a clear, concise and comprehensive case for socialism, written by albert einstein in 1949. he discusses our nature as both solitary and social beings, simultaneously conditioned by biological and cultural constitutions, and what this means for the individual's role in society. he then asks "how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible." the final passages prove particularly poignant in presaging the greatest atrocities committed by soviet tyranny. the challenge: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? how can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? part of the answer may reside in bypassing the power of large bureaucracies through a decentralized system of democratic planning directed by workers' and consumers' councils. moreover, with today's information communication technology, the capacity for mass collaboration and self-government/self-management has never been more viable and effective.
i've posted the article on current. vote it up//
we may thrill to obama's rhetoric, but very few of the 1.3 billion muslims in the world are as deluded. they grasp that nothing so far has changed for muslims in the middle east under the obama administration... muslim rage is stoked because we station tens of thousands of american troops on muslim soil, occupy two muslim nations, make possible the illegal israeli occupation of palestine, support repressive arab regimes and torture thousands of muslims in offshore penal colonies where prisoners are stripped of their rights. we now have 22 times as many military personnel in the muslim world as were deployed during the crusades in the 12th century. the rage comes because we have constructed massive military bases, some the size of small cities, in iraq, afghanistan, saudi arabia, turkey and kuwait, and established basing rights in the gulf states of bahrain, qatar, oman and the united arab emirates. the rage comes because we have expanded our military empire into neighboring uzbekistan, pakistan, kyrgyzstan and tajikistan. it comes because we station troops and special forces in egypt, algeria and yemen. and this vast network of bases and military outposts looks suspiciously permanent... the brutal reality of expanding foreign occupation and harsher and harsher forms of control are the tinder of islamic fundamentalism, insurgences and terrorism. we can blame the violence on a clash of civilizations. we can naively tell ourselves we are envied for our freedoms. we can point to the koran. but these are fantasies that divert us from facing the central dispute between us and the muslim world, from facing our own responsibility for the virus of chaos and violence spreading throughout the middle east. we can have peace when we shut down our bases, stay the hand of the israelis to create a palestinian state, and go home, or we can have long, costly and ultimately futile regional war. we cannot have both. // chris hedges, 06.08.09, truthdig
the eminent sociologist zygmunt bauman writes in an insightful essay, ‘the self in a consumer society', that greed itself is changing in order to better serve consumer capitalism. in the past, says bauman, greed was not constant because people's desires were still attached to needs and objects, as well as a credible social world, which meant they tended to pause from time to time in satisfaction or reflection. over time, however, consumer culture has upped ‘consumptive capacity' by honing its members to be immune to satisfaction, and thus immediately ready to desire the next thing that comes along. of this, bauman says that desire no longer desires satisfaction. in the modern age, ‘desire desires desire', which is the basis for our new ‘constant greed'. research is starting to show that we have come to see ourselves as incorrigibly greedy by nature. according to one survey, nearly 90 per cent of people agree with the statement ‘humans always want more, it is part of human nature'. but in truth, a society's culture determines the extent to which our propensity for greed is activated or suppressed. // john f. schumaker, 07.04, new internationalist
...the US financial system performs dismally at its advertised task, that of efficiently directing society’s savings towards their optimal investment pursuits. the system is stupefyingly expensive, gives terrible signals for the allocation of capital, and has surprisingly little to do with real investment. most money managers can barely match market averages—and there’s evidence that active trading reduces performance rather than improving it—yet they still haul in big fees, and their brokers, big commissions. over the long haul, almost all corporate capital expenditures are internally financed, through profits and depreciation allowances. // doug henwood, p.3, wall street
defeat is a precious gift to the all-conquering sportsman: an opportunity to learn, to adapt, to develop. but ultimately it is an opportunity to rediscover the essential meaning of victory. // matthew syed, 06.03.09, times online
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT the role of human nature in politics on the ride down from TO the other night. although the topic has repeatedly emerged in my thinking, i struggled to express my thoughts at the time so i figured i'd better get them down in writing. aside from any broad conclusions that one might draw from observing our everyday behaviour, i think that little can be known, let alone said, about our 'true' state of being. my opinion is shaped by personal experience, a consideration of human history and certain enlightenment ideas. i hold the view that, beyond meeting our most basic requirements for survival, humans seek the freedom to inquire and to create. in addition to these intellectual and physical imperatives, it is likely that our sense of morality is largely derived from evolutionary biological processes and the conditions imposed by our complex social and natural world, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years--that is to say, we are neither inherently 'good' nor 'bad.' yet, to my knowledge, there's very little empirical research or data regarding these matters. for instance, it's difficult and perhaps even impossible to say exactly how our cognitive capacities have been fundamentally constrained by natural selection--although some evolutionary biologists and naturalist philosophers make a particularly compelling case--or to what extent they're the byproduct of these evolutionary processes and other natural laws impinging upon our physiology. ultimately, there are few plausible accounts of human nature and even fewer effective means for evaluating them. though it may not always appear evident, i believe these innately inquisitive and creative features exist within all of us, even if they've been briefly pushed just below the surface. //
TODAY I BEGAN DEVELOPING AN IDEA for a short film--my first. i'm interested in examining the concept and application of political authority in modern society, including the claims that are commonly made to defend its legitimate use. might need to narrow it down slightly. only slightly. //
