Martin Da Yoica's blog
"How many years can a mountain exist,
before it is washed to the sea?
How many years can some people exist,
before they're allowed to be free?
And how many times can a man turn his head,
and pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind,
the answer is blowing in the wind."
Emmmmmm, markets periodicaly crashing, "middle class" continualy declining, China on the economic rise, wealth continues concentrating. Sounds kind of familiar. I'll check back in a year and see how the "predictions" are coming along. Enjoy your political diversions my working class commrades :)
The question should really be how has land aquirred a value? It is from the land that we derive everything of use. We are dependant upon it for our very survival. To give up that which feeds you is sucide, is it not? Why then is land not priceless to everyone? In reality it is, how much you care though is relative to your conditions and positions in life. Through the ever complicating social structure man has lost sight of what is really important, the land and labour, and instead focus' on the abstract, money and commodities. It is not that we have become less dependant upon the land but more dependant on society. As a result the land becomes the abstract and comodities the reality.
For all of us money is a nessecity, and without money nobody would last very long in todays' society. It is for the majority of the human race the only means of survival within the capitalist system. So you would think that with its' "life giving powers" and constant everyday use, money would be better understood by those most dependant upon it. Unfortunetly this isn't the case. It is not what money is or how it impacts on the whole of society, but how money can best be "made" by the individual, for the individual. Why? Greed is a factor, but the need to survive is probably the most accurate answer among those who have to work for it. The need to know what it is, is over shadowed by the need to have what it is. So what is it?
The price of a commodity is determined by three factors. The competition between seller and seller. Competition between buyer and buyer, and finally competition between seller and buyer.
Seller Vs Seller; whoever sells the same commodity of the same quality for the cheapest price will dominate the market. This has the effect of pushing down the price of a certain commodity.
Buyer Vs Buyer; this has the effect of increasing the price of a commodity.
Seller Vs Buyer; the outcome will depend upon the result of the first two groups. If there is less competition between the sellers than that of the buyers the price will rise, and the opposite will produce the effect of lowering prices. In the same proportion in which the competition between sellers decreases, the competition among the buyers increases. In reality it is usually competition among the sellers that is most often the case; an excess of supply over the demand, and the selling of commodities at ridiculously low prices.
Whether we would choose to be a part of society, the simple truth is that we are. Whether we would choose to progress or not in knowledge and technology, the obvious fact is that we do. As a result, with these progressions life should become easier. As human society has evolved the conscious and physical level of co-operation has also risen. It is this co-operation which has allowed technology and our understanding to brilliantly explode in the way that it has. But everything created today owes its' existance to what was created before, that is to say, the evolution of technology and machinery is akin to the human condition, an unbroken chain of progression through co-operation within society. This was achieved due to the division of labour, specialization in a certian area of work. Where one man hunted another made the spears. As society evolved the spear maker no longer had to gather the raw materials as that area of work was divided into flint miner and woodsman, and so on. The production time (or work) early societies had to do to first survive fell in relation to the advancement of divided labour, ie; co-operation, and living conditions rose. The tools, machines and knowledge in society are exclusivly for the use of that society. They are of a purely social nature, they owe thier existance to humans working in co-operation. Man, alone, is weak. He is unable to produce by himself what you now see in front of you. To accomplish such a feat as the world today requires more than one pair of hands.
I'm tired of seeing the word "communist" or Marxist banded around by the ignorant. So I'm inviting people to prove thier stupidity (or intelligence) in thier depiction of Marxist Communism. Here 's a hint, stay away from Russia (unless you want to argue about Lenonist revulotion vs Trotskyism). I think from today if you use the word communist or marxist and you haven't proved that these theories are incorrect then you're an idiot. Truth is experience, logic and reason, use it
The comparrisons between Cannabis and alcohol stop at the word drug. What annoys me is the hypocracy Goverments and "legal" citizens display in relation to these two substances. Where it is commonoly accepted in western Goverments that drinking until your sick, pissing on public property and beating on a total stranger is accepted behaviour, apparently smoking marijuana, eating too much and falling asleep at 2 in the afternoon is a greater threat to modern civilisation.
The deaths attributed to alcohol abuse are easy to find. In the U.K they have doubled from 4,144 in '91 to 8,316 in 2005. The physical damage on the drinker is also easily seen. Impaired movement, cancer, respitory failure, liver damage, but hey, if you want to dilute your blood with ethanol, go for it. I cann't dictate what you do with yourself, but alcohol affects the non-drinkers. As alcohol affects reasoning, actions taken while drunk are generally unreasoned. In the U.S 16,919 people were killed due to to drink driving (2004). The amount of fatalities increase every year, families who suffer abuse from alcoholism, mental, physical and financial, the list goes on. This is the legal substance, permitted by law.
Personally I believe that due to the nature of capital, socialist reform is impossible. Predominantly a Marxist, I take much of my economic theory from Das Kapital, as for me it is a more believable account of our social make-up. Although I do not oppose the idea of reforms, they are limited to what they can achieve and extremely vunerable to capitalist attacks. Trade union regulations (labor law, U.S) in the U.K are worse and fewer now than in 1907. Nationalisation of the transport system and health service are even more proof, that in a capitalist system all which stands firm in the end is business which creates more capital than its' rivals. Reforms are easily swept aside when they clash with the needs of business.
You're walking through an abandoned building when you hear somebody shouting out for help. You follow the sound of thier voice to find them trapped in a broken lift (elevator). The button on the inside is broken, but the one on the outside will open the doors and free the person. Would it be murder to walk away and leave them trapped? (and it's not your fault they are trapped).
I was asked the question this morning by a friend at work (who told it alot better than I've just done). We both agreed it constituted murder, if you can help you should. Then I posed another question on the same lines, if you have food or money to buy food, is it murder if somebody starves? My friend was unsure, but to me the two situations appear identical. It made me think how many mass murderers we have living free among us, if indeed to leave the abandoned stranded is murder.
The mis-conception of words and ideas are a big problem within todays' society. Usually it is the individuals own mis-interpretation of a fact or belief, which by itself is rarely a life or death factor in day-to-day life. But ocassionaly a word is hi-jacked intentionally and is given a completely different meaning to the original idea for no reason other than politacal propaganda. Anarchism is one example of how those opposed to an idea seek to muddy its' beliefs. But there is a more influencial and important word which is still affecting the "civilised" world, the 300 year old word which still inspires fear into the hearts of the free, Communism.
If you have read any of my past diaries you would be forgiven for thinking the following is another dig at the capitalist system. On the contrary, some aspects of capitalism I accept as a nessecary step in human evolution, and the following are a few reasons why.
Firstly I would like to thank globalisation for this blog. Without the spread of technology and knowledge, the chances are we may never have known of each other. Life in general would be alot less comfortable and believe it or not, alot more ignorant.
Secondly I want to pay homage to the ever growing army of workers capitalism has created and requires in order to function. In essence it has created an equality among the majority. As business tries ever harder to compete in the new and old markets alike, so this equality in squalor will become ever more pronounced. The increasing solidarity will do more in fighting ignorance than any book, leader or ideology ever could.
The only real difference between the two is perspective. Firstly I want to define racism in the way I believe it is understood by the majority. There is and has been alot of debate about what constitutes a race in the years after Darwin, and it is now generally accepted within the scientific community that race is almost impossible to define. I believe what is central to racism is the same as that of piss taking out of people with speech defects or abnormal facial features. It is the degradation of the inividual or minority attacked for nothing more than a difference in attributes. Now this is the question I ask all you red-blooded partriots, what exactly do you love? You claim your country, but that is mere dirt and rock. You say your traditions, but they are merely ideas and concepts. What you are claiming to love is "your" people and what "your" people have achieved. Who says they are "yours"? All peoples are derivied from the same area orianally, but we don't even have to look too far back to realise that the patriotic are at best irrassional. Take America, founded by immigrants the world over, are you loyal to them patriot? In which case are you loyal to his country for founding "your" country? I thought not. And patriot, what is the difference between elevating "your" people or lowering thier opinions of the "other" peoples? Nothing, it is the same divide only moving in different directions.
It strikes me as odd that five hundred years before the garbage of the old testament was written, arguably the most influencial work in philosophical understanding was produced. What confuses me is the value of the content found in each and (to myself atleast) how humanity has not merely stalled in the method of reason and understanding, but in fact has devolved. The work in question is (if you haven't already guessed by the title) the Apology by Plato. It is, to cut a long story short, the trial of Socrates (Platos' teacher) and his defence in response to the allegations of corrupting the youths of Greece. It is the best insight we have about the teachings of Socrates, (although there are some who believe Plato may have added his own ideas) but what makes him stand out from the thousands of other philosphers, theologains and thinkers throughout the ages? Well to begin with it was how he applied dialectical reason to understanding life. The same method modern science uses now to determine the validity of truth. He was predominatly a skeptic, although it is clear there are some things which he did believe. In religous terms he was agnostic (way before the word agnostic was thought of) and non-commited to any belief of a life after death due to himself not having yet died. He teaches the value of self understanding, critical reasoning of that self and of the world "outside". He questions the power and knowledge of authority, preferring to believe in himself and his experiances rather than the words of others. He is the origanal free thinker.
To find a job you love, to make millions from this job and then retire at 30, never needing to work again. The dream of capitalism. The driving force behind our ecconomy and by extention (although not that far extended) our goverments and educational systems. For the majority of us the dream will remain thus, a dream, and even fewer still will realise why. For a society of "free thinkers" very little thinking actually takes place. Most of the time "we go with the flow", that is, we believe what we are told rather than find out for ourselves. Why? Because it's easier, apparently. But thats life for you, a quick fix and forget the long term consequences. Unfortunatley some consequences take time to occur, and when they do their origin may be lost or uncertain to us, the trouble with money being a prime example. The lethargy towards self education and exploration is, to put it bluntly, why life's a bitch. Of course there are some people who exploit the current system, knowingly, causing anguish and murdering the "innocent", but these are as a few as those who know how they are being exploited (and just about as willing to do something). As money and capital become ever more concentrated, as goverments have no choice but to pander to big business' demands, as the poor get poorer and the rich get fewer, the world gets ever more desperate for solutions.