28 Nov 05
The Self-Devouring Magpie is not a bird, as its name implies, but is indeed a pie. It has an incredibly short shelf-life, about three-and-a-half seconds (on average), due to the pie spontaneously consuming itself the moment it is out of the oven, until it has disappeared completely.
A good description for Capitalism wouldn't you agree?
28 Nov 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckSounds a little convoluted. Couldn't we just describe Capitlism without bringing Self-devouring Magpies into the picture?
The Self-Devouring Magpie is not a bird, as its name implies, but is indeed a pie. It has an incredibly short shelf-life, about three-and-a-half seconds (on average), due to the pie spontaneously consuming itself the moment it is out of the oven, until it has disappeared completely.
A good description for Capitalism wouldn't you agree?
28 Nov 05
Originally posted by rwingettIf anything's convoluted, it has to be capitalism.
Sounds a little convoluted. Couldn't we just describe Capitlism without bringing Self-devouring Magpies into the picture?
The ideals of capitalism were to create a competitive marketplace
where the best goods and services are rewarded by trade and riches.
Although this is still a success, I think we've lost track of the bigger
picture. The capitalism machine is now creating more waste than it
is creating efficiency.
We now have more people working in sales, marketing, branding,
advertising etc. than we do actually making the goods.
Additionally, all of the marketing materials we use even in the age
of the WWW cause more paper/forest waste than any other industry.
Peoples lives, thoughts and concerns are all based around feeding
this beast. It chooses who will live and who will die based on a
system everybody is too frightened to look at and review.
It's not consumerism any more, it's self-consumerism.
28 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by catfoodtimResponsibility (by the consumer).
So whats the alternative?
State-regulated production?
Companies should be tightly regulated for waste and over production
by the state, yes.
But the real power should be provided by the media who instead of
using Television to promote products and consumption, should be
promoting education in efficiency and global awareness.
The state could start by gradually decreasing the number of adverts
on television.
28 Nov 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWhy so much dependance on the benevolent character of the state? Why not abolish the state?
Responsibility (by the consumer).
Companies should be tightly regulated for waste and over production
by the state, yes.
But the real power should be provided by the media who instead of
using Television to promote products and consumption, should be
promoting education in efficiency and global awareness.
The state could start by gradually decreasing the number of adverts
on television.
28 Nov 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYour initial two posts seemed to be outright condemnations of capitalism. However, your third post indicated capitalism could be reformed by making it more subservient to the state.
To my limited understanding of state affairs.
If you are to abolish something, you need a system of
rules in which an abolition can act.
What would that environment be?
Is your goal in this post to advocate the replacement of capitalism, or merely its reformation? And how do you perceive the state as being an efficient agent for either one?
28 Nov 05
At the moment capitalist states are busying themselves
taking power from the people and giving it to corporations
whilst giving us the choice between 2 evils and calling it
democracy.
I think people would respond better and take more responsibility
for themselves, others and their environment if they were given
more real choices in their lives.
28 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by catfoodtimFund?
and who then would fund your commercial television channels?
would satellite tv survive?
you prefer a state-run media? with content decided solely by the state?
8/10 of the money that pours into television goes towards
maintaining this blind state of wealthy euphoria and eventually
ends up in the pockets of the rich.
How much do you think it really costs to make television once
you take away the bravado?
I'm not saying we should abolish the state but I don't think it
would harm it to constantly review it for other options.
I certainly don't think any one organisation should control media
content unless that organisation is seeking significant, selfless
interaction with the public interest.
Something that is not actively encouraged by todays capitalist ideals.
edit. - Friedrich Engels :
The state is not 'abolished', it withers away
28 Nov 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIf the people are to take more responsibility for themselves, then it follows that they should invest less responsibility in the state. The state exists solely as an agent to perpetuate the supposed legality of the capitalist system. What is needed is for the people to run society by and for themselves without a hierarchical and exploitative state/corporate apparatus. The people don't need to be given a greater variety of poor choices from on high. They need to define what those choices will be for and of themselves.
At the moment capitalist states are busying themselves
taking power from the people and giving it to corporations
whilst giving us the choice between 2 evils and calling it
democracy.
I think people would respond better and take more responsibility
for themselves, others and their environment if they were given
more real choices in their lives.
Hmmm...I wonder what system that could be? Any takers?