What is it these anti - Capitalists believe in?

Bloody Drunkard

After watching an interview from a member of Global Resistence I was wondering just how they think the world should be run?

He seems to be anti - Multi national corporations and wants everyone to live in peace.

We'd all be a hell of a lot poorer if Michael Dell and co. had not set up here

And how can Capitalism prevent world peace? McDonalds aren't killing people

Are these people Communist or just nutcases???

Victor

Originally posted by Bloody Drunkard
Are these people Communist or just nutcases???

No, they are disaffected, pee-ed off and lots of other things. Take a look at the practices of many businesses and you would understand why.

/me runs off to write his 'assassination as a political tool' paper.

JustHalf

I think they're all very confused. Unfortunately, they tend to be encouraged to a blind faith of hating capitalism.

ykt0di9url7bc3

its a big varied group in may day celebrations Bloody Drunkard, nut cases to left wingers, right wingers to wombles.....a nice organised riot for anyone with a peeve bout authority or faceless corpo's or the killers of mother earth

anti-capatilist is a commie stereotype for these people and should be slated

shotamoose

I certainly don't claim to speak for anyone who was protesting yesterday, so the following is just my opinion.

As SearrarD says, you tend to get a great variety of groups at this kind of thing. That is even more the case on May Day, which has come to be seen as a day to celebrate alternative lifestyles , minority cultures and the like.

But even at the targeted events, like protests against G8 or IMF summits, there is usually a vast range of people from various backgrounds and points on the political spectrum. Some critics believe this makes the 'movement' incoherent, self-contradictory and therefore wrong. I see it as demonstrating the many, many ways in which it is possible to be pissed off at the G8 or IMF, so in fact the variety of viewpoints becomes a strength.

Generalising, I would say that most so-called anti-globalisation protestors are speaking out about one or more of three perceived world-wide crises: an environmental crisis, a crisis of poverty and class polarisation, and a crisis of political exclusion. These are all seen as global issues: so while in Ireland we might think we're doing very well out of free market capitalism, for these people that's not good enough if people in Mexico, Argentina, Tanzania, Indonesia, India, the USA and so on, are not. These causes are explicitly internationalist and set against parochial and narrow-nationalist attitudes.

The first two crises have been around for a long time now, but its only in the last thirty years or so that the crisis of world political exclusion has been seen to become acute enough to galvanise billions of people around the world. Basically the idea is that governments everywhere have undermined or abandoned democracy by conceding huge amounts of power to undemocratic (that is, unrepresentative and unaccountable) international organisations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation. These three organisations have used their considerable powers to push onto all states (but most effectively onto economically or politically weak states, such as those in the Third World) a one-size-fits-all model of economic liberalisation. This is where ideas of capitalism and anti-capitalism come in. The model tends to consist of measures to remove tariffs, subsidies and other protections typically used by governments to promote industry (and for other less benign reasons), as well as privatisation of state industries, cut-backs in social spending, and a switch to export-oriented industry (cash-crops, for example).

There are many problems with this situation. First, as mentioned above, there is the fact that these policies are being pushed onto and accepted by governments without any democratic scrutiny or deliberation.

Secondly, there is the question of the benefits of the reforms. This is a very large and complex issue - trade liberalisation can have considerable benefits in some contexts - but there are two strong arguments against them. Firstly, the benefits of the reforms for developing countries are debatable at best - most developing countries had stronger economic growth at times when they protected their markets compared to performance in the 1980s and 1990s. Moreover, liberalisation can greatly undermine native industries unable to compete with multinationals, leading to unemployment and de-industrialisation. Food self-sufficiency and security can vanish as countries switch to export-oriented agriculture, which is a dodgy move in itself as food commodity prices are continuing their freefall as more countries are told to produce bananas, coffee and so on. Second, the richer countries (G8, for example) are encouraging developing countries to adopt these stringent liberalisation measures while refusing to do the same themselves. The EU, US and Japan, for example, protect their agricultural industries with the very kind of massive subsidisation schemes they denounce in developing countries. In fact, these subsidisation schemes allow First World farmers to dump their products into Third World markets at below cost price, devestating agriculture in the 'target' countries. These arguments have led many to believe that the WB, IMF and WTO are essentially market-opening tools for First World companies. The former US trade representative Carla Hlls admitted as much when she told Congress she would try to open foreign markets "with a crowbar if necessary, but with a handshake if possible".

I'll try to sum up before I get too far into all this . There is still great debate within the 'movement' (or 'movement of movements' or whatever) about whether it is capitalism 'itself' that should be done away with or just the undemocratic and coercive spread of free-market policies. Personally, I've got nothing against markets, but I think the idea that free trade is automatically a good thing is flawed in theory and in practise. I also believe that capitalism itself is a distinct form of economic system differentiated from other types by the size and economic power of the largest actors - in the present world, multinational organisations and a select few states. These actors use their economic muscle for political and cultural as well as economic ends, and as far as capitalism (and state capitalism) is a system that permits that, it's flawed, IMHO.

Most important of all, though, is the fact that these movements are protesting against an erosion of democracy, something I would have thought most people would have an interest in preserving.

Biffa Bacon

They don't believe in anything. They have no ideas. If they didn't, they wouldn't be going on marches, they'd actually try and achieve something.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
They don't believe in anything. They have no ideas. If they didn't, they wouldn't be going on marches, they'd actually try and achieve something.

You've got to be trolling.

Youre saying that people go on marches because they have no better idea about what to do? Riiiiiight. Has it ever occurred to you that this is just one of the things they do - which is effectively getting media attention.

As for what they believe in....

Capitalism is as perfect and as flawed a system as any. If implemented correctly, it would be wonderful, but it will never be implemented correctly - no more than communism, socialism, or any other -ism will be.

Globalisation is the latest face of growing capitalism, and there are a lot of problems with it. For every Michael Dell bringing jobs and money to Ireland, there is a Shell, a Nike, or even a Starbucks exploiting natural and human resources in a manner which is unarguably detrimental to the local population, but which benefits these multi-national corporates.

Generally speaking, no-one really believes that globalisation can be stopped. However, it is possible that through changing public attitudes and applying public pressure that globalisation can be changed to be less exploitative.

In any society of sufficient size, there will always be those who believe there is a better way. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes not. Whether or not you agree with their stance, you should at least look at the underlying problems and ask if they have a point. They challenge us - they offer us an alternative vision. It may be a crap one, but it may also show us that there is at least some benefit to be gained in moving partially towards their vision.

jc

jc

Bateman

I think one has to draw a differential between capitalism and globalisation before making generalisations. As far as I can see, there are quite a lot of right wingers as well as left wingers on this trip. I mean, the phrase anti-capitalist or anti-globalisation does not, or at least should not automatically imply lefty, although its easy for a lot of people to write em off as nutters, communists, or commie nutters.

If you look at globalisaiton as a development of capitalism, its difficult to argue it as being a helpful (for thw world as a whole) one. The undemocratic nature of the IMF and WTO has been stated already. I think in Zimbabwe it has been seen that a lot of 3w countries cannot sustain pure demcracy. I recently saw a programme about Castro's Cuba. Now I won't say that a situation where you can go to jail for being in possession of Nineteen Eighty Four is ideal, but the programme basically said that the health and education system there (partly (?or insert opinion here)) negated by the human rights etc situation), is worrying a lot of people (in the 1st world) that one extreme is not necessarily better than the other. And thats how it seems with a lot of the people. If freedom of expression can be gradually introduced, and eventually co-exist with Cuba today (maybe impossible!) maybe we could find an alternative to globalisation-style capitalism. It all comes down to the hospital/Bertie Bowl anyway.

mike65

Originally posted by Bateman
I think one has to draw a differential between capitalism and globalisation before making generalisations. As far as I can see, there are quite a lot of right wingers as well as left wingers on this trip.

Thats certainly true, most of the big corporations talk about the need to free markets up but carry-on blatantly anti-free market
policies as they seek to boost the botom line.

As for these marching types I suspect many are not left at all, the neo facist right is also against globalisation as they see it
watering down thier supposed national/racial purity (all those jonny foreigner labourers...)

Mike.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Bateman
If freedom of expression can be gradually introduced, and eventually co-exist with Cuba today (maybe impossible!) maybe we could find an alternative to globalisation-style capitalism.

I hope you realise that Cuba is actually in tatters?

DadaKopf

In this week's and the next three weeks' issues of New Scientist is an excellent exploration of all aspects of globalisation. It will hopefully bring more people closer to the issues as it's clearly backed up by a range of expert, world standard economists, analysts and theorists. It's also got lots of pwiddy pictures. So anyone interested in the issues or just curious, please get it.

One question: has anyone heard of Keynes' suggestion of negative interest economics? The idea was to stimulate honest-to-goodness worldwide growth by making money lose value the longer people held on to it. I don't know much more than that other than there are suggestions that it would result in a healthier relationship between money and products and promote a truly optimum distribution of resources and wealth denied by current capitalism. So if anyone has any idea of this kind of thing, I'd like it explained to me .

And... right on shotamoose!

Edit: and judging from this thread and one on the Phantom FM board, I've just realised just how conservative kids are today. Makes me wanna cry.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The idea was to stimulate honest-to-goodness worldwide growth by making money lose value the longer people held on to it. I don't know much more than that other than there are suggestions that it would result in a healthier relationship between money and products [/SIZE]

By depreciating the value of money over time, you are basically advocating the concept of "spend it soon, dont save".

Now, for companies, this is a good incentive. Profits are meaningless unless the money is reinvested, or used in some way. This promotes growth. For the consumer, the same is true - saving is no longer a worthwhile aim - therefore, spending should be increased, which will help the growth cycle as well.

Yup - sounds good....or does it?

I know that my folx were saving for my college education from more or less when I was born. Same for my other 3 siblings. Thats effectively 18 years of saving in order to finance something. With depreciation of money over time, I cant see how this would have been possible.

Perhaps an alteranative approach could be used. I could borrow the money. But hang on - the value of what I borrowed would depreciate over time, so the longer I went without repaying, the less I would have to pay. Which would then beg the question of why would someone loan me the money? Even were this not an issue, my college education would still have been dependant on me finding a bank/institution willing to lend me the money.

I'm no economist. I'm sure that the underlying idea has already looked at these problems, and that there may be a structure which allows you to get around it, but to be honest, I cant ever see it working.

jc

Bateman

>>>>I hope you realise that Cuba is actually in tatters?

I don't agree. There are many pissed off intellectuals because of the sad censorship, restrictions on freedom etc etc situation. But its become such a clichè to say "...oh but Cuba has some of the best health and education systems (development and growth included) in the world..." that people lose sight of the fact that it is true. I certainly don't think the country is in tatters, even by Western standards (your ideal yardstick: the US?).

Twomey

Indymedia.ie will give you an (somewhat scary) insight into what the thinking is of some of the anti-capitalists. I say scary because of the weirdly obsessed arguments that go on over the SWP and anarchists...Aside from all that, it is an interesting resource and has a lot of potential.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bateman
But its become such a clichè to say "...oh but Cuba has some of the best health and education systems (development and growth included) in the world..." that people lose sight of the fact that it is true.

A quick dig around on the web yielded the following comments from this site. A quick read of these shows that Cuba's health and education is impressive, but it was so before the Castro era.

At the end of the day, whether or not we look at these areas as successes is, to my mind, immaterial. Given a choice of living in a country with personal freedom and reasonable services, or an oppressive nation with excellent services....I know which I'd choose.

Health
The health care system is often touted by many analysts as one of the Castro government's greatest achievements. What this analysis ignores is that the revolutionary government inherited an already-advanced health sector when it took power in 1959.

Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, west Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades.

Today, Cuba remains the most advanced country in the region in this measure, but its world ranking has fallen from 13th to 24th during the Castro era, according to UN Data. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate -- 0.71 abortions per live birth in 1991, according to the latest UN data -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality.

Education
Cuba has been among the most literate countries in Latin America since well before the Castro revolution, when it ranked fourth. Since then, Cuba has increased its literacy rate from 76 to 96 percent, which today places it second only to Argentina in Latin America. This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries. Panama -- which ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's -- has matched Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms.

The Corinthian

The sentiment of anti-globalisation is not tied to any group or ideology. Far right groups are against globalisation as much as any of the more identifiable left wing or far left groups. As such it’s easy to discount the anti-globalisation sentiment (I use sentiment, rather than movement as this would assume at least the most basic of coherence).

As such, it’s just a mesh-mash of different groups who roughly agree on one issue, often for completely different or even contradictory reasons.

The public face that we comment upon, of middle class crusties rioting on the streets - rebels without a clue, would be a subset of this and by all accounts a small one, although I frankly couldn’t say if this is so. I have little time for them.

Bateman

Yeah, if I were to go on a march (with or without potential for violence), I would prefer to know exactly who I was marching with, and with anti-globalisation marches its too vague.

DadaKopf

Let's just get something straight here (and this isn't my idea) but there are two kinds of globalisation - the term anti-globalisation us misused by the protesters and the media, if you ask me. At least, its meaning isn't specificed.

Generic globalisation is unstoppable - it's a result of technology which, no matter who owns it or controls it, will continue to have as much an effect as the printing press had. We just have to deal with mass media, telecommunications and cheap travel and we have to deal with the social effects these technologies and applications are having. Here, globalisation is seen as a shift in the nature of social space (de-territorialisation) - this has occurred at various times in history before and after the Reformation.

It's multinational capitalism, exploitation etc that's really the target of 'anti-globalisation' protesters (just read shotamoose's post there for elaboration on this kind of globalisation).

It's too simplistic to say that multinational capitalism and free trade has to be opposed but the other kind of globalisation is OK. The emergence of the de-territorial globalisation is, by and large, caused by the kind of issues shotamoose mentions. The point is that we're all involved in the situation we find ourselves in and either you think that the inequity and exploitation is worrying and wrong or you just don't care because it doesn't affect you. There are many factors causing the problems we're facing today, some are the outpourings of technology, others are due to people's actions. While the effects of technology probably can't be helped (and why should they be, science does help us), the methods by which our world comes about is becoming increasingly suspect.

Anyone who's interested on getting some educated opinions on the issues, read David Held's stuff on www.opendemocracy.net .

Originally posted by DadaKopf
One question: has anyone heard of Keynes' suggestion of negative interest economics? The idea was to stimulate honest-to-goodness worldwide growth by making money lose value the longer people held on to it. I don't know much more than that other than there are suggestions that it would result in a healthier relationship between money and products and promote a truly optimum distribution of resources and wealth denied by current capitalism. So if anyone has any idea of this kind of thing, I'd like it explained to me

Well With inflation higher than the rates the banks are giving, unless you invest wisely, your money is losing value.
Mr Keyes and his cohorts are very wise people.The gist of his thinking would be to promote spending which in turn promotes growth.You can always invest your earnings in something that make them grow,ie make a profit-even if Cash loses it's value over time.
If you create a situation economically that allows bank interest rates to be high, that encourages saving,rising business costs,whilst lowering demand for their products , that would reduce growth and ultimately lenghten the dole queues.
While I would not change Capitalism as it Stands, there is one thing about it that annoys me.
You start a rumour about a recession,people stop spending and save more.
Large business put off investing/expanding.
The circulation of money becomes tighter and the Rolling stone that is the recession gathers pace and more and more moss.
The same resources are there but they are not being spread around,starving the cells of the World wide economy of it's oxygen.
It very nearly got out of control in the last twelve months and could have killed the Celtic Tiger-Thankfully those that invest and consumers that spend are back in action.

When I look at the thing that way-I see the need for Capitalism and world markets.
mm

EmilianoZapata

Anti-Capitalists are against the exploitation of the workers and the destruction of the environment in order to profit. We are fed up of the way profits are put before people. Companies like Nike, use sweat shops to make their clothes and then make ridiculous profit on them. On a pair of runners costing US$80, Nike makes a profit of $75. Corporations like McDonald's destory our environment more and more each day. The MNC's move into poor countries and exploit the land. When the fields become fallow, the leave the country and that land is useless and in many areas can lead to desertification.

Globablisation is just a disguise for Manifest Destiny and we will not allow the people and the environment of the Planet Earth to be destroyed in order to make the business men more money. We will use our right to destroy capitalism by any means necessary and implement a humanitarian anarcho-communist society based on needs and not wants.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
We will use our right to destroy capitalism by any means necessary and implement a humanitarian anarcho-communist society based on needs and not wants.

Ever hear of Gladio?

On behalf of the right-wing conservative establishment, I'd like to thank you and you ilk for helping to keep the status quo

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Globablisation is just a disguise for Manifest Destiny and we will not allow the people and the environment of the Planet Earth to be destroyed in order to make the business men more money. We will use our right to destroy capitalism by any means necessary and implement a humanitarian anarcho-communist society based on needs and not wants.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What right is that then and who enshrined it upon you???
And by the way, why are you using a computer??
use of a computer promotes capitalism.
Thats hypocrisy.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
On a pair of runners costing US$80, Nike makes a profit of $75.

Not true. The manufacturing cost of the shoe is approximately $5, on that I would agree. However, you completely ignore the cost of shipping, wholesale and retail costs & markup.

Nike make an exorbitant amount of money on their shoes, but you dont need to exaggerate and use incorrect figures to make your point.

We will use our right to destroy capitalism by any means necessary and implement a humanitarian anarcho-communist society based on needs and not wants.

Any means necessary? You really mean that?

So, unless you have some divine right to use violence - a right which others lack, I assume then that you see the use of "any means necessary" as a legitimate tool to be used by any group in upholding what they believe in?

You'll have no objection to riot police hammering the crap out of protestors then, as they are exercising their right to use any means necessary to bring their vision to pass. Theyre just exercising their right - just like you.

Oh - no - wait. I'm sure thats not right. I must be wrong.

Assuming I'm wrong - could you explain why your cause has a right to use "any means necessary", and what other causes have this right would expand to.

Thanks

jc

jc

EmilianoZapata

We enshrined the right upon ourselves as the creators of our own destiny and decisions, free of other people's rule. Others can use our 'any means necessary' policy if they wish but the forces of good always win.

Actually the manufacturing cost is less than $5 and the transport costs are extremely low. I did not point out that $80 is the price that wholesalers pay for it.

And by the way, why are you using a computer??

No one can ever explain this theory to me. Would you like to do so?

Meh

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
We enshrined the right upon ourselves as the creators of our own destiny and decisions, free of other people's rule. Others can use our 'any means necessary' policy if they wish but the forces of good always win.

Are you talking about some sort of Marxist "historical inevitability" here? I hate to break it to you like this, but Marx's theories were discredited a long time ago...

EmilianoZapata

That has nothing to do with Marx. It is to do with the fact that we should have no masters or rules and any decisions should be made by ourselves and by no one else.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
We enshrined the right upon ourselves as the creators of our own destiny and decisions, free of other people's rule.

Triumph of the Will in other words...

Resist .

Alive In The Land Of The Dead



The 20th Century has marked the end of the millennium that saw the world become colonized by and organized under Western civilization, that saw the industrial revolution and overpopulation restructure both humanity and the very surface of the earth itself. This century began with fifty years of alternating slaughter, starvation, and rabid nationalism such as the human race had never seen before. It is concluding with an ominous silence among young people in the United States and much of Europe, for with the end of the "Cold War" the idea that there really is any alternative at all to our modern living conditions and society is becoming hard to conceive of; and in the meantime, we are becoming more and more organized and arranged by the technological systems that we set up with the supposed intentions of making our lives more free and meaningful.

As this century is ending with sentimental retrospectives and the like, what we really must do is not look back but look ahead. Now more than ever we must consider whether our modern lives as we have come to live them over the last thousand years really satisfy all our needs and desires as human beings, and prepare for the new millennium to be a new chapter in the human experiment. We must use the lessons we have learned from the 20th Century to plan for a new era in which human life can be meaningful and fulfilling, even thrilling, heroic. Or have we learned any lessons?

Don't wait for permission, for some far-off "world revolution," for later "when you have more time." Demand joy, danger, passion in your life today!

About the Problem

The poverty against which man has been struggling throughout history is not merely the poverty of material goods; the ennui and disorientation experienced by the members of the middle and upper classes in today's wealthy industrial nations have revealed the poverty of Western existench itself.

The problems that we face today cannot be traced to class conflict alone. It is not merely a question of the ruling class profiting at the expense of the proletariat, for we have seen that the profit that those with capital do make does not make their lives any more fulfilling. It does not matter whether a woman is buried alive in a prison, in a reform school, in a sweatshop, in a ghetto, in a prestigious university, in a condominium bought on credit, or in a mansion with a private swimming pool and tennis courts, so long as she is buried alive. Everyone suffers from today's status quo, albeit differently; but whether a man is starving on his minimum wage salary, exhausted by his repetitive responsibilities at the office, or befuddled by the curious feeling of emptiness that accompanies the undirected acquisition of material wealth, he has a stake in fighting for change. So we all, rich and poor, must band together to consider our situation and struggle to alter it.

This also means that there is no mythical "They." Innumerable radical movements and social critics have relied upon this concept to motivate people by stirring up hatred for the "evil orchestrators" of human suffering, the enemies who conspire against us. But this kind of thinking only serves to divide us against each other, and whether we are divided on class lines, on color lines, or according to any other categories, we are distracted from the important issues and impeded in our progress. Our true "enemy" is the social forces and patterns at work between ourselves, and it is these forces which we must come to understand and to struggle against.

This is not to say that there are not individuals whose behavior is particularly dangerous to their fellow human beings, insofar as it perpetuates or intensifies our present state of emergency. But even if these individuals do have negative intentions towards others, it is still unlikely that they possess a clear understanding of the extremely complicated conditions to which they are contributing.

About the Process

We individuals who are unsatisfied with their lives, who do feel the "poverty" of the existench that modern Western civilization has to offer, must seek out others who are experiencing similar symptoms. Together, we must construct and publicize an analysis of our situation: a theory of why human beings act and interact in the ways that they do today, and how this leads to our sensations of alienation, disorientation, and exhaustion.

This analysis must have effective action of some kind as its necessary and immediate consequence, or else (as have the theories of a long tradition of "radical" discussion groups) it will come to nothing.

And this struggle presupposes participants who are fighting for themselves, to see and feel change and improvement in the course of their own lives—as we shall see. . .

About the Solution

Whatever solution, whatever revolution, we propose, must be present-oriented rather than future-oriented if it is to be genuinely revolutionary.

The past and the present are both full of examples which indicate this. To consider one: Christianity demands of its followers that they delay gratification until they enter the next world, when they will supposedly be rewarded for their proper conduct; in doing so it assumes that this proper conduct is not fulfilling enough in itself to be worthwhile unless it is rewarded. This kind of thinking reflects a dire misunderstanding of the nature of human happiness; for happiness is to be found in activity, in activities that are exciting and satisfying in and of themselves, rather than in passively awaiting rewards for unsatisfying activities. Therefore it is not surprising that many devout Christians are bitter, spiteful individuals who jealously resent healthy activity and excitement in others—for they believe that they will find true happiness only in their "heavenly reward" for behavior that is not at all exciting for them, and thus must watch enviously as others freely do what they can only dream of doing in their most "sinful" fantasies. Conversely, many Christians who are happy are happy despite their Christianity, because they are able to take pleasure in their lives and deeds in this world.

Traditional Marxism takes the Christian mistake one step further by asking its adherents to work towards a revolution they will probably never live to see—that is, in the Marxist "faith," gratification is delayed beyond the reach of human experience. It should be no surprise that today, beyond a little anachronistic romanticism about the "nobility" of self-sacrifice, the Marxist offer serves as little incentive for people to seriously fight for the "communist revolution." In contrast, today's capitalistic consumer market at least promises prompt gratification in the form of material goods (and the myths and images it associates with them) in return for the generally unsatisfying labor it requires. But—does it deliver true gratification to its participants?

Again, happiness is an active experience, not a passive sensation. Thus, a woman who cooks a recipe of her own invention for her friends may find a great deal of pleasure and meaning in this undertaking, while a man who slaves all day to cook exotic food in an expensive restaurant will find that the purchases he makes with his paycheck cannot compensate him for the days of his life he has given up. You can purchase a twenty acre estate, the latest in status-symbol automobiles, and an entire wardrobe of unique and exquisite fashions, but the pleasure that these possessions afford cannot compare to the exhilaration of spending a day freely pursuing your desires.

Accordingly, our revolution must be an immediate revolution in our daily lives; anything else is not a revolution but a demand that once again people do what they do not want to do and hope that this time, somehow, the compensation will be enough. Those who assume, often unconsciously, that it is impossible to achieve their own desires—and thus, that it is futile to fight for themselves—often end up fighting for an ideal or cause instead. But it is still possible to fight for ourselves, or at least the experiment must be worth a try; so it is crucial that we seek change not in the name of some doctrine or grand cause, but on behalf of ourselves, so that we will be able to live more meaningful lives. Similarly we must seek first and foremost to alter the contents of our own lives in a revolutionary manner, rather than direct our struggle towards world-historical changes which we will not live to witness. In this way we will avoid the feelings of worthlessness and alienation that result from believing that it is necessary to "sacrifice oneself for the cause," and instead live to experience the fruits of our labors. . . in our labors themselves.

To put it another way, our revolution must be above all a revolution in the ways we live and think. It must be a recognition and rejection of the thought patterns and patterns of social interaction that have led us to today's unsatisfying existench, in favor of patterns of thought and interaction that will be satisfying in themselves. It must be a revolution in our motivations, replacing reward-motivated behavior with behavior that is intrinsically meaningful. It must be a revolution in our everyday lives. Rejecting boredom, exhaustion, and despair for excitement, danger, love, passion and compassion—that is a revolution worth fighting for! And certainly there are large scale, long term goals that we must fight for, to make this revolution possible for all of us in the years to come; but we should fight for these goals not out of servitude to a doctrine or cause, but because it is exciting and invigorating today to strive for difficult and worthy objectives.

Resist .

.. .
Alive in the land of the dead. They eat dead food with false teeth. Their buildings have false fronts, their radio and television stations broadcast dead air. They kill time as spectators of false images. Their corporations are guilty of false advertising, and their employment 'opportunities' offer only murderous mistreatment, lethal boredom, and fatal submission; they demand that you meet deadlines, that you pitch tent in the death camps. Does the dead end justify the means? They inhabit dead cities and make false moves, really going nowhere at all, treading day after day the same path of despair. Even their air is conditioned. They ask you to give your lives for their countries, for their religions, for their economies, leaving you with only. . . . Their system is organized by artificial intelligence and provides only virtual reality. Their culture will pin you down and bore you to death, their lifestyle is lifeless, their existench is a permanent deadlock. Everything about them is dead and false. The only thing that is unbearable is that nothing is unbearable. When will we demand more?

The struggle is for life, for real life. Fight foul, life is real!

Footnote: The word "revolution" may be amusing or off-putting to the modern reader, convinced as he is that effective resistance to the status quo is impossible and therefore not even worth considering. Gentle reader, we ask that you suspend your disbelief long enough to at least contemplate whether or not such a thing might be worthwhile if it were possible; and then that you suspend it further, long enough to recognize this disbelief for what it is—despair!

bonkey

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Others can use our 'any means necessary' policy if they wish but the forces of good always win.

I see. Thats how we got into the current situation then - by the forces of good always winning?

This is nothing but idealogical rhetoric. Its a handy soundbite. It has no basis in fact, but rather in hope (which is and of itself not a bad thing).

However, it should be pointed out that by allowing anyone (assumed - you didnt qualify 'others') to use your Machiavallian policy will mean that the multinationals are correct in what they are doing because they are advancing their visions through "any means necessary" as well.

Which leaves us in a dilemma. You claim it is your right to overthrow these forces for the wrongs they have done, but at the same time acknowledge that they, like anyone else, are right to use "any means necessary" - which means that they can have done no wrong in their actions. If they can have done no wrong, then how can they be "the forces of evil" which your forces of good will eventually (in your opinion) overthrow? In fact - if they have done no wrong, what legitimacy do your claims about them have at all?

jc

p.s. Resist - if that is a quoted article, please supply the origin, or just a link to it if it is available online. Also offer your own opinions. If that is not a quoted article, then my apologies - it just reads like one

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
p.s. Resist - if that is a quoted article, please supply the origin, or just a link to it if it is available online. Also offer your own opinions. If that is not a quoted article, then my apologies - it just reads like one

The original (from what I can see) article may be found here.