Prada Akiniai Byla
Kiek aš galiu parduoti šias Prada akiniai nuo saulės už?
http://www.eyewearus.com/pd.asp?prod_id=393&txt_brand_id=23&txt_color_code=1AB1A1&cbocat=1
Aš iš tų poros. Aš neturiu už jį ar ko nors atveju tik akiniai. Kaip manote, galiu parduoti šias eBay?
Ne daug. Akiniai nuo saulės ne paprastai turi aukštą perpardavimo vertę.
Some Great pasiūlymai Prada Akiniai Byla iš Ebay
 |
 Prada akiniai nuo saulės Stilius SPR 02E 1AB 1A1 
US $ 19,99 |  BRAND NEW 100 AUTENTIŠKUS PRADA SUNGLASSES JAV $ 170,00 |  Prada Taškai VPR 63i Pusė ratlankių Brown Sidabras mint
JAV $ 80,00 |
 PRADA SUNGLASSES
JAV $ 36,00 |  PRADA SPS07F SPS SPS 07H 07H BLACK 1AB 1A1 SUNGLASSES
JAV $ 163,15 |  PRADA akiniai DIZAINERIS FRAMES akiniai VPRO5E 5AW 101
JAV $ 11,75 |
 PRADA akiniai nuo saulės SPR 64I BLACK 1BC 1A1 SPR64I
JAV $ 200,00 |  PRADA akiniai VPR 19h BLACK W Kristalai Naujovės AUTH
JAV $ 134,95 |  PRADA DIZAINERIS akiniai FRAMES akiniai NAUJAS VPR 55H
JAV $ 15,65 |
 Prada akiniai nuo saulės SPR53H retai
JAV $ 48,76 |  Prada akiniai nuo saulės sps56g autentiškas
JAV $ 51,00 |  Prada SPR 56h saulės akiniai poliarizuoti Shield
JAV $ 200,00 |
 NAUJAS PRADA VPR71I VPR 71I 71 I 7RK101 akiniai akiniai
JAV $ 135,00 |  BRAND NEW IN BOX Prada SPR 53H 5AV 5D1
JAV $ 117,50 |  NIB Prada Sportas 51SL gunmetal Aviator akiniai nuo saulės
JAV $ 149,99 |
 PRADA akiniai VPR 09G
$ 70.00 |  MTV MTV Ladies FRAMES stiklai
JAV $ 4,65 |
 PRADA Milanas FRAMES akiniai VPR 22M 7S3 101 Ladies
JAV $ 26,89 |
 Autentiški Prada gunmetal Kvepalai 65I 65IS 5AV1A1 NAUJAS
JAV $ 53,00 |  Prada akiniai nuo saulės moteriški
US $ 99.00 |  NAUJAS PRADA PR13LS SUNGLASSES OAQ301 BROWN WOOD
JAV $ 69,95 |
 NA PRADA SUNGLASSES BRAND NEW IN BOX su byla
JAV $ 61,00 |  BRAND NEW PRADA recepto akiniai
JAV $ 80,00 |  NAUJAS PRADA VPR 65 l akiniai VPR65L 65L
JAV $ 130,00 |
 Oliver liaudininkų Farrell Brown 64 VFX poliarizuota
JAV $ 129,99 |  Versace 1151 Akiniai Rėmai Black 50 išparduoti
JAV $ 98,77 |  Autentiška "Versace" 1120 Taškai rėmelį Black 50 IŠPARDAVIMAS
JAV $ 89,99 |
 Autentiški Prada Sportas Akiniai 06A 06AV 7OU1O1 NAUJAS
US $ 99.00 |  Autentiški Prada Purple Taškai 13L 13LV 7XO101 NAUJAS
US $ 99.00 |
 Prada VPR10G Juodosios rėmeliai
JAV $ 85,00 |
 Naujas lengvosios Kompiuterių Akiniai skaitymui Byla 250
US $ 1,99 |
 Prada akiniai nuo saulės sps50e SPS 50E
US $ 9,99 |  NAUJAS PRADA SPS031 Akiniai nuo saulės šešėliai Akiniai 2010 Edition
JAV $ 26,00 |
 PRADA TRENDY SUNGLASSES BLACK vertė daugiau nei $ 20000
$ 45.00 |  PRADA akiniai VPR 19h BROWN W Kristalai Naujovės AUTH
JAV $ 129,95 |  PRADA SPR 54I SPR54I BLACK 1BC 3M1 SUNGLASSES 541
JAV $ 177,99 |
 PRADA SPS07H SPS SPS 07H 07H BLACK 7OV 1A1 SUNGLASSES
JAV $ 163,15 |
 Prada VPR 10F Akiniai
$ 30,00 |  TIKRAS PRADA VPR 13I 7ON 1O1 DIZAINERIS FRAMES stiklai
JAV $ 172,26 |
 MTV MTV PRADA NAUJAS DIZAINERIS akiniai BLACK GREY FRAMES
JAV $ 1,88 |  Auth Prada Akiniai Byla W objektyvas audinio
JAV $ 10,99 |  Prada Unisex akiniai nuo saulės BRAND NEW IN BOX su byla
JAV $ 119,99 |
 NAUJAS PRADA VPR 05 L 5L akiniai VPR05L 05 L 1AB 101
JAV $ 120,00 |  Prada Unisex akiniai nuo saulės BRAND NEW IN BOX su byla
JAV $ 99,99 |  PRADA akiniai VPR 20G vėžlių 2AU 1O1
JAV $ 129,95 |
 PRADA akiniai VPR 07L vėžlių 2AU 1O1 NAUJAS AUTHENTIC
JAV $ 139,95 |
 Prada akiniai nuo saulės SPR 64I Juoda Balta 1BC 1A1 SPR64I
JAV $ 39,99 |  Prada VPR 67G
JAV $ 80,00 |
 MTV MTV Prada akiniai nuo saulės Autentiški dokumentai Švaresnis
JAV $ 85,00 |  NewPrada PR19LV 1AB 1O1 akiniai Love It
JAV $ 40,74 |  Mens PRADA apvadų AMBER lenses SUNGLASSES
JAV $ 89,99 |
 NAUJAS PRADA VPR 74 H akiniai VPR74H 74 H DYDIS 51
JAV $ 135,00 |  NEW PRADA SPS53H Sunglasses Shades Glasses 2010 Edition US $5.50 |  PRADA EYEGLASSES VPR 01M GREY GREEN ZXE 1O1 NEW AUTH US $124.95 |
 PRADA EYEGLASSES VPR 01M BROWN NEW AND AUTHENTIC US $129.95 |
Some Great pasiūlymai Prada Akiniai Byla Amazon
 |
OPI Nagų Lakas Samoa Smėlio P61 Pardavimo kaina: 2,65 $  |
OPI nagų lako 0.5oz |
Kokio 1 punktas
Požiūriu
Andy Cox
Filosofija
Laimė yra ryškus žiedas
gyvybių gyveno turtingas priemolis.
Mūsų žmogiškumo humuso tiems ateiti,
bet mes taip pat yra gavėjai
kiti tarp mūsų arba dingo.
Taigi, mirtis yra atšauktas per gyvenimo palikimas,
nepaliaudami todėl į mūsų bendrą dirvožemio,
mūsų Sodružestvo, kurioje viena trumpa
atrodo, išnešimo kiti.
- Ne reinkarnacija:
Tik kitiems informuoti mus, kaip mes apie kitus -
iš kurių mes galime pasirinkti tauriųjų tikslas.
Dark piktžolių gali būti tarp mūsų
kad būtų Atsisakyti mūsų abipusiškumas ir siurbėlė,
kaip yra tokių, kurie būtų nustatyti patys, išskyrus
į manicured lovos sugadintas su steriliu dirvožemio.
Nei pripažįsta, duoti ir imti.
Tačiau tai yra mūsų ryšius, išlaisvins mus, -
žinoti, ko mus vienija unbinds mus.
Ir kai vieną dieną, tai tampa religija,
tada gali rasti gebėjimą džiaugtis
kiekvieną kartą bud atidaro
2002
Tai maždaug taip: geras daug metų, mano galva, buvo verdama intelektinės troškinys rūšiuoti, sudedamųjų dalių, kurioms pavyko išsaugoti savo atskirą tapatybę, net jeigu jie jau tapo šiek tiek nuobodus laikui bėgant. Gero vyno purslų buvo tikrai sustiprinti skonį: (In vino veritas, be abejo). Ir daug gerų argumentų pateikė prieskonių, pridėti niuansas į vietas. Sakau kūrimą, bet, atvirkščiai, nė viena iš šių sudedamųjų dalių yra nauja: vienas arba du iš šių senas šaknis buvo maždaug nuo Antikos laikų. Kas domina mane, tačiau yra jų tarpusavio sąveikos, viliojantis galimybė, kad jie gali taip kalbėti, papildyti vienas kitą. Jų integraciją į kažką daugiau, pasaulėžiūra, jei norite, yra šios prieštaringos naudotis darbe. Penki iš didesnių organizacijų šioje troškinys, kurį ketinu gabaliuką atskirai, yra šios:
- Analogija su melagingais žinių šaltinis.
- Ne survivalist idėja, kad mes neturime tapatybės, arba kad po mirties.
- Ateizmas
- Idėja ir idealas Bezpieniężny be pilietybės, propertyless pasaulį, kuriame kiekvienas turi laisvą prieigą prie žmonijos produktų, ir padeda pagal savo galimybes ir noro.
Šie, norėčiau teigia, prisidėti prie penktą ingredientas, būtent:
- Etika, kuri įpareigoja vieną geriau kitų gyvenimus.
Tačiau prieš pradedant su kaušas this out, yra kažkas jaučiu, kurią reikia pasakė: Vaikino, manau, yra pasmerktas būti filosofu. Niekas baras šių abstrakčių minties neturi gali išeiti toks likimas. Po visų internalizuoti smulkmenos, po gautų žinių, kad minios sielos sluoksnių, slypi filosofinės statybos spręsti labai nub apie savo egzistavimą, ar tai pripažįstama, ar ne, ar šis statyba figūrą kietajame priekalo kritinės minties ar yra tik tradicinių atsakymų į didžiuosius klausimus, gyvenimo sąryšis. Kitaip tariant, kiekvienas turi pasaulėžiūra. Pateikdama savo, aš tik d. pagimdė filosofinių statybos, kad atrodo logiška, kad man. Tiesą sakant, aš ne abejonės tam tikras apie tai: Tai tiltas vietose ir turi daug apsitrynęs kniedės. Bet coheres pakankamai patenkinti savo poreikį suprasti pasaulį aplink mane.
Taigi čia yra, kad intelektinės troškinys skonis: aš ne idėja, ne visiems, kodėl mes čia šioje žemėje, ar iš tiesų, kodėl žemė turėtų būti čia, į pirmąją vietą. Bet teigti, kad mūsų buvimas, ir kad visatos tarnauti tam tikslui kyla daugiau nei kelis klausimus. Ką aš manau traukia žmones į šią mąstymo rūšiuoti yra giliai įsišaknijęs, beveik reflexive, polinkis į analogiškas mąstymo, kurioje vienas reiškinys aiškinamas lyginant jį ir piešimo paralelių su kitu. Man atrodo, kad mūsų įprastą gyvenimą - kai neužsiima Filosofinis diskursas - mes kartais netiesiogiai informuojami visi kliedesiai būdu, taip pat tiesos, kurios mes negalime sustabdyti apsvarstyti, ir kurie išgaunami iš purvo mūsų žemiškas egzistavimo, visų pirma, per analogiją mechanizmas. Mūsų paprastas pasaulis, nuo kurio mes Brody į filosofinius ekskursijos. Galima būtų teigti, kad tai pati bazė užima Filosofinis reljefas. Tačiau filosofinės pagrindimas mūsų kasdienybės netiesiogiai būtina ir "iš proto": kai mes bendradarbiauti su įprasta, mes retai impelled link filosofinė refleksija. Filosofija, bet kuriuo atveju konkuruoja su daugeliu kitų sričių - psichologija, biologija, ekonomika, be kita ko - dėl mūsų polinkis imti. Aš nesakau, kad analogiškas mąstymo, nenaudojant: Visi siūlau, kad jei nulio po daugelio savaime suprantamas sąvokas, kurios ėmėsi apsigyventi mūsų protus, jūs gali susidurti analogų, kad ne stovėti iki tikrinimu. Kartais net ne žino, kad analogiškai yra rengiama, jau nekalbant, kad analogiškas klaidingumo yra padaryta prielaida, kad kažkaip palyginimas rodo, ką tokiu atveju, o ne tik siūlo - paprastai grafinę ar vaizdingos būdu - kaip reiškinys klausimas galėtų būti paaiškinta. Be to, tam tikrais atvejais, analogiškai yra akivaizdžiai klaidingas. Nieko pavyzdys tai geriau, nei tam tikrų argumentų, kuriais siekiama įrodyti Dievo buvimą. Nuo projekto argumentas, pavyzdžiui, ar jį, kad būtų ir grožis visatos įrodyti, kad ji turi būti suprojektuota. Ne tik šį argumentą diskutuotina prielaida - kad ir grožis yra aiškiai ne visur dabar, ir galėtų būti priskirti veikiau of the Beholder akis, bet daroma išvada, tiesiog ne sequitur: ji remiasi, žinoma, dėl numanomo analogiją su , tarkim, meistras sukurti gražus artefaktas - mikrokosminiame įvykį, kuris, kaip manoma kaip nors tapti macrocosmic atveju, visatos sukūrimą lygiagrečiai. Tačiau,
(A) tai tiesiog dar nereiškia, kad kas turi gera mikrokosminiame situaciją - ty kad artefaktas yra akivaizdu buvo kas nors - turi gera macrocosmic situacija, kai vienas yra susidūręs su begalybės visatą. Daugių daugiausia, galima leisti, kad išvada daroma. Bet tam reikia lyginti šių situacijų, kuris yra tiesiog nėra: Iš mikrokosminiame situacija, amatininkas yra atsakingas tik už ribotą produktų skaičių iš daugelio objektų pasaulyje, įskaitant ir kitų meistrų. Tariamas Dievas makroskopinės padėtis laikoma, kad yra sukurta viskas savo.
(B) analogiškai yra klaidinga, dėl tos priežasties, bet ir todėl, kad mikrokosminiame situacija, meistras gamina iš medžiagų artefaktas po ranka, pavyzdžiui, medienos. Dievas, tačiau, manoma, padarytais religinių Gynėjas sukurti visatos ex nihilo, iš nieko.
Dėl šių ir kitų priežasčių - pavyzdžiui, priskiriant tam tikras apraiškas, kad vietoj to evoliucijos jėgos - nuo projektavimo Argumentas yra visiškai neįtikinami. Tačiau svarbu pažymėti, kad ji iš esmės yra nepagrįsta brėžinys išvadas dėl analogiją pagrindas, taip pat trūkumų pobūdis analogiškai, kuri kenkia šio argumento. Be to, kaip su visais filosofiniais argumentais, kyla prasme problema, kurią reikia spręsti dar prieš logiką, suabejojo: Ką mes tai, kai sakome, kad Dievas sukūrė viską, ex nihilo? Norėčiau drįstu teigti, kad idėja yra nesuprantama, ir kad bet koks bandymas išaiškinti, ką reiškia tai gali remtis dar daugiau nepagrįstas išvadas padaryti iš dar daugiau trūkumų analogijos. Tiesiog apjuostame kartu iš žodžių numeris gramatiškai teisingas sakinys, kaip "Dievas sukūrė viską", gali sukurti prasmės iliuzija, bet gramatiškai susidarančių prasme nėra jokio konceptualaus aiškumo pakeisti. Bet kokiu atveju, toks yra analogiškas mąstymo, kuris prasiskverbė į mūsų kalbą ir motyvavimo pobūdį. Nenuostabu, kad jis apibūdina daug diskusijų dėl baimės objektas mirties.
Mirtis yra asmens: mums Vakarus, ji yra kažkas, kuris gali sunaudoti savo vidinę gyvybę, be abejo, kaip ji naudoja išaižos mes vadiname mūsų kūnus. Tai raison dêtre už tiek gyvenime, susibūrimas punktas, pasienio postą kasdieniame pasaulyje. Tai sąvoka nušautas per galingą emocijos: baimė, pyktis, pasibjaurėjimas, liūdesys, meilė. Ir ji taip pat yra kažkas, kuris yra suprantamas pagal analogijas. Jau turiu netyčia panaudojo analogišką mąstymas mano nuorodos į mūsų vidinį gyvenimą ir išorinės žievelės Aš perteikė į mašiną vaiduoklis. Aš taip pat pasiūlė, kad mirtis yra kaip miegas, pridedant rezultatas, kad "miego mirties, sapnai gali būti", kad dvasia gyvenime mūsų laukia ", kai mes išmaišytos off tai mirties ritė". Bet kokiu pagrindu aš norėjau priėjo prie šios išvados? Klausimo RUB yra ta, kad šis tikėjimas yra pagrįstas visų pirma remiantis analogija, ir kad toliau ji gali būti labai giliai įsišakniję, nes bijojo prarasti savo ego, bijo, kad yra ypač sąlygoja individualizmo etosas vadinamųjų pažangių visuomenių. Norėčiau pasiūlyti, o ne, kad mes ramiai apsvarstyti alternatyvių, ty, kad nėra pomirtinio gyvenimo. Norėčiau manyti, kad kai mes mirštame ne Dangus ar Pragaras laukia mūsų, nes, kalbant, mes, daugiau nebus. Tokiu atveju galime turėti jokios priežasties bijoti mirties, nes ji vykdo ne mums įtakos ne tik mūsų visiškai sunaikinimo. Žinau, žinoma, kad kažkam patiko man, katalikų auklėjimo, silpną baimės neduoda ramybės šis mirties statybos produkto. Tačiau tai vargu ar mažina argumentas. Tai tikrai geriau, kad galva ir širdis turėtų pritarti, bet, kaip senas susituokusi pora, šie du fakultetai ne visada matyti akis į akį.
Nors giliai asmens, mirties yra socialinis reiškinys, taip pat: nedidelio masto, yra mirusio, žinoma, kuris ne tik jaustis nuostolių, tačiau jų tarnavimo laikas yra daugiau ar mažiau, subtiliai ar gerokai pakeista. Šis poveikis gali kaskados ir šen. Pavyzdžiui, mirtis gali atlaisvinti ryšių arba suburti žmones, ir tai gali įtakoti filialų ir sąveika kartoms, kad po modelio. Macrocosmically pat mirties yra kažkas, su kuria visuomenė turi kovoti. Nesu prejudicinį Čia, pavyzdžiui, įvairių organų ir sergamumo rodiklius ir jų reikšmę valstybės rūpestis, jie gali turėti Vyriausybės išlaidų. Aš kalbu, o į gilesnę būdą, kuriuo visuomenė yra įtrauktas su mirties fenomenas: į tai, kad mirtis yra kažkas, kuris yra "kultūriškai tarpininkaujant." Be getting į apie kultūros pobūdį diskusijos - ji įvairiai buvo aiškinama kaip apimanti simbolinė ir įgijo visuomenės aspektų, kaip kažką atskira nuo gamtos, kaip kažkas skiriasi nuo socialinės struktūros, taip kažką panašaus į ideologija, arba kaip būdas gyvenimo - šiame kontekste ši frazė susijusi su visuomenės išteklių, kuri yra panaudota, kad įgautų reikšmę, kokia yra tam tikra prasme nesuprantamas įvykis, ir pateikia ritualus, su kuria tvarka ir prastumas yra atkurta. Mirtis, ypač kai jis yra netikėtas ir dramatiškas, dažnai ypatingos įvairiais būdais, ir turi galimybę išsamiai sumenkinti statyti mes žinome, kaip visuomenė. Mes tai pasireiškia kartais atsisakyti ir būrys etapas kažkas, kas iš tikrųjų miršta. Ir mirtis, žinoma, yra vienos iš už visuomenės ribų. Taigi visuomenė turi įsitvirtinti - per kultūrą - iki kovos su nenusakoma gyvenimo prasmę yra nereikšmingi, tikslai ir siekiai yra beprasmiška, ir normos, yra nesvarbus, o tai gali turėti taip pat drauge netekties patirtimi. Tai yra kažkas, kuris yra aktyviai nagrinėjami per socializacijos procesą, kai, kaip viena yra gyventi apskritai, o ne kaip reikia susidoroti su mirties visų pirma yra dėmesio centre. Kalbant apie visuomenės atžvilgiu, tai, kas nėra būtina, kad asmenims, augti manyti, kad nėra prasmės gyventi, jie gali taip pat priimti viską, ką nori iš gyvenimo, ir aktas vis dėlto jie prašome, neatsižvelgiant į pasekmes. Visuomenė gali tiesiog neveikia kaip nihilistinis egoists agregaciją. Kitaip tariant, visuomenės bjaurisi Bezprawie, kiek gamta bjaurisi vakuume. Jei viena pasirinko kalbėti apie visuomenę kai reified prasme, kaip turintys atskirą egzistavimą, galima sakyti, kad jeigu jos nariais ne kažkiek užsisakyti bendro tikėjimo ir vertybių, tada visuomenės audinys gali pats išpainioti. Grįžtant prie netekties tema, galima sakyti, kad, jeigu dėl asmens, glaudžiai mirties jiems asmenims liko jausmas, kad gyvenime, neturėjo jokios reikšmės arba nieko verta, tada jie negalės tinkamai įvykdyti savo socialinius vaidmenis, ir tai taip pat gali turėti visas pasekmes kitiems rūšių, ne tik emociškai nerimą pastaruoju. Kai mirtis įvyksta, asmenys turi jausti, kad tam tikra prasme, "gyvenimas tęsiasi". Komfortą ir paramą, kurią draugai sustiprina šį pranešimą, ir subliminally įspūdį dėl mirusio, kad jie ir toliau priklauso per kitų socialinių būtybių tinklas. Šnekamosios kalbos žodžiai, kad kažkas pasaulyje griūna į mirties padarinius dažnai apibendrina netekties patirtimi. Kai kultūra yra dislokuoti nusprendė, kad pasaulyje kartu, tai yra daugiausia vieno konkretaus komponento kultūrą, kurios uždavinys yra tai, ir kad komponentas yra žinoma kaip religija
Dabar, aš nesiūlau, kad religija būtinai ateina į žaidimą, kai kas nors miršta. Bet tai tikrai atrodo, kad taip atsitiktų didžiąją dalį laiko, ir beveik visose visuomenėse. Religija, žinoma, pagrindinis (tačiau jokiu būdu išimtines) rėmėjas nuomone, kad mes kažkaip išgyventi mirtį. Be to, religijos paprastai kalba taip pat pareiškia, kad tai, kas vyksta su mumis po mirties nustatomas pagal tai, kaip mes atliekame patys gyvenime. Negali būti abejonių, kad skatinant tokias idėjas, religijos tarnauja visuomenei gerai imunizuojantį asmenis nuo anomic tendencijos mirties akivaizdoje. Jo kunigai ir pamokslininkai, mulų ir rabinų šimtmečius officiated per mirties ritualus, ir paguodė praradau su pažadais raj. Tačiau yra daug daugiau, kad tarp religijos ir visuomenės, nei santykiai, nes vienas dalykas, daugeliu atvejų, buvęs paprastai tarnauja siekiant palengvinti masė atitikties labiausiai visuomenės normas per stūmimas etikos darbotvarkę, apatinė eilutė, kurios - bent į Abrahamaic religijų - ta, kad jei yra geras jums eiti į dangų ir, jei yra blogai jums eiti į pragarą. Be to, religijos ir valstybės yra instituciškai enmeshed įvairiais būdais daugelyje šalių: Teokratija, jie beveik nesiskiria. In the West, religija gali būti pasitraukė į Atgal suolai, tačiau ji vis dar valdo Investuodama save įvairaus laipsnio politiniame gyvenime šalių, kartais šiek būdas. Net atvirai ateistinių valstybių, pusiau religijos Rūšiuoti pripildomas absurdy kaip Kim Jong-il Šiaurės Korėjos darant prielaidą, kad Dievas panašus statusas pažeidimas. Taigi religija vaidino svarbų vaidmenį įtraukiant šventa aspektas nešvarų verslą eksploatavimo būklę. Taip pat sunku paneigti, kad daugelis, daugelis žmonių, religiją balzamas, paguodos, "opiatų", ir, kaip toks, mano kai kurie ne narė spaudimą, kuris kitu atveju galėtų susiduria su sunkiai suprantama lygiai socialiniai neramumai. Iš tiesų, vienas iš šiuolaikinės istorijos ironies yra tai, kad dažnai į pirmiau minėtoje ateistinių valstybių, buvusių ar išvis, kur paguodos, ko gero buvo daugiausia nekantriai siekė, kad tradicinei pobūdžio religijos klesti grybelių panašūs į šešėliai. Why religion should be an opiate is not hard to see: When life is unrelentingly grim, as it is for the vast majority of people all over the world, and denies them significant political or social leverage to effect a change in their circumstances, then it makes sense for these people to console themselves with the thought that at least after death, there will be some redress, some righting of wrongs. Psychologically too, such a thought also addresses the lack of self-esteem which so often accompanies poverty, relative or otherwise: That it is 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 probably plays well to most of the religious-inclined poor of many a teeming barrio. And in fostering an otherworldly orientation, religion can have an enervating effect upon political activity, particularly in conservative societies where religion and the state work closely together.
Tačiau religija ir jos santykis su visuomene keičiasi visą laiką: kai kuriose pasaulio dalyse, religijos yra trauktis, ir kitose, jis atgimsta. Kas yra daugiau, jos Pocieszający funkcija kartais paneigia dėl politizavimo polinkis, kaip tai patvirtina išlaisvinimo teologija Lotynų Amerikoje ar įvairių Islamo judėjimų veikla. Tačiau yra ir kitų socialinių ir ekonominių pokyčių akivaizdžiai debesis vaizdas per: Page nors sekmadienis papildyti ir nėra galimybės jums teko susidurti nelyginis vaizdą skurstančių žmonių iš kai kurių trečiųjų pasaulio šalių susispietusios po reklamos kaupimo liaupsinimas Deluxe objektai nori; vaizdas simbolizuoja kažkas, kas vis labiau ir labiau akivaizdu, o tai, kad šiandien daugiau nei kada nors pastebimoje, materialinės gerovės skatinama nepaisant to, yra tiek daug pasiekti. Materializmas tapo beveik religija Rūšiuoti irgi tai episkopalinis kunigai yra šių louche stiliaus guru, kurių parapijiečių yra glossies skaitytojų ir jis daugiau fundamentalistų ministrai šių glazūra akimis įmonių vadovai intoning mantra: "Gobšumas yra gera". Kas daugiau, rinkos evangelija - nepaliaujamai reklama - dabar patenka į buveinės šventyklą daugiau giliai kaip niekad, subtiliai proto, sudarantys vieną ir ateinančiais karta per televiziją ir kitas visuomenės informavimo priemones. Todėl siekiai kilti, ir kada jas apribotas, pyktis rezultatus. Šis pyktis gali rasti išraiška įvairiais būdais, nuo paprasto karjerizmas nusikalstamumo įvairių rūšių politinių veiksmų; nacionalistų išsivadavimo kovose, terorizmas, profsąjungų veiklos ir protestus, tai tik keletas iš jų. Ir kai kuriais atvejais kanalai į politinius veiksmus religinės grupės; žiūrėk mano nuoroda išsilaisvinimo teologija ir islamo judėjimus. Nepaisant to, religinių nesutarimų šios rūšies vis dar išlaiko savo Dvasios atskaitos taškas. Iš tikrųjų, yra daugiau nei keletas religinių grupių aplink norintiems nustatyti revanchist "Dvasios" Darbotvarkė šiame pasaulyje, ar tai Kraujo jėga ar naudotis žiniasklaidos.
Bet, žinoma, yra didelių filosofinių škvalas su religija, kuri turi įtakos jo patikimumui, ir tai - kaip jau buvo pasiūlyta - kad prielaida padirbtos analogijos. Galima būtų stebėtis, ar religija, gali vis dėlto išlikti įtikinamai paneigtas šis analoginis motyvai. Nemanau, kad jis gali. Man šių analogijų yra esminė bet kokiam religinių atsiprašymą. Tai tokie argumentai turėtų būti išdėstomi ne visi rodo šio atsiprašymo skurdą. Jūs negalite įdiegti analogiškas mąstymo įrodyti stalai ir kėdės (nebijau, fizinį saugumą filosofų, kurie abejoja tokių dalykų buvimą); jūs darote, kai siekiama įrodyti, kad tariamas subjektas, negali būti kitaip įtikinamai įrodoma, kad egzistuoja buvimas . Be to, tai, kas nematoma, gali būti sulaikyti per arba su nuoroda į tai, kas matoma. Žinoma, yra ir kitų kategorijų įrodymas paspartino tie, kurie nori parodyti, kad Dievas egzistuoja. Tačiau manau, kad analogiškas argumentas yra labai svarbus, nes, tiesioginės empirinių duomenų apie jo egzistavimą, nebuvimą, analogiškai "informuoja" pagrindinės paveikslėlyje Dievo. Nesvarbu, ar žiūrima kaip su barzda ir teka drabužius, galingas uber-kario rankose kirvis, milžinišką paukštį, arba kai miglotas galia senovės Dievas buvo aprašyta likening jį stebėti reiškinius. Trumpai tariant, diegdami analogiją. O kadangi analogiją nepavyksta, kaip įrodymą, visą denio kortelių, yra religijos ateina kritimo žemyn, kartu su kortele, nustatantį religinių prielaidos pomirtiniu gyvenimu. Kai tai prasidės iki aušros žmonių, tada, žinoma, religijos indėlį į socialinę tvarką pradės mažėti. Yra ir kitų problemų, susijusių su religija irgi daugelis iš jų psichologinę, o ne filosofinio pobūdžio. Paimkite, pavyzdžiui, ypatinga ir šiek tiek veidmainiška pozicija religijų eksponuoti į "nuodėmės kūnas": Nors jie gali nesutikti, kad jie yra susiję, o su mažiau prasme jungiasi jausmus, pavyzdžiui, džiaugsmo ir nevilties, galiausiai religijų netiesiogiai pripažįstama, hedonistinės principu, kad žmonės skatina poreikis ieškoti malonumo ir išvengti skausmo. (Tai aš į pagalbiniu pačias giliausias reikia vairuotojo su mumis: laimės troškimas). Tokios patirties kraštutinumų, galų gale, yra tariamai suteiktą dangaus ir pragaro atitinkamai. Net jei būtų teigiama, kad tai yra proto būsenos, arba "plokštumos" buvimą, o ne dėl fizinio vietų, dangaus ir pragaro, yra laikoma sąlygos, kad atsitiks ir kurie privalomi žmonių, kuriuos reaguoja žmonės, tokiu būdu, kuris padengia lyginant su reakcija į malonus ir skausmingas dirgiklius. Tačiau visa tai sėdi, o nepatogiai su Puritoniškoji nepritarimą liudija dauguma religijų - visų pirma tų, Abrahamaic tradicija - apie gyvenimą, patvirtinantis, seksualumas ne griežtos socialinės sienų kalbomis. Taigi matome tam tikrų musulmonų fundamentalistai savarankiškai teisingai reikalauja tarpo, arba net kulka, moterims peržengti griežtas papročiai jų visuomenių. Toje pačioje kvėpavimas, jie vaškas Audringas ne amžinojo orgijos provėžų rojuje perspektyva į septyniasdešimt du mergaitės bendrovės, jeigu jie prarasti savo gyvenimą, o bando mėsininkas nekalto kai apleistas Artimųjų Rytų rinkoje arba anonimines gatvių kai kurių Vakarų miestas . (Visai neseniai, kai buvo nepatvirtintų pranešimų iš Irako - kad Vakarų remiama laisvė-kad religinių grupuočių ėmėsi klijavimo lesbiečių, gėjų, biseksualų ir transseksualų anuses bastionai, o tada suteikiant jiems gėrimas sukelia viduriavimą, dėl kurio susidaro į žiaurios mirties). Nors šios barbariškos aktai negali būti drauge su Quoran - šiek tiek veidmainiškai, religinių pažiūrų žmonės linkę nebūtų per daug susaistyti jų šventas knygas - ir skolingi daugiau praeities patirtimi visuomenės, kurioje ji pasitaiko, jie požiūriu informuoti juos vis tiek religinė, tiek pagrindinės krypties musulmonų būtų gerai apsvarstyti, kokių pagelbėti jie šių išprotėjęs fanatikai (Dar ne taip seniai, pavyzdžiui, mes liudininkai Karzai režimą Afganistane priimti teisės aktus, efektyviai legitimacijos rapsų santuokoje, siekiant numalšinti Konservatoriai per tą Zamroczony šalyje). Krikščionybė yra ne mažiau veidmainiška. Liudytojo milijonierius pamokslininkai akinių Amerikos Biblebelt apsuptas savo verslo vadybininkų ir maitinimo apdailos sutuoktinių, spluttering apie Hellfire ir pasmerkimo tik galima rasti su savo pants žemyn yra pleasured kai tuščias jaunų Congregationalist. Arba bent visus šiuos ilgesingas katalikų kunigus su pasalus Rinkimuose altoriaus berniukai atrodo, intoning jų pražūtingas pamokslų apie masturbacija blogybių. Daugiau ryžtingai religijos proscribes; daugiau savanaudiškas-Matomumas yra pažeidimų, kad neišvengiamai vėliau. Tačiau tai ne tik tais klausimais, seksualinės, kad religija verčia baimės pakrauta PALL per viską. Į visus būdus, religijos, norėčiau teigia, yra neurozė Rūšiuoti kad sveria labai dėl žmogaus siela. Iš tiesų, ji yra "aikčioti iš engiamos padaras", kaip Marksas taip iškalbingai jį. Jis sukelia baimės jausmą, neryžtingumas, apie gyvenimo gyvenimą visiškai ir be išlygų. Galima net aiškinti istorija Edeno sode, kuriame Dievas uždraudė Adomas ir Ieva iš maitinimo į obelų vaisių kaip kažkoks palyginimą papeikti žmones nuo indulgencija ir liaupsinimas tvirtinimo vietoje. Nenuostabu, kad vartotojiškumas kilimo Vakarų visuomenėse, nes karo atidžiai stebima fall religinių apeigas.
I have argued that in claiming we somehow survive death and that how we live our lives determines what this 'afterlife' is to be, religion does society a service insofar as it provides ready-made answers in regard to the meaning of life and reinforces socially acceptable behaviour. However, this contribution cannot be a necessary condition for ensuring that people do not adopt deviant or anti-social lifestyles. For, in truth, many people who reject the notion of an afterlife still manage to stay on the right side of the law. Many people are also atheists, and although the two notions are not conceptually equivalent, non-survivalism and atheism would seem to go hand in hand (Interestingly, both stand opposed to positions that are profoundly informed by analogical thinking. Moreover, the respective notions against which they are opposed; namely, belief in an afterlife and in God; are likewise linked: What's the point in believing in a God if there is no afterlife? I should add, by the way, that although religion and atheism stand opposed to one another, there is one thing that they do agree upon, which is that man is a merest speck set against an inconceivably powerful force. For atheists, this force is the cosmos, and most atheists have a capacity for profound awe when contemplating the fact that mankind could disappear in an instant were some cosmic catastrophe to befall us, such as that which hypothetically occurred billions of years ago when Earth and the planet Theia collided – thereby creating the moon and hence the conditions propitiously conducive to life. Religionists are unable to countenance the nihilistic import of such a possibility, preferring instead to place their hopes in a benevolent God and a blissful afterlife, projecting an anthropomorphic fantasy - 'God created everything in seven days' – onto the vast indifferent canvass of the universe). So something else must account for the fact that this sizeable constituency of non-survivalists and atheists by and large lead ordinary unremarkable lives within the law. The unremarkable truth, of course, is that like everyone, those holding these positions undergo a socialization process as they grow up, resulting in them internalizing the norms and values of the society in which they live. Any religious rationale for these norms and values is either never 'taken on board', or is discarded later in life – though it must be said that some ostensible non-survivalists and atheists may subconsciously entertain some notion of an afterlife, as this is so deeply embedded in popular culture and may through a process of cultural osmosis come to find a niche within the most rational of minds. Some, of course, may retain religious baggage from childhood. Notwithstanding that, one is still tempted to argue that – because their adherence to societal norms and values is not underpinned by a powerful irrationality - those who eschew the essentially religious notion of an afterlife have a subtly different relationship to society. Consider, for example, the probability that, because society has no sacred character for them, atheists and their ilk are unlikely to regard themselves as a chosen people and may be more disposed to humanistic and inclusive attitudes vis-à-vis other social groups. It may also be no accident that, since the dawn of capitalism, many of the more radical figures have been atheists or agnostics. It certainly surprised me to learn from Richard Dawkins excellent book, 'The god delusion', that many, if not most, of the founding fathers of the American Republic were atheists and/or secularists. Secularism, or the belief that religion or religious institutions should play no part in the governance of society, has often trailed along behind full-blooded atheism. It owes much to the supercession of feudalism – in which religion played a major and overt role – by capitalism. That development was accompanied by an increasing compartmentalisation of society, and secularists merely insisted that religion confine itself to the compartment labelled 'religion'. Secularism does not necessarily entail a rejection of religion.
Tai, žinoma, kyla klausimas: Kadangi visuomenė vystėsi ir todėl jo komplekso santykius su religija vystėsi taip pat, tai nėra įmanoma, kad visuomenė, priklauso ne nuo religijos pasak jo ideologinį architektūra, kuri galėtų sėdėti lengvai su abiem ateistinių ir ne survivalist nuomonę tik todėl, kad ji nesirėmė Dievo arba amžinojo pasmerkimo perspektyva rūstybės, nes konfliktų metu ir atsiranda savaiminės įtampos, į šių dienų visuomenės nebeegzistuoja. Manau, kad ji yra, ir tai duoda man sudedamųjų dalių trečiosios rasti savo intelektinės troškinys.
The idea, often facetiously dismissed as utopian, of a society founded on the principle of common ownership has an ancient pedigree: Sir Thomas More coined the word, Utopia, in his book published in 1516, tendentiously depicting (as he meant thereby to draw attention to some of the evils of his own society) life on a mythical island south of the equator where private property did not exist. But elements of utopian thought can be traced back far earlier to Plato and others, and the notion of an ideal commonwealth has found fictional expression in the work of many writers, from Bacon, Campanella, and Harrington, to Morris, Hertzka, and Wells. The idea and ideal of common ownership specifically has also informed actual events in history – witness the Diggers in 17c England, or the various experiments in building communistic communities, such as those Robert Owen. Moreover – and this is often overlooked – for most of mankind's existence, society has managed to get by without private property, bar the odd loin cloth, trinket, or flint axe intended for personal use. Marx argued that humans lived in a state of primitive communism for aeons prior to the advent of classical ancient societies where production came to be largely carried out by chattel slave labour.
My concern, however, is with advanced communism. If ever an idea had 'arrived' and merited serious attention it is this, particularly now that humanity stands on the brink of an ecological abyss of unfathomable depths for which global capitalism, through acts of omission or commission, can justifiably be blamed. So, how to begin laying out this notion? Perhaps one needs to initially look at what is being proposed: In a nutshell, advanced communist society would operate on a world-wide basis in accordance with that old Marxist dictum, 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'. As such, it would bear no resemblance to extant and extinct 'state capitalist' states, ludicrously and cynically claiming to be 'communist' or 'socialist'. It would be a democracy in the truest sense of the word, and would be established on the basis of a majority choosing to have it - most certainly not imposed by revolutionary vanguards. States and the geographical limits of their administrative operations – national borders - would no longer exist. Freedom of expression would be completely unfettered, and the only socially sanctioned limitations on behaviour being those intended to deter actions demonstrably causing harm to others. No longer straitjacketed by the need to make a profit, production would be undertaken on the basis of need and in a wholly rational manner: Manufacturing processes that might have deleterious environmental effects or pose unacceptable risks, for example, would not be considered, and every effort would be made to ensure that safe alternatives were used instead. People would contribute to the production of goods and services as and how they wished. That is to say, 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 labour. In other words, neither money nor barter would play a role: If people needed something, they would simply go along to their local distribution facility and take it without having to hand over something in exchange. Sophisticated stock control measures would ensure that needs were anticipated as far as possible by flagging up potential shortfalls. The production of the items in question would then be undertaken in a wholly rational and planned way. Where an actual shortfall did exist then rational strategies such as considering alternatives, rationing, reserving, utilizing different manufacturing processes, importing from further afield, or simply making do without would be deployed. There is no need to suppose that people would in some way abuse the system: Why should they when goods and services were freely available? In any case, it is reasonable to suppose that a wholly different mindset would prevail in this new society; one that would be altogether more socially responsive, humane, tolerant and far less sullied by egotism and greed. Property being held in common, there would no longer exist the immense armies of personnel and the bloated resource-depleting structures dedicated to upholding property rights or access to resources inside and outside each state as obtains at present: I am talking here of the police and the military, the entire justice system, the prisons, the arms industry, the myriad agencies involved in administering property rights and claims, etcetera. Correspondingly, untold millions around the world would no longer be drawn to a life of crime or end up incarcerated because of this career move. The raison d'être for crime, war, terrorism, industrial strife, and internecine conflict, amongst other hideous stressors characteristic of the modern world would simply not exist. People would be able to travel and settle where they wished, but, as the current economic and political conditions driving people to uproot and seek refuge in other parts of the world would no longer obtain, mass migration (Not to mention the attendant angst and resentment in host populations) is unlikely to occur – except in the event of some catastrophic natural disaster. Education would be radically different from what it is today: Being both free and non-compulsory, it is to be expected that those seeking to further their education would do so joyously. The grim discipline-orientated schools of today, which seek to mould kids into industry and business fodder, would become a thing of the past. For once, art would genuinely be for art's sake, not cynically foisted on a passive populace as a means of turning a quick buck. Quality, in other words, would be the watchword in all creative activity, from architecture and landscaping to music, theatre, film, and writing. Technological innovation, no longer fettered by patents or invested interests, would accelerate, albeit in a controlled, socially responsible way, and many of the more onerous tasks that need undertaking could be systematically automated. Medical research in particular (especially in areas that are currently under-researched – for example, tropical medicine – because there is less of a financial incentive to do so) would be prioritized in order to rid humanity of the misery of disease and illness as far as possible. Moreover, it would be conducted in an open, coordinated manner, not in the fragmented fashion that it is today, with numerous research groups jealously guarding their discoveries for 'commercial reasons'. In this respect, and so many others, the establishment of world communism – or socialism – would utterly transform the way we live. Life would simply be incomparably more relaxed, enjoyable, fulfilling, and happy. Practically all of the so-called today's 'evils' – if one might revert to pulpit language for an instance – would just disappear: war, ethnic cleansing, vandalism, robbery, prostitution, pornography, drug pushing, protection rackets, nepotism, corruption, repression, the cynical manipulation of minds for financial gain, people trafficking, slavery, mass hunger, poverty, unemployment, environmental destruction, the wastage of resources, the deliberate creation of soulless and ugly human environments, to name just some. And the reason for this is simply that each and every one of these phenomena has it's origin in or is sustained by the current social dispensation, by the manner in which society is organized today. Money, in other words, is what these evils are all about. When humanity eventually chooses to embrace communism, then truly it shall have crossed a threshold between barbarism and civilisation.
I am by no means claiming that all will be perfect under communism: It is reasonable to suppose that after resolving to embrace communism, humanity will have to live with an assortment of 'transitional problems' for several decades before things begin to run smoothly. And, of course, the vexed question of the relationship between the individual and society will continue to demand attention. When discussing this relationship, political theorists sometimes refer to the notion of a 'Social Contract'. To be literal-minded about it, this is, of course, a fiction, another instance of mistaken analogical thinking in which the individual and society are deemed to have a quasi-legal relationship with each party having obligations to the other, or in which society is formed after individuals enter into contracts with each other concerning the nature of the society. Strictly-speaking, as an analogy, this depiction fails: there is no analogical court or presiding judge (unless God in heaven fits this description – but then would he sanction some of the heinous societies in existence today, one has to ask – rhetorically) to rule on supposed breaches of this contract, and it is nonsensical to construe such a contract as having been negotiated at a given point in time, following which the individual was obliged to behave within the constraints laid down. Of course, what the notion of a Social Contract is actually trying to convey is that individuals derive all sorts of benefits from belonging to a society, but to do so requires them to act within certain constraints, and contribute towards society as well. However, what society affords the individual and the extent to which the latter may comply with social norms are variable. In other words, we have to consider the nature of the society in question when looking at this relationship. Tensions at the interface between the individual and society are perhaps inevitable: One or other may be compromised in all sorts of social arrangements. At one extreme, we may find ourselves living in a laissez-faire jungle where little or no social restraint is placed on individuals in their pursuit of wealth or hedonistic lifestyles, where law and order is minimally or corruptly applied, where a 'dog-eats-dog' ethos presides, and where little heed is paid to the social ramifications – be they the ruthless sequestration of what had been commonly held resources, the oppression of the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable, pollution and environmental depredation, the creation of antipathetic, violent, and often politically illiterate subcultures, or garish and architecturally discordant urban environments. Such a society lacks any sense of communality. Yet much the same can be said for the dystopian extreme where society lords it over the individual, crushing any flowering of individualism, demanding conformity and total allegiance. This nightmarishly fascistic model of society rests upon an all-powerful state. Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, disparate elements of both models seem to co-exist in many contemporary societies; China being the most noteworthy example. Communism, on the other hand, whilst not likely to wholly eliminate the tension between the individual and society, is surely the only form of society able to radically reduce such tension as it would facilitate the greatest possible individual liberty within a socially harmonious framework.
People who have never entertained the idea of communism before commonly respond with incredulity as soon as they become acquainted with it. Perhaps this is understandable: It is a profoundly revolutionary idea that calls into question many deeply embedded assumptions about man and society. However, the reader may care to consider the following list of points, which, though far from being exhaustive, ought to demonstrate that communism is indeed a feasible proposition, and that the arguments in its favour are actually highly complex. When doing so, it should be borne in mind that what I mean by capitalism is the currently universal economic system in which goods and services are produced primarily in order to be sold for a profit (what is known as commodity production), whether by the state or by private companies, and in which money, wages, and property, amongst other features, are to be found. Capitalism can either assume the form of state capitalism or private/laissez faire capitalism – or, indeed, anything in between. There is no such thing as state socialism or communism.
- One of the most convincing points in favour of genuine communism relates to what is tellingly termed 'human resources'. With the arrival of communism, literally billions people around the world would be relieved of jobs which – although essential to the running of present day society – would no longer be required under communism: I have already alluded to the millions involved in upholding property rights or access to resources. But there are also vast numbers of others involved in similarly non-productive concerns, such as banking, insurance, advertising, social security departments, charities, custom services, stock exchanges, payroll departments, insolvency agencies, pension providers, tax departments, mortgage providers, to name but a few. These occupations would no longer be required in a society unencumbered by the cash nexus. Nor would people be obliged to undertake lowly-paid, unfulfilling work behind cash registers, checking meters, issuing parking fines, guarding premises, working for gambling or lottery companies, selling their bodies for sex, acting as drug mules, issuing tickets, indulging in dubious home business scams, sorting out other people's pay, running market stalls, bartering, executing bailiff duties, and so on and so forth. And the enforced idleness of unemployment; arguably, another essential feature of capitalism; would be a thing of the past too. In short, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of people around the world – particularly in the so-called developed countries where workers are predominantly employed in the tertiary sector – would find their occupations obsolete. This doesn't even reckon with the countless millions – particularly in the developing countries – engaged in arduous, 'low tech', labour intensive work, such as labouring, dismantling ships, building dams – a bucket of earth at a time. Most of such work could be rendered obsolete too through mechanisation and automation. Thus, what work was required to ensure everyone's needs were met would be shared out amongst a vastly greater number of people.
- Apropos work, it is sometimes protested that people would not be motivated to contribute towards the production of goods and services in communist society. However, a little reflection ought to put paid to this particular objection: In the first place, it does not take into account the dramatic 'sea-change' in the social ethos, in the prevailing norms and values, that would accompany the establishment of communism; a development necessarily wrought by the democratic nature of the revolution inaugurating the new society. Divisiveness, cynicism, greed, and cruelty would necessarily give way to cohesiveness, social concern, and altruism because each set of attitudes is rooted in the modi operandi of capitalism and communism respectively. So it is inconceivable that vast majority of people, having voted en masse for a new way of life and all that that entailed, would opt to sit back and adopt an attitude of 'Stuff you, Jack – I'm not going to contribute, I'm only going to take'. Secondly, much of the negativity informing workers' attitude to employment in society today often derives not so much from the work per se, but from the conditions under which they find themselves employed, the hierarchical nature of the organisations they work for, and crucially, being compelled to work in the first place. Karl Marx's theories on the alienation of workers are extremely illuminating in this regard. Thirdly, as I've said, given that several billion people around the world are currently engaged in occupations that would no longer exist in communist society, there would be far more people around to undertake what work was required. Correspondingly, it could be argued that only one or two days work a week would be required of people on average – taking into account too such considerations as the fact that many currently produced goods and services – for example advertising material, cash registers, weaponry, or ticket barriers - would not then be required, and the fact that a communist society would systematically seek to automate all forms of work considered too onerous or risky. This being the case, it is reasonable to suppose that people would be less disinclined to spare society some of their spare time. It is even conceivable that there might be too little socially useful work available. Fourthly, it could be argued that people, far from being motivated to avoid work, have, in fact, a natural aptitude for work, and a drive to engage in work, both of which are stifled in capitalism by inimical conditions of employment. Fifthly, it may be observed that, even in these cynical times, millions of people everywhere engage in voluntary work, capitalism notwithstanding, and that this flies in the face of the assumption that, all things being equal, people are inherently lazy and would jump at the opportunity to spend their entire existence on a sun lounger with a glass of tequila to hand. I could go on, but I'm sure the point has been made.
- Many paragraphs back, I argued that materialism has become a sort of quasi-religion relentlessly promoted through near-ubiquitous advertising. The constant backdrop of visual, auditory, and even olfactory prompts – a visit to your local supermarket will attest to the latter – be they subliminal or 'in your face', is bound to affect us all. Why else should companies spend literally billions of dollars all around the world on advertising? It is so that we buy, buy, buy, regardless of whether we actually need the commodities on offer. It is said that what the head doesn't know, the heart doesn't hanker after. Under capitalism, needs are often artificially created or stimulated, which is both wasteful in terms of resource usage and potentially stress-inducing insofar as people may lack the wherewithal to satisfy these needs. Nothing exemplifies this better than the fashion industry, which might dictate, say, that last season's hipsters will simply have to go. This is a serious problem: In the UK, tons of discarded clothing are ploughed into landfill sites annually, which impacts on global warming, amongst other things. Then there is advertising targeted at kids, encouraging them to pester their parents for the latest 'craze' product. No wonder they grow up to be acquisitive. And talking of acquisitiveness, something else that may be observed about capitalism is that – particularly amongst the wealthy – status is often acquired through the acquisition of luxury products. But there is a huge amount of waste inherent in this charade of 'keeping up with the Plunkett-Pembertons': Thus we have the obscene spectacle of the archetypal tycoon with a fleet of luxury sports cars, several mansions - each of which contains enough rooms to house the local homeless, and a trophy wife with a shoe mania to rival that of Imelda Marcos., Not only are these items inevitably under-utilised; but time and resources have been expended on their production which might have more usefully been spent on satisfying more pressing needs. I would venture to suggest that in a communist society, status, insofar as it had some sort of psychosocial purpose in encouraging emulation, would be drastically different in nature: I could imagine that status would reside in the degree to which one actually contributed towards society, with those taking on the most onerous and dangerous tasks being accorded the highest status. Such attitudes would obviously serve society's interests very well, and make for social cohesiveness.
- Not only does capitalism manipulate people into buying things they might otherwise not have considered buying, it sometimes also compels them to continue buying commodities time and again through the simple expedient of ensuring that those things do not actually last as long as they could. This is what is known as 'built-in obsolescence', and it is a feature of all sorts of products, from cars to the simple light bulb. Similarly, the general shoddiness of so many manufactured goods, for example, houses (particularly in the cynically termed 'social housing' market), which stems from a desire to cut costs to the bone, likewise results in a shortened period of use. The outcome in both cases is more waste and customer dissatisfaction. Waste in this context has to do with rendering a product unserviceable and therefore needing to be disposed of far sooner than otherwise would be the case.
- There are many other ways in which capitalism is wasteful: Take, for example, the tendency to 'modulise' parts. What I mean by this is that instead of selling a replacement item on its own, manufacturers will sometimes only sell the item as part of a bigger unit or a batch. Whilst this may sometimes make replacing the item easier, it is just as likely to be motivated by the manufacturer's desire to fleece the customer out of more money. Insofar as the part is specific to a particular make of the product, the manufacturer will almost have a free rein to indulge in this practice.
- But this is virtually insignificant compared to the waste inherent in a system in which each of the millions of companies or corporations around the world competes with numerous others in producing particular goods and services for a particular market. Why is this wasteful? Well, just consider for a moment the sheer amount of duplication inherent in this set up: You might get dozens of companies producing a particular good or service within a specific locale, each with its own premises, workforce, management structure, and so on. Each will have a number of administrative and financial operations to execute over and above productive operations, which simply would not occur in a socialist/communist society, such as holding shareholder meetings, carrying out financial audits, running pay departments, operating security measures, and implementing marketing strategies. The latter is particularly noteworthy: Big companies, like Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola spend literally billions of dollars trying to outdo each other in the marketplace, and have vast marketing departments dedicated to this aim. On the subject of duplication, it may also be instructive to consider the outcome of a previous Conservative government's demented attempts to make the National Health Service in the UK more 'efficient' a few years ago, by breaking it up into hundreds of self-governing trusts. The upshot was a vast increase in administrative staff by comparison with clinical staff, as each trust had to have it's own finance department, its own 'estates' department, its own pay department, and so on – verily, the economics of the madhouse! In capitalism, it is often the case that having numerous companies compete to sell particular products is often far more then market can bear. Thus it may be that a sizeable number of these companies will be operating below capacity some of the time. Indeed, a few may find themselves going to the wall, squeezed out by the big players. The under-utilisation or non-utilisation of resources in this respect amounts to waste. So does the fact many of the smaller companies, generally burdened with proportionately higher expenses on such things as heating and electricity and having to purchase services that might otherwise be obtained 'in-house', lack 'economies of scale'.
- The fact, too, that competing products are sometimes shipped from great distances is yet another instance of waste, as well as being environmentally damaging. Is it really necessary to have New Zealand butter stacked alongside English butter in UK supermarkets, considering that the European Community once had to scale down it's notorious 'butter mountain'.
- This 'butter mountain' actually exemplifies another appalling sort of waste found in capitalism: the waste generated by overproduction. Just as the market may determine that the very factories, offices, mines and farms are no longer economically viable and have to be taken out of commission, it may also determine that the products and services flowing from these facilities are 'surplus to requirements' and need to be junked. We see this in the periodic trade cycles that beset capitalism, which essentially occur because capitalism has overreached itself.
- There are yet other ways in which waste can be generated. For example, companies will often do all they can to enhance the cosmetic appearance and thus the 'saleability' of their products without necessarily improving the quality of the latter, and this can result in profligate amounts of waste. Tristram Stuart, in his recent book, 'Waste, uncovering 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 these don't look the right shape, colour or size. The taste and nutritional value are beside the point. On the subject of food wastage generally – both by consumers and the food industries – it has been estimated that what the US alone wastes each year is twice as much as that required to adequately feed the 923 million malnourished people in the world today (The Independent, 9th July 2009, p9)
- The raft of international laws and trade agreements governing all manner of economic activity around the world also creates a huge amount of waste by any number of yardsticks. These laws and trade agreements exist simply to impose some semblance of order and restraint upon the ferocious greed of different nation states competing for scarce natural resources, trade routes, access to markets, and so on. As such, they would serve no purpose at all in a world-wide communistic society. But in today's world, these laws and trade agreements require vast armies of bureaucrats and other officials to administer and police them; these functions themselves necessitating elaborate monitoring operations that likewise require much in the way of resources and personnel. Were such regulations to be absent, of course, it is wholly conceivable that disputes around the world could degenerate into any number of wars. Nevertheless, these laws and trade agreements can themselves lead to bizarre consequences, thus tempting some to flout them. Let me cite a couple of examples: It is estimated that because of the European Union's common fisheries policy, something in the region of 40 to 50 per cent of the fish caught by EU trawlers is thrown back dead into the sea (The Independent, ibid). Touching on my previous point, the European Union also has fairly stringent rules regarding the cosmetic appearance of 10 sorts of fruit and vegetables which between them account for about three quarters of all fresh produce sold in the EU. As I explained earlier, the effect of such laws is to create waste since a certain amount of the produce will be deemed unfit for sale – solely on cosmetic grounds. Incidentally, it is no co-incidence that such regulations favour big Western-owned agribusiness concerns at the expense of Third World peasant farmers.
- The proclivity for cutting costs in 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 issues. Thus we find aircraft crashing for want of adequate maintenance work, or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (sic) in the UK ruling that certain forms of treatment do not constitute 'value for money' and may therefore not be prescribed, notwithstanding their efficacy in many cases. Michael Moore's docufilm, 'Sicko', highlights just how single-minded capitalism is when it comes to money. In this revealing study of the American health system, he shows just how inhumane the richest country on earth can be when it comes to treating its sick and injured. Those without medical insurance often find themselves in desperate situations. Like the man who loses two fingers in an accident, and is faced with a bill of $60,000 to sew one of them back on, and $12,000 for the other. Well, it's a no-brainer – the more expensive finger ends up in a landfill site. But even those who do pay insurance and find themselves in need of medical treatment often face a medical inquisition by HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) personnel, whose sole aim, I repeat, sole aim is to try deny them treatment (which. in the case of those personnel with a medical qualification, would seem to be in flagrant violation of the Hippocratic Oath). This is borne out by the fact their remuneration is contingent upon the percentage of denials they manage to issue. The film depicted the heart-rending case of a man with renal cancer whose doctor had urged a particular course of treatment. His wife met up with representatives of his medical insurance company and begged them to provide the funding for the 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 may have been a racist element in their deliberations, - the man was black and his wife white – the sheer psychopathic disregard for anything bar the company's profit margins leaves one speechless. Such blinkered thinking would be anathema to a socialist society, where genuine need, rather than financial criteria, would determine whether or not something was produced or made available. Cost-cutting can affect the quality of life in many other ways. Take, for example, the poor provision of services afforded to rural communities, from post offices to buses. What underlies this, of course, are both the greater transportation costs inherent in servicing rural communities, and the fact that urban populations present a more lucrative market to would be providers. Who can forget the cherry picking practices of bus companies during the deregulating Thatcher years ( which persist in many major urban conurbations; for example, Manchester ) when buses arrived in two or threes on the more popular ( and shorter ) urban routes whilst rural services were cut back. Needless to say, the financial reckoning behind such developments would never arise in a society dedicated to meeting needs, instead of maximising profit.
- A year or so ago, there was much media interest in the subject of fake, or counterfeit, products; Channel Four's alarming series titled 'The Fake Trade' being a case in point. Its not so much the fake Prada handbags or Rolex watches that concerns me: although the faking of such luxury items obviously hits the 'legitimate' manufacturers and allegedly promotes gun crime and terrorism, consumer surveys have, in fact, shown that many, and in some countries – the USA, of all places, for example – most people are not averse to purchasing some types of fake items; an activity which has even acquired a fashionable frisson. However, what really must appal most of us is the counterfeiting of certain sorts of items; medicines being a prime example. The statistics beggar belief: It is estimated that something like one million Africans die each year through purchasing counterfeit medicines. Let us be clear what is happening here: Tablets, capsules, ampoules, and so on, convincingly packaged but deliberately containing little or nothing of therapeutic value, are sold by traders, or sometimes unwittingly by 'respectable' outlets, to people – the vast majority of whom are crushingly poor – who go away hoping that the diseases affecting them or their loved ones can at last be tackled. But, of course, nothing of the sort happens, and these poor souls deteriorate. In the case of antibiotics, having just some but not enough, can also be dangerous because it can induce resistance (and incidentally lead to stronger strains of bacteria). With a disease like malaria, the resulting delay in receiving effective medication can be critical. No wonder that a fifth of the one million annual deaths caused by malaria around the world can be attributed directly to the consumption of counterfeit anti-malarial medication. In the developing world, the incidence of fake medicines varies from 10% to 50% and higher in some countries. But this is not just a problem in the developing world: In Russia, it is thought that 10% of medicines are fake, and here in the UK, fake anti-statins, for example, have recently infiltrated the supply chains. Here truly, we catch a glimpse of the dark heart of capitalism; its untrammeled greed and disregard for all else. One of the contributors to the above-mentioned Channel Four programme opined that capitalism really needed to be restrained and managed or anarchy and chaos would ensue. But this is to miss the point: Capitalism, like a rabid dog with an insatiable desire to sink its teeth into someone, can certainly be leashed (or, to put it differently, we can certainly attempt to save capitalism from itself). But, even with the most rigorous restraints, it would still seek to minimize costs and maximize profits. Those other shortcomings I mentioned earlier – shoddy production, built-in obsolescence, and so on – are really all of a piece with counterfeit manufacture: One might want to think rather in terms of a 'continuum of dysfunctionality' here. Moreover, those companies or countries who attempt to act relatively responsibly and with due regard to the environment and their workers will find themselves disadvantaged in the barbaric world of commerce; somewhat as the British slave-owner lobby in the 19c argued that liberating slaves would give the dastardly French a commercial advantage. What is particularly ironic about the situation with counterfeit production is that the main culprit being fingered is none other than that worker's paradise, the 'People's' (sic) Republic of China. Here we find capitalism in a truly fascistic mould; there can be no obfuscating the point. That China should present itself as a 'communist state'; an Orwellian fiction that tends to be ignored or half-heartedly questioned by capitalism's hacks in the 'free world' (again, sic) for cynical reasons no doubt; amounts to butchering reason. It is estimated that something like 15–20% of products made in China are counterfeit, and China is a major provider of fake medicines – notwithstanding some lackadaisical official attempts to stem the production of these. Chinese workers are themselves victims of this iniquitous industry; both as underpaid wage slaves and with thousands dying each year from misguidedly taking these drugs. The Chinese state allows its bourgeois overlords a lot of leeway to grind their workers, notwithstanding the vicious reputation it has for dealing with miscreants, or those who go a little too far in their pursuit of profit.
Now go to 'A Point of View 2'
Apie Autorius
Check Out This Prada Glasses Case YouTube Video
Kev Blaze - Watch How I Do This (with lyrics)
