Why We Cannot Connect with ANYTHING

What am I seeing everyday? To me it is very obvious. It takes only a moment to see, and I see it most clearly in a moment. I want to try to  describe this.

I see this in a moment’s time, and it is that in this country we are not set up on the right social basis. What’s a social basis?

What is it? It is the idea that you have to have some solid ground. There your country and your culture stand. It is a social ground. It is a question of what kind of a culture you have. What is on the ground? What ground is that?

You cannot tell in the US, in Us/America. This is the problem I am talking about. US/America (that’s my preferred term) has this problem: no solid cultural ground. One faction wishes it were some sort of super individualistic society that we should live in.

But that common ground is not extreme-individualistic. This is rather a country whose dominant powers constantly try to impose these ideas of super-individualism (this is obvious in advertising and in public relations). Those ideas reflect a white protestant influence. And in any event, individualism is an old ideal. While our country was formed upon a basis of individual freedom, there is no doubt, this should not be confused with a focus on individuals as if there were no groups, ever, or as if the normal, welcome obligations of member to their groups was absent. Other than war, when they need you for that.

Therefore, the following applies. All governments services become compromised and the country is based on idiotic, wrong ideas that misunderstand the history I talk about above, and also misunderstand capitalism. This system of capitalism is a very important part of America, b.t.w. We misunderstand the free enterprise system totally, saying it is individualistic and thereby negating all mention of non-individualistic factors, even though there are many of these none individualistic factors.

The result is that persons cannot connect with liberals, and not even with the conservatives. So, they vote for a person like Trump.

There are some enormous misunderstanding going on.

Advertisements

A Realistic Appraisal, (or, This Cruel World of Capitalism)

Society has a strong desire to oppress but social systems are diverse and different, even where the distinction is between Florida and Illinois, or Chicago and Tampa Bay. So, there are differing social systems. A social system is how persons organize. They are different. What they have in common is a need to keep the poor bent over. That is Numero Uno. Some of the members of the society have more power, some less. That is the nature of things. It is that way everywhere. Isn’t that so? And for how long has that been going on I cannot say. I can say that at this time this society is not organized on the basis of maximum equality. Nor of maximum creativity. Of course the society is a power system; some have much more than do others. I hope this does not come as too much of a surprise. To some of you more sensitive types.

We may say that society has a desire or a tendency to stop most persons wh want to achieve what would maximize their potential. Sometimes, a little too dramatically,  it is called “oppression.” Society is usually trying to oppress and only in some cases do these processes by which society puts its stamp on us try to aid. Maybe. Society also occasionally wants to aid us, the members of that society, or other societies, valiantly helping a country like Afghanistan. Gee, that’s swell. Or other noble causes, whatever it is: Orphans in Somalia. In general, there are different levels of power within the social group. Sometimes, elites actually fight over how to help us, the orphans.

And no doubt, this is where the bullshit comes. Although the truth is that the society only helps its constituent members some of the time, often only the powerful helping others of their own class, liberals claim to possess an abundant sense of virtue, saying they are trying to help – gosh – everybody. But even conservatives say they believe in it, some vague notion of equality is always attested to. It’s all just bullshit, but it exists certainly and it is so American and you cannot get away from this display. It is saying: “We are Good,” that is how Chomsky put it. If you are a liberal, you do feel this way. You wish for there to be full equality. You see other persons, and you wish them to be happy. True, okay, but society has other things in mind.

Now, does society have a mind? I don’t know if Carl Jung or Nietzsche are correct, but if they are, it has! This mass mind is powerful, too. And leaders (not to be confused with masses) are powerful. Even though US/America is a democracy. How much power do leaders have? How much power leaders have seems like a dark and somber topic, maybe something that should be discussed when you talk around the campfire in the evening, like science-fiction.

But, a question may arise as follows. Does capitalism give MAN (this is equivalent to “society,” as used already!) control over his destiny? No, it certainly does not. Capitalism changes us, yes, but we do not control those events that preceded us, that got us here. Now the challenge is that, the capitalist period having already been bestowed on us, how can human social or political systems get a grip on it? Yes, that is the question, because only then will we finally be able to take over control of our own little destiny. We must never say “do not intervene in the market,” the economy, because that’s stupid. It is a disgusting, abject capitulation to our own ignorance. We should instead be looking for the right ways, the suitable means. Not easy to do this. But our destiny is to regulate, intervene, or, to modify. And let’s search for those tools. Let’s search with the same energy we would put into finding a filament for a light, any other complex solution. And let’s not waste time on “don’t intervene in the market,” because that is basically a nonsense mantra. It is an excuse for giving up.

The Great Svengali

Capitalism is full of unbelievably bad ideas. Businessmen and venture capitalists, on the other hand? Fuckinjj geniuses. Capitalism creates a culture of bad ideas. Let’s make money selling oil, and burn that oil until the atmosphere warms up. That’s the good old global warming philosophy. Trump called it that. Maybe we need some “good old global warming.” Tweet of late Dec., 2017. That’s not fake news. He wrote that, tweeted this message, which is a capitalist bad idea, or is that BAD idea? I don’t know, you should ask genius, don Trump. Or is it DON? Don’t ask me. I wouldn’t know; don’t have enough money.

 

Money Divides Itself Up

Where Money Divides Itself Up
Where is the economy? Is it in the money? Or is it in the people who are dividing it up? It is a hard question to answer. But the standard idea that appears in our universities strikes me as entirely inadequate. It is that the money divides itself up due to self-interest. They know that people are involved, but they just assume that everyone is self-interested. The weaknesses of the approach are readily apparent. I find myself very clear about it. In any case, what is the use in arguing with the members of the bizarre cult who believe that self-interest answers the question of distribution?
Maybe we should take persons out of the picture entirely. Could it be that the money divides itself spontaneously? No, because it does not have a mind. But then how is it distributed? How is it divided amongst persons, within society? This is a real problem, the problem of how to decide who gets what. Capitalism can only exist if this decision is made. Who makes the decision? In the social setting in which neoclassical economics arose it was getting itself distributed. And capitalism was growing. This is the kind of society that Marshall saw, in which this problem had to be answered. Those Marshall called the “professionals” were out to solve it. What I personally have no sympathy with, whatsoever, is the view that if we come up with some equations that solves the problem. I have a glimpse – I can sort of see how one could think that, but it seems completely deluded.
.What they were really doing was imposing a particular view, and that view was that of the individualist. Capitalism is not individualist, though. But, should one insist on individualism, it becomes a tough problem to solve. Neoclassical economics assumes individualism with no justification.
.Trade relations, by Marshall’s day, had been established. Once relations were established, persons spontaneously began helping each other. Not everybody wants this. The Western individualist instead has an austere, mechanical view. This is his view of how life “should” be. For him, this is how it “must” be. How things must be. These persons had no space in their minds for anything outside of individualism. Yet, they had to confront reality.
.What these persons were confronted with was a developing market reality, and, what was motivating them? I think the real aim is to solve this problem of economics without saying that humans are socially motivated. They are willing to tackle economics matters only so long as human goodness or social feeling is not part of it. One could argue that that wouldn’t be scientific. So, we want to stay closer to science. In one book I saw, in a library, the assertion is that things occur by the “Laws” of economics. There are just Laws out there and it works by those Laws. Interesting that no one says that anymore. It sounds archaic. Somehow.
.My theory is that economics (meaning capitalism) functions because of goodwill, which is totally different from self-interest. One can discern that such a “social” idea could be threatening, to some Erroll Flynn millionaire, slashing his way forth in selfish splendor. But, once again, defer to science. Which alternative explanations exist? How do cooperation and goodwill solve the problem? What does the existence of goodwill explain?
As I indicated above, the money actually was getting divided up, the proletariat were not sinking ever deeper into misery. Something was happening. Capitalism was working. It wasn’t simply a Malthusian death trap. It is a very interesting problem. In trying to get rich, why would anyone share his gains with any other person? By the 1870s, this seemed to be happening. Capitalism was beginning to pay a living wage, instead of just sending its working class to the graveyard. To explain this directly, the scholars of economics would have had to discuss public (Speenhamland laws) or private social behaviors. The neoclassical school, in my view, was simply made up of persons who did not want to think that way. Those who were more oriented towards social policy may have become “socialists.” And this would seem to divide up the economic thinkers rather neatly.
In order to analyze economics, one must find it. How elusive is this? Start with the condition of nature, the conditions found in nature. There are resources; and they have to be divided up. There are two elements of this condition or situation. There are persons, and there is the physical setting the people are in. This called “nature” or “resources.” (t.b.c.)

We are All in this World Together

I was browsing, at the library…
I was casually browsing, at a local library. I picked up a book. I am concerned with the “messages” that affect our lives, and how these come in a package. Books of a society make that package available. If one picks up one’s read in either a l ibrary, or a bricks-and-mortar store, the experience that comes is a tangible whole. In fact there is now a physical representation, on 34th street, involving your experience of Amazon books and New York city.
When books are marketed like this there’s more interaction, which provides a path towards seeing what printers and manufacturers want out of us. It provides a way to understand what the book printers and makers and publishers desire, want, or need to say to us. I was looking at a book, for example, by a certain Brannen. It had the title, “The End of…” Ends of the world. It has a nice pleasant colorful cover. The world may come to an end. Could be, it is possible. All these kinds of books say, basically all’s well. The world goes on; everything’s fine. Books come out, etc. The world works well; we are going to put out some nice books. The ends of the world…Ha!

.
This sort of marketing provides me with information, and no less so than do the words. These are messages, you could say. Both are messages. They are the words in the book, arranged by the clever writer and the marketing, arranged by clever publishing firm. These are in the package, together. The marketing aspect, including the “buyer experience,” contains a message. And so does the stuffy, official content. Both are together. There is one package, and many.
Why should we think any differently? The book has content. It has something to say , in words. That’s the text. We call that the argument. That is one argument, one message, one transmission. A particular book’s content/argument is just one “message.” An individual, any individual in the course of life, gets millions of messages. That’s all the society does, is to send messages. And do you think the recipient of all of the messages keeps the marketing and the content separate? Or is the “marketing” a cultural element, mixed with other cultural characteristics?
It must be hard for persons to admit the truth of this. But it is about time that we face up to the way we receive the messages transmitted to us, within U. S. culture.
But why bother to say “U. S.” culture? It probably has been no different at any time in history since Gutenberg’s press. But the U. S. has been organized as a democracy, and its people are subject to these forces. They will have a job to do, in the next election. We have a responsibility to carry out a certain mandate.
Intellectuals should possess a broader understanding of cultural forces. Come off the high road; get your feet wet.

 

ssages, that affect our lives, and come together, in a pckge, w the book.

The New, Modern, Sleek Writing Style

The College of Arts and Sciences. That’s where you can find some top professors who excel at what they do. And they try to be as profound as possible. The country, however, has gone another way. Our US/America wants things simple, and modern, and sleek. Newspapers feature – from a new breed of intellectuals now – a kind of “abbreviated” writing. The writers use unexamined assumptions. They offer vague approximations. They accept whatever kind of unexamined assumptions works, to flesh out their style. What they are writing is the current, new style. Over at the university, there is another style of scholarly practice, but it must certainly be  dying. Anyways, who was been reading? The fact is they are not getting read. There is no great number of people reading. And so, it has been having no influence for some time now. Time – and the society – moves on.

    There is this older kind of text, then, and this one attempts to dig into details, but in a meaningful way; it attempts to notice all of the distinctions, but with maximum precision. US/America is a capitalist country. Increasingly, the only thing we can discern that matters is money, and the country where this is happening is finally responding to the market and it is moving towards a different kind of writing. The old forms of scholarly excellence are clearly being replaced by younger, abbreviated forms of intellect and these are less precise. The new trend. Scholarship is in decline. In capitalism the entire society is a market. It is that society that is implicated (different from saying the individual) in this phenomenon, that of a market demand. It is a social demand, or trend, but not merely individual. There are those sitting in high places – gatekeepers of the culture you can say – who are now forced to give in. For this is the commercial demand of the society.

    Excellent scholars exist – like jewels in lotuses. But lonely jewels. No one is listening to them. No one is praying to them anymore.

++

All the mainstream economics jargon in the books looks at markets as if the phenomenon were somehow a kind of individualism, but a moment’s reflection should suffice, and a reasonable person will no doubt discern that what we call “economics” exists socially. But we are not supposed to say that; and this is not in the books, so the book will put emphasis on the individual economic actor, unconnected to others. That view is contrary to reality. Why is there this project to reduce the kinds of things called “economics” to an individual level? It is astounding, once you see through this! For example: How can a market be one individual? Or only individuals? But we the books look like they thing the entire market is only individuals. It isn’t true! Why this brazen mistake? In my view, which I do not think is crazy, a whole society is now choosing to lower its standard, in regard to a certain kind of writing. That is not the decision of one individual. And if we look over at the individuals, then what we can see are a few remaining “old-fashioned scholars,” and their editors perhaps, who would like to extend the “ancien regime.” All that is left are a few tottering old kings, then. Markets are not individual.

 

The only way to describe the “science of economics” is as a pernicious ideology.

Corporations and American Life

There is a big, daunting question that we have to ask. This is a question  about America and the American system.  It is possible that the American system could stop functioning. This can happen. The more the people of the U S. stick to outdated economics (there is a semi-official thought pattern called “economics” that in my view is a false system of thought. I developed my view over ten or fifteen years), the faster and worse such a daunting crisis will come to be. It will come, if we just don’t do anything. Now this has been my view, and for even longer than I have had the unique theory I have achieved, in an area that is called ‘economics’. So, maybe it is not if but “When”? These thoughts patterns are like the American institutions, institutions like for example the corporations. I speak to them and of economic thought patterns surrounding their existence. This is the established way of American life in thought. This is unfortunate. We are stuck on it, and it is past the time when the habits of the mind, habits that we are so stuck in, are even working. These established institutional thought patterns need to be questioned; and they need to be given up on. Dropped. It doesn’t seem that difficult but what if we fail to make the required policy changes? What if the U. S. continues to be obstinate, stupid, and entrenched? The economic propaganda will turn on us. In time, this set of peculiarly American, entrenched assumptions and institutions, even as they helped build our capitalist system will no longer work. It will turn on us.  We had better believe that that can happen. However, it is not somehow the “American way” to question our “peculiar institution.” Not slavery. I do not mean slavery. Not this time. Because that one everyone does question.

But in this country nobody believes the “economics” is less than correct or appropriate. They do not believe in changing their views and it becomes something very serious. There are certainly many reasons. Here’s one then. We can see that capitalism has lasted longer than anyone thought possible. Sure, there are such reasons, but the American thought patterns – are they too narrow?

Why are they so intent on supplying that laundry list rather than using a brand of detergent not endorsed by the major corporations?

We are depending on the world views of a few persons, and what “Salon” magazine says are: “10 giant corporations that control, either directly or indirectly, virtually everything we buy.” That is not competition.

That is not diversity.

It’s dumb, and not a good way of preparing for the future.

(thank you WordPress 4 letting me publish)