805"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>My last comment reflects the philosophical observation of "inescapability," which is a more surface expression of quantum entanglment and non-duality below/deeper-in than that in an unfolding depth dimension of reality. Inescapability is basically "you can run but you can't hide." You can try to live but death will catch up. You can try to be a macho man but while hanging around with your hunting buddies a homophobic or feminine-relationshippy moment will find you like the love-pats on the asses of fellow football players. Virtually any system has aspects of its opposite within it. Pascal made a powerful point about how collectivist corporations are. Cartells and mergers and corporate policies actually show a strong belief in collectivism or socialism within the highly competitive, agentic, agencies of "capitalism." At the appex of capitalism are these non-capitalistic, collectivistic, entities which represent the finest of capitalism. Macho man with a feminine side showing. You can count on the law of inescapablity. I first saw it by noticing how each Integral quadrant (or my modified form of "quantum quad") had aspects (I call the "eddies") of the other three in it. The Yin/Yang symbol's black dots are also a visual representation of inescapablity. </p>
<p>The law of inescapablity can be used to out-flank an opponent in perhaps the highest form of outflanking -- the Trojan Horse. Instead of coming in around the opponent's periphery, pop up right under their noses! Use capitalistic-like structures and processes to pop up the alternative to capitalism. Use money to put money out of business. I have previously called this the "trans-money" approach. Similar to the trans-money approach, we could charge a green energy changeover tariff to current fracking projects. A set portion of the profits from fracking would be set aside to help put fracking out of business eventually. Given the short-sided vision of most capitalistic ventures (Chomski's observation of various types of externalized costs such as systemic hazard and environmental hazard), business might go right ahead and drill under these conditions. Of course the Kock brothers would lobby and pay-off people to prevent the Green Energy Changeover Tarrif. Some front line, activism, success at offseting the weakening of Democracies "body" (Government) is needed at the same time such a longterm, inderect, or out-flanking, approach is taken. In this case, "Sure you can have most of what you want -- now (never mind later). Loan companies have been using the have now pay later approach effectively for years. Use the same approach on business itself, instead of on on individual consumers (like preying on strays from the herd). Use the herd to corral the herders or the prey to become the hunter. This sounds all too paradoxical and fantasy like, unless you begin to see the way that the law of inescapability might actually be put to work in order to accelerate (in Ken's conveyor belt fashion) ("probabalistically") inevitable evolution. New forms exotropy can slip into existing systems just as surely as good old entropy. Actually a measure of entropy can help the exotropy emerged unexpectedly within the existing structures/systems, especially if there are a few adept creative spies to help it along. I have elsewhere considered Hegel's dialectic (or is it dialectical?) to be potentially "sung" or "played" or "played out" in the "key" of synthesis. This means some of the violent antithesis can be by-passed via creative emergence and "morphing." To me this is a Trojan Horse ultimate expression of the tried-and-true successful strategy of out-flanking. In the movie The Matrix agent Smith was finally out-flanked within by Neo. But even the violent inside-out explosion is uneccessary if agent Smith were to be morphed into, say, Mr. Rogers. This profound depth-transformation action is the basis for spiritual forgiveness. Moralistic judgment only causes agent Smith to gain motivation and strength, but go deep inside to the core of the entity and agent Smith can be spiritually, creatively, transormed or morphed into Mr. Rogers! </p>
<p>darrell<br/> <br/> <cite>Darrell R. Moneyhon said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/comment/show?id=5301756%3AComment%3A54804&xn_out=json&firstPage=0&lastPage=1&xg_token=93be2d4417b0b4e9d94382a5d1ea3d09&_=1395330067462#5301756Comment54804"><div><p>Yes, Neoliberal economic theory is the bain of our existance. I read Naimi Klien's book about Disaster Capitalism and it matches many of the things Chomsky says about the locust plague that is the Chicago School version of economics. I also read a book by Thomas Geoghegan (Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?) which zoomed in on Germany's democratized workplace which evolved years after we installed Keynsian economics after WWII, during the rebuilding phase in Germany, in order to prevent the market conditions (gross inequality, economic strain/crises/instability) which led up to WWII (and, if I remember correctly, also WWI). We gave them our (United State's) successful fair or regulated market model in order to avert another WW, and then proceded with the help of Milton Freedman and friends to abandon that model in favor of the "Neoliberal," "Chicago School," or Freedmanite model ourselves. So by the time Geoghegan wrote his book, Germany has relatively (relative to us) prospered (when taking into account the impact on the whole population) by our abandoned model, the one we were relatively prosperous under (relative to now, and taking into account the impact on the whole population). Go figure. Naimi Klien noticed the same pattern that Chomski mentioned about the results of Neoliberal economic policies. It has led to a great divide between the haves and have-nots in virtually every place it was transplanted (usually by planned coos, and other conspiratal means, NOT by free market evolution via third world nations voting on their feet at the marketplace or even voting at the booth). The market fundamentalist believed so fervently in their cause that they worked with shadow government to create coos, etc. -- an unbelievably dark history of the way that the Chicago School economic model has been "transplanted" in third world countries. And while all this insanity was going on in the U.S. and then spreading to other countries in true (economic) imperialist fashion, Germany showed the fruits of our old Keynesian model. The regulated market model also seems to match the mixed market landscape of developed countries which have a better life quality index than us. Apparently an integration of collectivism and capitalism is proven historically to work better than purer forms of either one alone. I'm sure there are many subfactors behind that simple formula which need to be identified and utilized, so that we no longer have to use old versions of either collectivism or capitalism, but instead can operate by those hidden factors contributing to true human prosperity. In other words, I see a third way, such as Integral Resourcism which is neither capitalism or collectivism per se but incorporates aspects of each. Perhaps expert resource managers are similar to current business people but these managers will serve the collective good. The incentive, I propose, is to be "paid" a compliment for one's "gifts." Those gifted at resource managment will be valued but not by giving them money or unequal shares of resources. At the end of the day, as long as everyone is doing okay with meeting human needs, a "thank you" will be more valued than a big pay check. This of course after a changed culture and cultural cognitions and world view and new values tetra-arise along with the changed resource allocation system or "economy." Rifkin is right about how the techology of the internet is helping such a lateral power or interdependent culture tetra-arise (to use Ken's word). The change in technology catalyzes a change in both economics and in culture (and since culture shapes minds, in each human consciousness). The LR moves and somehow helps the LL and UL to move. Not sure what the UR would be: perhaps objectively measured levels of cooperativeness and physical and mental health in each citizen? </p>
<p>While Chomski in true "Green" fashion does a great job at defining the front lines (and no doubt there really does need to be some people actively engaging in the front lines to offset Plutocracy's power grab) and a real reason to engage in "war," what his lecture did not address was one of the most effective strategies in both war and in sports -- out-flanking. In sports, "out-flanking" is the effectiveness of playing the "weak side." In war the epitomy of out-flanking is the Trojan Horse in which the out-flanking is done right under the opponent's noses. Out-flanking relies on working the areas unseen or unnoticed or simply unguarded by the opponents. Often the goal is reached via the weak side. If I can successfully insert the link below, it shows Jeremy Rifkin's observation of an out-flanking factor. While the "kids are playing" with creative options with the internet a previously unseen resource and logistics is emerging which could be used to reinforce the activists at the front lines of the war between democracy and the Plutocrates-in-the-name-of-"capitalism" (Chomski's Really Existing Capitalism).</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-capitalism.html?_r=0" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1395323832519_2456" name="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1395323832519_2456">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-c...</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>darrell <br/> <br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A49930&page=9#5301756Comment51163"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I watched the recent Chomsky video linked above, "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk" target="_blank">Can civilization survive really existing capitalism?</a>" And the answer is no it cannot. We need a huge shift toward a new socio-economic mode of enactment. Chomsky does not go into that, his talk focusing on the currently existing catastrophe. Hence Rifkin's work in the previous post is paramount if we are not only to move forward but even to survive. Yes, it is that serious, and with that Rifkin is in full agreement.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> My last comment reflects the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-20:5301756:Comment:548052014-03-20T16:18:39.266ZDarrell R. Moneyhonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DarrellRMoneyhon
<p>My last comment reflects the philosophical observation of "inescapability," which is a more surface expression of quantum entanglment and non-duality below/deeper-in than that in an unfolding depth dimension of reality. Inescapability is basically "you can run but you can't hide." You can try to live but death will catch up. You can try to be a macho man but while hanging around with your hunting buddies a homophobic or feminine-relationshippy moment will find you like the love-pats on the…</p>
<p>My last comment reflects the philosophical observation of "inescapability," which is a more surface expression of quantum entanglment and non-duality below/deeper-in than that in an unfolding depth dimension of reality. Inescapability is basically "you can run but you can't hide." You can try to live but death will catch up. You can try to be a macho man but while hanging around with your hunting buddies a homophobic or feminine-relationshippy moment will find you like the love-pats on the asses of fellow football players. Virtually any system has aspects of its opposite within it. Pascal made a powerful point about how collectivist corporations are. Cartells and mergers and corporate policies actually show a strong belief in collectivism or socialism within the highly competitive, agentic, agencies of "capitalism." At the appex of capitalism are these non-capitalistic, collectivistic, entities which represent the finest of capitalism. Macho man with a feminine side showing. You can count on the law of inescapablity. I first saw it by noticing how each Integral quadrant (or my modified form of "quantum quad") had aspects (I call the "eddies") of the other three in it. The Yin/Yang symbol's black dots are also a visual representation of inescapablity. </p>
<p>The law of inescapablity can be used to out-flank an opponent in perhaps the highest form of outflanking -- the Trojan Horse. Instead of coming in around the opponent's periphery, pop up right under their noses! Use capitalistic-like structures and processes to pop up the alternative to capitalism. Use money to put money out of business. I have previously called this the "trans-money" approach. Similar to the trans-money approach, we could charge a green energy changeover tariff to current fracking projects. A set portion of the profits from fracking would be set aside to help put fracking out of business eventually. Given the short-sided vision of most capitalistic ventures (Chomski's observation of various types of externalized costs such as systemic hazard and environmental hazard), business might go right ahead and drill under these conditions. Of course the Kock brothers would lobby and pay-off people to prevent the Green Energy Changeover Tarrif. Some front line, activism, success at offseting the weakening of Democracies "body" (Government) is needed at the same time such a longterm, inderect, or out-flanking, approach is taken. In this case, "Sure you can have most of what you want -- now (never mind later). Loan companies have been using the have now pay later approach effectively for years. Use the same approach on business itself, instead of on on individual consumers (like preying on strays from the herd). Use the herd to corral the herders or the prey to become the hunter. This sounds all too paradoxical and fantasy like, unless you begin to see the way that the law of inescapability might actually be put to work in order to accelerate (in Ken's conveyor belt fashion) ("probabalistically") inevitable evolution. New forms exotropy can slip into existing systems just as surely as good old entropy. Actually a measure of entropy can help the exotropy emerged unexpectedly within the existing structures/systems, especially if there are a few adept creative spies to help it along. I have elsewhere considered Hegel's dialectic (or is it dialectical?) to be potentially "sung" or "played" or "played out" in the "key" of synthesis. This means some of the violent antithesis can be by-passed via creative emergence and "morphing." To me this is a Trojan Horse ultimate expression of the tried-and-true successful strategy of out-flanking. In the movie The Matrix agent Smith was finally out-flanked within by Neo. But even the violent inside-out explosion is uneccessary if agent Smith were to be morphed into, say, Mr. Rogers. This profound depth-transformation action is the basis for spiritual forgiveness. Moralistic judgment only causes agent Smith to gain motivation and strength, but go deep inside to the core of the entity and agent Smith can be spiritually, creatively, transormed or morphed into Mr. Rogers! </p>
<p>darrell<br/> <br/> <cite>Darrell R. Moneyhon said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/comment/show?id=5301756%3AComment%3A54804&xn_out=json&firstPage=0&lastPage=1&xg_token=93be2d4417b0b4e9d94382a5d1ea3d09&_=1395330067462#5301756Comment54804"><div><p>Yes, Neoliberal economic theory is the bain of our existance. I read Naimi Klien's book about Disaster Capitalism and it matches many of the things Chomsky says about the locust plague that is the Chicago School version of economics. I also read a book by Thomas Geoghegan (Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?) which zoomed in on Germany's democratized workplace which evolved years after we installed Keynsian economics after WWII, during the rebuilding phase in Germany, in order to prevent the market conditions (gross inequality, economic strain/crises/instability) which led up to WWII (and, if I remember correctly, also WWI). We gave them our (United State's) successful fair or regulated market model in order to avert another WW, and then proceded with the help of Milton Freedman and friends to abandon that model in favor of the "Neoliberal," "Chicago School," or Freedmanite model ourselves. So by the time Geoghegan wrote his book, Germany has relatively (relative to us) prospered (when taking into account the impact on the whole population) by our abandoned model, the one we were relatively prosperous under (relative to now, and taking into account the impact on the whole population). Go figure. Naimi Klien noticed the same pattern that Chomski mentioned about the results of Neoliberal economic policies. It has led to a great divide between the haves and have-nots in virtually every place it was transplanted (usually by planned coos, and other conspiratal means, NOT by free market evolution via third world nations voting on their feet at the marketplace or even voting at the booth). The market fundamentalist believed so fervently in their cause that they worked with shadow government to create coos, etc. -- an unbelievably dark history of the way that the Chicago School economic model has been "transplanted" in third world countries. And while all this insanity was going on in the U.S. and then spreading to other countries in true (economic) imperialist fashion, Germany showed the fruits of our old Keynesian model. The regulated market model also seems to match the mixed market landscape of developed countries which have a better life quality index than us. Apparently an integration of collectivism and capitalism is proven historically to work better than purer forms of either one alone. I'm sure there are many subfactors behind that simple formula which need to be identified and utilized, so that we no longer have to use old versions of either collectivism or capitalism, but instead can operate by those hidden factors contributing to true human prosperity. In other words, I see a third way, such as Integral Resourcism which is neither capitalism or collectivism per se but incorporates aspects of each. Perhaps expert resource managers are similar to current business people but these managers will serve the collective good. The incentive, I propose, is to be "paid" a compliment for one's "gifts." Those gifted at resource managment will be valued but not by giving them money or unequal shares of resources. At the end of the day, as long as everyone is doing okay with meeting human needs, a "thank you" will be more valued than a big pay check. This of course after a changed culture and cultural cognitions and world view and new values tetra-arise along with the changed resource allocation system or "economy." Rifkin is right about how the techology of the internet is helping such a lateral power or interdependent culture tetra-arise (to use Ken's word). The change in technology catalyzes a change in both economics and in culture (and since culture shapes minds, in each human consciousness). The LR moves and somehow helps the LL and UL to move. Not sure what the UR would be: perhaps objectively measured levels of cooperativeness and physical and mental health in each citizen? </p>
<p>While Chomski in true "Green" fashion does a great job at defining the front lines (and no doubt there really does need to be some people actively engaging in the front lines to offset Plutocracy's power grab) and a real reason to engage in "war," what his lecture did not address was one of the most effective strategies in both war and in sports -- out-flanking. In sports, "out-flanking" is the effectiveness of playing the "weak side." In war the epitomy of out-flanking is the Trojan Horse in which the out-flanking is done right under the opponent's noses. Out-flanking relies on working the areas unseen or unnoticed or simply unguarded by the opponents. Often the goal is reached via the weak side. If I can successfully insert the link below, it shows Jeremy Rifkin's observation of an out-flanking factor. While the "kids are playing" with creative options with the internet a previously unseen resource and logistics is emerging which could be used to reinforce the activists at the front lines of the war between democracy and the Plutocrates-in-the-name-of-"capitalism" (Chomski's Really Existing Capitalism).</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-capitalism.html?_r=0" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1395323832519_2456" name="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1395323832519_2456">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-c...</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>darrell <br/> <br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A49930&page=9#5301756Comment51163"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I watched the recent Chomsky video linked above, "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk" target="_blank">Can civilization survive really existing capitalism?</a>" And the answer is no it cannot. We need a huge shift toward a new socio-economic mode of enactment. Chomsky does not go into that, his talk focusing on the currently existing catastrophe. Hence Rifkin's work in the previous post is paramount if we are not only to move forward but even to survive. Yes, it is that serious, and with that Rifkin is in full agreement.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> Yes, Neoliberal economic theo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-20:5301756:Comment:548042014-03-20T15:41:06.790ZDarrell R. Moneyhonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DarrellRMoneyhon
<p>Yes, Neoliberal economic theory is the bain of our existance. I read Naimi Klien's book about Disaster Capitalism and it matches many of the things Chomsky says about the locust plague that is the Chicago School version of economics. I also read a book by Thomas Geoghegan (Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?) which zoomed in on Germany's democratized workplace which evolved years after we installed Keynsian economics after WWII, during the rebuilding phase in Germany, in order to prevent…</p>
<p>Yes, Neoliberal economic theory is the bain of our existance. I read Naimi Klien's book about Disaster Capitalism and it matches many of the things Chomsky says about the locust plague that is the Chicago School version of economics. I also read a book by Thomas Geoghegan (Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?) which zoomed in on Germany's democratized workplace which evolved years after we installed Keynsian economics after WWII, during the rebuilding phase in Germany, in order to prevent the market conditions (gross inequality, economic strain/crises/instability) which led up to WWII (and, if I remember correctly, also WWI). We gave them our (United State's) successful fair or regulated market model in order to avert another WW, and then proceded with the help of Milton Freedman and friends to abandon that model in favor of the "Neoliberal," "Chicago School," or Freedmanite model ourselves. So by the time Geoghegan wrote his book, Germany has relatively (relative to us) prospered (when taking into account the impact on the whole population) by our abandoned model, the one we were relatively prosperous under (relative to now, and taking into account the impact on the whole population). Go figure. Naimi Klien noticed the same pattern that Chomski mentioned about the results of Neoliberal economic policies. It has led to a great divide between the haves and have-nots in virtually every place it was transplanted (usually by planned coos, and other conspiratal means, NOT by free market evolution via third world nations voting on their feet at the marketplace or even voting at the booth). The market fundamentalist believed so fervently in their cause that they worked with shadow government to create coos, etc. -- an unbelievably dark history of the way that the Chicago School economic model has been "transplanted" in third world countries. And while all this insanity was going on in the U.S. and then spreading to other countries in true (economic) imperialist fashion, Germany showed the fruits of our old Keynesian model. The regulated market model also seems to match the mixed market landscape of developed countries which have a better life quality index than us. Apparently an integration of collectivism and capitalism is proven historically to work better than purer forms of either one alone. I'm sure there are many subfactors behind that simple formula which need to be identified and utilized, so that we no longer have to use old versions of either collectivism or capitalism, but instead can operate by those hidden factors contributing to true human prosperity. In other words, I see a third way, such as Integral Resourcism which is neither capitalism or collectivism per se but incorporates aspects of each. Perhaps expert resource managers are similar to current business people but these managers will serve the collective good. The incentive, I propose, is to be "paid" a compliment for one's "gifts." Those gifted at resource managment will be valued but not by giving them money or unequal shares of resources. At the end of the day, as long as everyone is doing okay with meeting human needs, a "thank you" will be more valued than a big pay check. This of course after a changed culture and cultural cognitions and world view and new values tetra-arise along with the changed resource allocation system or "economy." Rifkin is right about how the techology of the internet is helping such a lateral power or interdependent culture tetra-arise (to use Ken's word). The change in technology catalyzes a change in both economics and in culture (and since culture shapes minds, in each human consciousness). The LR moves and somehow helps the LL and UL to move. Not sure what the UR would be: perhaps objectively measured levels of cooperativeness and physical and mental health in each citizen? </p>
<p>While Chomski in true "Green" fashion does a great job at defining the front lines (and no doubt there really does need to be some people actively engaging in the front lines to offset Plutocracy's power grab) and a real reason to engage in "war," what his lecture did not address was one of the most effective strategies in both war and in sports -- out-flanking. In sports, "out-flanking" is the effectiveness of playing the "weak side." In war the epitomy of out-flanking is the Trojan Horse in which the out-flanking is done right under the opponent's noses. Out-flanking relies on working the areas unseen or unnoticed or simply unguarded by the opponents. Often the goal is reached via the weak side. If I can successfully insert the link below, it shows Jeremy Rifkin's observation of an out-flanking factor. While the "kids are playing" with creative options with the internet a previously unseen resource and logistics is emerging which could be used to reinforce the activists at the front lines of the war between democracy and the Plutocrates-in-the-name-of-"capitalism" (Chomski's Really Existing Capitalism).</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-capitalism.html?_r=0" id="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1395323832519_2456" name="yui_3_13_0_ym1_1_1395323832519_2456">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-anti-capitalism.html?_r=0</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>darrell <br/> <br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A49930&page=9#5301756Comment51163"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I watched the recent Chomsky video linked above, "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk" target="_blank">Can civilization survive really existing capitalism?</a>" And the answer is no it cannot. We need a huge shift toward a new socio-economic mode of enactment. Chomsky does not go into that, his talk focusing on the currently existing catastrophe. Hence Rifkin's work in the previous post is paramount if we are not only to move forward but even to survive. Yes, it is that serious, and with that Rifkin is in full agreement.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> You should also check out par…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-04:5301756:Comment:545272014-03-04T17:44:08.010ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>You should also check out <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism-part-ii" target="_self">part 2</a> of this discussion. Btw, I'm a big Rifkin fan and started a thread on him <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/jeremy-rifkin" target="_self">here</a>, where I discuss, among other things, his transition from market to distributive capitalism. I also have a…</p>
<p>You should also check out <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism-part-ii" target="_self">part 2</a> of this discussion. Btw, I'm a big Rifkin fan and started a thread on him <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/jeremy-rifkin" target="_self">here</a>, where I discuss, among other things, his transition from market to distributive capitalism. I also have a <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/eco-transitions" target="_self">thread on Arnsperger's Eco-transitions</a>, another view that sees practical transitions from capitalism to something post.</p> Don't we need to identify lon…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-04:5301756:Comment:545262014-03-04T17:12:42.633ZDarrell R. Moneyhonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DarrellRMoneyhon
<p>Don't we need to identify long term vs short term solutions? I totally agree that there are inherent flaws in capitalism which will in time require its replacement. But today? Tommorrow? Or is it better to gradually morph or evolve a replacement system. I propose resourcesism, but "resource" included UL and LL realities of "human resources." This is vitally important since it is human resourcefulness which determines just what is a resource and what is not. A bunch of stuff that we can't…</p>
<p>Don't we need to identify long term vs short term solutions? I totally agree that there are inherent flaws in capitalism which will in time require its replacement. But today? Tommorrow? Or is it better to gradually morph or evolve a replacement system. I propose resourcesism, but "resource" included UL and LL realities of "human resources." This is vitally important since it is human resourcefulness which determines just what is a resource and what is not. A bunch of stuff that we can't manage to use for overall betterment of humankind is not really a resource. It is only a resource if it serves humanity. We have to re-humanize the systems which allocate and develop material resources. We have to assist in the mind-over-matter dematerialization of evolution. That is, if we want a happier and smoother course instead of a more miserable and rougher course ahead. </p>
<p>But we can integrate and include elements of the longterm inadequate systems at the same time we transcend them. See my New Sin and New Virtue concepts in my previous comment. I also describe them in the book I am currently writing, Your Third Nature. </p>
<p>Here's an excerpt about that topic: </p>
<p></p>
<p>From <em>Your Third Nature</em>: </p>
<p></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Evolution has a timing to it. If our ideas are too old, they are of little use. If they are two ahead of the curve, they are also of limited use. Lagging or overshooting the evolutionary unfolding can result in wasted energy or even in maladaptation or pathology. I call the ideas and ways which are out of synch with evolution “new sin.”</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">By “sin” I don't mean the morally “bad” type. I mean the “missing the mark” type. If the “sinner” stubbornly holds onto ways that simply aren't in synch with “Father Time,” then, I suppose the mark-missing does take on a kind of culpability or acountability along the lines of immorality.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">But even so, the “sin” is not the old static/fixed variety. It is the sin of stubborn clinging to a past way of understanding and doing things or of an escapist running ahead of reality as it is. Running too far ahead ends up being like running away. Yes, a person with a lust for heaven on earth is so ahead of time that he or she commits a (new) sin of not accepting reality as it unfolds or evolves. To cling to the past or to run way ahead is kind of like spitting in Father Time's face. There will be karmic conscequences!</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left">“<font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Karmic”rather than moral judgement because the consequences are based upon an <i>alignment</i> problem. If you fail to keep the car aligned on the road you tend to crash. Similarly, if you are too out of line with the Unfolding-as-it-is, then you are not in a position to bring depth-continuity into the surface realm that we call reality or the world. You are off the road of evolution.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Clinging to the past is what I call “new sin, type 1.” In some ways it is akin to depression. Running too far ahead is what I call “new sin, type 2.” In some ways type 2 new sin is akin to mania.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">If, on the other hand, you do a reasonably <i>good job of aligning your ways to evolution</i> then you can have two kinds of “new virtue.”</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left">“<font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">New virtue, type 1” is seeing the future and becoming a means or catalyst of retrocausality, or teleological causality, in which the future is able to help pull the evoltution along.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left">“<font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">New virtue, type 2” is being able to identify how to effectively use the things and systems already in place, but not for the purposes of clinging to them. Rather, new virtue, type 2, <i>serves</i> the future by efficiently using the already-in-place things and systems in a way that avoids unneccessary waste of energy and resources. It is like proper pacing in the race to the future.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Politically, some people with type 2 new virtue might lean toward conservatism, but it would likely be of a rather centrist variety. People with type 1 new virtue might lean toward the liberal or “progessive” end of the political spectrum. But they would tend to “reach across the aisle” to their type 1 new virtue collegues. They too would likely be labeled centrist.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Word of caution here though: “centrist” can be grossly <span lang="en-US" xml:lang="en-US">miss-calibrated</span> to one pole or another at any given time. What might be called centrism at one time may be way too far to the right or left at another. There is a certain pendulum-swing arbitrariness to the term. “Integralist” might be a better term, although a new one. Those who aspire to be a political integralist may be more prone to achieve the proper evolutionary alignment that we are talking about here.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">They work with Father Time, instead of being at odds with him.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">But is it wrong to dip deep into the transtemporal core of the flare and harness the far future? Wouldn't that increase the world's chances of being in the right place on down the road from now?</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">No to the first question. Yes to the second. I would say that there is a big difference between accessing the deepest, transtemporal, zones of the flare vs <i>rushing to actualize</i> the potential tapped into there. Prophetic, on down the road, insights can be quite useful (especially to the collective) as long as they are translated into understandable and/or workable terms. Prophets have to “break it down.” Otherwise they are just “mad prophets” who nobody<font face="Times New Roman, serif">―</font>except head cases!<font face="Times New Roman, serif">―</font>listens to.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3">Using our earlier well and bucket analogy, type 2 new sin would be like pulling the bucket of deep water up too quickly and spilling it all over the place. If the systems in place cannot translate the future truths then the deep water information is at best white noise which merely diminishes the value of intuitive knowing or mysticism, and at worst becomes a really bad song that moves people to anarchy or other maladaptive reactions. The deep waters end up making a lot of muck and mud! </font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Darrell</font></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54362#5301756Comment51163"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I watched the recent Chomsky video linked above, "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk" target="_blank">Can civilization survive really existing capitalism?</a>" And the answer is no it cannot. We need a huge shift toward a new socio-economic mode of enactment. Chomsky does not go into that, his talk focusing on the currently existing catastrophe. Hence Rifkin's work in the previous post is paramount if we are not only to move forward but even to survive. Yes, it is that serious, and with that Rifkin is in full agreement.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Many things I like in this di…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-04:5301756:Comment:543622014-03-04T16:56:13.956ZDarrell R. Moneyhonhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DarrellRMoneyhon
<p>Many things I like in this discussion. Here's one point that especially resonated with me today. It is a point that Pascal made about how "capatilism" as currently practiced actually has more and more in-house "socialism" within it. The fact that it is kept in the hidden, unseen, or unacknowledged, parts of the "iceberg" makes for lack of human progress. Something akin to conspiracy is mascarading as "capitalism." This serves us about as well as the conflation of level and line (Wilber's L/L…</p>
<p>Many things I like in this discussion. Here's one point that especially resonated with me today. It is a point that Pascal made about how "capatilism" as currently practiced actually has more and more in-house "socialism" within it. The fact that it is kept in the hidden, unseen, or unacknowledged, parts of the "iceberg" makes for lack of human progress. Something akin to conspiracy is mascarading as "capitalism." This serves us about as well as the conflation of level and line (Wilber's L/L fallacy) has served us by hoisting dogma onto spirituality. We have not even achieved a rational level of what we are talking about when we use the word "capitalism." We have contaminated, distorted, concepts and logic. Conspiratorial or "half-ass" socialism in the guise of "capitalism" is not the same sort of small business capitalism which seemed to work better than feudalism during the renasaunce (sp?) era. The orange love of a democratizing sort of small business capitalism has been infected with unidentified "half-ass" socialism. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, in the long run I think capitalism itself will be, and should be, replaced with another, more effective system. I propose the term "Resourceism." But that is another story. And one that should be unfolded carefully and patiently in a manner that follows the evolutionary curve. </p>
<p>My anti-capitalism long-view notwithstanding, we have not even managed to talk rationally about capitalism because we have huge semantics issues. I think Theurj makes the point well at some point that we need to better differentiate the different forms of capitalism before we find it guilty. I am convinced that it is not guilty until proven inadequate. By that, I mean that we should not chuck the system prematurely, but when an evolutionary context is present which can successfully support a better resource allocation system, such as resourceism. But to throw away current systems prematurely would be a "new-sin" of sorts. I call that error "new sin, type 2." New sin, type 1 is clinging too long to an existing system once evolution dictates a better one. But it is also a sin to overshoot the evolutionary trajectory or curve by trying to codify an new system before the support structures for it are in place. The mutliple factor or "pillar" approach by Rifkin is a better, safer, and wiser way to proceed with changing over to a new-and-improved system. Even though Rifkin's distributive capitalism (is that the right term?) is new, it does not even require a chucking out of capitalism. It is a wise incremental move which engages in neither Type 1 or Type 2 New Sin. Conversely it has the quality of Type 2 and Type 1 Virtue. Type 2 virtue is to go ahead and make use of current systems and their reserves while at the same time moving forward to a transformation of those old systems. Type 1 Virtue is moving forward, but not too quickly. Not in a manner that goes too far in front of where we are in the overall evolutionary trajectory. </p>
<p>Here is what Pascal said that inspired some of my thoughts shared above: </p>
<p>Pascal: A general sentiment exists in which Socialism is treated as a fair-but-ineffective Mommy and Capitalism is the effective-but-tough Daddy. This widespread feeilng is the very definition of an infantile attitude to economics! However, the original idea of Socialism (etc.) was to envision whatever natural form of society could and would supersede capitalism -- replacing its functions, overcoming its internal contradictions and limitations. We have a responsible to try something similar. We must personally and collectively try to feel our way to the edges of the current paradigm. Where do they snag? Where do they thwart themselves? Where are the basic categories of capitalist economics already "going over to the next thing"?</p>
<p>A very banal example is that of membership clubs. Here we pay a fee in order not to have to buy or rent things. Once we are "inside": socialism. The usual business relations recede from our experience. Another area where the lines become permeable is found in the well-known idea that we have extravagant "socialism for the wealthy". They "privatize the profits, socialize the losses". A terrible scheme for society but again it highlights the hinterland between Capitalism & Socialism. Just like American healthcare does! A more fanciful experiment comes from Star Trek -- Gene Roddenberry produced what is arguably the most popular human vision a basically post-capitalist society. Do we see anything in all these hints?</p>
<p>-----</p>
<p>Yes, we need to properly identify what system we actually are using now, before we can willy-nilly replace it with a pie-in-the-sky new system. As long as we think we are practicing one form of capitalism when we really aren't then how can the reasoning process or "trail" be productive? Differentiating key terms seems vital to a good "trial." Also vital for a good "trail." By that I mean for planning an effective trail/path forward from here. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks for this wonderful and urgently needed discussion, </p>
<p>Darrell</p> Part II continues here.tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-01-25:5301756:Comment:539242014-01-25T04:15:13.019ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Part II continues <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism-part-ii" target="_self">here</a>.</p>
<p>Part II continues <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-anti-capitalism-part-ii" target="_self">here</a>.</p>