This is reality, this is hell, this is our life (video)

reply to post by colloredbrothers


Great thread I was just "preaching" this to a huge group at a family dinner last night.

Only problem is they create it to be this way and if you want to have anything at all you have to participate, I work about 6 months out of the year, just enough that I can have some funny money but just a small enough amount so they take hardly any taxes.

I know I’m still giving in but I have kids and they have needs so I’m screwed or I would live of the land for the rest of my life.

reply to post by colloredbrothers


I absolutely love this thread. This is pure gold and that video sums up a lot of what I've been wanting to sum up for awhile about the indirect/insidious oppression seen in modern society which uses economic tyranny more often than overt authoritarian policing to keep people under control.

Keep this in mind everyone- while we may think of the Egyptians as slaves... they were actually much the same as modern workers. They were paid and spent that meager pay in their local market while the rich/powerful basked in the glory and luxury of their collective labors.

Medieval peasants had more vacation time than modern workers do.

Tribal hunter-gatherers worked many hours less to get what they needed than we do today. And even then... it wasn't 'work' (arbitrary toil) as we think of it now, it was a holistic part of life, a direct link between wants/needs and reaching out and grabbing fulfillment from your surroundings (in a balanced/sustainable way).

Civilization has been oppressive to humans and the environment from its very inception 10,000 years ago. Extreme hierarchies of wealth and power are inherently oppressive, forever corruptible, and just plain insane when you take a big step back from our society and really see it for what it is.

We MUST and CAN think of radically different/better ways to make a living and organize society, for the promotion of our freedoms, health, human potential, ecosystems, and fulfillment. We must embrace a diversity of different lifestyles that work for different peoples, and NOT oppressive/unsustainable uniformity.

Despotism (1946)

Google Video Link

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Dometheus]

Originally posted by Nomad451
I want to leave society behind and live in the wilderness, meditate, and be free.

So what is stopping you?

reply to post by colloredbrothers


Too true. But it simply cannot work. Now if you had a society that was highly educated, they would give birth when there was a need. But on Earth, now, what you say cannot work. It's as simple as that. There's too many people and too few jobs that people like. Now one could argue that this is temporary until space travel. Indeed, within the THIS century we're suppose to have warp drives. And this will basically unlock limitless potential for humanity, Without a closed planet, and with a whole universe open to us, there will be too few people for too many jobs. You WILL be able to do what ever you want. But for now, at this point in time, the current system must continue until the above mentioned time. It's bad, it's really really bad. But it's the best way to get from here to there. Here's the thing, most people statistically will not get the jobs they want. And in turn they will become part of the system shown in the video. And in turn there will be a large number of people, roughly 10% of the population or more, that will need social support systems because of the mistakes of the past. I don't claim to know the secrets to success, but I am heading towards such a job, but it is a job I want to do, and I can be creative at, and thus far has brought me great success.

It is, in essence, career natural selection. Just like nature, you cannot have everyone on the same trophic level. It won't work in the career.

And really, you can't escape consumerism. There will always be people who don't do it, but people just do it because it's the only lot in life.

One could even argue it from a religious standpoint. In the end, the only point of life is to reproduce. Thus this life is not the important one. But that's a whole other can of worms.

In the end, this is the facts. Consumerism is part of humanity. People buy. The argument is made numerous times that people were happy back in the good 'ol days of the depression and 20s before the current system. But there's one thing everyone forgets. Back then everyone was dumb, quite literally. How many people actually finished high school? Statistically the smarter you are, the more unhappy you are, and I will testify to that unquestionable truth. So you can have one of 3 solutions:

1.) the current system, whereby people learn, work, reproduce, retire, and die. A pointless life of dread and nothing to look forward to other than being old and sleeping more.

2.) everyone does what they want and are happy. The above system, only a trading game whereby everyone's in their lovely job. Humanity at it's highest potential.

3.) Go back to the good ol days of dumb people and a few educated leaders. People buy locally and work their farms/factories until death. They get basic education, and if their lucky, high school. And if they're really lucky, college. It's the days before ww2, and somewhat before ww1. It's option 1 minus consciousness and knowledge of your situation. Ignorance is bliss.


Everyone would go to number 2, of course. Except that option is quite literally locked out until we can travel the stars. So you're stuck with 1 or 3. Most people would go with 1, and the rest would go with 3. Thus you have the world of today.



Indeed, life is a b*tch, then you die. And this cannot change, Doing what the video wants us all to do requires massive killings of humans and a drastic reduction of the population so that there is room for people to do what they want to do. That's nothing anyone wants, at least I believe.

Oh what a woeful situation. The only way you can have all people have value today is if you first delete their value and exterminate a few billion. Such is the human condition. All I can say is wait for the luck next generation who will have option 2.

reply to post by FeralMonkeyMagic


You are right that it is impossible to go completely out of grid - at least at Europe. But instead of regular 8h+ for corporate world you can spend just 2 hours. For me it is enough. I can do another 6 hours and be "rich" but I do not want so. Why? This spared 6 hours goes to my personal development. Even with my "creative" job (netadmin), employment by corporation will force me to some patterns: this is impossible because (fill your personal absurdity) - resulting in NO personal development. Instead I provide for free other people with my knowledge. My income tax is 0, but I think I do more for society than average workoholic "manager" at some crap.com ... I'm driving 12years old car and this post was created on 6 years old third hand notebook. Feeding The Beast means (for me): buy new comp. every year and new car every second year - if something broke, trash it and buy new one. It is not my way - instead I posses knowledge and if necessary, I buy tools to repair it. Still I can laugh down almost everybody fully employed by corporation. They are just idiots - with their company dress codes and inability to say NO to obvious nonsenses. Yes - after 15 years in IT (graphics, later networks) I can say it: corporate world is one big BS, total nonsense, mark of inefficiency.
The Repetition thing ... you are partially right. Human live is to some extent repetition. I'm repeatedly eating and #ting. I drive my car on "right" side, I abide law - thus repeating it. And I repeat again and again - current capitalistic model of society is not for me. If I have chance to undermine it I do it. How? It depends - political writings, chat in pub, political in-correctness ... BTW check repetition term in Kierkegaard works.

Asset - a useful and desirable thing or quality.

Resource - a source of supply, support, or aid, esp. one that can be readily drawn upon when needed.

Ever notice in corporate america that things (e.g. computers, machines, tools) are called an asset (i.e. a useful and desirable thing). Something of value.

Employees are called a resource and have been for many years. Using the definition above, it appears that a resource is not as valued as an asset and that resources are things you have to put up with to run a business.

HR departments have been using the term resource to take the human factor out of managing a company. Don't want managers to worry about someone's life outside the company.

This is one of the reasons I quit corporate america because a machine is more valued than a person and thier talents.

reply to post by SyphonX


I don't think he said everyone should or could be his own boss, just that an individual can become more than a drone more easily in a society like ours than in most others and that, rather than complain, one might work on moving on up. To the East Side. To a de-luxe -- well, you know the rest.

Money is debt and I challenge everyone in this thread to watch Zeitgeist Addendum because it expresses all of this beautifully:

Google Video Link

Zeitgeist Addendum

WE HAVE THE MEANS TO CHANGE:

www.thevenusproject.com

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

[edit on 1/20/2010 by dalan.]

The video keeps on buffering. It's annoying as hell.

reply to post by unityemissions


in the words of Joplin.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.

As technology advances the reality will be less and less need for labor. We will see fewer jobs in the future. Automation can be used in everything. Robotics are getting better. Combine that with GPS and processor power. If AI truly takes off then maybe the future can be bright.

The french had this saying for a while:

Métro, boulot, dodo

subway, work, sleep

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by Nomad451
I want to leave society behind and live in the wilderness, meditate, and be free.

So what is stopping you?

Loved ones, Family, pets? When these exist in ones life it can be difficult to just walk away forever and leave them all behind.

I see it as a dream many have. To be completely free. To walk away from the current system, and to be at peace.

To those of you who claim a system like that could never work, I would ask why not? How can you be so sure? Perhaps the current system has existed for so long now that you feel it is the only system that our species is capable of achieving.

How do you know for certain that we cannot evolve and achieve a system far greater? How do you know we cannot achieve a system where everyone on earth benefits as opposed to a select few?

If the monetary system was abolished, why would no-one on earth be capable of continuing what it is that they enjoy doing? Art, writing, reading, traveling, inventing, programming, relaxing, socializing, Educating, nursing, etc.

Why would any of that be rendered impossible if money was non existent? My guess is that it wouldn't. People would be free to pursue what they loved. The only difference would be that money would no longer be an incentive. The satisfaction out of helping others, or making yourself happy would, however.

Originally posted by ViperFoxBat
As technology advances the reality will be less and less need for labor. We will see fewer jobs in the future. Automation can be used in everything. Robotics are getting better. Combine that with GPS and processor power. If AI truly takes off then maybe the future can be bright.

Techno-optimism is new "opium of humanity", very similar to religion. In fact breath taking technological development in last 50 years did not solved any social problem. Middle class at western countries is declining from 70's and social gap between rich and rest of population is rapidly widening. In current days technology serve mostly rich and if there is not the holly thing named Internet, I can say that technology serve ONLY rich.
In other words: technology can serve humanity ONLY if society leave current oligarchical social model. At current state of affairs is technology very dangerous because is predominantly in hands of sociopaths and psychopaths.

Originally posted by zeddissad

Originally posted by ViperFoxBat
As technology advances the reality will be less and less need for labor. We will see fewer jobs in the future. Automation can be used in everything. Robotics are getting better. Combine that with GPS and processor power. If AI truly takes off then maybe the future can be bright.

Techno-optimism is new "opium of humanity", very similar to religion. In fact breath taking technological development in last 50 years did not solved any social problem. Middle class at western countries is declining from 70's and social gap between rich and rest of population is rapidly widening. In current days technology serve mostly rich and if there is not the holly thing named Internet, I can say that technology serve ONLY rich.
In other words: technology can serve humanity ONLY if society leave current oligarchical social model. At current state of affairs is technology very dangerous because is predominantly in hands of sociopaths and psychopaths.

That would be due to our MONETARY SYSTEM...no one has the incentive to worry about solving social problems because our EMPHASIS is on solving how we can make higher profits regardless of the social implications.

Like transportation for instance. The technology for automobiles has been basically unchanged since what? The early 1900's? Imagine someone coming up with an automobile that was completely reliable, one that did not break down, one that did not rely on an external fuel source...

Why would Automobile manufactures want to suppress such a technology? Because it would make them irrelevant to society, and their power would be gone. Soooo, no wonder why technology has not been used in a way to solve social problems...it will never be as long as OUR DRIVING INCENTIVE IS SELF-CENTERED PROFIT GAIN.

Also, technology is not dangerous, we are. It is OUR decision to use technology in such a way that will either uplift people or destroy them.

The choice to help or hinder is OURS and ours alone.

Ok, many people interpreted the clip as if it was propogating communism in some way or another and claim that a system like this couldn't be managed because it was too "utopian".

I have contacted the creator of this movie and this is what he explained to me.



this is "required reading" for anyone taking part in this discussion



Okay, so to your questions. Left Libertarianism has nothing to do with the American Libertarian Party. The word libertarian was first used in a political sense in the journal of La Libertaire in 1858 and has been used by the traditional Left since. It was only in the 1970's when the rightwing Libertarian Party popularized the word libertarian to mean market liberalism. The Libertarianism I'm talking about is in the tradition of Classical Liberalism, these are the philosophers who came out of the Enlightenment era. For them, liberty could only be suppressed by power. Well, at the time, the only power came from the government. During the Industrial Revolution the conditions were so repulsive, people were working 16 hour days, child labor was used, working conditions were unsafe, people were paid poorly while the super elite were hording all the money. This is when the traditional Left was born. At this time, people were not so interested by the fact that the government was limiting liberty. So the Left was in reaction to the Industrial Revolution.

During this time, many schools of thought emerged. Socialism, the one promoted by Marx had many authoritarian elements embedded in its philosophy. At this point, Left-Libertarianism was born. Another word for Left-Libertarianism is Anarchism or Libertarian Socialism. By socialism, I don't mean State Socialism (USSR, Mao, etc.) but stateless socialism. Most people think that socialism is a political system. It is not. Socialism has to do with, who owns the means of production. In State Socialism, the state owns the means of production. In capitalism, the capitalist owns the means of production. In Libertarian Socialism, (Anarchism,Left-Libertarianism) the workers own the means of production. I cannot emphasize enough that this is stateless meaning NO GOVERNMENT. Once people hear the word socialism, they automatically assume a state. In Left-Libertarianism, the schools, the workplace, the community are run by the people who live there. (I should mention that Mutualist do not run their own communities and leave it up to a free market.) They are all self-managed. They are the ones who know best how to run their own lives and it should not be up to bureaucrats in Washington to tell them how to live.

Another way of thinking about this is that in the US we have two sources of power: government and private/corporate. Instead of moving power from one source to the other, it tries to get rid of both sources. LL tries to eliminate and decentralize power to the point that it no longer exists. Only the individual people hold power. The problem with power, as I said in my video, is that power is the only thing that limits liberty. For a LL, the point is to maximize individual liberty and not concentrate power into some segment of the population (politicians, CEO's, etc.).

The three schools of anarchism are Libcom, Collectivism (sometimes called Participatory Economics today - this should not be confused with Michael Albert's Parecon) and Mutualism. These are the three schools of thought that I'm promoting. You asked if I am for the abolishment of the market. The answer is NO. I don't think anybody should be forced to live under any kind of economic hegemony. Mutualism does have a free market system. All of this comes down to a preference. Which system do you like? For me, I do not want to live under a free market system. The reason are complex and I will address this issue in Part 3 of this video series.

You asked if my system is better than communism. If by communism, you mean State Socialism then the answer is yes. State Socialism uses Central Planning which is completely inefficient and should never be tried again. The problem with Central Planning is that economies are way too complex for a small group of elites to try and coordinate. The other problem with State Socialism is that it is highly authoritarian. If I could build a time machine and go back, one of the first people I would kill would be Stalin. State Socialism does not work!

You asked if people would have to work. The answer is yes. One of the themes of Left-Libertarianism is create a world of post-scarcity. The way you might want to think of post-scarcity is something like Star Trek. In Star Trek people can create their own food (obviously we will never have a replicator) which in many ways eliminates the need for work. My personal hope is that most work would be eliminated by the use of technology/automation. Today, there is no incentive to do this so people just become part of the technology/gears itself. Well, the whole idea is that people can than pursue the things they love. Again, today, people study to become scientist but many times end up in a cubicle. That is because we just don't need that many marine biologist because the market doesn't need them. In a world of post-scarcity, people can pursue these things, create new ideas, etc. So, the whole point is to eliminate work as much as possible to leave time for the things we love.

Post-scarcity is only possible in a world without free markets. This is why I prefer them. You can't spend your way into post-scarcity. Markets are great at creating products. They are terrible at creating environments that, in my opinion, are conducive to human nature. How do I see the world in the end? I would hope to see all three schools of Left-Libertarianism living side-by-side, some with free markets, others not. These communities would be self-managed but they would also be connected by free association. As I said in my video, every free society should have voluntarism as its source but voluntarism does not necessarily lead to a free society.

continued...


[edit on 21-1-2010 by colloredbrothers]

part II


I have gotten quite a few people telling me that what I'm talking about is very close to The Venus Project. I've only seen one documentary on the subject so I'm no expert. To me, this is just one guy's vision of post-scarcity. Under a Left-Libertarian society, engineers would be freed up to actually think of all this stuff. Imagine a 1000 people trying to figure these things out instead of just one guy. This shows the possibilities we are talking about. The one thing I will say about The Venus Project (just an ignorant observation) is that economically it needs work. All economic systems should be highly decentralized. The other thing is that something like the Venus Project cannot be forced onto the public. The community itself would have to choose this direction to take. I'm not sure if the Venus Project addresses this but this would be my main opposition.