Prada baso Kaso
kung magkano ang gusto ko ma-nagbebenta ng mga salaming pang-araw para sa prada?
http://www.eyewearus.com/pd.asp?prod_id=393&txt_brand_id=23&txt_color_code=1AB1A1&cbocat=1
Mayroon akong isang pares ng mga. Hindi ko magkaroon ng isang kaso para sa mga ito o anumang bagay, lamang ang baso. Magkano sa tingin mo ako maaari ibenta ang mga ito para sa eBay?
Hindi isang pulutong. Salaming pang-araw ay hindi madalas na may isang mataas na halaga ng muling pagbibili.
Ang ilang mga Great Offers Sa Prada baso Kaso mula sa eBay
 |
 Prada salaming pang-araw 
US $ 58.00 |
 PRADA SUNGLASS Black Eye baso KASO Hard BOX
US $ 3.99 |  Prada Eye baso mens
US $ 125.00 |
 Prada salaming pang-araw NIB na may mga papeles at mga kahon
US $ 69.99 |  BAGONG PRADA 56H 8AE 1O1 Brown salamin sa mata
US $ 69.95 |
 BAGONG PRADA VPR H 74 salamin sa mata VPR74H 74 H SIZE 51
US $ 135.00 |
 BAGONG PRADA salaming pang-araw SPR 16L
US $ 80.00 |  Bagong Prada salaming pang-araw Eyeware
US $ 76.00 |  Prada salaming pang-araw SPR 60F Black
US $ 51.00 |
 Prada salaming pang-araw SPR 581 5AV 6SI
US $ 80.00 |  MENS O WOMEN'S PRADA salaming pang-araw
US $ 85.00 |
 Nice Prada salaming pang-araw Women's SPR01A 1AA 1A1 Sa Kaso
US $ 52.00 |
 Mens Prada salaming pang-araw
US $ 175.00 |  PRADA GUNMETAL salaming pang-araw Mirror Frames Gray lens
US $ 50.99 |  PRADA salaming pang-araw GUNMETAL BLK frames Gray lens
US $ 79.99 |
 BAGONG tunay DIAMONTI 10HV PRADA baso
US $ 100.00 |
 $ 480 BAGONG cool WOMEN'S PRADA salaming pang-araw W KASO BOX
US $ 49.99 |  BAGONG Prada VPR 07E Mens salamin sa mata Eye baso Kaso
US $ 199.99 |
 Black PRADA salaming pang-araw malumanay na Ginamit
US $ 99.00 |  BAGONG PRADA VPR 68L 68 L VPR68L baso salamin sa mata
US $ 159.00 |  PRADA SPR55H METALUNISEX SUNGLASSESGENUINEPREOWNED
US $ 24.50 |
 Pink PRADA salaming pang-araw Case Box tela tunay Card
US $ 2.57 |  Unisex Prada Sport Suglasses SPS 07F
US $ 130.00 |  Prada salaming pang-araw Mens Tulad ng Brand New sa Kaso
US $ 249.99 |
 Tunay Prada salaming pang-araw sa Kaso
US $ 200.00 |  Prada salamin sa mata pagtakpan VPR141 OBL 101 HINDI Reserve
US $ 31.00 |
 Salaming pang-araw NEW LI PRADA Shades baso 2010 eksklusibo
US $ 5.50 |
 Beautiful Prada tortise shell salaming pang-araw na may casecard
US $ 225.00 |  Prada salaming pang-araw Mens itim kromo Very Nice
US $ 99.00 |  Prada salaming pang-araw Ladies SPR04A
US $ 79.00 |
 NWT PRADA WOMANS salaming pang-araw SPR07G 61015 resibo $ 300
US $ 99.99 |  100 tunay PRADA SPS 51GS 4AC 8C1 120 3N Mint
US $ 0.06 |  Tunay PRADA Purple salamin sa mata 13L 13LV 7XO101 BAGONG
US $ 99.00 |
 Tunay PRADA Sport salamin sa mata 52A 52AV 7PS101 BAGONG US $139.00 |  NewPrada PS51HS 5AV1A1 sunglasses HOT US $34.00 |  Prada VPR 15G eyeglasses
US $ 89.00 |
 Genuine Prada Womens Sunglasses US $60.00 |
Some Great Offers On Prada Glasses Case from Amazon
 | OPI Nail Lacquer Samoan Sand P61 Sale Price: $3.00  |
OPI nail polish 0.5oz |
A Point of View 1
A point of view
By Andy Cox
Ang pilosopiya
Kaligayahan ay matingkad ang pamumulaklak
ng buhay ay nanirahan sa isang mayaman loam.
Ang aming sangkatauhan sa isang humus para sa mga darating,
ngunit kami ay masyadong ay ang mga benepisyaryo ng
sa gitna ng iba sa amin o wala na.
Kaya, kamatayan ay bawiin sa pamamagitan ng legacy sa buhay,
ceaselessly kaya sa aming mga karaniwang lupa,
ang aming pangmadlang kapakanan kung saan ang paglipas ng isa
tila baga Pinagsasama-balik sa iba.
- Walang muling pagkakatawang-tao:
Tanging ang iba pagpapabatid sa amin bilang namin ipaalam sa iba -
mula sa kung saan namin pumili ng mahalagang layunin.
Maitim mga damo doon ay maaaring sa gitna ng sa amin
na gusto sumira sa pangako aming tulungan at linta,
bilang may ilang mga nais na itakda ang kanilang sarili bukod
sa kama manicured masama na may payat lupa.
Ni acknowledges ang magbigay at dalhin.
Ngunit ito ay ang aming mga bono na-set sa amin libre -
pag-alam kung ano ang binds sa amin unbinds sa amin.
At nang isang araw, ito ay nagiging relihiyon,
pagkatapos ay maaari naming mahanap ang isang kakayahan upang magalak
tuwing usbong ng isang bubukas
2002
Ito ay tulad nito: Para sa isang mahusay na maraming taon, ang aking ulo ay isang palayok para sa isang uri ng intelektuwal na pag-aalaala, ang ingredients ng kung saan ay may pinamamahalaang upang panatilihin ang kanilang mga hiwalay na identities, kahit na sila na maging isang maliit na babad na babad sa paglipas ng panahon. Ang pagsasaboy ng masarap na alak ay tiyak na pinahusay na ang lasa: (Sa vino veritas, walang duda). At marami ng isang magandang argument ay ibinigay ang palabok, pagdaragdag ng pananarinari sa paglikha. sinasabi ko paglikha, ngunit, sa katunayan, wala sa mga ingredients ay nobela: Ang isa o dalawang ng mga lumang roots ay sa paligid dahil ang unang panahon. Ano ang interes sa akin, gayunpaman, ay ang kanilang mga pakikipag-ugnayan, ang kaakit-akit ang posibilidad na maaaring sila, kaya na makipag-usap, mapahusay ang bawat isa. Ang kanilang pagsasama-sama sa isang bagay na mas malaki, isang worldview kung gusto mo, ay ang sanaysay na ito ng polemical ehersisyo. Limang ng mas malaking entidad na ito sa sinigang, na balak kong maghiwa hiwalay, ay ang mga:
- Pagkakatulad bilang isang palso source ng kaalaman.
- Ang mga di-survivalist paniwala na wala kaming pagkakakilanlan o pagkakaroon pagkatapos ng kamatayan.
- Hindi paniniwala sa diyos
- Ang mga ideya at mga ideal ng isang walang pera, stateless, propertyless mundo kung saan ang bawat isa ay may libreng access sa mga produkto ng sangkatauhan, at tumutulong ayon sa kanyang kakayahan at bokasyon.
Ang mga ito, Gusto ko makipaglaban, magbigay ng kontribusyon sa 1 / 5 kalahok, namely:
- May tama na enjoins isa upang mas mahusay na sa buhay ng iba.
Ngunit bago magsimula ako sa sandok ito out, diyan ay isang bagay na sa palagay ko na mga pangangailangan upang maging said: Man, sa tingin ko, ay tiyak na mapapahamak sa maging isang pilosopo. Walang isa sa mga bar ng walang wala ng abstract iisip ay maaaring makatakas ito kapalaran. Sa ilalim ng lahat ng mga internalized bagay na walang kabuluhan, sa ilalim ng layers ng natanggap na kaalaman na ang crowds ng isip, may mga kasinungalingan ng isang pilosopiko konstruksiyon addressing ang tunay umbok ng isa ang buhay, kung ito ay kinikilala o hindi, kung ang konstruksiyon ito ay moda sa hard palihan ng mga kritikal na pag-iisip o kumakatawan lamang ng isang pagdudugtong ng maginoo mga sagot sa malaking katanungan ng buhay. Sa ibang salita, lahat ay may isang worldview. Sa harap ng aking sarili, ako ay lamang pagtula hubad ng isang pilosopiko construction na tila sa magkaroon ng kahulugan sa akin. Upang maging matapat, ako ay hindi tiyak na unquestionably tungkol dito: ito tilts sa mga lugar at naglalaman ng maraming isang sira-sira mapako. Ngunit ito coheres sapat upang masiyahan ang aking sarili na kailangan upang maunawaan ang mundo sa paligid sa akin.
Kaya dito ay isang lasa ng intellectual na nilagang: Wala akong ideya sa lahat kung bakit kami dito sa lupa, o, sa katunayan kung bakit ang lupa ay dapat na dito sa unang lugar. Anumang mungkahi na ang aming buhay at na ng sansinukob magsilbi ang ilang layunin begs higit sa isang ilang mga katanungan. Ano sa tingin ko draws sa mga tao na ito uri ng pag-iisip ay isang malalang-malala, halos pasarili, gawi para sa nababatay sa pagkakatulad-iisip kung saan ang isang pangkaraniwang bagay ay ipinaliwanag sa pamamagitan ng paghahambing ng mga ito at pagguhit parallels sa iba. Mukhang sa akin na sa aming mga ordinaryong buhay - kapag hindi pansin sa pilosopiko talumpati - kami ay paminsan-minsan kataon lamang alam ng lahat ng paraan ng delusions, pati na rin ang truths, na hindi namin ipo-pause upang isaalang-alang, at kung saan ay nakuha mula sa putik sa aming mga pangmundo-iral, lalo na, sa pamamagitan ng mekanismo ng pagkakatulad. Ang aming mga ordinaryong mundo ay ang batayan mula sa kung saan namin maglakbay sa pilosopiko ekskursiyon. Isang maaaring magtaltalan na ito base mismo occupies pilosopiko kalupaan. Subalit ang pilosopiko saligan ng aming araw-araw na buhay ay palaging lubos at 'sa labas ng isip': Kapag namin umaakit sa mga ordinaryo, madalang kami ay impelled sa pilosopiko pagmuni-muni. Pilosopiya, sa anumang kaso, nakikipagkumpetensya sa marami pang ibang mga disiplina - sikolohiya, biology, at ekonomiya, sa gitna ng iba - sa paggalang ng aming proclivity para sa abstraction. hindi ako suggesting na nababatay sa pagkakatulad-iisip ay walang gamitin: Lahat ako ay suggesting na kung kumamot ka sa ilalim ng maraming ang kinuha para sa ipinagkaloob notions na may kinuha up paninirahan sa aming isip, maaari ka rin matagpuan analogies na hindi tumayo sa masusing pagsisiyasat. Kung minsan ang isa ay hindi kahit ng kamalayan na ang pagkakatulad ng isang ay inilabas, pabayaan mag-isa na nababatay sa pagkakatulad ng isang kamalian ay nakatuon sa sa pag-aakala na sa paanuman paghahambing sa isang bagay na nagpapatunay na ang kaso sa halip na lamang ay nagpapahiwatig - karaniwang sa isang graphic o kunan ng larawan paraan - kung paano ang kababalaghan sa tanong ay maaaring ipinaliwanag. Bukod dito, sa ilang mga kaso, ang pagkakatulad ay malinaw flawed. Walang bagay na ito exemplifies mas mahusay kaysa sa ilang mga argumento purporting upang patunayan ang pagkakaroon ng Diyos. Ang argument mula sa Design, halimbawa, ay ito na ang kaayusan at kagandahan ng sansinukob nagpapakita na dapat ito ay dinisenyo. Hindi lamang ay ang saligan ng argumento na ito mapagtatalunan - kaayusan at kagandahan ay malinaw na hindi universally kasalukuyan at maaaring maiugnay sa halip na ang mata ng beholder, ngunit ang dulo ay lamang ng isang walang matwid na wakas: Ito ay nakasalalay, siyempre, sa isang pahiwatig na may pagkakatulad , sabihin, isang craftsman paglikha ng isang maganda artepakto - isang microcosmic kaganapan na-iisip sa paanuman upang maglingkod bilang isang kahilera para sa isang macrocosmic kaganapan, ang paglikha ng universe. Ngunit,
(A) Ito lamang ay hindi na sundin kung ano ang magandang humahawak sa microcosmic sitwasyon - namely na ang mga artepakto ay self-maliwanag ay ginawa ng isang tao - mabuting humahawak sa macrocosmic sitwasyon, kung saan ang isa ay confronted na may isang walang hanggan universe. Sa karamihan, maaaring isa na nagpapahintulot sa isang hinuha ay ginawa. Ngunit ito ay nangangailangan ng comparability sa pagitan ng mga sitwasyon, kung saan ay hindi lamang ang kaso: Sa microcosmic sitwasyon, ang mga craftsman ay responsable para sa mga lamang ng isang limitadong bilang ng mga produkto sa isang mundo ng hindi mabilang mga bagay, kabilang ang iba pang mga craftsmen. Ang putative Diyos sa macroscopic sitwasyon ay itinuturing na ginawa nang lahat sa kanyang sarili.
(B) Ang mga pagkakatulad ay kaya para sa flawed na dahilan, ngunit din dahil sa microcosmic sitwasyon, ang mga craftsman produces ang artepakto mula sa mga materyales sa kamay, halimbawa, kahoy. Diyos, gayunpaman, ay naniniwala sa pamamagitan ng relihiyon ang tagapagtanggol na lumikha ng sansinukob ang dating nihilo, mula sa wala.
Para sa mga ito at iba pang mga dahilan - tulad ng attributing tiyak na manifestations ng order sa halip na sa gitna ng ebolusyon pwersa - Ang argument mula sa Disenyo ay lubos hilako. Subalit ito ay mahalaga na obserbahan na ito ay talaga hindi sapilitan ang pagguhit ng pagpapalagay batay sa isang pagkakatulad, pati na rin ang flawed katangian ng pagkakatulad, na papanghinain ang argument. Bukod dito, bilang ay ang kaso sa lahat ng pilosopiko arguments, may ibig sabihin problema na mga pangangailangan upang maging direksiyon bago kahit na ang lohika ay questioned: Ano ang eksakto ang ibig sabihin namin kapag kami sabihin na ang Diyos nilikha ang lahat ng ex nihilo? Gusto ko venture sa iminumungkahi na ang buong ideya ay hindi kayang unawain, at na ang anumang mga pagtatangka upang linawin kung ano ang ibig sabihin sa pamamagitan ng ito ay malamang na umaasa sa mga pa mas hindi sapilitan inferences inilabas mula pa mas flawed analogies. Kailangan lang stringing magkasama ng isang bilang ng mga salita sa pamamagitan ng Balarila ng isang wastong pangungusap, tulad ng sa 'Diyos nilikha ang lahat ng bagay', maaaring lumikha ng ilusyon ng kahulugan, ngunit sa pamamagitan ng Balarila-generated ibig sabihin ay walang kapalit para sa haka-haka kaliwanagan. Anyway, tulad ay ang kalikasan ng nababatay sa pagkakatulad-iisip, na pervades aming mga wika at pangangatwiran. Unsurprisingly, ito characterizes magkano discussion sa dreaded paksa ng kamatayan.
Kamatayan ay personal: Para sa amin sa West, ito ay isang bagay na maaaring ubusin ang aming buhay sa loob ng tiyak na ito consumes ng kakaw ang tawag namin sa aming mga katawan. Ito ay ang raison dêtre para sa kaya marami sa buhay, isang rallying point, isang-post ng mga hangganan ng pang araw-araw daigdig. Ito ay isang konsepto sa pamamagitan ng pagbaril na may malakas na damdamin: takot, galit, lungkot lipat,, pag-ibig. At ito ay masyadong isang bagay na kung saan ay conceived sa mga tuntunin ng analogies. Mayroon nang hindi nalalaman ko may resorted sa nababatay sa pagkakatulad-iisip sa aking mga reference sa aming mga panloob buhay at panlabas ng kakaw: ako ay may evoked ang multo sa makina. baka ako din may iminungkahing na ang kamatayan ay tulad ng pagtulog, ang pagdaragdag ng corollary na sa 'pagtulog ng kamatayan, dreams ay maaaring dumating', na ang isang buhay ng masama awaits sa amin 'kapag kami ay shuffled off ito mortal ikirin'. Ngunit sa kung ano ang batayan Gusto ko may dumating sa konklusyon na ito? Ang kuskusin ng bagay ay ang paniniwala na ito ay itinatag una sa pagkakatulad, at sa ibaba na maaaring kasinungalingan ng isang mataimtim nakabaon takot ng pagkawala ng sarili sa isa's, isang takot na partikular na kundisyon ng individualistic kakaibang paniniwala ng mga tinatawag na mga advanced na lipunan. Gusto kong imungkahi sa halip na namin mahinahon isaalang-alang ang mga alternatibo; namely, na walang afterlife. Gusto kong magmungkahi na kapag mamatay tayo walang langit o impiyerno awaits sa amin, dahil, upang ilagay ito lamang, tayo hindi na. Ito ay ang kaso, maaari kaming magkaroon ng walang dahilan sa takot ng kamatayan, sapagkat ito nagdadala walang mga implikasyon para sa amin na lampas sa aming kumpletong paglipol. Kasama ko alam, siyempre, na, sa isang tao tulad ng sa akin, sa produkto ng isang pag-aalaga Katoliko, ang isang mahina angst haunts ito konstruksiyon sa kamatayan. Ngunit parang hindi ito detracts mula sa mga argument. Ito ay tiyak na lalong kanais-nais na ang ulo at ang puso ay dapat sang-ayunan, ngunit tulad ng isang lumang asawa ilang, ang mga ito ng dalawang unawa ay hindi palaging makikita sa mata sa mata.
Kahit na profoundly personal, kamatayan ay isang social palatandaan pati na rin: Sa isang maliit na antas, diyan ay ang mga nawalan, ng mga kurso, na hindi lamang damdamin ang pagkawala, ngunit na ang buhay ay mas o mas kaunti, mas subtly o makabuluhang, binago. Ang mga epekto ay maaaring kaskad sa maraming lugar. Halimbawa, ang isang kamatayan ay maaaring kumalas relasyon, o magdala ng mga tao nang sama-sama, at ito ay maaaring impluwensiya ang pattern ng mga kaakibat at mga pakikipag-ugnayan ng henerasyon na sundan. Macrocosmically masyadong, kamatayan ay isang bagay na kung saan lipunan bilang isang buo ay may upang labanan. Hindi ko na nagre-refer na dito sa, sabihin, ang pagkaabala ng iba't-ibang mga organo ng estado sa mga indeks ng masakit at ang mga implikasyon ay maaaring may sa paggastos ng gobyerno. Ako ay nagre-refer na sa halip sa isang mas malalim na paraan kung saan ang lipunan ay kinuha ng hanggang sa ang mga kababalaghan ng kamatayan: na ang katunayan na ang kamatayan ay isang bagay na kung saan ay 'mediated kultura'. Walang getting sa isang debate tungkol sa mga katangian ng kultura - variously ito ay na-kahulugan bilang binubuo ang makahulugan at nakuha sa mga aspeto ng lipunan, bilang isang bagay na naiiba mula sa kalikasan, bilang isang bagay na naiiba mula sa mga sosyal na istraktura, bilang isang bagay na katulad sa ideolohiya, o bilang isang paraan ng buhay - sa kasalukuyang konteksto parirala na ito ay may kinalaman sa isang societal mapagkukunan na kung saan ay inilabas sa ipagkaloob sa kahulugan sa kung ano ay sa isang tiyak na kahulugan ng isang hindi maintindihan kaganapan, at magbigay ng mga rituals na may order at kakaraniwanan ay muling-itinatag. Kamatayan, lalo na kapag ito ay hindi inaasahang at madula, ay madalas na katangi-tangi sa iba't-ibang mga paraan, at may potensyal na upang lubusan trivialize ang bumuo ng malaman namin na lipunan. makita namin ito manifested minsan sa isang bahagi ng withdrawal at pagwawalang-bahala sa isang tao na talagang naghihingalo. At ang kamatayan, ng mga kurso, tumatagal ng isa sa kabila ng maabot ng lipunan. Kaya, lipunan pangangailangan upang igiit ang kanyang sarili - sa pamamagitan ng kultura - sa pamamagitan ng countering ang bewildering kahulugan ng buhay na walang gaanong halaga, mga layunin at ambitions na walang kabuluhan, at kaugalian na hindi kaugnay, na maaaring potensyal na din samahan ng karanasan ng pangungulila sa namatay. Ito ay isang bagay na kung saan ay proactively na hinarap sa panahon ng proseso ng pagsasapanlipunan, kapag kung paano ang isa ay upang manirahan sa pangkalahatan, sa halip na kung paano dapat isa makaya sa kamatayan sa partikular, ay ang pokus ng pansin. Bilang malayo bilang lipunan ay nag-aalala, kung ano na ito ay hindi kinakailangan ang mga indibidwal na lumago up believing na, bilang doon ay walang point sa buhay, maaaring sila rin gumawa ng kahit anong gusto nila mula sa buhay, at kumilos man lamang sila, hindi alintana ang kahihinatnan. Lipunan ay hindi lamang gumana ng isang bilang pagsasama-sama ng nihilistik egoists. Sa ibang salita, lipunan abhors pagkawala ng kinikilalang batas, marami bilang kalikasan abhors isang vacuum. Kung isa pinili upang makipag-usap ng lipunan sa ilang reified kahulugan bilang pagkakaroon ng isang hiwalay na buhay, maaaring sabihin ng isa na, kung ang mga miyembro ng manghahalal ay hindi sa lawak ng ilang mag-subscribe sa isang hanay ng mga shared paniniwala at mga halaga, at pagkatapos ay ang tela ng lipunan mismo ay maaaring lutasin. Bumabalik sa subject ng pangungulila sa namatay, maaaring sabihin ng isa na kung, dahil sa pagkamatay ng isang tao na malapit sa kanila, ang mga indibidwal ay kaliwa pakiramdam na ang buhay ay walang kahalagahan o wala na ay nagkakahalaga ng pursuing, at pagkatapos ay hindi sila maaaring ma-sapat na matupad ang kanilang mga sosyal na ginagampanan, at ito ay maaaring masyadong magkaroon ang lahat ng masama ng repercussions para sa iba; hindi lamang damdamin unsettling sa huli. Kapag ang kamatayan ay nangyari, ang mga indibidwal na kailangan sa pakiramdam na, sa ilang mga kahulugan, 'buhay napupunta sa'. Ang kaginhawaan at suporta na ibinigay ng mga kaibigan reinforces ang mensaheng ito, at subliminally impresses sa nawalan na magpatuloy sa kanilang pag-aari sa loob ng isang network ng mga iba pang social tao'y. Ang pang-araw-araw na expression tungkol sa mundo ng isang tao bumabagsak na bukod sa mga resulta ng isang kamatayan madalas sums up ang karanasan ng pangungulila sa namatay. Kapag ang kultura ay deployed sa hold na magkasama mundo, ito ay higit sa lahat ng isang partikular na bahagi ng kultura na ay tasked na may ito, at bahagi na ito ay kilala bilang relihiyon
Ngayon, hindi ako suggesting na relihiyon kinakailangang lumapit sa maglaro kapag may taong namatay. Ngunit ito tila tiyak na mangyayari sa halos lahat ng oras at sa halos lahat ng lipunan. Relihiyon ay, siyempre, ang punong-guro (bagaman sa pamamagitan ng walang ibig sabihin nito eksklusibo) sponsor ng paniwala na namin kahit paano matirang buhay kamatayan. Bukod dito, relihiyon sa pangkalahatan-nagsasalita din declares na kung ano ang mangyayari sa amin pagkatapos ng kamatayan ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng ang paraan sa pag-uugali na kung saan namin ang aming sarili sa buhay. May ay maaaring maliit na pagdududa na sa tulad ng pagtataguyod ng mga ideya, relihiyon naglilingkod sa lipunan sa pamamagitan ng mahusay immunising indibidwal laban sa anomic tendencies sa harap ng kamatayan. Ang mga pari at mga mangangaral, mullahs at may rabbis para sa siglo officiated sa rituals ng kamatayan, at comforted ang nawalan sa mga pangako ng paraiso. Subalit, may marami pang iba na ang relasyon sa pagitan ng relihiyon at lipunan kaysa sa na: Para sa isang bagay, sa karamihan ng mga kaso, ang dating sa pangkalahatan naglilingkod upang mapadali ang mass ayon sa pinaka-societal kaugalian sa pamamagitan ng patulak isang etikal na adyenda, sa ilalim na linya na kung saan - ng hindi bababa sa sa Abrahamaic relihiyon - ay na kung ikaw ay magandang pumunta sa langit at kung ikaw ay masama ikaw ay pupunta sa impiyerno. Bukod dito, relihiyon at ang estado ay institutionally enmeshed sa iba't-ibang mga paraan sa karamihan ng mga bansa: Sa theocracies, sila ay halos hindi makilala. Sa West, relihiyon ay maaaring nagretiro sa likod benches, pa ito pa rin namamahala upang ipahiwatig ang sarili sa iba't-ibang mga degree sa buhay pampulitika ng bansa, kung minsan sa isang pangangasiwa ng paraan. Kahit nang tapat sa malaateista estado, isang uri ng parang relihiyon pinunan ang mga paglabag na may absurdities tulad ng Kim Jong-il ng Hilagang Korea sa pag-aakala ng isang diyos-tulad ng kalagayan. Kaya relihiyon ay nilalaro ng isang papel sa pagdaragdag ng isang banal na aspeto sa pusong negosyo ng pagpapatakbo ng estado. Ito ay din mahirap na tanggihan para sa marami, maraming tao, ang relihiyon ay isang pang-alo, isang aliw, isang 'pampatulog', at, bilang tulad, tumatagal ang ilan sa mga presyon off ng estado, na maaaring sa kabilang banda ay may sa labanan sa makunat na antas ng panlipunan balisa. Sa katunayan, ang isa sa mga ironies ng modernong kasaysayan ay madalas na ito ay na-sa-nauuna nabanggit malaateista estado, erstwhile o umiiral na, kung saan-aliw ay marahil ay halos keenly hinahangad, na relihiyon ng isang mas maginoo karakter ay may flourished fungal-tulad ng sa ang Shadow. Bakit relihiyon ay dapat na isang kalmante ay hindi mahirap makita: Kapag ang buhay ay unrelentingly mabangis, tulad ng ito ay para sa karamihan ng mga tao sa buong mundo, at denies ang mga ito ng makabuluhang pampulitika o panlipunang pagkilos sa epekto ng pagbabago sa kanilang kalagayan, at pagkatapos ito ang akma para sa mga taong ito sa console ang kanilang sarili sa pag-iisip na hindi bababa sa pagkatapos ng kamatayan, diyan ay ang ilang mga bayad-pinsala, ang ilang righting ng wrongs. Psychologically masyadong, tulad ng isang-iisip din address ang kakulangan ng pagpapahalaga sa sarili na kaya madalas accompanies kahirapan, kamag-anak o sa kabilang banda: Na ito ay mas mahirap para sa isang mayamang tao na pumasok sa kaharian ng langit kaysa ito ay para sa isang kamelyo upang pumasa sa pamamagitan ng mga mata ng karayom ng isang marahil ay gumaganap ng mabuti sa karamihan ng relihiyon-hilig ng mga mahihirap na marami ng isang masagana baryo. At sa pagkandili ng isang hindi sa daigdig na kasarian, relihiyon ay maaaring magkaroon ng isang enervating epekto sa pulitikal na aktibidad, lalo na sa konserbatibo lipunan kung saan ang mga relihiyon at ang estado sa trabaho malapit na sama-sama.
Gayunman, ang relihiyon at ang kanyang relasyon sa lipunan ay nagbabago sa lahat ng oras: Sa ilang mga bahagi ng mundo, relihiyon ay sa retiro; sa ibang bahagi, ito ay nabubuhay na muli. Ano ang higit pa, nito consoling function ay paminsan-minsan sa pamamagitan ng belied isang proclivity para sa politicization, bilang ay evidenced sa pamamagitan ng pagpapalaya teolohiya sa Latin Amerika o ang mga gawain ng iba't-ibang Islamic paggalaw. Subalit ang iba pang mga panlipunan at pang-ekonomiya developments malinaw naman ulap ang larawan masyadong: Page bagaman isang Linggo madagdagan at mayroong isang pagkakataon mo matagpuan ang kakaiba larawan ng mga taong salat sa ilang mga bansa ikatlong mundo huddled sa ilalim ng isang advertising na pag-iimbak extolling maluho bagay ng pagnanais; isang imahe symbolizing isang bagay na nagiging mas at mas maliwanag, na kung saan ay na, ngayon, mas tahasan kaysa kailanman, materyal na kayamanan ay itaas sa kabila ng pagiging lampas ang abot ng kaya maraming mga. Materyalismo ay naging isang uri ng parang napakaraming relihiyon; ito ay miyembro nang Protestanteng simbahan nag episkopalya pari na mga louche gurus style na ang parishioners ang mga mambabasa ng mga glossies at ito ay mas ministro pundamentalista mga kinang ang mata corporate lider intoning ang mantra: 'kasakiman ay mabuti'. Ano ang higit pa, ang ebanghelyo ng merkado - hindi humuhupa advertising - ngayon penetrates ang santuwaryo ng bahay mas profoundly kaysa kailanman, subtly isip-pagbabalangkas bawat up at darating na henerasyon sa pamamagitan ng telebisyon at iba pang mass media. Dahil doon, tumaas aspirations, at kapag ang mga ito ay thwarted, mga resulta ng galit. galit na ito ay maaaring makahanap ng pagpapahayag sa isang iba't ibang mga paraan, mula lamang sa sarili naghahanap ng krimen sa iba't-ibang uri ng mga pampulitikang pagkilos; makabayan liberasyon pakikibaka, terorismo, unyon ng mga manggagawa na aktibidad at protests, sa pangalan ngunit ang ilang. At sa ilang mga kaso ito mga feed sa pampulitikang pagkilos ng mga grupo ng relihiyon; vide ang aking reference sa liberasyon teolohiya at Islamic paggalaw. Kahit na ito, relihiyon hindi pagsang-ayon ng mga ito uri pa rin Taglay nito hindi sa daigdig na punto ng reference. Sa katunayan, may mga higit pa sa isang ilang mga relihiyosong grupo sa paligid ng kulang sa magpataw ng isang revanchist 'hindi sa daigdig na' adyenda ito sa mundo, kung sa pamamagitan ng marugo lakas o ang paggamit ng media mass.
Ngunit, siyempre, doon ay isang pangunahing pilosopiko lamat sa relihiyon na nakakaapekto sa kanyang katotohanan, at na - bilang ang nai-iminungkahing - na ito ay premised sa bogus analogies. Isang maaaring magtaka kung ang relihiyon ay maaaring gayunpaman ay matirang buhay ng isang kapani-paniwala pagpapabulaan ng ito nababatay sa pagkakatulad pangangatwiran. hindi ako naniniwala ito maaari. Para sa akin, ang mga analogies ay central sa anumang relihiyon paghingi ng tawad. Na tulad pangangatwiran ay dapat na deployed sa lahat ng nagpapakita ng kahirapan ng mga ito paghingi ng tawad. Hindi mo na lumawak nababatay sa pagkakatulad-iisip upang patunayan ang pagkakaroon ng mesa at upuan (takot ako para sa mga pisikal na kaligtasan ng mga philosophers na alinlangan sa mga bagay); mong gawin kapag naghahanap upang patunayan ang pagkakaroon ng isang putative nilalang na hindi maaaring sa kabilang banda convincingly ay ipapakita sa mga umiiral . Bukod dito, kung ano ang hindi nakikita ay maaari lamang sa pamamagitan ng apprehended, o may reference sa, ano ang nakita. Siyempre, may mga iba pang mga kategorya ng mga katibayan sa pamamagitan ng advanced na mga kulang na ipakita na ang Diyos ay umiiral. Ngunit tingin ko na ang nababatay sa pagkakatulad argument ay napakahalaga dahil, sa kawalan ng direktang mula sa obserbasyon katibayan ng kanyang buhay, pagkakatulad 'informs' ang pangngalan larawan kami ng Diyos. Kung tiningnan bilang isang sinaunang may balbas at agos robes, isang malakas na uber-mandirigma wielding isang palakol, ang isang lubhang malaki ibon, o ang ilang mga hindi maliwanag kapangyarihan, ang Diyos ay inilarawan sa pamamagitan ng likening siya sa mapapansin phenomena. Sa maikling, sa pamamagitan ng deploying pagkakatulad. At dahil ang pagkakatulad ng nabigo bilang patunay, ang buong deck ng mga baraha na relihiyon ay dumating crashing down, kasama ang card setting ang relihiyon saligan ng isang afterlife. Kapag ito ay nagsisimula sa madaling araw sa mga tao, at pagkatapos, siyempre, ang mga kontribusyon ng relihiyon sa lipunan order ay magsisimula na tanggihan. May mga iba pang mga problema sa relihiyon masyadong; marami sa kanila ay sikolohikal na bilang laban sa pilosopiko sa kalikasan. Lumabas, halimbawa, ang kakaiba at tila ipokrita saloobin relihiyon eksibit tungo sa 'mga kasalanan ng laman': Kahit na maaaring sila bagay na sila ay nag-aalala sa halip na may mas mababa-unawa nakatali damdamin, tulad ng kagalakan at walang pag-asa, sa huli relihiyon kataon lamang kilalanin ang hedonistic prinsipyo na tao ay hinihimok sa pamamagitan ng ang kailangan upang maghanap ng kasiyahan at maiwasan ang sakit. (Ito Gusto ko alang bilang mababa sa pinaka malalim na kailangan sa pagmamaneho sa amin: ang pagnanais para sa kaligayahan). Ang magpakalabis tulad ng mga karanasan, pagkatapos ng lahat, ay parang bigyan ng langit at impiyerno ayon sa pagkakabanggit. Kahit na kung ito ay argued na ang mga ito ay estado ng isip o 'eroplano ng buhay' sa halip na pisikal na lokasyon, langit at impiyerno ay makikita bilang kondisyon na nangyari na at ang mga ipinapataw sa mga tao, na kung saan ang mga tao na gumanti sa paraan na madala paghahambing sa reaksiyon sa kaaya-aya at nakasasakit ng damdamin stimuli. Ngunit ang lahat ng mga ito sits sa halip nakakahiya sa totoong mahigpit disapproval evinced ng karamihan sa relihiyon - lalo na sa mga nasa ang Abrahamaic tradisyon - ng anumang pagpapakita ng isang buhay-Pinatitibayan iyag labas mahigpit panlipunan hangganan. Kaya namin mahanap ang ilang mga Muslim fundamentalists self-righteously demanding ang isuga, o kahit na ang bala, para sa mga kababaihan transgressing ang matigas ugali ng kanilang lipunan. Sa parehong hininga, sila waks rabsodik sa pag-asam ng walang hanggan walang taros rutting sa paraiso sa kumpanya ng 72 virgins dapat sila mawalan ng kanilang buhay habang sinusubukang i-innocents ng karne sa ilang mga merkado hamak Middle Eastern o sa mga di-nagpapakilalang kalye ng ilang mga Western lungsod . (Higit pang mga kamakailan-lamang, diyan ay walang patunay ulat mula sa Iraq - na balwarte ng Western-sponsor na kalayaan-na relihiyon militias ay dadalhin sa gluing ang anuses ng lesbian, gay, bisexual at transgender mga tao, at pagkatapos ay nagbibigay sa kanila ng inumin nagiging sanhi pagtatae, na resulta sa isang kakila-kilabot kamatayan). Habang ang mga salbahe mga gawang maaaring hindi ayon sa ang Quoran - medyo hypocritically, relihiyon na ang pag-iisip mga tao malamang hindi na masyadong nakatali sa pamamagitan ng kanilang banal na libro - at may utang pa sa mga pabalik-naghahanap ng lipunan kung saan ito mangyari sila, ang mga punto ng view sa kanila ay gayunpaman ay isang relihiyosong isa, at pangunahing Muslim ay mabuti upang isaalang-alang kung ano ang sumaklolo sila magbigay sa mga sira ang bait fanatics (Hindi kaya matagal na ang nakalipas, halimbawa, nakakita kami ng rehimeng Karzai sa Afghanistan sa pagpapasok batas epektibong legitimizing panggagahasa sa loob ng kasal upang pahupain conservatives sa loob na ginabi bansa). Kristiyanismo ay hindi mas mababa ipokrita. Saksihan ang tanawin ng mangangaral milyonaryo sa American Biblebelt napapaligiran ng kanilang mga managers sa negosyo at kapangyarihan sarsa-asawa, spluttering tungkol sa hellfire at kapahamakan lamang na matagpuan ang kanilang mga pantalon down pagiging pleasured sa pamamagitan ng ilang mga batang walang laman congregationalist. O magkaroon ng isang tumingin sa lahat ng mga pagod na pagod Katoliko pari sa isang nakaw labis na pananabik para sa altar lalake, intoning kanilang masama sermons sa evils ng masturbesyon. Ang mas vehemently relihiyon proscribes; ang mas hamak na kalagayan ay ang mga infractions na hindi maaaring hindi sundin. Gayunman, ito ay hindi lamang sa mga bagay na sekswal na relihiyon cast ng isang angst-karga magsawa sa paglipas ng lahat ng bagay. Sa lahat ng masama ng mga paraan, relihiyon, Gusto ko labanan ay isang uri ng neurosis na weighs mabigat sa tao kaluluwa. Sigurado, ito ay ang 'hininga ng pinahihirapan nilikha', bilang Marx sa gayon eloquently ilagay ito. Ito engenders ng kamalayan ng kakila-kilabot, ang isang pag-aatubili, tungkol sa buhay na buhay sa buong at walang reserbasyon. Ang isa ay maaaring kahit na ipakahulugan ang kuwento sa halamanan ng Eden kung saan ang Diyos forbade Adan at Eba mula sa pagkain ang mga bunga ng puno ng mansanas bilang ang ilang mga uri ng parabula admonishing mga tao laban sa kagandahang-loob at extolling pagpigil sa halip. Walang-taka na ang tumaas ng consumerism sa Western lipunan dahil ang digmaan ay may malapit na sinusubaybayan ang pagkahulog sa relihiyon pagtalima.
Ako ay may argued na sa pagkuha namin sa paanuman matirang buhay at kamatayan na kung paano namin nakatira ang aming buhay ay nagpasiya na kung ano ito 'afterlife' ay, relihiyon ay isang lipunan serbisyo insofar bilang na ito ay nagbibigay-handa na ginawa sa mga sagot patungkol sa kahulugan ng buhay at reinforces sosyalan katanggap-tanggap na pag-uugali. Gayunman, ang kontribusyon na ito ay hindi maaaring maging isang kinakailangang mga kondisyon para sa tumitiyak na ang mga tao ay hindi magpatibay deviant o anti-social lifestyles. Para sa mga, sa katotohanan, maraming mga tao na tanggihan ang pagkaunawa ng isang afterlife pa rin pamahalaan upang manatili sa kanang bahagi ng batas. 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. Ang anumang relihiyon makatwirang paliwanag para sa mga kaugalian at mga halaga ay alinman sa hindi kailanman 'kinuha sa board', o ay tinapon mamaya sa buhay - kahit na dapat ito ay sinabi na ang ilang mga sinabi na hindi pang-survivalists at atheists maaaring subconsciously libangin ang ilang mga haka ng isang afterlife, bilang na ito ay upang taos-puso-embed sa popular na kultura at maaaring sa pamamagitan ng isang proseso ng pagtagas kultura dumating upang mahanap ang isang angkop na lugar sa loob ng pinaka-may talino ng isip. 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. Isaalang-alang, halimbawa, ang probabilidad na, dahil ang lipunan ay walang banal na character para sa kanila, atheists at ang kanilang mga ilk ay maaring hindi alang ang kanilang mga sarili bilang isang tao na napili at maaaring maging mas itapon sa humanistic at napapabilang attitudes vis-à-vis iba pang mga sosyal na grupo. Maari din itong walang aksidente na, dahil sa ang pagbubukang-liwayway ng kapitalismo, marami sa mga mas radikal numero ay atheists o 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.
This, of course, begs a question: Given that society has evolved and consequently its complex relationship with religion has evolved too, is it not possible to have a society which did not depend on religion to shore up its ideological architecture, which could sit easily with both atheistic and non-survivalist views simply because it did not rely on the wrath of god or the prospect of eternal damnation insofar as the conflicts and tensions inherent in present day society no longer existed. I believe that it is, and this brings me to the third of the ingredients found in my intellectual stew.
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. Subalit ang mga sangkap ng Yutopyan-iisip ay maaaring traced back malayo mas maaga sa Plato at ang iba, at ang mga kuru-kuro ng isang ideal komonwelt ay natagpuan fictional expression sa gawain ng maraming manunulat, mula sa Bacon, Campanella, at Harrington, sa Morris, Hertzka, at 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.
Aking pag-aalala, gayunman, ay may mga advanced na komunismo. 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'
Tungkol sa Author
Check Out This Prada Glasses Case YouTube Video
Kev Blaze - Watch How I Do This (with lyrics)
