Saturday, March 19, 2011

Big Bag 'O Money

The society is just a big bag o' money

And everybody wants some

Now, the question is that of why this would be a problem. Everyone mail in your answers and I'll wait for them to come...


Friday, March 18, 2011


We live under capitalism.
Capitalism is our system.
What kind of a system is capitalism?
A single word for a thing does not usually say what the thing is. We do have the word "capitalism." But, outside of our possessions of the one lonely word, what is the best description of how it functions?
One one hand, no one seems to be able to do it --- to say what we mean by "capitalism". But, on the other hand, there are the professionals, in the field of "economics," whose very job is just that: to supply that description. They simply provide a false description. So much for that.

To say that we live under capitalism is to say that it is our system. What do I mean by "system," though?

Notice "the system" is a phrase that also often means the political system, the government. Thus, to say that we live under capitalism is a lot like saying we live under a political system.
Then it is also something like a cultural system, and, like culture, capitalism is a fundamental component of how we order things, or of our setting up of a society. Capitalism, like other social institutions, exists in order for the society to function, and ge tthings done ---- it is our way, in our day, of functioning -- or getting things done.
So, what do human beings need to get done? They simply need to find a peaceful as well as enjoyable way of life. Capitalism is about living together, because humans are as social, as are other animals, to a greater or lesser degree, and humans are definitely social animals. Since social animals make their societies together, not alone, capitalism is fundamentally a means by which human beings live together, not alone. And not "privately" or as individuals only. Systems of persons do not operate "by themselves" because they operate through actual consciousness.

Humans cooperate, live together, and coexist through thought and act and intention. Not by invisible hands.

The invisible hand of course is fully explained in Adam Smith's own attempt to provide the same type of explanation or theory of capitalism that we are here looking for, and it explains that sometimes buying and selling various products on the open market can self-organize. Smith describes all sorts of situations in which goods are bought and sold. What he claims is that sometimes the process self-organizes. Sometimes it does not---but in Smith's day, persons found it hard to grasp that the system of buying and selling things ever self-organized. That it could do so came as a revelation. But Smith never said that capitalism always self-organized or that it only self-organized. He only said that it could.
At such times there seems to be an "invisible hand." This is no big deal and Smith only used the clever phrase "invisible hand" once, in the course of the book.

Smith of course was living in a society that was quite different from ours. These capitalistic economic systems for the creation of wealth within human social arrangements were just beginning to become noticeable, and this must have been fascinating. Smith thought about these things and wrote without being a cliched ideologist but rather a philosopher. Smith was in fact a talented professor, of something like ethical philosophy, who endeavored to write a book about the new capitalistic social phenomena he was witnessing.
Since Smith's time capitalism has become not just a curious little system, newly embedded in the larger society, but a way of life; there is a definite distinction to be found involving these two. The later is more like the context for capitalism socially --- capitalism as a way of life, and the former more like a novelty, or a newly arrived system on the block.

And yet, the people refuse to take ownership of it. Dominated by baloney of the so-called "Right" or what I'll call the "non-thinking" faction of our society, the people have failed to govern it and to manage it, properly, and, in this way the capitalist system is about to die.

A System Held Aloft by Clowns

That the system we live in in the U. S. is able to be seems to me dependent upon the foolishness of the persons in the system.

Almost all products we use day-to-day are sold to us by idiots. Capitalism consists of persons. They are motivated by a kind of crass desire for material gain. They are fools.
The things we buy day-to-day are sold to us by fools. The actual system itself is dependent on the very most stupid persons, who can be deployed as owners, advertisers, salesmen and so forth. It certainly is not dependent on some kind of intelligence, or on wisdom.
It is not dependent upon sensitivity, or feelings, or a sense of what humans need in order to be happy or at peace. Whether you call that empathicness, sensitive, or compassionate---it is not there. What capitalism requires is moronity. Moronicness. Stupidity. Sleep walkers manning the controls. The capitalist system of Japan is one of the most successful capitalist system in the world. They put five nuclear reactors together at one location. All in one spot. Lots of seawater to cool the ultra-dangerous fuel rods. Typhoon.
In capitalism, reality is exogenous. The radioactive waste created by nuclear power plants is the most dangerous of materials. You know this if you've read the literature put out by a few wise persons. The system, however, considered the creation of this horrific, deadly material to be justified. I cannot even imagine why. I'm not creative enough. The radiation created by nuclear reactions is one of the most horrific things that exists.
It creates atrocities that are otherwise unimaginable, but they are also man-made atrocities. It destroys nature. It attacks material existence itself. It's worse than global climate change/warming. It is an atrocity, specifically cooked up by the morons in charge of profit and what is called in economics "growth." In other words, loved and endorsed by the thousands of individuals upon whom the economy depends, for its very existence.
"Growth" seems to be linked with using stuff -- so we use lots of stuff -- other writers mention this -- and that depends on using electricity, and oil, but I was not going to go into the BP disaster, but at any rate: that eventually links up, somehow to nuclear whatcyamacallits.

More Philosophy From Jack Silverman

Western culture delivers to our door various kinds of information. This information is embedded in a context of commercialism, and it is mostly propaganda that we receive at our doorstop. In the form of its books and other learning materials, what the Western culture delivers is propaganda, and the reason I say so is that all the stories always focus on the extremely rare cases or great success stories. Who are presumably happy or something? So, that's the famous stuff; that's what we hear about. We focus on the few persons that become famous. That is the focus of the commercial propaganda delivered to our door.

What the Western cultural system does not focus on is the misery and frustration that persons have felt for a thousand years, yet that is what most persons are actually experiencing----misery and frustration.

So we get the wrong information; and we are hoodwinked.

What do you see around you? What is the truth? Do you see "achievers" and success stories? But they are the ones the cultural machine tells us about. So, you are tricked this way. We only hear about the "greats," like "Lou Gerhrig." Then we find out he has a disease. Named after him, of course.

Of course, one might suggest that this is normal, since it is the job of the state, or maybe the economic leadership, to promote the society to itself. So, we display our successes, not our failures. All right. Everyone knows that certain persons get fame.

There are two theories on the relationship between the state and the people. One of these is adopted by the persons on the so-called "Right," who constitute a kind of propaganda machine. It is that the government should just leave the individual alone. The other theory is that the state, or the institutions of the society, kind of like Kings in certain social systems, have a responsibility to uplift the people. As for the first, it really needs to be stated that nobody really goes it alone. They use the culture, of course, if there is one. They may say that they aren't using it after all, but white persons are members of the dominant cultural paradigm anyways. Except for certain truly hardy individuals they are for the most part not going it alone, so the idea of "less government interference" is really a big deception. These persons are at the helm of the "Right" propaganda industry; this is not for real. These persons are not genuine cultural actors. Like the great entertainer Limbaugh, whom we all love, they are phonies. As for the second theory, out of all of earth's cultures, the white or Western cultural group in particular has a quite difficult time in uplifting or providing guidance to anyone.

This is why capitalism is such a viable solution: it allows a society to exist, but it does not give a lot of state guidance. Still, things have got to somehow hold together. It is not just a matter of a lot of people going it alone. That is just not true.

The correct arrangement, therefore, would be a sort of reciprocal give-and-take, between any persons or groups in the society at large, and the rulers. In Amy Goodman's great phrase, these groups could occasionally "take exception to the rulers," through their own activities as outside, democratic agents. This would allow for some relationship between individual persons, and authority.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Culture Studies

What is the explanation for what has happened in the American street? -or, so-called "public space"? The streets are quiet in Chicago. It is sort of like nobody is home. (Are they following the money? In Chicago, I seem to be noticing the rappers, poor ones I mean, second-rate rappers, who "take over" subway stations. No one's home.) I miss the police? Not hardly.
But what I am sayin' is that nobody is home. The people police themselves it would appear. Right. If the gov't don't do it...

What is missing is order. ("Order" not a popular subject? Well why not?)

Government is tired. And it is unusually broke --- if you believe the propaganda out of the Republicans sitting on Wisconsin's face. money for government, hence no one watching public space (they say Wisconsin is broke---supposedly---that's what they say, OK?)

It is not that I am in favor of authority, exactly. No, because I am actually kind of more like a hippie, or rebel, myself. I am like that. So, I tend to think of authority as suspect. That is my usual thinking since I'm like a hippie or a Leftist ---more likely what you would technically call a "critic," since I like to problematize. Even (trackback time: see that other entry: yesterday's) when I don't know what I am probleming about. (-or, with two "m"s = "lemming")

So, I have no "histo" of liking authority. I am just wondering where in hell they Are...
(accentuate last word like in a poem, spoken by one dem poets)

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

No Action From U.S.

Well here I am, preserving for all time what my views are...

UNITED NATIONS -- Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's deputy envoy to the U.N. who has turned against Moammar Gadhafi, said today the U.N. Security Council had 10 hours to pass a resolution imposing a no-fly zone in Libya and possibly authorizing airstrikes.

"We think Col. Gadhafi today has lost his mind," Dabbashi told journalists, explaining that Gadhafi's forces had instructions to "destroy everything and kill whoever you find" in the eastern city of Ajdabiya.

Just What You Would Expect

Wednesday, 16 March, 2011: PARIS — The eight most powerful industrialized nations failed to agree Tuesday on a no-flight zone or any other military operation to help the Libyan opposition, instead passing the problem to the United Nations Security Council by urging an undefined increase of pressure on the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. France and Britain pressed for agreement on a no-flight zone, while Germany and Russia opposed the measure and the United States was cautious, officials said, speaking anonymously following diplomatic protocol. ...

America is destroying the world, in my opinion, by failing to stick up for these rebel citizens in Libya. They are a group of citizens who would never be risking their lives challenging their own country's gov't if they did not have a good reason. They have said clearly who they are and what they stand for.

What does my country stand for? What is appalling is the lack of creativity --- no, worse. The lack of intellectual honesty. This is the bureaucratic class, the political class here in the U. S. that I am talking about. What will it come to? Will I have to see torture and illegal imprisonment in my own country? I have to wonder who these persons are who run things today. We have serious problems. Democracy? Come on. We do not even know what the word means, anymore.

I am dismayed at Obama. Where are his standards? Why can he not match his ability to become president with his ability to make decisions based on this nation's supposed respect for freedom, libery, and human rights? If those are not our American values, then we truly have no values.

Without our values, what are we? Just another country like any other. Then we would stand for nothing. This is clear mass murder. Even the T. V. stations knew what Ghaddafi was doing.

Apparently -- and I deliberately state this -- the U. S. does not stand for anything anymore.

Where are Obama's values? Bush was terrible in his strategy and terrible in his respect for human life, in his attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Obama on the other hand, seems to do nothing.

Religious Encounter

An “offer” is made. It is made using the words “Bible,” and church, and “God,” offers which, when he goes deeper, are transformed as the phrase: “the Word of God.” I say that I do not know what “Word of God” means, as a phrase. He says he's sorry---if he has confused me. I ask him about the word “confused” and he says he will stick with “Bible” then, which I have assured him I can understand without confusion; and there now turns out to be study sessions. We talk awhile longer, and I tell him I resent that he goes in stages. But, the final outcome, the outcome of an attempt at conversation (between two human individuals) is that he informs me that he can just end now. Presumably with a clear conscience. But as soon as he leaves I sense that I am now “other.” I have rejected "G-d" and I am a million miles away from him (the young man). This is a very brief feeling----this feeling of having become a cut-off "other" to the cult, possibly - who knows? - from peace itself, from this mystery of membership in some kind of thing I will now never truly know about. I have become “other.”

I do not want to attend the meetings or sessions. I am "other." He goes right back to his computer terminal at that point, with no apparent unease or hesitation. But I? I have no "Word of G-d." Which I don' evun know whot it is anywayz. duh...

I have turned down the offer of the sacred Wonder, or wonder bread.

Once it is established that the person does not want to attend these meetings, the young man said that he'd be glad to leave it alone now. Now I feel like I have become “other” and I therefore am transferred in status, to that of an outsider. At precisely the moment that we agree to end the conversation I have become “other.” To him, I am outside—outside whatever the “Word of God” actually means. It’s true: I still don’t know about that one.

He has pimples, and he is still quite young. What did he actually say? The kid said was he used to worry so much----said he worried about things that weren’t even things and that he sometimes did not even know what he was worrying about in the first place. He confided to me that church or G-d or the Bible or “Word of God” or something has given him something like inner peace or something like peace of mind or something—and he is peaceful now. I also heard something about stability. I told him that I understand, totally: he was scattered and now he isn’t. He was going out in every direction and now he has attained stability----or peace. So the Bible gave him that. It seems to have stabilized or channeled his mind. That’s called “Word of God.” Which I could get, or could have if I had come to the meetings. All that mattered was that I come to the "Word of God" meetings, which seem like peace meetings. There is a new kind of mentality he has obtained. I don’t think peace is such a bad idea, but I have seen this kind of evangelizing before. Protestant. I asked him if other religions could give the subject individual peace. I do not think he thinks so, because he said you cannot get this short of the “Word of God” thing. He did not say it depended on any specific thing. He did not say "Protestant." It seems to hinge on what is NOT said. It’s like a mystery, this “Word of God” thing.

I do not want to focus on the cult thing. I want to see it as an opening onto a certain kind of mentality, and hence, a certain type of person within our diverse American society. There are so many types. It is almost unwieldy. I can understand, I said, totally, that he was so scattered before, and then he attained religion and at this point he becomes more stable. This is a big problem we have in a diverse society, the kind of democratic, liberal tolerant society Isaiah Berlin called "maddening." Yet this is our system. This is what concerns me.

If the reader tracksback (still I do not know how to leave an actual/virtual "link" thingie) to ... Wed...March 09, 2011('ll see the discussion of the book about a person who emigrated from Cuba to the U. S., via Mexico. Here comes a quote from this dude.........

"I am the material author of this book, which narrates crucial moments of my life; but the intellectual author is God. During these turbulent years full of lucky strikes, which were practically unexplainable [yeah: to him, to his mentality], I was inadvertently following the path He had drawn for me. The Lord was present all the way from the intitial reason why I studied English when I was fourteen years old - encouraged by my mother who was under the pressure of my family's economic difficulties [who in Cuba would NOT have had such "difficulties"?] and could not be aware of the incredibly favorable consequences this "premature" study of the English language would have for my professional and personal life - until the incradibly hasty procedure of solving complex immigration problems and getting the political asylum in America in less than two months. {do not even mention the 'incredible' luck of my finding this for 75% off in Barnes and Noble} Christians know that only God knows his ways. {failure to capitalize "g" is accurate in relation to the original} One can only have a certain feeling of understanding God's will as times goes by, and a series of apparently incoherent and unexpected events get logically and harmoniously linked like in a puzzle. Not a single piece can be missing for the final drawing to be complete. [I would place emphasis here on, or note, "completeness," or "wholeness," just as in the college boy above who stopped "worrying so much"] Only the author of the puzzle is able to know how each of the pieces connects [this is similar to the notion in Buddhist literature of "interdependence"] with the surrounding ones. He guided my hands in solving this puzzle, but the merit of conceiving it is His."

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Separation, Rules and Patterns in Human Society

Different cultures have distinct methods of separating one another, at least in theory and language if not in (political) practice.

"Ayyan Mani's thick black hair was combed sideways and parted by a careless broken line like the borders the British used to draw between two hostile neighbors" says Manu Joseph (says, not writes: I intentionally omitted a comma: from first lines of "Serious Men" ; NY ; 2010)

We even separate sentences with things like commas, although some writers demur. Sometimes.

Sets of rules and patterns order the world. Capitalistically advanced, developed nations, going by the patterns of the U. S, England, and France, when not trying to spy on one anothers' underpants, seem quite free to trade (free-to-free-trade). But, labor is not free to travel --- i.e. between countries, and this reveals that capitalism has a secret need to separate. An African man has to get on an escalator, in order to get make use of the system. Capitalism is hybrid because it restricts access and grants access --- at the same time.

Yes, it is hybrid: as it lies sometimes, tells truth sometimes. Truth and lies exist together here in a queer context, one that is also ideological.

Language is ambiguous, too, just like capitalism. The borders of truth are ambiguous when expressed in the language of discourse, clear enough when expressed in territory and the language of law. The result is a set of rules. Societies everywhere have their own sets of rules for the a universal purpose --- their social organization. Also in order to separate, that is to say, from one another.

When two such nations have different ideas on how to do that, I guess prbably these differences may "meet at the border."

Attacking Nature

On the sidewalk, in a commercial district: I walk past a window. Inside are four or maybe six men eating breakfast and interacting enthusiastically with one another.
Four or more men inside, eating breakfast, interacting. This is their "trope." Inside, everything is happy.
Outside the cold wind is blowing.

For five and six and seven hundred years, capitalism has channeled mankind's energies into narrow, localized destinations.

The naturality of life has not been left behind. Artificiality increases, but nature holds its own.

This is why capitalism functions. The bedrock human values - which are needs - somehow tag along.

More and more of the natural qualities are carried over into the artificiality behind the glass window. This has already a representation in philosophical thought, as the transformation of what they call "use" value - meaning the material elements of human life - into something more abstract, and artificial. This artificiality is called "exchange value."

Nature becomes entirely obscured until you need a genius (maybe with a magnifying glass?) to find it.

The mind puts together its tropes and cliche's.

The capitalist world is a cliche. Who will save us now that we are a nation of trained monkeys?

Jimi Hendrix declared the wind to cry "Mary" and many 60s musicians tried to articulate the natural side of life while simultaniously rendering it in pastels and poetry. Where are they now?
They ended up dissolved, in a puddle of perfume, on the ballroom (or bar room) floor.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Capitalists and Friends

I am working on the idea that "social networking," or social computer network activity, is an analogy for capitalism itself.

A person on a facebook page or something like that is not a "real" person, just as in capitalism when persons "connect" they do not connect as "real" people but rather they just connect as buyers and sellers.

Truly "real" social interactions follow a huge set of rules and laws (i.e. 'natural law') connected to the physical universe. For example I can shout, and be heard for some distance, but beyond a certain point it cannot be heard. I cannot create a social relationship that includes conversation beyond a distance of a few feet.

Capitalism breaks these innate physical rules and creates a fake world---of trade, commerce, business networks, ever-increasing wealth, etc.

What come into question is the "reality" of these social relationships, especially as capitalism tries to move forward. At some point, capitalism hits a brick wall. At that point it is no longer of any use to anyone. The tenuous connection between capitalism and human life has now been broken and the whole system shatters.

This of course is why we must indeed "intervene" at some point in the system. If that is so, then the "Right" position in the economics debate is (literally) dead wrong.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Your Society, My Society, Our Society

I am on a campaign to use the word "society" a lot.

As for the working of the above title, all these things (the words in the title) merge into one another.
If I talk about my society it is the same as your society, which has to do with the very definition of the word "society".

If you like to piss off conservatives, use the word "social" a lot.
He will think you want to borrow his tanning lotion.

Adventures in Chicago

Today visited the near north side of Chicago. This seems to be the area for the transnational, cosmopolitan life style.

Back at the "Pony," which a few days ago I told you about here [], 'twas a wee bit noisy (last night: St. Patrick's Day parties ongoing)

...macho frat boys with their girlfriends they bought from Staples...

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Health Law Called Unconstitutional

"' This excerpt from Hudson’s ruling summarizes his verdict well: '"

“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

This idea of the "right to choose" or "right to ... participate" (it seems clearer if we break it up the language of the judge's ruling this way) is also present in capitalism, acc. to the following ideas, these being ideas and theories of the present author:

Capitalism works (only) when the individual has the right to participate. In the developing era of capitalism, which is to say up until very recently, the individual could say, "I do not like. Since I do not like, I want to opt out of it," --- effectively "stay on the farm" as cliche' might have it. The point is that an individual -- of my parents', or my grandparents' generation -- could have some chance of "going elsewhere" --- what I mean is that staying with alternative earlier forms of production would be the alternative, the elsewhere here. As capitalism becomes more and more widespread we see that this changes and now ALL of human life on this planet, or almost all, of human life on this globe, is capitalistic -- by which I mean definitively influenced/impacted by capitalism -- and we could also say that we are ruined, by just this all-pervasiveness, which leaves us no "opt-out". Again: we lose the "opt-out." The persons can no longer make a choice not to participate. What this indicates is a fundamental change. Now the condition of capitalism has changed.

This indicates a new set of conditions for capitalism, which new stage distinguishes today's capitalism from yesterday's -- from capitalisms of the past.

(That sounds good: "capitalisms..." Kind o' post-modern and I like it.)

The argument indicates the following: in such a case, society has an increased obligation -- to care for those who are forcibly to be linked-in to the system but are not be getting such a good deal (yes, "deal," just as I wrote that: just like a "business" "deal"). The problem is that they cannot get a decent distribution of the overall capitalist/business wealth. To solve this, what would you do? Here, there is the proposal, this is in the opus of the author, of wealth transfer or grant program, that being an adjustment in the nature of capitalism. I have described this in detail elsewhere.

Thus a free give-away program, to certain persons, or groups of persons, and it must be done globally, is one way to counter-act the problem and address a new capitalist situation. But the idea also seems to hinge upon whether persons think there is a place for something new, or, do they have the laissez faire, "everything's alright" view, like, for example, Larry Kudlow does on the television?

Thursday, (3)

One of dem poet guys wrote of Chicago: "The fog crept in / on little cats feet."

I am there now. I don't see any fog. But people have many attitudes in Chicago here, I say. I say. I saw. I say I saw. I say old chap; I saw a white-collar professional type handling his Nook or Kindle, which is to say his e-reader, at the same time as he tried to put on his glasses.
This seems difficult for white-collar geniuses. As I am near-sighted myself, I may be missing something, but the impression that I received incorrectly of not was that this dude also prob'ly cain not walk and chew gum at the same time: although he'd sign off at the drop of hat on the torture of some kind of third-World peasants, or run a think-tank or something. I don't know if he's a genius or not, but he can write the King's English, no doubt. What else is up? I don't know what else, but I do know, because I saw, that he had to deal with his Kindle and his glasses. At the same time.

..---...---...---===...--+IMPRESIONS OF CHICAGO

White collar "bums" totally useless

Can't walk and chew gum

Has good job. A real good, upstanding citizen

Mostly knows .......... ---- ..... ++++ ..... WORDS

(reads Amazon Kindle on train)

So many attitudes in Chicago. I am seeing more Kurt

Cobain look-alikes than I know how to count

The fat black ladies who'll never make it

to the beauty pageant

Thursday, March 10 (2)

Chicago has been good fun----I have been getting the hang of it since the day before yesterday. I used to live on a pig farm in Tanzania. No, just kidding. Really.

OK. Now today I checked out the "Alonti Cafe'," for breakfast of a muffin and coffee ($4). This is part of what you do. What you do in Chicago is that you patronize the distinctly differentiated individual examples of cultural institutions: restaurants, bars, clubs (literally clubs like the oil-painting club, the fitness club, the hookah club, etc. and you) make friends, etc.

My delicious review of this one cafe', the Alonti. Everything was laid out very appealingly to the eye. Also, there was a feeling of space --- it was totally empty when I got there at a little after 9:00 A.M. Yeah, I know. I know what yo are thinking. I "should" have been at my job. I know what you are thinking but... To try to respond in as polite of a way as possible: The whole concept of a "job" has a history. It is weak language and it really has a long history that you should know about before you go tell everyone to "get a job." No such thing used to exist. (Now tell me I write bad sentences, go ahead.) You should learn a little about the history of the word "job" if you want to try to cop an attitude like that. The word "employment" too was unknown, until fairly recently in capitalist history, when it was discovered that capitalism needed a lot of "employed" persons in order to exist. What they would have preferred would have been to just have us all be serfs but capitalism came along and they had to give persons "jobs" and it just kept growing and look where we are

It's a nice idea but

it doesn't quite work. It's

kinda like life

I hope you didn't miss it but that was my restaurant review. See yesterday-post for another cultural institution in this metropolis: the "Pony" BAR. I have to go now and write another post.

Thursday, March 10

I have to transfer my IU activities on-line now, since I have been timed and moneyed out of the college course I was engaged in up until this morning anyways.

Shari Ben-Youfsky is a nice person. She has been the on-line teacher in the English Comp thing I am taking ---- It's called "distance education" where I had been taking a writing course, on-line.

I make name into cartoon. He-he-he. She said I'd better be more careful, in my emails, because people might "worry."

I think the virtue of capitalism is that it can be fair. It is not always fair, but just that it can be.

They are trying to run the "distance" education programsky at IU on a sort of privatisation/business model. Now this sort of thing has been going on for a while: in the society generally we can see that the business or monetary of capitalistic way of doing things does seem to be all that works. But trying to apply a profit motive kind system or a business model to everything in life doesn't seem to make any sense, and there are other persons too who understand this totally. But the business model is all we have. Sociallism didn't work. Liberal ideas are always under constant attack, e.g. from the Tea parties. To apply the philosophy of profit and business methods to something like a hospital or a university just does not seem to make any sense, to anyone who really thinks it through (about one half of one percent of the population) but, on the other hand, it is all we have.

"... it might be wise for you to be more careful because many other instructors might worry."

When these persons send letters they address it to my initial. I signed my email "J. Silverman" and the office of the school of continuing studies, IU, addresses me "Dear J." Heads up out there. These persons want everything impersonal. Yeah. I thought so. So the teacher gives little tiny comments on your lessons. That is all. They do not want to get too close to you. No, they hate that.


Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Five Minute Rush BLog!!!!

No one is really thinking. They give the bar a particular name. It's a small bar. The name is "Pony."

In what ever situation ou are, you have to find some way of tolerating it. The atmosphere outside, on the street, is no better, or worse, than the atmosphere of a bar with loud music and various other features like waitresses, other male as well as female persons and drink.

I also bought a book ---- I was attracted to a book I saw being sold at the ordinary chain bookstore. It was about Cubas. The author was also in Mexico, where the author of the book received a visa. that was for the USA. Thus arrives the author in the U. S. (towards the end of the narrative of the book). My idea is that the U. S. is the style, the go-to place. But I wonder if this is not just preference for the U. S. over Mexico ---- and over Cuba.
Today, ove rten years after this book was published, I wonder what the Cuban author believes. Are these just preferences? The author of the book has tremendous hope, when he comes to Amer'ca. He calls the U. S. at one point in the text, the "cradle of democracy." Actually that is one total cliche: that's the biggest cliche "in the book..."

[redacted from notes in record time!!!)

Tuesday, March 8, 2011


Silly, ridiculous society w/ nowhere to go. Chicago
No Community center – Starbucks and Panera only!
What a wonderful world we live in. All these fantastic skyscrapers. All these persons -- this "people" -- all the group does is make money together. Cliches about "the economy" abound

beamed over airwaves and cluttering newspapers' financial sections
and sectors as internet websites establish new vectors and entrepreneurs emanate business ventures

Everybody knows this is the Americans' main activity. Half spend their time focusing on money as if it existed in isolation from other factors. The other half spend their time trying to fix the damage done by the first half. Never mess up your next door neighbor’s lawn.

You can't protest. Don't give me that. I don't believe it.

All anyone is allowed to do is m*ke m*ney

You can also SAVE.

The consumers “save” money. The producers and entrepreneurs earn profits: all this at the same moment, the same time. But the question is that of "how does the magical wheel keep turning"? Everyone engages in good behavior, that's how. We make money together, in this community, and this way everyone is happy. This is the great American secret. (sparklers shooting out fire and sparks from ends of the spokes of the wheel)

Textile, railroads, automobiles, computers, and finally social networking.

Farmers, craftsmen, soldiers, postal workers, software programmers. Do you see a pattern here? It’s about change. Switch occupations. Create a new product.

Everything keeps changing but there's something about people; people never change.

They always want the same thing and the thing they want is peace. They always want to be free from tension, from suffering.

And, one day, they created capitalism. Capitalism means constant change.

We create wars, and change; action, and reaction; savings, and profit; air pollution, and emissions trading.

I can say R.I.P, but RIP has two meanings: the spooky, malicious, abbreviated Halloween meaning and the sober, serious, spiritual meaning, not an acronym but an idea, a total idea.

the idea mankind forgets in its mad scramble for the magic of capitalism and constant change. our lust for excuses and evasions. make another excuse and sneak off to the bank to make another deal

The magic of the Woodsman in the Forest—that’s the fable, the real magic. The magic of the magic marker as commercial product. That’s the capitalistic kind of magic: the magic of ideas.

But Marx was wrong when he thought the material element more important than the cultural one. He had it all very neatly arranged: “material” vs. “Idea.” He was wrong. Times have changed, and they are equally important now, equal in shaping the way we think, and the way things are.

Monday, March 7, 2011

T. V. Ideology, Monday, March 07, 2011

The T. V. is full of ideology; and at the point when I have had enough? -- I usually turn it off

Guiding ideologies, cultural tropes and the like: these can be formal or informal. What I mean, to say, here, is that the ruling ideology is not necessarily stated directly. It is possible for there to be a very specific ideology present even if never articulated formally. This is what advertising is. Isn't it? There is really a very narrow ideological range of what we are allowed to say and think, or what we are allowed to say and think in public: in public or on mainstream T. V.; or in the halls of Congress. If T. V. started telling the truth the shit would hit the fan - and that ain't gonna happen.

Now I am a person who has my very own, very different, and contrasting views on that which is encompassed by the subject of economics. I know this: telling the truth about capitalism is not so easy.

So, let's try inarticulate T. V. advertising then. That is what our culture reverts to, get it? OK. Everybody say "yes" together. Of course. No one heard.

One more t hing to say is that in fact, in not telling the truth, the culture substitutes a replacement ideology. That's what you get on the T. V. (notice Rachel Maddow. the perhaps best thing currently tolerated by our society on T. V. never watches T. V. I read that, in a magazine, Vanity Fair.)

There isn't any truth. You have to understand that what you see on the television is crap, then swim past it.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Friday, March 04

Our way of life, the capitalistic social form, is fundamentally based on transaction. We live under the rubric of capitalism; to obtain any wealth in this system one must interact. The essential thing that one must do is interact.

To sell some product is to interact. And also, to sell one's labor-power is interaction, so there is always interaction. That's my thesis here.

But standard economic theories usually begin instead by stating capitalist wealth to be private, or that the means of production are held privately. You all know these statements because they are the common trope. They seem to be staking a claim for what the topic of discussion can be about. I'd say that they want it to be about the action of isolated, private individuals. They frame these actors or trading persons or traders - those who are actually doing the trades, the deals - as being concerned with their own self-interest. That seems clear. They say those persons are only trying, or purely trying, to achieve private/personal goals.

But we are not obligated to follow them there. Instead, let's look at it (capitalism) as interaction. "Interaction" and "rational self-interest" do not seem to me to be same. Thus, I would see them as contrasting descriptive terms.

One gets one's wealth by earning it under capitalism. I agree that something occurs on the individual level. The individual does something, in order to get money. However, let me suggest that in most cases earning that money (or making that moolah) is NOT self-interested. We can see that it involves other persons, such as one's boss. How about one's client? --- or one's customer? --- one's political constituency, maybe? Why de-emphasize this interactivity?

I agree with the statement that one gets one's money, or wealth, as a result of one's own actions (by contrast with other methods such as hereditary land holdings or one's privilege as a member of a nobility). But those actions are nevertheless relational. Capitalistic acts of individuals are more productively and usefully to be understood as relational acts, not mere individual acts. Therefore, what I think is that to buy and sell is to interact.

So I see interaction. I see relation. What I do not see is "private" capitalism.

I am the author of a new view, or a new window, on economics.

Attack With No Warning

SF Gate -(03-04) 06:18 PST Madison, Wis. (AP) --

A Wisconsin state lawmaker has been tackled by police as he tried to enter the state Capitol that is closed to the public. {I would have said, "as he tried to enter a closed state capitol", but what do I know?, I'm only a blogger. b.t.w. the ital's and bold is my attempt at creativity, guys}

Democratic Representative Nick Milroy of South Range in northwestern Wisconsin was trying to retrieve some clothes from his office in the Capitol Thursday night. Video from WISN-TV shows police officers pulling him away from a revolving door and tackling him to the ground before he is able to show his ID.

Read more:

(the above copied from the web)
What'd I tell you?
The unfortunate tackling incident came maybe right after I left. Maybe happened after I'd gone home to write yesterday's blogpost at the hospitality center. Things have changed...Protesters apparently expelled last night or early morning. Around the time I was reporting on it or writing yesterday's blog. (Oh I still hate that word.)

The police officers whose nature and behaviour has been revealed (I mean in my last posting) jumped into their version of "action." Is their version of "action" the same as the protesters' version of "action"? The police are unaware of any of the issues involved in the matter. Their only "action" is simply VIOLENCE. But yesterday we talked about "fighting." Interesting to think about the distinction between "violence" and "fighting."
Here below I created a collage of some stuff I copied with my mouse friend.

* * *

...............Wis. Republicans order police to find Dems

+41 bullets

---------------(from TMJ4) MADISON - For the first time in more than two weeks, the inside of the Capitol building was empty of protesters during the early morning on Friday.

(informational link from WS4)

This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any
general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage change in the
consumer price index.

[everything above - 4 things actually - came off out of a quick survey or search or whatever of the internet]

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Report from the Wisconsin Capitol building

"As the parties tried to coordinate a common position and dusk fell Sunday, thousands of people continued to camp out at the Pearl Roundabout -- many vowing to continue their sit-in until political reforms and other concessions are promised"

This is a copy of the previous blogpost on this blog. It was from some internet news report on Bahrain. I copied that off, about two weeks ago.

But notice that it is simlar here in Madison, at least the part about camping out; and demonstrators refusing to leave until reforms come, or concessions or whatever.

I am sitting here at a computer in Madison: Sittin' by the Dock of the globalized Bay. But it's local, too. To stand up to oppression, as they are doing in Madison, what does it take? Well, I notice you need a lot of well-educated and articulate persons. There must be a totality of factors: a list involved. I thought them protester types were okay. They be doin it. Of course, as alluded to, that's because they have the culture for it. Also because they had a ticket in a governor who is a sort of a skunk or a rat!

When I actually got close and experienced it, I was impressed by what I saw. Now this ain't same as watching it on el T. V. news. You get close and you see all kinda of things that you won't see on the cable news channels --- yeah, all of them. All channels. The T. V. people cannot see. They have big radar bowls, to pick up the signals. But they receive nothing. More democracy here at the capitol than those on the idiot box as Mom called it could possibly conceive of and it is instinctual. That too.

So it is instinctual. And what other brilliant things do I have to say about this protest, in addition? As I say above, you seem to need to have a large number of persons of smart type and who clearly were ready and know what to do. I want to mention one thing straight away which is that the state troopers looked brainless. Not part of it. That simple. They aren't in the loop. How else can I say this? They're law enforcement officers, I know, but they looked mean. Had no awareness. Police: unfortunately we have police like this, and we cannot learn to train them any better than to be fascist totalitarian thugs. But that shows that I am right about the need for the wise or the educated to stand up for something. And it so, just because of very the fact that the police lack basic humanity and really do not get really simple, basic, intuitive stuff. It's a little strange but one cannot help but conclude that democracy and anti-democracy are related. Go figure it out for me.

Freedom isn't free. Corollary: the good things in life must have a price. And the Madison people's reaction is instinctive. I already said that too. So, it must be, I guess, the instinctive behavior of the educated. Educated people sneeze good. I guess. Does that make any sense? You know the difference between right and wrong. You are going up against persons who don't know squat. They lack that knowledge, Jack. That's pretty basic.

Basically, it was clear that some part of having a decent life or getting yourself a decent existence or a good state is about fighting. That's what I guess they don't tell you on your arrogant, smug little T. V. that features the great democracy-loving genius Chris Matthews. He worked for a Congressman. Wowie-Zowie. So he knows stuff man. But I do not think Matthews fights, or gets it. I don't think any of these people get it. I don't think they fight. I don't think the U. S. Army fights. Kills, maybe. They just kill, big deal. For freedom. Do you think so?

Is "fight" the fitting word? Then I don't know. Call it action, or protest. I don't know what. This is something I saw. Just now I saw this. It isn't such a big deal really. Drums are nice. Horns sound nice. Taking action. Not fighting. Sometimes fighting. Seems clear that there is a distinction between this kind of democracy, or enforcement of democracy by the will of the educated, and democracy merely meaning the vote. You don't vote on the vortex of action or the matrix of enigma. OK to "fight" in some foreign land. Then it is OK to talk about that in some kind of "Foreign Affairs" type magazine for wonks. Not OK to fight at home. At home, no. To foreigners. That OK, Fred. Ghaddafi say was "accident." Ghaddafi is American? Is Ghaddafi cheesburger? Is Ghaddafi Pepsi? Who is America's Ghaddafe? Walker perhaps? I don't know. Do not want to know.

Is just voting enough? You do not vote on whether to save your society or save the other people around you from being literally starved and destroyed, like Ghaddafi is doing, that nice man. You save people. If you can. Is that such a hard thing? You still can't figure this out? Well it is hard I reckon. It's real hard, Fred.

It all underscores a lesson we forget. (Our culture has no news media to remind us in any case!) Well there are plenty of idiots in Wisconsin to remind us. Put a cheese on your head and cheer. You have to act. The perverts and totalitarians have just reminded us that we needed to fight them. Does that mean they are important? Well, yes. Somehow they are part of that mix. I do not understand it. I guess that, as an intellectual, it is my job to figure things out.

We call it democracy but somewhere it is a kind of a fight, actually. You fight or the state oppresses you. Or do you vote for conservatives who say they will put the private sector in charge? But interesting that this vaunted "private sector," which trades publicly, in the stock market, seems to succeed only with crucial, timely support from the fascist state.

What is necessary in order to get this kind of protest going? There is a common knowledge base. The protestors have something in common. I alluded to that, that the protestors are rather capable people. I walked past many knowledge holders. Now the hominids in Wisc. come in both of two basic styles. There are ignorant ones, who vote and talk out of their bungholes. Then there are the smarty pants kind, in Madison and the Southern part of the state, some farming organic. Because they have the knowledge base the protestors at the capitol square were are able to pull off their "fight" when they had to. I know they did this anti-union or anti-public union thing in Ohio the other day but you can't do that sort of thing to people in Wisconsin.

A few more details and that some of the legislators are totally supportive. This is a detail I may have left out of my "Report." I'm leaving out a few details, so I had better put them in. Protestors are actually inside the building. Fighting for their right to be there --- which is kind of the whole point. It is their capitol. They get this.

The need to fight --- this is so surprising to those embedded in their
T. V. anchor or cable on the dock at H.M.S. fantasy --- is something you need. Oops bad grammar there. (Double need.) That's what I was reminded of, walking around the capitol, milling in the crowd. Fighting is something you definitely turn out to actually need. Weird. Maybe it's only in Wisconsin, but let's have a big hand for these cheesy fighters. Let's have a big hand for the fight club. Good golly miss molly. You need to fight. Who would have thought?

These guys can. I knew, but I needed to see, to be reminded. The state troops are standing there ready to hit them: "guarding" the statehouse. They are just thugs. Ignorance in uniform. They don't get it. But somebody does get it. What is "it"? it is that you need to hold onto the few rights you've got in this short, impermanent existence and, well---it won't come easily.

Duh. Not when there are so many dumb people in a state (or in a country) this size.

Many of the signs not overly nice to the man. It is about battling a person, a person the appropriate words for whom are not going to be used here as I will not deface my nice blog.

I mean that. I won't lower myself by calling him names. But such word are being used there. There on the signs. I am happy with that. That's fine. I guess a matter of locatin. I am not a protest. I am a blog. And there is a certain way they did it that was good. It not appropriate to do that blogside, matey, while my ship is in port. Yes they had many clever signs. Felt good seeing them saying that. I read multiple good ones. Yeah. There was a certain style there. There was a restraint, yeah. It was all right. Just like Lou said in his song.

It is not easy to find nice words here. If Scott Walker was a caveman, I'm sure he would be chewing on a bone.

I am saying that if you want to have such a protest be a success, what are needed are educated persons. The mass action, it seems to me, has already worked. Today it worked. Tomorrow who cares? They have been out there for several weeks, I believe. I am making some comments on the list of the things needed in order to do it.

good King; bad king.

NEWSManama, Bahrain (CNN) -- A day after thousands of joyous Bahrainis retook a major square in the heart of the island nation's capital, seven opposition groups met in Bahrain to consider their next steps after an appeal from Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al Khalifa for a national dialogue.

As the parties tried to coordinate a common position and dusk fell Sunday, thousands of people continued to camp out at the Pearl Roundabout -- many vowing to continue their sit-in until political reforms and other concessions are promised.

The number of people increased in the late afternoon, but the atmosphere remained relaxed. The security forces had left the area Saturday on the instructions of the crown prince.

Apparently, all it takes is one smart person, a good king. If you get a good king instead of a bad one -- you are lucky. A good king, in this case, is one who says: "OK I'll quit being king." So if the people ask you to stop being king a good king says yes; and a bad king no.

Be very careful or you are going to get what you wish for. If all the good kings stepped down there would be only bad kings.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011


FIrst of all, a disclaimer. I'm not Leftist.

Although I agree with them sometimes, as I do with the certain ideas on the right.

So. Now that I've alientated you all completely:

Here is a little piece I liked even though I am not a leftist bla bla bla....

It's on ...

It concerns obvious faults of the capitalist system:

the system’s built-in drive to generate radical imbalances of personal wealth. Enabling this process are the assumptions and conclusions of mainstream economists. They love math...

this kind of thing has numerous parallels with my own "work" - my ideas, labor or whatever----I.e., the engagements I have been engaging for some time now.

labor? There is, of course, an idea of materialism vs. idealism. This is a pre-occupation Marx and Engels have in "German Ideology." Thought vs. work, the "poverty of philosophy," the "ideological superstructure" vs. Material Base, etc.

Now if I could only figure out how to "backlink" cuz I don' know how; but you get the website above so you can go As for the mystery of what "trackback" is, I don' kno. OK. It'll come, I guess.

this kind of thing (esp, the "imbalances of personal..." part of the quote) has numerous parallels with my own work. I think I said that, didn't I? Altho I am very much into this matter of notions of economists and what they do, and also very much into the matter of their "math interest," whic b.t.w. assumes rather than shows that math is relevant to economics, let's look just at the beginning---at the statement, quoted above, that the system has a

"...built-in drive to generate radical imbalances [of personal wealth]."

One thing is true: capitalism has its own particular characteristics. My idea is that in order to go forward, and even in order to stay in one place, we need to move on to a new stage of capitalism; that will NOT necessarily just happen by itself. (this idea that it just happens by itself seems like a rather dumb idea actually, but they believe what can you do!?)

How modify? The aspect to modify is one that would impact just this particular characteristic of "radical imbalances," or the fact that wealth builds up in some areas more than in others. As in geographical areas, I mean.

So then the situation is that what you have is countries (this is inter-country but not to say that intra-country is less important) that have, say persons making two hundred dollars per day vs. other areas or countries in which the persons make one dollar per day. You get the idea, right? And this is the big onus that nobody in the mainstream media talks about. I am not talking about just a few persons, in any case. There is a big difference between persons; there is a big difference between countries.

So, the story up 'til now, is that we have the glaring contrast that they (i.e. humans) used to call, in the 50s or 60s, "The haves and the have-nots." Now we pretend that these malnourished persons do not exist. Just like the Israelis do---there is extensive literature and numerous suggestions that some of the Israelis deny the fact of their actual existence to the Palestinians.

What I figured out a long time ago is an idea that constitutes the, presumably viable, notion of a transfer. It is like a wealth transfer, to be co-ordinated by a sort of United Nations of wealth-movement.

Were the capitalistic world to get its act together as a group (which is what after all globalization is all about) they/we could TRANSFER some wealth from one "sector" (the highly successful one) or part of capitalism to the another "sector" (the one lacking access to capitalistic resources/wealth) or part.

Now you should try and think about that: what would happen? What would be the result of doing that? Think about it and post in the "comments" box below. The rules for the comment box are that I have right to delete comments I want to delete. I'm curious to see if anyone thinks this through and what such an individual would say.