Barry Brooks durable at earthlink.net
Fri Aug 19 08:22:40 MDT 2011

 > How can a movement for the masses ignore these
 > numbers?

One cause of society's failure to adapt to
circumstances is the aversion of believers to
deep consideration of exactly what our
circumstances really are. Believers must accept a
facade. One must take the opium to be good. If
it's bad to doubt the only safe course is to not
doubt, which requires not thinking out of the box
of belief. Don't expect any solutions to spring
from that mentality. Don't expect those obsessed
with the pursuit of selfish personal salvation to
ever care about this doomed planet or poor people.

There are forms of religion, like liberation
theology, that are part of the socialist
movement. Will they survive much longer? The
true-believers are dominant and they are filled
with hate for those who love the poor and reject
the prophesy of doom.

If we wish to enlist believers into the socialist
cause we must focus on the connections between
the two movements, but that cuts both ways.

 From each according to his ability is so
obsolete. It's like Jesus seeing too few workers
for the big harvest.

The pressure on individuals by their groups is
extreme, yet many people like to talk about
freedom as if they were independent and in
control. It may not often be a law or stated in
its crude form, but "If you don't work you don't
eat" is one form of group pressure that is so
widely accepted that it isn't seen as extreme
pressure, but the internalized foundation of

Is the threat of hell for doubt more pressure
than the threat starvation for idleness? Marx
and Jesus would both reject what is being done
in their names. The faithful, of any stripe, are
not in a position to see beyond the shadows.

In a capitalist order the unearned income of the
rich is legal and widely envied. The work-ethic
that for so long has been instilled into the
souls of paupers does not apply to capitalists.

Prohibiting idle people from eating is seen a
very useful form of group pressure. Usually, some
exceptions must be made. Busy at the club, or
sailing, or whatever, the idle rich are not at
all productive. Others manage their entitlements,
leaving them free to worry and plot. How
fortunate for the idle rich that we don't have a
explicit law about undeserved eating. If one
tries to connect the idleness of the rich with
the idleness of welfare it often dismissed as
communist thinking and thus deserves no further
consideration. That's odd since most communists
don't like idleness of any kind.

Free use of one's time is the greatest freedom.
Work-or-starve is one of the greatest pressures a
group can place on the individual. Isn't it odd
that those who hate free-riders often wish to
become free-riders too, if they aren't already.
Social rejection and poverty are not often seen
as the enforcers of work or an agents of any kind
of un-freedom.

Be a person first. If you self-identify as a
worker it's time to get-over it. Seeing ourselves
as workers, accepting wage-dependence, and
supporting maximum consumption to make jobs must
end. Fixing the system is good for all people,
but that can not happen so long as people
classify themselves into vague boxes, join little
groups, and work to see no more that half of the

Seeing people as people, which is more than just
workers or believers, will be necessary to allow
a transition from wage-dependence to
profit-dependence, and to allow our work to be
directed to just what we really need or what we
think is important, instead of working to produce
as much as possible.

Freedom from group pressure doesn't exist. The
question is what should we demand of people, and
what should we withhold to enforce that group
need? Social rejection is the most powerful
stick. We need each person to be a good steward
of what he has been given so that it can be
passed on and used by others.

A "healthy" life is not a productive life.
Producing more than is needed is economic cancer
and that is not "healthy," unless you are a
cancer cell. Earth people are consuming more each
year. Maybe it was just growth, but it has become
planet-plunder. The "From each" we need to demand
is that they help to stop unsustainable pollution
and consumption.

But, how can people take a vacation at home to
consume less while they must give so much time
being productive to fill an imagined labor
shortage? Consumption must increase to do any
job. Transportation, operation energy, production
inputs, and all the costs of a jobs are only
justified if the job is really needed.

One deal we might make with each person: in
exchange for a basic income we need you to pursue
the means for your family to live well while
cutting your resource consumption, and thus
cutting your need for income. If you fail to
please the group you can still eat. "Free-riders
unite" will pit the rich and the poor against the
workers who haven't yet been downsized yet.

By changing our economic goal to the provision of
needs and wants we can best care for the existing
over-population of the planet. Making jobs
requires trading final wealth for current income,
and it denies the importance of inheritance,
ignores the surplus of labor, and implicitly
denies resource limits. Wage-dependence lies
behind our need to consume more than can be

Austerity is conservation by poverty. It would be
much better to build a system that sets people up
so that they don't consume much because they
don't need to consume much. Durability,
inheritance, and population stability can combine
with efficiency to allow vast wealth to by
supported by low consumption, and the
corresponding small incomes... no austerity



More information about the Marxism mailing list