Cola Splash

Buffer

Digg Digg

Cola Splash

A Point of View 1

A position

By Andy Cox

A philosophy

Happiness the vibrant blooms

of life in a rich loam.

Our humanity a humus for those who come

but we are the beneficiaries of

others of us and disappeared.

Thus, death is undone by the legacy of life,

So incessantly in our common ground,

our commonwealth, where the death of a

apparently produces others.

– No reincarnation:

Just inform us as others we inform others –

to choose from noble goal.

Dark weed among us

that would renounce our reciprocity and backward,

because there are some who would set themselves

in manicured beds damaged by a sterile soil.

Neither recognizes the give and take.

Yet our bonds us free –

Knowing what unites us our release.

And then one day, this religion,

we may find a capacity for joy

each time a button opens

2002

The thing is: For a good many years, my head is a pot for a kind of intellectual stew which The ingredients have managed to maintain their own identity, even if they are a little weak in time. A splash of good wine is definitely an enhancement of the taste: (In vino veritas, no doubt). And many a good argument is the herb, adding to the creation of Nuance. I say creative, but in fact none of these new ingredients: One or two of these ancient roots have been around since ancient times. What interests me, but together, the enticing possibility that they, so to speak, reinforce each other. Their integration into something bigger, if you want a world view, is the thesis of this polemical exercise. Five of the larger entities in this stew, which I plan to cut apart are:

Analogy as a source of false knowledge.
The non-survivalist notion that we have no identity or existence after death.
Atheism
The idea and the ideal of a money-less, stateless, propertyless world in which every free access to the products of humanity, and contribute according to his or her ability and inclination.

This I would argue, contribute to one fifth ingredient, namely:

An ethics that an injunction to better the lives of others.

But before I start to ladle it out, something I feel must be said: Man, I think, is doomed to a philosopher. No one bar missing from abstract thinking to escape this fate. Among all internalized trivia, under the layers of the received knowledge that the mind busy, there is a philosophical structure to address the very core of one's existence, whether recognized or not, if this construction is fashioned on the hard anvil of critical thinking or merely represents a series of conventional explanations of the great questions of life. In other words, everyone has a worldview. In presenting my own, I'm only exposing a philosophical construction that seems sensible to me. To be honest, I'm not absolutely certain: It tilts at many places and has worn a rivet. But the picture is consistent enough to satisfy my own needs to understand the world around me.

So here's a taste of that intellectual stew: I have no idea at all why we are here on this earth, or indeed why Here again the earth first. Any suggestion that our existence and that of the universe must be more than one purpose begs a few questions. What I think attracts people to this kind of thinking is a deep-rooted, almost reflexive, tendency to believe that an analogous phenomenon is explained by comparing and drawing parallels with one another. It seems to me that in our ordinary life – when not engaged in philosophical discourse – we sometimes implicitly informed by various delusions, and truths that we do not dwell on the, and which are extracted from the mud of our earthly existence, in the first place, through the mechanism of analogy. Our real world is the foundation from which we roam on philosophical excursions. One could argue that these basic own philosophical ground position. But the philosophical grounding of our daily existence is necessarily implied and out of mind: When we are busy with the usual, we rarely driven into philosophical reflection. Philosophy, at least, competes with many other disciplines – psychology, biology and economics, among others – on our tendency to abstraction. I am not suggesting that analogical thinking is not using: The only thing I am suggesting is that if you scratch under many of the self-evident notions that have moved into in mind, you can also encounter analogies that are not stand up to scrutiny. Sometimes one is not even aware that an analogy is drawn, let alone an analogical fallacy was committed on the assumption that somehow the comparison proves something to be true and not only suggests – usually in a graphic and picturesque way – how the phenomenon in question could be interpreted. Moreover, in some cases, the analogy is clearly incorrect. Nothing illustrates this better than some of the arguments purporting the existence of God to prove. The argument from design, for example, showed that the order and beauty of the universe to show that they have designed. Not only is the premise of this argument questionable – order and beauty are not universally available and could clearly be attributed not to the eye of the beholder, but the conclusion is simply a non sequitur: It refers is, of course, an implicit analogy with, say, a craftsman creating a beautiful artifact – a microcosmic event that somehow it is thought that as a serve a macrocosmic parallel case is the creation of the universe. But,

(A) it just does not follow that what applies in the microcosmic situation – namely that the artifact has obviously been made by someone – keeps well in the macrocosmic situation where one is faced with an infinite universe. At most one could allow a conclusion is made. But this requires similarity between these situations, which is simply not the case: In the microcosmic situation, the craftsman is responsible for just a limited number of products in a world of countless objects, including other craftsmen. The alleged God in the macroscopic situation is deemed to have created everything in own.

(B) The analogy is incorrect for that reason but also because in the microcosmic situation, the craftsman produces the artifact from materials at hand, such wood. God, however, is believed by the religious apologist to create the universe ex nihilo, from nothing.

For these and other reasons – such as the granting of certain events to instead of evolutionary forces – the design argument is totally unconvincing. But it is important to note that in principle draw the wrong conclusions based an analogy, and the poor nature of the analogy, which undermine this argument. Moreover, as is the case with all the philosophical arguments, there is a significant problem that needs be addressed even before the logic into question: What exactly do we mean when we say that God created ex nihilo? I venture to suggest that the whole idea is incomprehensible, and that any attempt to clarify what is meant by this is probably count on more false conclusions from flawed analogies further. Simply stringing together a number of words in a grammatically correct sentence, as in "God created everything" may lead to the illusion of meaning, but grammatically-generated sentence is no substitute for conceptual clarity. Anyway, that is the nature of analogical thinking that permeates our language and reasoning. Obviously, it characterizes a lot of discussion about the dreaded subject of death.

Death is personal: To us in the West, it is something that can consume our inner lives as surely as we call it bolsters our body consumes. It is the raison detre for so much in life, a gathering point, a border post in the everyday world. It is a concept advanced by powerful emotions: fear, anger, disgust, sorrow, love. And it's something that conceived in terms of analogies. Although I unconsciously resorted to analogical thinking in my references to our inner life and husks: I have called the ghost in the machine. I would also have suggested that death is like a sleep, add the corollary that the 'sleep of death, dreams "that a life of sorts awaits us" when we have shuffled off this mortal coil. But on what basis would I arrived at this conclusion? The rub of the matter is that this belief is based primarily on analogy, and that it can accommodate a deep-seated fear of losing one's ego, an anxiety that particular lie is conditioned by the individualistic ethos of so-called advanced societies. I would suggest instead that we can safely examine the alternative, namely that there is no afterlife. I would suggest that if we die, no heaven or hell awaits us, because, to put it simply, we will not be. This is the case, we have no reason to fear death, because it has no consequences for us beyond our complete destruction. I know of course that, for someone like me, the product of a Catholic upbringing, a vague fear haunts this construction to death. But this hardly at the expense of the argument. It is certainly preferred that the head and heart must agree, but as an old married couple, the two faculties will not always agree with each other.

Although deeply personal, death is also a social phenomenon: On a small scale there are the survivors, of course, who not only feel the loss but whose life is more or less subtle or strong, changed. These effects can cascade near and far. For example, a death loose ties, or people together, and that the pattern of preferences and interactions of the generations effects that follow. The Macro Cosmic Death is something society as a whole suffers. I disagree about, say, the preoccupation of the various organs of the state with morbidity indices and the impact they may have on public spending. I am rather referring to a more profound way in which society has taken the phenomenon of death: the fact that death is something that is culturally mediated. Without a debate on the nature of culture – it has repeatedly been construed as including the symbolic and acquired aspects of society as something separate from nature as something separate from the social structure as something akin to ideology, or as a way of life – in the present context this sentence on a social resource that is invoked to bestow meaning on what is in a sense an incomprehensible event, and offer the rituals with which order and are commonplace restored. Death, especially when it is unexpected and dramatic, often very different ways, and has the potential to trivialize the depth construct we know as society. We see this reflected sometimes in a phase of withdrawal and detachment of someone actually dying. And death, of course, takes away from a society. Thus, the society to assert itself – through culture – by countering the astonishing sentence of life insignificant, goals and ambitions are meaningless, irrelevant and standards that can may also accompany the experience of bereavement. This is something proactively addressed during the socialization process when one is how to live in general, rather than how one should dealing with death in particular is the focus. Far as society is concerned, is not required is that individuals grow up believing that because there is no meaning to life, they can just as well what they want from life and how they want to act, regardless of the consequences. Society can not only operate as an aggregation of nihilistic egoists. In other words, the Society abhors anomie, as much as nature abhors a vacuum. If one chose to speak of society in some sense reified as having a separate existence, would one could argue that if the constituent members can not register to some extent a set of shared beliefs and values, then the structure of society itself to unravel. Returning to the subject of mourning, one might say that if as a result of the death of someone close to them, individuals were left feeling that life is not important or was that nothing was worth it, then they might not be able to adequately fulfill their social roles, and this could have all sorts of implications for others. not only emotionally confusing the last time a death occurs, people must feel that, in a sense, "Life goes on." The comfort and support offered by friends reinforced this message, and subconsciously impress the relatives that they remain within a network of other social beings. The colloquial expression about someone the world falls apart in the aftermath of a death often experience amounts of grief. When culture is used to hold that world together, it is especially a certain part of the culture responsible for this, and that part is known as a religion

Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that religion comes into play when someone dies. But certainly seems be done most of the time and in almost all societies. Religion is, of course, the principal (but not exclusively), sponsor of the idea that somehow survive we die. Moreover, religion is generally speaking also explains what happens to us after death is determined by how we behave in life. There can be little doubt exist that are promoting such ideas, religion serves society and by immunizing people against anomic tendencies in the face of death. The priests and preachers, mullahs and rabbis have officiated for centuries on the rituals of death, and comforted the families with the promise of paradise. However, there is much more to the relationship between religion and society than that: For one thing, in most cases, the former general seeks agreement to facilitate the massive majority of social standards through an ethical agenda of pushing the bottom line of that – at least in the Abrahamaic religions – is that if you are good go to heaven and if your bad you go to hell. Moreover, religion and the state are institutionally enmeshed in various ways in most countries: In theocracies, they are practically distinct. In the West, religion may have retired to the back benches, but it still manages to insinuate various degrees in the political life of the country, sometimes in a moderating way. Even in openly atheistic states, a kind of quasi-religion fills the break with absurdities like Kim Jong-il of North Korea, assuming a god-like status. Thus religion has a role in the addition of a saint profane aspect to the business of running the state. It is also hard to deny that for many, many people, religion is a balm, a comfort, an 'opium', and, like this takes some of the pressure on the state, which otherwise might suffer unmanageable levels of social unrest. In fact, one of the ironies of modern history it often has in the aforementioned atheistic states, former or current, which is usually sharply sought consolation perhaps, that the religion of a more conventional character has blossomed in the shadow-like fungus. Why should religion be an opiate is not hard to see: If life is inexorably grim, as it is for the vast majority of The people around the world, and denies them important political or social leverage to force change in their situation, then it makes sense for these people to console themselves with the thought at least after death, there are a number of appeals, some up to injustice. Psychologically, a similar idea is also a lack of self-esteem that so often hear poverty, relative or otherwise: It's harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle plays probably the most the religiously-inclined arms of many teeming barrio. And in promoting an alien orientation, religion can be an enervating effect on political activity, especially in conservative societies where religion and state work closely together.

However, religion and its relationship with society changing all the time: In some parts of the world, religion is in retreat, in other parts, is resurgent. What's more, its consoling function is sometimes undermined by a tendency of politicization, as evidenced by the liberation theology in Latin America or the activities of various Islamic movements. But other social and economic developments have to cloud the picture: Page has a Sunday supplement and is a chance that in the odd image of poor people are huddled in some third world country under a billboard advertise luxury objects of desire, an image that symbolizes something more increasingly clear, that is, today, more striking than ever, material prosperity is promoted despite being beyond the reach of so many. Materialism is a kind of quasi-religion, the Episcopal priest who is louche style gurus, whose parishioners are readers of glossy magazines and it's more fundamentalist preachers who glaze-eyed corporate leaders reciting the mantra, "Greed is good '. What's more, the gospel of the market – relentless advertising – now the sanctuary of the house penetrates deeper than ever, subtle mind that every up and coming generation through television and other mass media. Consequently, rising aspirations, and when they are frustrated, angry results. This anger can be expressed come in a variety of ways, from purely selfish crime to various political action; nationalist liberation movements, terrorism, trade union activities and protests, to name but a few. And in some cases feeds into political action by religious groups, vide my reference to liberation theology and Islamic movements. Even so, religious dissent of this type still retains its otherworldly point of reference. In fact there are more than a few religious groups around like a revanchist 'alien' agenda to impose on the world, either through bloody violence or the use of mass media.

But of course, there's a big philosophical fault with religion, its credibility destroy, and that – as already suggested – that is based on false analogies. One may wonder whether religion can nonetheless survive a convincing refutation of this analogical reasoning. I do not think it can. To me, these analogies are central to a religious excuse. Such an approach should be used to demonstrate all the poverty of this apology. You do not have to deploy analogical thinking to the existence of tables and chairs (I fear for the physical security of philosophers who doubt such things) to prove that you do when the existence of an alleged entity that would otherwise not be convincingly demonstrated to exist to prove. Moreover, what can only be grasped unseen by, or with reference to what is seen. Of course, there are other types of evidence advanced by those who want to demonstrate that God exists. But I think the analogical argument is crucial because in the absence of direct empirical proof of its existence, by analogy 'informs' the substantive picture we have of God. Or now seen as an old with a beard and flowing robes, an uber-powerful warrior wielding an ax, a giant bird, or a vague power, God is described by likening him observable phenomena. In short, through the use of analogy. And since the analogy is not proof, the entire deck of cards that religion comes crashing down, along with The card, which the religious premise of an afterlife. When it starts to be human, then, of course, the contribution of religion to the social order will start to decline. There are other problems with religion is, many of them are psychological, as opposed to philosophical in nature. Consider the peculiar and somewhat hypocritical attitude religions exhibit against the "sins of the flesh": While they may object that they are concerned and not less meaning-related emotions such as joy and despair, eventually religions implicitly recognize the hedonic principle that people are driven by the need to seek pleasure and avoid pain. (This I considered as supplementary to the most profound needs drive us: the desire for happiness). The extremes of these experiences are indeed supposedly provided by heaven and hell, respectively. Even if it is argued that these are the states of mind or 'planes of existence "rather than physical locations, heaven and hell are seen as conditions that happen to be imposed on people, where people react in ways that bear comparison with responses to pleasant and painful stimuli. But all this is rather uncomfortable with the Puritan disapproval evinced by most religions – Especially in the Abrahamaic tradition – a representation of a life-affirming sexuality outside strict social boundaries. We find some Islamic fundamentalists themselves righteous requirements of the whip, or even the ball for women violating the rigid mores of their societies. In the same breath, they were rhapsodic about the prospect of the eternal orgiastic rutting in paradise in the company of seventy-two virgins, they lose their lives while attempting to butcher innocent people in some nasty Middle East the market or in the streets of some anonymous Western city. (More recently, there have been unconfirmed reports from Iraq – that bastion of Western-sponsored militias have taken that religious freedom for gluing the anuses of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and then give them a drink and diarrhea, resulting in a horrible death). Although these barbaric acts are not consistent with the Koran – somewhat hypocritical religious-minded people tend not to be bound by their sacred books – and more thanks the backward-oriented societies in which they occur, in terms of informing them is a religious and mainstream Muslims would be well to consider what help they give these crazy fanatics (Not long ago, for example, we witness the Karzai regime in Afghanistan in introducing legislation to effectively legitimize rape marriage in order to appease the conservatives in this backward country). Christianity is no less hypocritical. Witness the spectacle of millionaire preachers in the American Bible Belt surrounded by their business managers and power-dressing husbands, spluttering about hellfire and damnation only found with their pants down are enjoyable by a number of empty young Congregationalist. Or take a look at all those boring Catholic priests with a furtive desire for altar servers, spreading their pernicious sermons about the evils of masturbation. The more violent religion forbids; the more nasty-looking are the offenses that inevitably follow. It is not only in matters sexual that religion is an anxiety-laden casts pall on everything. In many ways, religion, I would argue is a kind of neurosis that weighs heavily on the human soul. Indeed, it is the "sigh of the oppressed creature," as Marx put it so eloquently. It leads to a feeling of fear, a hesitation about living life fully and without reservation. One could even construct the story of the Garden of Eden, which God forbade Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the apple tree as a sort of parable admonishing people by pampering and praising restriction site. No wonder that the rise of consumerism in Western societies since the war has closely tracked the decline in religious precepts.

I have argued that to claim somehow we survive death and that the way we live our lives defines what this 'afterlife' is to be religious society has a service where it provides ready-made answers regarding the meaning of life and reinforces socially acceptable behavior. However, this contribution is not a necessary condition to ensure that people are not deviant or anti-social lifestyle approve. For, in truth, many people who refuse notion of an afterlife still manage to stay on the right side of the law. Many people are atheists, and although the two concepts are not conceptually equivalent, Survivalism, and atheism would seem to go hand in hand (Interestingly, both stand opposed to positions deep knowledge posed by analogical thinking, moreover, the respective concepts which they oppose;. namely, belief in an afterlife and God, are also linked: What's the point the belief in one God, no afterlife? I would add by the way, that although religion and atheism are opposite each other, there is one thing that they do look at that is that man a spot to at least one incredibly powerful. For atheists, this force is the cosmos, and most atheists have a capacity for deep awe when you consider the fact that mankind could vanish in an instant were some cosmic catastrophe happen to us, as hypothetically occurred billions of years ago, when the Earth and the planet Theia collided – making the moon and so successful that the conditions conducive to life. Believers are unable to face the nihilistic import of such possibility, but rather their hope in a good God and a blissful afterlife, projecting an anthropomorphic fantasy – "God created everything in seven days' – the huge indifferent fabric of the universe). So something else must take account of the fact that this large constituency of non-survivalists and atheists, and ahead of ordinary inconspicuous life within the law. The unremarkable truth, of course, is that like everyone else, the holders of these positions are subject to a socialization process as they grow, resulting in them internalising the values of the society in which they live. A religious reason for these values is either never 'taken on board ", or later again discarded in life – all to be said that some apparent non-survivalists and atheists unconsciously any notion of an afterlife entertain, because it is so deeply embedded in popular culture and can, through a process of cultural osmosis to create a niche in the most rational of minds. Some, of course, to maintain religious baggage from childhood. Despite the fact that is still inclined to argue that – since joining the social norms and values is not supported by a powerful irrationality – Warning that the essentially religious notion of an afterlife have a subtly different relationship to society. For example the probability that, because society has no sacred character for them, atheists and their ilk are unlikely to regarding themselves as a chosen people, and perhaps more inclined to humanist and inclusive attitude towards other social groups. It is no coincidence that since the dawn of capitalism, many of the more radical figures are atheists or agnostics. It certainly surprised me to learn by Richard Dawkins excellent book, "The God Delusion" that many if not most, of the founders of the American Republic and atheists or secularists were. Secularism, or the belief that religion or religious institutions should play no role in the governance of society, has often drawn blood from behind atheism. It owes much to the supercession of feudalism – which religion played a big role and openly – by capitalism. This development was accompanied by an increasing segmentation of society, and secularists only but insisted that religion is confined to the compartment labeled "religion." Secularism does not necessarily lead to a rejection of religion.

This, of course, begs a question: Given that society has developed and therefore a complex relationship with religion has evolved, it is not possible to society that does not rely on religion to shore up its ideological architecture that could easily sit with both atheistic and non-survivalist views simply because they not count on the wrath of god or the prospect of eternal damnation where the conflicts and tensions inherent in contemporary society no longer existed. I think it , and this leads me to one third of the ingredients in my intellectual stew.

The idea, often jokingly dismissed as utopian, a society based on principle of common ownership has an ancient pedigree: Sir Thomas More coined the word Utopia, in his book published in 1516, biased portrayal (as he therefore intended to draw attention to some of the evils of his own society) live on a mythical island south of the equator, where private property did not exist. But elements of utopian thinking can be traced much earlier with Plato and others, and the notion of an ideal commonwealth has found expression in the fictional work of many authors, of Bacon, Campanella, and Harrington, to Morris, Hertzka, and Wells. The idea and ideal of common ownership specifically also know current events in history – witness the diggers 17c in England, or the various experiments in building communist communities, such as Robert Owen. Moreover – and this is often forgotten – for most of the existence of mankind, The company managed to continue without private property, the loincloth uneven bars, trinket, or flint ax for personal use. Marx said the man lived in a state primitive communism for aeons before the advent of ancient classical societies where production came to be largely carried out by stirring slave labor.

My concern is with advanced communism. If ever an idea had "arrived" and deserved serious attention is that, especially now that humanity is on the brink of an ecological abyss of unfathomable depths that global capitalism, through acts of omission or commission, can fairly blame. Yes, how to start the construction of this concept? Perhaps one must first body look at what is proposed: In a nutshell, advanced communist society would operate on a global basis consistent with that old Marxist statement, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ". As such it would bear no resemblance to existing and extinct 'state capitalist' states, cynical and ridiculous to claim that 'communist' or 'socialist'. It would be a democracy in the truest sense, and would be set at basis of a majority to choose to have it – certainly not imposed by the revolutionary vanguard. States and the geographic limits of their administrative activities – national boundaries – Would no longer exist. Freedom of expression would be completely free, and the only socially sanctioned restrictions on the conduct designed to discourage actions demonstrably harm harm to others. No longer straitjacket by the need to make a profit, production would be carried out based on need and in a completely rational way: Production processes may have adverse environmental effects or unacceptable risks, for example, would not be considered, and every effort should be made to ensure that safe alternatives were used instead. People would contribute to the production of goods and services and how they wished. That is, the work would be both voluntary and co-operative – there would no longer exist competition between workers, companies and countries. And people would have free access to the fruits of human labor. In other words, neither money nor barter could play a role: If people needed something, they would simply go along to their local distribution facility and participate without handing over anything in return. Advanced inventory management measures would ensure that the needs were anticipated as much as possible by identifying possible gaps. The production of the products in question would then be implemented in a fully rational and planned manner. When an actual deficit than rational strategies such as considering alternatives, rationing, reservation, using different production processes, importing from further afield, or simply making do without would be deployed. There is no need for a certain way that people abuse the system set: Why would they when goods and services were freely available? In any case it is reasonable to assume that a very different mindset would prevail in this new society, one that would just be more socially response, humane, tolerant and less tainted by selfishness and greed. Property held in common, there would no longer exist the vast armies of staff bloated and resource-layer structures dedicated to the preservation of property rights or access to resources within and outside of any state as obtains at present: I am talking about the police and the army, the entire judicial system, prisons, the arms industry, the many bodies involved in the management of property rights and claims, etcetera. Accordingly, were countless millions around the world no longer attracted to a life of crime and eventually locked up for this career move. The raison d'être of crime, war, terrorism, industrial disputes and rivalries, among other stressors hideous feature of the modern world would simply not exist. People would be able to to travel and settle wherever they wanted, but, as the current economic and political conditions, driving people to uproot and take refuge in other parts of the world would no longer available, mass migration (try not to forget the accompanying fear and resentment in the host population) is unlikely – except in the case of some catastrophic natural disaster. Education should be radically different from what it is today: Because both free and non-compulsory expenditure, it is expected that those whose education was so happy to do further. The grim discipline-oriented schools today, aiming to mold children in the fodder industry and business, would become a thing of the past. For once, actually be art for art's sake, not cynically foisted on a passive population as a means of turning a quick buck. Quality, in other words, was the watchword in all creative activity, architecture and landscape architecture, music, theater, film, and writing. Technological innovation, no longer fettered by patents or invested interests, it would accelerate in a controlled, socially responsible way, and many of the heavier tasks necessary business could be systematically automated. Medical research in particular (especially in areas currently under-explored – such as tropical medicine – because there is less of a financial incentive to do so) would be prioritized in order to liberate humanity from the misery of illness and disease as much as possible. It would also be conducted in an open and coordinated way, not in the fragmented way that it is now, with numerous research groups jealously guarding their discoveries for 'commercial reasons'. In this regard, and so many others, the creation of the world Communism – or socialism – would completely transform the way we live. Life would just incomparably more relaxed, enjoyable, fulfilling and happy. Virtually all Today the so-called 'evil' – as a pulpit to power back for a body language – it would just disappear, war, ethnic cleansing, vandalism, theft, prostitution, pornography, pushing drugs, protection rackets, nepotism, corruption, oppression, the cynical manipulation of the mind for financial gain, trafficking, slavery, mass hunger, poverty, unemployment, environmental destruction, waste of resources, deliberately creating soulless and ugly human environment, to name but a few. And the reason this is simply that each one of these phenomena has its origin in or suffered by the current social dispensation, by the way society is organized today. Money, In other words, what about all these ills. When humanity finally chooses to embrace communism, then they have crossed a threshold between civilization and barbarism.

I am by no means claim that everything will be perfect under communism: It is reasonable to assume that after resolving to embrace communism, humanity have to live with an assortment of "Transition Issues" for several decades before things start smoothly. And of course the thorny issue of the relationship between the individual and society continue to get attention. In discussing this relationship, political theorists sometimes refer to the notion of a 'social contract'. To literal-minded about this is, of course, a fiction, another example of false analogical thinking which the individual and society are regarded as a quasi-legal relationship with each party's obligations to the other, or in which society is formed after individuals enter into contracts with each other about the nature of society. Strictly speaking, as an analogy, this performance failed: there is no analog court or presiding judge (unless God in heaven, fits this description – but he would sanction a part of the gruesome societies exist today, one might ask – rhetorically) to rule on alleged violations of this contract, and it is absurd to construct such a contract had been negotiated at some point in time, after which the individual was required to act within the limits. Of course, what the idea of a social contract is actually trying to bring is that people of all benefits derive from belonging to a society, but to do so requires them to act within certain limitations, and society, and to contribute. However, what society offers the individual and the extent of the last meeting the social standards are variable. In other words, we have the nature of society into consideration involved in looking at this relationship. Tensions at the interface between the individual and society are perhaps inevitable: One or the other may be affected in various social arrangements. On the one hand, we discover that we live in a laissez-faire jungle where few or no social restrictions placed on individuals in their pursuit of wealth and hedonistic lifestyle, where law and order is minimal or depraved applied, where a "dog-eat-dog ethos is, and where little attention is paid to the social consequences – they are ruthless record of what was generally believed resources, the oppression of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, plunder and environmental pollution, creating antipathy, violent, and often politically illiterate subcultures, or flashy and architecturally discordant urban environments. Such a society lacking any sense of community. Much the same can be said for the extreme dystopian society where men talk about the individual, breaking each bloom of individualism, demanding total loyalty and conformity. This nightmarishly fascist model of society based on a powerful state. Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, disparate elements of both models appears to exist in many contemporary societies; China is the most striking example. Communism, on the other hand, while not likely to completely remove the tension between the individual and society, is certainly the only form of society can drastically reduce stress as if he had the greatest individual freedom to facilitate a harmonious social environment.

People who have never entertained the idea of communism in the public reacted with disbelief when they learn about it. Perhaps this is understandable: It is a very revolutionary idea, that raises the question more deeply embedded assumptions about man and society. Nevertheless, the reader care to the following list of points which, though not exhaustive, it to prove that Communism is indeed considered a viable proposition, and that the arguments in its favor actually very complex. It must be remembered that what I mean by capitalism is the current universal economic system where goods and services primarily produced to be sold for a profit (known as commodity production), either by the state or by private companies, and in which money wages and real estate, along with other features can be found. Capitalism may take the form of state capitalism or private / laissez-faire capitalism – or, indeed, something in between. There is no such thing as state socialism or communism.

One of the most convincing points in favor of true communism relates to what is significant termed "human resources". With the advent of communism, literally billions of people around the world would be relieved of those jobs – although essential for the functioning of contemporary society – no longer required under communism: I have already alluded to the millions involved in the enforcement of property rights or access to resources. But there are also large numbers of others involved in similar non-productive question, as banking, insurance, advertising, social security departments, charities, custom services, grants, payroll departments, agencies, bankruptcy, pension providers, tax services, mortgage lenders, to name but a few. Those actions would no longer be necessary in a society unencumbered by the cash nexus. Nor should people be required to take lowly paid, unsatisfying work behind tills, the check meter, the issuing of parking fines, guard buildings, works for gambling or gaming business, sales their bodies for sex, as drug mules, issuing tickets, indulging in dubious business scam home, sorting out other people to pay, running stalls, barter, performing bailiff duties, and so on. And forced idleness of unemployment, arguably, another essential feature of capitalism, would also be a thing of the past. In short, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of people around the world – particularly in the so-called developed countries where workers employed mainly in the tertiary sector – would find their business obsolete. This does not even consider the countless millions – especially in developing countries – dealing heavy, 'low tech, labor-intensive work such as working, ship dismantling, the building of dams – a bucket of earth at a time. Most of these work can also be identified through mechanization and automation. So, what would work was required to ensure everyone's needs were met shall be distributed among a much larger number of people.
Apropos work, it is sometimes protested that people would not be motivated to contribute to the production of goods and services in the communist society. However, a little thought to an end to this objection: First, it does not take into account the dramatic reversal "in the social ethos, the prevailing values that would accompany the establishment of communism, a development necessarily caused by the democratic nature of the revolution inaugurating the new society. Division, cynicism, greed and cruelty would inevitably give way to coherence, social care, and altruism, because each set of attitudes is rooted in the modi operandi of capitalism and communism, respectively. It is therefore inconceivable that the vast majority of people voted massively for a new way of life and all that entails, would opt to sit back and take an attitude of "Stuff you, Jack – I'm not going to contribute, I'm just going to take." Second, much of the negativity informing workers' attitude towards employment in contemporary society is often not so much from work per se, but the circumstances under which they are employed, the hierarchical nature of the organizations they work, and more importantly, is forced to work in the first place. Karl Marx's theories on the alienation employees are very enlightening this regard. Thirdly, as I said, given that several billion people around the world are currently engaged in professions that would not exist in the communist society, there would be many more people around to carry out what work was needed. Accordingly, it can be said that only one or two days work per week would be required of people on average – taking into account these considerations the fact that many currently produced goods and services – for example, advertising material, cash registers, weapons, or ticket barriers – would not be necessary, and the fact that a communist society would systematically try to automate all kinds of work as too burdensome or risky. This being the case, it is reasonable to assume that people would be less inclined to spare the community a portion of their free time. It is even conceivable that there might be much socially useful work available. Fourth, it can be said that people, far from being motivated to work where, in fact, have a natural aptitude for the work, and a drive to work, both in capitalism stifled by hostile working conditions. Fifthly, it can be noted that even in these cynical times, millions of people around world are in voluntary capitalism notwithstanding, and that this flies in the face of the assumption that all things being equal, people are naturally lazy and would jump at the opportunity to spend their entire existence on a lounger with a glass of tequila on hand. I could go, but I'm sure the point is made.
A lot of setbacks, I have argued that materialism has become a kind of quasi-religion relentlessly promoted by the near-ubiquitous advertising. The constant background of visual, auditory, olfactory and even asked – a visit to your local supermarket will attest to the latter – they are subliminal or "in your face ', is bound to affect us all. Why else should companies spend literally billions of dollars all over the world of advertising? It is true that we buy, buy, buy, whether we actually need the goods on offer. There it was stated that the head does not know the heart is not desired. Under capitalism, its needs often artificially created or encouraged, both in terms of wasteful use sources and potentially stress-inducing where people can not have the resources to those needs. Nothing illustrates this better than the fashion industry, which could dictate, let we say that last season hipsters will just have to go. This is a serious problem: In the UK, tons of discarded clothes are plowed every year in landfills, which impact on global warming, among other things. Then there is advertising to children, encourage them to bully their parents for the latest product "fad". No wonder they grow up acquisitions. And speaking of greed, something else that could be observed about capitalism is that – particularly among the wealthy – often acquired status the acquisition of luxury goods. But there is a huge amount of waste inherent in this charade of "keeping the Plunkett-Pemberton": So we can obscene spectacle of the archetypal tycoon with a fleet of luxury sports cars have a number of townhouses – each contains enough rooms to house local homeless, and a trophy woman with a shoe mania to rival that of Imelda Marcos, Not only are these items inevitably exploited;. but time and resources spent on their production that might be more useful spent on meeting more immediate needs. I venture to suggest that in a communist society, status, insofar as it had a kind of psychosocial goal when stimulating of emulation, would drastically different in nature: I can imagine that the status would stay in the extent in fact a contribution to society, with those in the most difficult and dangerous tasks assigned the highest status. Such an attitude would obviously serve society's interests very well, and make for social cohesion.
Not only capitalism to manipulate people into buying things they might not otherwise have considered buying, but sometimes forces them continue buying commodities and over again by the simple expedient of ensuring that things are not so long as they could. This is what is known as' built-aging "and it is a feature of many products, from cars to the simple light bulb. The overall shoddiness of so many manufactured goods, for example, houses (especially in the cynical so-called 'social housing 'market), resulting from the desire to keep costs to the bone, also leads to an interruption of a short period of use. The outcome in both cases more waste and customer dissatisfaction. Waste in this context has to do with rendering a product unusable and therefore have to be removed much faster than would otherwise be the case.
There are many other ways in which capitalism is a waste: Take a tendency to share "Modulis. What I mean is that instead of selling a replacement item on its own, sometimes manufacturers will only sell the item as part of a larger unit or a batch. Although this may make it easier to replace the object, the is just as likely to be dictated by the manufacturers desire to fleece the customer more money. Insofar as the section is specific to a particular brand of product, the manufacturer will almost free rein to enjoy this practice.
But this is almost negligible compared to the waste inherent in a system in which each of the millions of companies or companies around the world with many others competing in producing certain goods and services for a given market. Why is this waste? Well, just consider for a moment that the enormous amount of overlap inherent in this set-up: You might get dozens of companies producing a particular good or service within a certain location, each with its own buildings, personnel, management structure, and so on. Each will be a number of administrative and financial operations to be carried out over productive activities, that simply would not occur in a socialist / communist society, such as holding shareholder meetings, conducting financial audits, running pay departments, operational security, and implementing marketing strategies. The latter is particularly noteworthy: Large companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi spend literally billions dollars trying to outdo one another in the market and have huge marketing departments dedicated to this purpose. On the issue of duplication, it may also be instructive to consider the outcome of a demented former Conservative government's attempts to make the National Health Service in the UK more 'efficient' a few years ago, by breaking it in hundreds of self-government trusts. The result was a huge increase in administrative staff compared with clinical staff, because each had his own trust department finances have its own 'Estates' department, its own reward department, and so on – indeed, the economics of the madhouse! In capitalism, it is often the case that having many companies competing to sell certain products is often much more than the market can bear. Thus it is possible that many of these companies will be under their capacity of the time. Indeed, a couple can be found at the wall, squeezed by the big players. The under-utilization or non-use of resources in this regard amount to waste. This also applies to the fact many of the smaller companies, the general in charge proportionately higher costs associated with things like heating and electricity, to services that would otherwise can be obtained "in-house buying, lack of economies of scale '.
The fact that competing products are sometimes shipped from distance is another example of waste, but also as environmentally damaging. Is it really necessary to import New Zealand butter butter piled alongside English in British supermarkets have seen the fact that the European Community ever to scale the infamous "butter mountain".
This "butter mountain" really illustrates another terrible type of waste found in capitalism: the waste produced by overproduction. Like the market can determine that the very factories, offices, mines and farms are no longer economically viable and are taken from the committee, it can also provide the products and services resulting from these facilities are "unnecessary" and should be discarded. We see this in the regular trade cycles camps capitalism, which essentially act as capitalism itself has missed the mark.
There are other ways to waste can be generated. For example, companies will often do everything they can to improve the cosmetic appearance and therefore the 'saleability' of their products without necessarily improve the quality of the latter, and this can result in wasteful quantities of waste. Tristram Stuart, in his recent book, "Waste, exposing of the Global Food Waste Scandal 'claims, for example, that 25% of the fruit and vegetables produced in the UK is wasted in the process of production simply because it does not look the right shape, color or size. The taste and nutritional value are beside the point. On the subject of food waste in general – both consumers and food industry – It is estimated that only what the U.S. waste each year, twice as much as needed to adequately feed the 923 million undernourished people in the world today (The Independent, July 9 2009, p9)

The raft of international laws and trade agreements for various economic activities around the world creates an enormous amount waste through a number of standards. These laws and trade agreements are just a semblance of order and to impose restrictions on the ferocious greed of different nations compete for scarce natural resources, trade routes, access to markets, and so on. As such, they serve no purpose at all in a world communist society. But today's world, these laws and trade agreements require vast armies of bureaucrats and other officials to manage them and the police, these functions themselves need to work monitoring the actions also need much in the way of resources and personnel. Such regulations were absent, of course, it is quite conceivable that disputes around the world degenerate into a number of wars. However, these laws and trade agreements themselves lead to bizarre consequences, thus tempting some to flout them. Allow me to introduce a Some examples: It is estimated that due to the common fisheries policy of the European Union, something in the region of 40 to 50 percent of the fish caught by EU trawlers is dead discarded at sea (The Independent, ibid). Touching on my previous point, the European Union has also fairly strict rules regarding the cosmetic appearance of 10 fruit and vegetables which between them account for around three quarters of all fresh produce sold in the EU. As I explained earlier, the effect of these laws is to waste it because a certain quantity of the product will be deemed unfit for sale – only on cosmetic grounds. It is essential that these rules big Western-owned agribusiness concerns at the expense Third World farmers favor.
The tendency for cutting costs in the capitalist production is something else that gives rise to all sorts of other problems, perhaps the most notorious of which relate to health and safety. We find planes crashing for lack of adequate maintenance work, or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Sic) in the United Kingdom claim that certain forms of treatment can not be regarded as "value for money and therefore can not be prescribed, despite their efficacy in many cases. Michael Moore's documentary film, "Sicko," emphasizes how single-minded capitalism when it comes to money. In this revealing study of the U.S. health insurance system, he shows how inhuman the richest country on earth can be when it comes to treating the sick and wounded. People without medical insurance often find themselves in desperate situations. Like the man who loses two fingers in an accident and is facing a bill of € 60,000 to sew one of them again, and $ 12,000 for the other. Well, it's a no-brainer – the more expensive finger ended up in a landfill. But even those who do not pay insurance and find themselves in need of medical treatment often a medical inquisition by the HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) members, whose sole purpose, I repeat, only purpose is to try to deny them treatment (in which. the case of these staff with a medical qualification seems in flagrant violation of the Hippocratic Oath). This is confirmed by the fact that their pay depends on the percentage refusals they manage it. The film portrays the heartbreaking case of a man with kidney cancer that doctors had insisted on a particular course of treatment. His wife met with representatives his medical insurance company and asked if they provide funding for treatment. But they considered the treatment to be 'experimental' and turned it down. Within three weeks the man was dead. Apart from the fact that there is a racist element in their deliberations have been – the man his wife was black and white – the sheer psychopathic contempt for all what bar the company shows a profit margin speechless. Such blinkered thinking would be anathema to a socialist society where genuine need, rather than financial criteria, would determine whether or not something will be produced or made available. Cost-cutting can affect the quality of life in many other ways. Take, for example, poor services offered to rural communities, at post offices for coaches. Underlying this, of course, both the increased transportation costs inherent in maintaining Rural communities, and the fact that the urban population to present a more lucrative market would be providers. Who can cherry picking practices of bus companies forget during deregulation of the Thatcher years (which exist in many large urban areas, for example, Manchester) when the buses arrived in two or three of the more popular (and shorter) urban routes, while rural services have been reduced. Needless to say, the financial statement behind this development would never occur in a society dedicated to needs, instead of profit maximization.
A year or so ago, there was much media interest in the subject of false or counterfeit products, an alarming series of Channel Four one being titled "The Fake Trade 'case. It is not the fake Prada handbags and Rolex watches that worries me: although the faking of such luxury goods course hits of the "legitimate" manufacturers and reportedly promotes gun crime and terrorism, consumer surveys are, in fact, show that many, and in some countries – The U.S., of all places, for example – most people are not averse to the purchase of certain types of counterfeit products, an activity that has acquired a fashionable yet chill. Must But what really amazed us most of the counterfeiting of certain items, medicines as a good example. Statistics beggar belief: It is estimated that something like one million Africans die each year through the purchase of counterfeit medicines. Let us be clear what happens here: tablets, capsules, ampoules, and so on, convincingly packaged conscious but with little or no therapeutic value, are sold by dealers, or sometimes unconsciously by the "respectable" outlets, people – the vast overwhelming majority of them are bad – which way to go in the hope that the disease or their loved ones that may affect finally be addressed. But, of course, nothing of the sort happens, and these poor souls deteriorate. In the case of antibiotics, in some but not enough, can also be dangerous because it can cause resistance (and also lead to a stronger strains of bacteria). With a disease like malaria, the resulting delay in receiving effective medication to be critical. No wonder that one fifth of the one million annual deaths from malaria in the world can be directly attributed to the consumption of counterfeit anti-malarial medication. In developing countries the incidence of fake drugs ranges from 10% to 50% and higher in some countries. But this is not just a problem in developing countries: in Russia it is thought that 10% of medicines are fake, and here in UK, fake anti-statins, for example, have recently infiltrated the supply chain. Really, we catch a glimpse of the dark heart of capitalism, its unbridled greed and contempt for everything else. One of the participants in the program, Channel Four said that capitalism is actually meant to be restrained and controlled or anarchy and chaos would result. But this is to miss the point: capitalism, like a mad dog with an insatiable desire to sink his teeth into someone, especially a lead (or otherwise said, we certainly try to save capitalism from itself). But even with the most rigorous restrictions, it would still try to minimize costs and maximize profit. That other shortcomings I mentioned earlier – shoddy production, built obsolescence, etc. – are actually all one piece with false manufacturing: A perhaps would prefer think in terms of a "continuum of dysfunction" here. Moreover, those companies or countries that try to act responsibly and in compliance with relative of the environment and their employees will be affected in the barbaric world of commerce, somewhat like the British slave owner in the lobby 19c argued that the liberation of slaves, the dastardly French give a commercial advantage. What is particularly ironic about the situation with counterfeit production is the main culprit is none other than the fingers of the worker's paradise, 'People's' (sic) Republic of China. Here we find the truly fascist capitalism in a mold, can not obscure the point. China must present itself as a "communist state", an Orwellian fiction tends to be ignored or half-heartedly questioned by hacks of capitalism in the "free world" (Again, sic) for cynical reasons, no doubt, is why slaughter. It is estimated that something like 15 to 20% of counterfeit products in China, and China is a major supplier counterfeit drugs – despite some lackadaisical official efforts to produce this strain. Chinese workers are themselves victims of this unjust industry as well as underpaid wage slaves and thousands die each year from taking these drugs misled. The Chinese state let her civil rulers much latitude to their employees to grind, despite the vicious reputation for dealing with miscreants, or those who are a little too far in their pursuit of profits.

Go to 'A Point of View 2 "

About the Author

Why does soda fizz when I suddenly ice to add?

I've just poured myself a glass of cola not cooled. Wish that the temperature a little colder than room temperature, I have two ice cubes from the freezer and let one of them with no splash. As a result, a wave of fizz bursting of the ice. I then half with no splash, but the resulting fizz was considerably less. My first thought is that the hot fluid must be rapidly melting the ice that surrounds the air bubbles trapped simultaneously be released in the soda and causing the Fizz. As for the second, I thought the liquid next to the first ice must have been sufficiently cooled to the second ice melts slower and less reason fizz. I hit the nail on the head, or is there something else at work here?

Yes, you nailed it on the head! The hot liquid melt the ice because the ice cube is colder than the clear soda. And while the second ice fall less fizz in the soda erupts because the soda is significantly colder now because of the first Ice Cube.

Coca-Cola: Big Splash