Let us begin then. First, your "simplicities" that you speak of as ultimately "simple as liberty, equality, solidarity, sustainabiliy" are OVER complications that would thwart even the developments of the Real Sciences to date, if that were the ultimate level of thought in that area. A more profound "simplicity" of social ramifications is to understand the primary fundamental of human nature, something that Maslow did rather imperfectly, and unconsionably left lying fallow by the Social (UNReal) Scientist, with Maslow's five level hierarchy of human wants. It is (as a corollary to to astoundingly successful Real Science principles such as F=MA [Acceleration is Proportional to Force, and Inversely Proportional to Mass] or likewise for Electronics, E=IR), that for a human being, "Achievement is Proportional to Motivation and Inversely Proportional to Frustration." Satisfying that equation for any human being brings your "liberty, equality (in satisfaction), solidarity and sustainability".
Because humans have self awareness, MOTIVATION is the critical factor to
understand, in that it has two distinct elements, SECURITY (feeling that
one's immediate future is not a threat to his existence, the sole area
of concern of Doctrinaire Economics, expressed as the real threat of
"earn a living" or "a death") and SELF ESTEEM (a feeling, completely
ignored, that one's very existence is of some [at least potential] value
to one's peers). Failing either of these two elements of Motivation,
misery ensues, with either its alleviation with mind deadeners such as
drugs or alcohol, rebellion against a Society perceived to care little,
if any, about them, via retaliation with crime, violence and war, or if
severe enough to counter too much their ability to be heard, suicide.
>
> What I would like you do is something much harder than a vision of the future. I
> want you to look at your vision, look at where we are now and use your
> creativity, your knowledge and your imagination to create a path that gets there
> from here. Assume your vision will win, and imagine yourself a historian fifty
> years from now explaining how your side won.
There are ultimately two distinctly different types of society, "every man for himself that the aboriginal jungle seemed to be about," and "all for one and one for all" that has evinced itself by the continued historical grouping of people's into pairs, families, business groups, boy scouts and the like, military, and ultimately, if allowed, into ONE WORLD, without hostility. That is precisely the environment one would find within any well managed corporate group, otherwise, our current scientific advances would have never happened.
I would say that a logical evolution at the current point in time,
overdue for a century, is USA Inc, (ultimately World Inc.) wherein every
sub group within the USA, every business entity, would have merged with
each other into USA Inc., with not one person left outside in the cold.
The "quid pro quo" that is the essence of a modern, but thoroughly sick
doctrinaire Economic Philosophy of Scarcity (of what) is a modern
attempt to maintain the ancient jungle of "every man for himself" and
the devil take the hindmost. Its major folly is the maintenance of the
marketplace with its deadly, disease ridden, Money and Price System,
that is now destroying the earth's resources and the promise of a viable
civilization, to its ultimate disaster not too many years from now. See
<http://dieoff.org/page5.htm> for obvious proof of that.
>
> In short, I am asking you to use some of your intellect and energy developing a
> strategy manual for the marxist, or green or generally way left of liberal
> activist.
You are overcomplicating your understanding of people. Fundamentally,
ALL people follow identically the basic philosophy outlined above as
"Achievement is Proportional...etc."
>
> I know I'm requesting an act of altruism here. The first intelligent attempts at
> compliance with this request will probably end up facing harsh criticism. The
> submitters may even end up having to change their minds in public in response to
> such criticism. But it certainly would be an attempt to perform the
> reconciliations or synthesis Doug is seeking on this list.
"Altruism" is a totally unnecessary attribute in an environment of abundance of (would you believe) FOOD, a condition that has existed for a century, but deliberately denigrated by a foolish Social Scientist then and since into a deliberate scarcity of MONEY, that had been invented to act only as a lowly surrogate for Food in the ancient Marketplace as a means of DENIAL of access to Food to those of lowest status for the simple reason of not enough Food (the "living" we all need as "income" into the orfice [mouth] of the human body that nature provides us all with). By making the fantasy of Money scarcer than enough, and demanding that our abundant Food supply be available only via the possession of Money kept in scarce supply, then we can maintain status quo of the Agrarian era, and with it all the ills of man that once could be attributed to Food scarcity. Far the opposite of "altruism" is the venal direction taken by the Social Scientist a century ago, and ever since.
Altruism means to give up something that will endanger one's own SECURITY in order to enhance someone else's SECURITY. With Food abundance, and proper management, altruism is no longer necessary. Wherein "profit" then meant the pursuit of adequate FOOD, with a natural satiation point of a full belly and then time to think of other more constructive things, shifting that Food obsession for "profit" to Money obsession for "profit," means that there is no longer a natural point of satiation, and Money "profit" can be pursued without any natural satiation point, to the compromise of Quality and Service, and to hell with everyone else.
I'm ready to counter any objections with pure and simple logic, much as it may offend too many minds (I've already encountered objections couched in four letter epithets by current practitioners) that have been impregnated with "holy writ" BS that is the forte of "Economics, the Science of Scarcity," again of what? Since time began, it was of the reality of FOOD, until a century ago, when certain highly intellectual knaves about us, seeing an end to Social Problems with the sudden unexpected advent of Food abundance, and the end of their function as Social Scientists, prestigious advisors to Presidents and Kings, opted to maintain Social Problems by making the absolute FANTASY of Money superior to the REALITY of human sustenance, finally possible. Thus began the end of our rise towards an eventual REAL Utopia, and our current descent into the soon upcoming abyss of destruction of a once promising civilization. See again <http://dieoff.org/page5.htm>.
There is a simple, logical way out, that can be begun as soon as tomorrow morning. Just create public sector jobs as we are saturated with Food and its derivative GDP, the reason for the replacement of Slavery with UNEmployment just a century ago, when excess Food production labor was diverted into the Industrial Revolution. Put people, every last one of us not yet in a decent job at a decent salary (while we still have that sick Money obsession) funded, cost plus, by Deficit Spending (to thwart the [probably unwitting] managers of our current descent to oblivion, such as Alan Greenspan) at badly needed jobs, such as Restoration of the Environment, including our forests, Space Programs, Pursuit of Knowledge, Anything, until there is not one person unoccupied in some job suiting his particular talents and bent.
We did just that when WW2 was thrust upon us in the midst of The Great Depression, and we immediately knew prosperity with practically everyone doing something worthy, despite the terrible destruction due to the war and the advancement of weapons technology. We must do the same thing in peacetime, NOW, and to prevent the next war, wherein the Great Depressions created by the rather idiotic "budget balancing" pressures every last time the budget is balanced, will bring upon us another brief new war wherein the attack upon us will be with nuclear missiles rather than the ancient technology of 60 years ago, that allowed us the time to spring into action.
Hyman Blumenstock
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> > >Many left-liberal activists are unfortunately 'reverse size queens'; they
> > >love the idea of 'small is beautiful,' though there is no reason to think
> > >that small is necessarily more democratic, ecologically sensible, etc.
> >
> > The smallbiz ideology also appeals to those who think themselves the
> > "natural leaders" of oppressed groups - like urban community activists. New
> > York City is full of community organizations from the 1960s and 1970s that
> > have metamorphosed into junior partners of the real estate-finance
> > consortium. The ideological parallel is the same stratum's self-perception
> > as mentors or role models - e.g., as Adolph Reed points out, the black
> > petty bourgeoisie, with its new fondness for a segregated world in which
> > they were recognized as leaders.
> >
> > Doug