Oh I wasn't avocating that.
Just that I see some justified criticism of the staus quo I had never really considered before. It's almost like Criticism.
Takes me a long time to synthesize other's perceptions (and usually a LOT of words which, as we've stated here already: can't really communicate a state of consciousness: though sometimes it seems it's all we have).
I´m getting some feedback here. Billl´s argument is very common in this kind of discussion, and is dangerous when used to justify certain facts. But, as I said before,I´m just contemplating the facts. What i wanted to do when writing about this topic is to know the reason´s limits to describe conciousness, and human nature. There is, obviously, a stage in this reasoning that inevitably leads either to anarchy or to faith (in some superior order, or in whatever you want to call it). The time will come for everyone to... decide? to... chose? I dont know if there is a verb to define this action in which every of us take position towards its own reality; it doesnt really implies neither a decision nor a choice, is just the act of living. You can call it fate, destiny, does it matter? But the point, in my opinion, is that we should have, at least, the courage to believe in freedom, and to recognize that we are trapped in an ill-suited way of dealing with our own nature. And, most and foremost, to try and live without selling anything to anyone. I dont want to sell or buy any opinions or salvation. I dont want to cheat myself everyday when i wake up and feel emptyness, by saying: "well, that´s how it works, thats what there is", because probably thats how we just think it works, and probably there are many other things we presently just dont see. As a matter of fact, im not stating here that that is wrong or this is fine. Im just discovering things by affinity, which is one of the most notable things we can do with our brain. Therefore, billl is right when saying that this society is the only thing we have, and im right too when saying that there are plenty of other ways to understand human nature, although we are barely able to communicate them, or to put them into practice.Originally Posted by backline
Let me just wade in with a Marxian thought. The line goes, "The instrument of labour strikes down the labourer" What this means is that in contract negotiations the power of labour is diminished. Slavery relies on a paternalistic aristocracy. They must issue some form of benevolent intent, historically speaking, uplift of culture, praise to God, etc. This is the only way the oppressor nation can accept the degradation of the soul. Read as much as you can, you will find that all slavery had a benevolent intent. The society which harnesses slavery is the determining factor. As Machiavelli said, in a democracy the morals and values of the society will arise. In America our value was money. As it was in the constitution that land ownership was a prereq to voting. The landowners of the south, and the racist elitists of the north, combined to pass laws denigrating blacks. The reason was solely, in the US, driving down labour costs. Slavery can be harnessed as an economic machine. the body of the black was the instrument of labour. By having slaves, the poor white was likewise struck down. Not until the populists would blacks and white trash ally. The motivation for an aristocracy is not dead. Before long all GDP and political power in North Dakota will be wielded by about five capitalists, just like all media in the US being controlled by the five corporations, quality drops, cost drops, labour is denigrated. Slavery is acceptable today. In Texas I have no right, as a state employee to strike, neither may I collectively bargain. Given the 'right-to-work' status of this state, I must accept what is offered or refuse, but never will I set my own terms without a contract. Mark Twain speaks to the heathens of the seventh century on labour laws. He says one day in the 19th century man will be able to set the price for their labour. And so it was in his day, but as industrialization came on strong, and speculation was rising, the slave ensured low cost labour, today the machinery assures that there is little power in labour contract negotiations, and like a slave of the antebellum south, I have no right to set the price of my labour, or associate with my colleagues regarding worker concerns.
Jeez Bark, you're right!
I retired after 30 years in the Public Sector, only to see my "contract" (that I retired under) retired! The point of law in America leaves me no recourse.
I held up my end of memorandums of understanding for thirty years. None of it means anything now.
They have changed policies and passed resolutions, and my family is as screwed as the guys who lost it all through Enron's dealings.
It is exactly as you have posted.
Economics is a beast. Humanity has no relevance to it.
As I posted is what my philosophic fathers spoke. there is enough data to tell the future on any given issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote