設計師普拉達商品

我多麼想能夠出售這些普拉達太陽鏡嗎？

http://www.eyewearus.com/pd.asp?prod_id=393&txt_brand_id=23&txt_color_code=1AB1A1&cbocat=1

我有一個對的人。 我沒有一個案件，或任何東西，只是眼鏡。 你有多想我可以在eBay出售？

不是很多。 太陽鏡不傾向於具有較高的轉售價值。

一些偉大的提供有關普拉達眼鏡盒來自 eBay

美國拍賣澳大利亞拍賣 奧地利拍賣 比利時拍賣加拿大拍賣法國拍賣德國拍賣印度拍賣愛爾蘭拍賣意大利拍賣荷蘭拍賣波蘭拍賣西班牙拍賣瑞士拍賣英國拍賣

最佳匹配時間：很快結束時間：新上市價格：最低的優先價格：最高的優先價格 +運費：最低的優先價格 +運費：最高的優先

新的2009年的PRADA渦旋69L 69 L VPR69L眼鏡眼鏡 美國 $ 135.00

新Prada眼鏡VPR15L渦旋15 L 15 L尺寸51 美國 $ 150.00

新的2009年的PRADA渦旋68L 68 L VPR68L眼鏡眼鏡 美國159.00美元

新Prada眼鏡VPR62L渦旋62 L 62 L尺寸53 美國 $ 150.00

新男裝品牌普拉達太陽鏡 美國157.50美元

的PRADA太陽鏡的SPR 53H SPR53H黑5AV 美國 $ 100.00

的PRADA女裝太陽鏡的狀況非常良好 美國 $ 62.00

新作準婦女太陽鏡的PRADA的SPR 03F米黃 美國 20.50美元

新作準男裝太陽鏡黑色的PRADA的SPR 63I面膜 美國 $ 90.00

新作準男裝太陽鏡青銅色的PRADA的SPR 54H 美國122.50美元

作準的PRADA太陽鏡SPS的09H深灰色189元 美國 $ 10.50

女子正宗普拉達太陽鏡紅方案 美國 $ 99.00

新的2009年的PRADA渦旋64L 64 L VPR64L眼鏡VPR64L 美國159.00美元

新Prada渦旋62L 62 L眼鏡VPR62L眼鏡VPR62 美國151.00美元

新Prada渦旋03 L VPR03L眼鏡眼鏡03L 3升3升 美國 $ 135.00

新的婦女華倫天奴服飾太陽鏡5560紅案例 美國 $ 89.99

布朗的PRADA非框架眼鏡的RX 101風格2AU 美國 $ 69.00

的PRADA女式剛架眼鏡渦旋58L 1B0 101 美國47.36美元

橢圓形的PRADA深色墨鏡的SPR銅61A條在CASE 美國 $ 89.00

普拉達SPS07F SPS的07h的SPS的07h的黑色1AB 1A1型太陽鏡 美國154.99美元

正宗普拉達太陽鏡SPR09G 美國 $ 39.99

造幣權威性婦女的PRADA布朗白色太陽鏡瓦特案例 美國 20.50美元

普拉達太陽鏡的SPR 581 5AV 6SI 美國 $ 80.00

新Prada渦旋68L 68 L VPR68L眼鏡眼鏡 美國159.00美元

老式的PRADA女裝太陽鏡 美國 $ 50.00

的PRADA太陽鏡紅與黑無框硬案例 美國 $ 76.00

新Prada渦旋13L 13 L VPR13L眼鏡眼鏡 美國 $ 139.00

新Prada渦旋06 L VPR06L眼鏡眼鏡06L 6升61 美國 $ 149.00

由於PRADA的SPR 54I極化黑色5AV 5Z1太陽鏡541 美國204.00美元

新Prada渦旋06餘VPR06I眼鏡眼鏡6 6我06I 美國 $ 120.00

PRADA的男式太陽眼鏡商Luxottica CASE和農委會納愛斯 美國 $ 89.99

新作準的PRADA公關04LS太陽鏡7Z04V1紫 美國35.99美元

2001年NBA邁阿密熱火泡泡龍4頭莫寧推廣 美國 $ 59.99

真正的設計師普拉達女士框架眼鏡男女皆宜 美國 2.29美元

PRADA的設計師眼鏡框眼鏡新渦旋為55 美國61.09美元

真正的設計師普拉達女士框架眼鏡 美國32.25美元

米蘭真正的設計師普拉達女士框架眼鏡 美國 8.42美元

羅伯託卡瓦利尼拉RC168S太陽鏡黑金 美國159.00美元

奧利弗黑貓眼墨鏡人民在普拉達案例 美國 $ 9.99

博索爾S217 300黑色太陽鏡品牌新 美國 $ 199.00

新Prada眼鏡VPR65L渦旋65 L 65 L 美國 $ 150.00

新Prada渦旋67L 67 L VPR67L眼鏡玻璃PR67L 美國159.00美元

新作準婦女太陽鏡的PRADA的SPR 27L塑料 美國 $ 31.00

新作準婦女太陽鏡的PRADA的SPR 18L塑料 美國 $ 28.00

新作準婦女太陽鏡的PRADA的SPR 18I塑料 美國102.50美元

新作準婦女太陽鏡的PRADA的SPR 19L塑料 美國 $ 30.00

新作準男裝太陽鏡的PRADA MODSPR 51I銀 美國120.50美元

新Prada渦旋60I眼鏡VPR60I 60餘眼鏡 美國 $ 149.00

新作準DIAMONTI 10HV PRADA的眼鏡 美國 $ 100.00

PRADA的處方眼鏡 美國 $ 80.00

新Prada的處方眼鏡品牌 美國 $ 100.00

新Prada眼鏡VPR61L渦旋61 L 61 L 6BA條101 美國 $ 155.00

正宗的PRADA紫太陽鏡15升15LS 7ZT3M1新 美國 $ 42.00

大黑墨鏡普拉達 美國 $ 150.00

正宗普拉達太陽鏡 美國 $ 40.00

新作準的PRADA男女皆宜的太陽鏡零售250元 美國 $ 56.00

普拉達女士太陽鏡SPR04A 美國 $ 79.00

普拉達一條15G眼鏡渦旋 美國159.00美元

布朗普拉達太陽鏡 美國 $ 95.00

普拉達中性太陽鏡正宗黑AP0268538尼斯 美國 $ 19.99

新作準婦女太陽鏡的PRADA的SPR 06F晶體 美國 $ 6.50

新作準男裝太陽鏡的PRADA的SPR 51L飛行員 美國 $ 41.00

普拉達黑色太陽鏡 美國 $ 75.00

新Prada眼鏡VPR72H渦旋72小時72小時 美國 $ 140.00

哈瓦那的PRADA紫色眼鏡架新品牌 美國 $ 10.99

男裝的PRADA太陽鏡白色黃金裝飾 美國 49.50美元

普拉達SPS07H SPS的07h的SPS的07h的黑色7OV 1A1型太陽鏡 美國154.99美元

普拉達女士太陽鏡 美國164.99美元

尼斯的PRADA太陽鏡 美國0.99美元

新Prada渦旋23I 23餘VPR23I眼鏡玻璃PR23I 美國 $ 140.00

一些偉大的普拉達眼鏡盒提供關於從亞馬遜

	OPI的指甲油薩摩亞漆砂表明P61 銷售價格：$ 2.50
	OPI的指甲油0.5盎司

一個點的視圖 1

一個角度

安迪考克斯

我們的市場理念

幸福是生動綻放

生命生活在一個豐富的壤土。

我們人類一腐殖質為那些來，

但我們同樣是受益者

我們或其他人之間的經歷。

因此，死亡是人生撤消的遺產，

不斷使我們的共同土壤，

我們的公益其中合格1

似乎帶出其他人。

- 沒有轉世：

只有人通知我們，我們告知他人 -

從中我們可以挑選珍貴的目的。

黑暗的雜草有可能在我們中間

這將斷然放棄我們的相互關係及水蛭，

因為有一些會為自己外誰

在修剪整齊的床鋪損壞用無菌土壤。

既不承認的讓步。

然而，這是我們的債券，我們自由 -

知道什麼是我們把我們解除綁定。

當有一天，這成為宗教，

然後我們找到一個可以慶幸的能力

每次打開一個芽

2002年

它像這樣：對於一個良好的許多年，我的頭已被一鍋內燉一個排序的智力，對其中的成分有管理的，以保持其獨立的身份，甚至如果他們已經成為了一個小潮濕 time。 阿潑佳釀肯定已經提高了味道：（在維諾船級社，毫無疑問）。 而許多論點提供了很好的香料，加入細微差別的創造。 我說的創建，但是，實際上，這些因素都不是新的：一個或兩個這些老根已出現自古以來。 我感興趣的是什麼，但是，是他們的相互關係，誘人的可能性，他們可以這麼說吧，提高相互間。 它們融入更大的東西，如果你喜歡一個世界觀，是本論文論戰演習。 五較大實體在這燉，我打算片外，包括：

• 比喻為一個虛假的知識來源。
• 非僅能生存的概念，我們已經沒有身份或存在後死亡。
• 無神論
• 這個想法和理想的一沒錢，無國籍，財產的世界中，每個人都有自由進入人類的產品，並有助於根據他或她的能力和傾向。

這些，我會爭辯，有助於第五個要素，即：

• 一種倫理責成一個更好的生活的人。

但在我開始包了這一點，我覺得有什麼可說的，需要：人，我相信，是注定要成為一個哲學家。 沒有一桿那些缺乏抽象思維能逃脫這一命運。 下面所有的內在瑣事，下面層收到的知識人群一個人的心，其實存在著一種哲學的建設解決非常核心所在，一個人的存在，這是否承認與否，不管這個建築是老式的硬盤鐵砧重要思想或代表的只是一個串聯的常規反應，生命的大問題。 換句話說，每個人都有一個世界觀。 在介紹我自己，我只是揭露一種哲學建設，這似乎是有道理的，我要。 老實說，我不是這無疑肯定的：它傾斜的地方，並包含許多破舊的鉚釘。 但它凝聚足夠滿足自己的需要了解我周圍的世界。

因此，這裡的味道的，知識產權燉：我不知道為什麼我們都在這個地球上的位置，或者，為什麼地球上的確應該在這裡擺在首位。 如果有人認為我們的存在，而宇宙達到某種目的乞求超過幾個問題。 我想提請人們把這種思想是根深蒂固的，幾乎是反射性，為類比的思想傾向，其中一個現象是通過比較，並解釋圖紙與另一個相似之處。 在我看來，在我們普通的生活 - 當不從事哲學話語 - 我們有時含蓄的方式通知所有妄想，以及真理，我們也沒有停下來考慮，並從淤泥中提取的世俗的存在，主要是，通過這一機制的比喻。 平凡的世界是我們的基地，我們遊歷於哲學遊覽。 有人可能會爭辯說，這個基地佔地哲學本身的地形。 但是，哲學接地我們日常生活的存在是必然隱含和'走出心靈的：當我們從事的普通，很少促使我們走向的哲學思考。 哲學，在任何情況下，競爭與許多其他學科 - 心理學，生物學，經濟學，當中包括 - 在尊重我們的抽象傾向。 我並不是說沒有使用類比思想是：所有我的建議是，如果你從頭開始下所採取的許多理所當然的概念，說已定居在我們的心目中，你可能遇到的比喻，不站起來，審議。 有時，一個是甚至不知道正在草擬一個比喻，更不用說一個類比的謬誤，是在假設某種東西的比較，證明是事實，而不是只建議 - 通常在一個圖形或風景如畫的方式 - 如何現象問題可以解釋。 此外，在某些情況下，這種類比顯然是錯誤的。 沒有什麼比這更好的例證某些論點看來，證明神的存在。 從設計的論證，例如，有它的秩序和美麗的宇宙證明，它必須被設計。 不僅是對這一論點值得商榷的前提 - 秩序與美顯然不普遍，可能是由於目前相當對眼睛的旁觀者，但結論是簡單的非不知所謂：它依靠，當然，在一個隱含的類比比如說，一個工匠創造一個美好的人工製品 - 一個微觀事件而被認為某種程度上，作為一個宏觀的並行活動，創造了宇宙。 但是，

（一），根本不能說什麼擁有良好的微觀的情況 - 即在人工製品擁有自營顯然是由人 - 擁有良好的宏觀形勢，其中一個是面臨著一個無限的宇宙。 在大多數，人們可能會允許這種推論正在取得進展。 但是這需要之間的可比性的情況下，這根本不是這樣：在微觀情況下，工匠負責只需少量的產品在世界上無數 objects，包括其他工匠。 推測的上帝在宏觀形勢將被視作已創造了一切對他自己的。

（二）比喻因此該缺陷的原因，但也因為在微觀情況下，工匠製作的人工製品從材料到手工，例如，木材。 神，不過，相信由宗教代言人創造宇宙無中生有，從一無所有。

由於這些和其他原因 - 如認為某些形式的秩序，而不是對進化力量 - 從設計的論證是完全不能令人信服的。 但重要的是要看到，它基本上是毫無根據的結論畫在此基礎上的比喻，以及有缺陷的性質的比喻，因為這破壞了這一論點。 此外，由於案件是與一切哲學的論據，有一個意義的問題，需要加以解決的邏輯是之前的質疑：究竟我們的意思，當我們說，上帝創造一切無中生有？ 我冒昧地建議，整個想法是不可理解的，任何試圖澄清是什麼意思，這很可能依賴於更多的不必要的推論來自更多的有缺陷的類比。 只需一個數字串在一起的字，一個語法正確的句子，如'上帝創造了一切'，可能會造成一種錯覺的含義，但語法生成的含義是不清晰的概念代替。 無論如何，這就是大自然的類比的思維，貫穿於我們的語言和推理。毫不奇怪，它的特點非常可怕的討論主題死亡。

死亡是個人：對我們來說，在西方，它是一項能夠消耗我們的內心生活，當然也消耗了殼，我們呼籲我們的身體。 它是存在的理由了這麼多在生活中，一個集合點，一個邊境哨所的日常世界。 這是一個概念，通過與強大的拍攝情緒：恐懼，憤怒，厭惡，悲傷，愛。 它也是一些東西，在構思方面的類比。 我已經不知不覺採取類比的思想在我提到我們的內心世界和外部殼：我已引起在機器中的幽靈。 我可能也有類似建議，死亡是一種睡眠，增加的必然結果，在睡眠死亡，夢想可能會'，它們的生活等待我們的各種各樣的'洗牌的時候，我們已經擺脫了這塵世'。但在什麼基礎上我會得出這一結論？ 在摩擦的問題是，這種信念是建立主要比喻，而它下面可能存在一個根深蒂固的害怕失去一個人的自我，一個擔心是特別條件的個人主義精神的所謂先進社會。 我想，我們建議，而不是冷靜地考慮替代，這就是，有沒有來世。 我想表明，當我們死沒有天堂或地獄等著我們，因為，很簡單，我們將不再。 在這種情況下，我們可以沒有理由懼怕死亡，因為它不影響我們攜帶超出我們完全毀滅。 我知道，當然，要有人像我一樣，該產品的一個天主教教養，一個微弱的焦慮困擾著這個施工死亡。但是，這並不會影響從參數。 這無疑是最好的頭部和心臟應該同意，但像老夫婦，這兩個學院並不總是有相同的看法。

雖然深刻的個人，死亡是一種社會現象，以及：在一個小規模的，有失去親人，當然，誰不只是覺得損失，但其生活或多或少，或顯著微妙的，塗改。 這些影響可能級聯遠弗屆。 例如，一宗死亡個案可能鬆動的關係，或使人們團結在一起，這可能影響的背景和互動模式的後代。 從宏觀上也與死亡，是對社會作為一個整體抗衡。 我不是在這裡指的，也就是說，關注各國家機關與發病率的影響，這些指標，可能對政府的開支。 我指而是要更深刻的方式，採取社會與死亡的現象：一個事實，即死亡，是這是'文化中介'。 沒有陷入一場辯論的性質的文化 - 它有不同程度被解釋為包括收購方面的象徵意義和社會，為一些有別於性質，不同的東西從社會結構，意識形態的東西類似，或作為一種方法生活 - 在目前情況下這句話涉及到社會的資源，是提請請賜給含義是，在一定意義上一個難以理解的事件，並提供有次序，禮儀與平凡的重新建立。 死亡，特別是當意外和戲劇性，往往是非常不同的方式，並有可能徹底淡化了，我們知道隨著社會的構建。 有時，我們看到這體現在一個階段的撤出和脫離實際的人誰是死亡。 和死亡，當然，作為一種超越達到社會。 因此，社會要維護本身 - 通過文化 - 以對付撲朔迷離的感覺是微不足道的生活，目標和野心是毫無意義的，是不相關的和規範，這可能也伴隨著潛在的喪親之痛的經驗。 這是這是積極的社會化期間處理的過程中，當每個人是生活在一般情況下，而不是應該如何應對與死亡，尤其是關注的焦點。 就社會而言，什麼是不需要的是個人成長認為，由於沒有一點生活，以及他們可能採取任何他們希望的生活，但他們的行為，請不顧後果。 社會可能只是沒有成為一個聚集的虛無主義利己主義者。換言之，社會深惡痛絕失範，就像自然厭惡真空。 如果一個社會選擇談論一些物化意識作為一個獨立的存在，人們可能會說，如果它的組成成員沒有在一定程度上同意成立一個共同的信念和價值觀，那麼，社會結構本身可能瓦解。 回歸主題的喪親，人們可以說，如果因為去世的人接近他們，個人是覺得生活是離開的並不重要，或者什麼也沒有值得追求，那麼他們可能無法充分履行其社會角色，這也可能有各種各樣的影響別人，不只是情緒不穩定後者。當死亡發生時，個人需要的感覺，在某種意義上說，'生活下去'。 提供的舒適和支持的朋友加強了這一消息，並下意識的印象，他們對失去親人的繼續屬於在一個網絡中其他社會人。 在口語表達對別人的世界崩潰的餘波死亡往往總結了經驗喪。 當文化被部署到世界共同認為，這主要是一個特殊組成部分的文化，是負責這一點，這就是所謂的宗教成分

現在，我不是說宗教一定進場時，有人死亡。 但是，這當然似乎發生大部分的時間和幾乎所有的社會。 宗教是，當然，主要（雖然並非獨家）贊助商的概念，即以某種方式生存，我們死亡。 此外，宗教一般講還宣布，會發生什麼事給我們死後，取決於我們的行為方式，自己在生活中。 幾乎可以肯定，在促進這種觀念，宗教服務，深受社會人士對失範傾向的疫苗在面對死亡。 祭司和牧師，毛拉和拉比有百年以上的儀式主持的死亡，喪失親人的安慰和承諾的天堂。 但是，還有更多的宗教和社會之間的關係比：一方面，在大多數情況下，前者旨在促進群眾最符合社會的道德準則，通過推動議程，其中的底線 - 至少在Abrahamaic宗教 - 是，如果你是好的你去天堂，如果你是壞你去地獄。 此外，宗教和國家體制陷入各種方式在大多數的國家：在神權，他們幾乎沒有什麼區別。 在西方，宗教可能已經退休了後排座位，但它仍然能不同程度影射自己在國家政治生活中，有時有緩和的方式。 即使在公然無神論的國家，一種準宗教的填充與荒謬如違反金正日就任朝鮮神般的地位。 因此，宗教發揮了作用，增加了神聖的褻瀆業務方面的運行狀態。 它也很難否認，有很多很多人，宗教是一個唇膏，一個安慰，一個'鴉片'，和，因此，需要一定的壓力關閉 state，which might否則他們無力抗衡的水平社會動亂。 事實上，一個現代歷史的諷刺是，它往往在上述的無神論的國家，當年還是存在的，在那裡安慰的也許是最深切地要求，更是宗教的傳統特色蓬勃發展真菌樣陰影。 為什麼宗教應該是鴉片，是不難看出：當生活是嚴酷無情的，因為它是為絕大多數人在世界各地，並否認他們的重大政治和社會影響力，改變在他們的情況，那麼它這些人是有意義的安慰自己的想法，至少死後，會有一些補救措施，糾正了一些錯誤。 心理太，這種想法還解決了缺乏自尊而常常伴隨著貧困，親屬或其他方式：它是一個富有的人更難進入天國比駱駝是可以通過眼睛一針可能發揮良好，大部分的宗教傾向窮人的許多充滿巴里奧。 而在培養方向的來世，宗教可以有enervating影響後的政治活動，尤其是在保守的社會裡的宗教和國家的工作緊密地聯繫在一起。

然而，宗教和社會的關係正在發生變化與所有的時間：在一些地區，對世界，宗教是在撤退，在其他地方，它是復活。 更重要的是，它的安慰作用，有時掩蓋了一個為政治化傾向，這一方面體現了解放神學在拉丁美洲或活動的各種伊斯蘭運動。 但其他的社會和經濟發展明顯太雲圖片：第一個星期日的補充，雖然有機會你會遇到的奇怪的照片在一些貧困的人擠下第三世界國家廣告囤積歌頌豪華對象的慾望;圖像象徵著東西是越來越明顯，那就是，今天比以往任何時候都更加突出，物質財富是推動儘管超出達到這麼多。 唯物主義已經成為某種準宗教太，它的聖公會牧師被那些聲名狼藉的風格大師的教友是讀者 glossies和它的更多的原教旨主義部長釉眼睛的企業領導人吟誦的口頭禪：'貪婪是好的'。 更重要的是，對市場的福音 - 無情的廣告 - 現在穿透庇護的家庭比以往任何時候都更深刻，微妙心態，形成每個行動和未來的一代通過電視和其他大眾媒體。 因此，期望上升，這些都是阻礙時，憤怒的結果。 這種憤怒可能會發現在各種不同的表達方式，從單純追求私利犯罪行為的各種類別的政治行動;民族解放鬥爭，恐怖主義，工會活動和抗議，僅舉幾例。 在某些情況下，飼料為政治行動由宗教團體;隨我的參考和伊斯蘭解放神學運動。 即使如此，這一類的宗教持不同政見者仍然保留其來世點參考。 事實上，有超過一數宗教團體圍繞想施加復仇'來世的議程上這個世界上，無論是血腥武力或利用大眾傳播媒體。

But, of course, there is a major philosophical flaw with religion which affects its credibility, and that is – as has already been suggested – that it is premised on spurious analogies. One might wonder whether religion can nevertheless survive a convincing refutation of this analogical reasoning. I do not believe it can. To me, these analogies are central to any religious apology. That such reasoning should be deployed at all demonstrates the poverty of this apology. You don't deploy analogical thinking to prove the existence of tables and chairs (I fear for the physical safety of philosophers who doubt such things); you do when seeking to prove the existence of a putative entity that cannot otherwise convincingly be shown to exist. Furthermore, what is unseen can only be apprehended through, or with reference to, what is seen. Of course, there are other categories of proof advanced by those wanting to show that God exists. But I think that the analogical argument is crucial because, in the absence of direct empirical evidence of his existence, analogy 'informs' the substantive picture we have of God. Whether viewed as an ancient with a beard and flowing robes, a powerful uber-warrior wielding an axe, a gigantic bird, or some nebulous power, God has been described by likening him to observable phenomena. In short, by deploying analogy. And since the analogy fails as proof, the entire deck of cards that is religion comes crashing down, along with the card setting out the religious premise of an afterlife. When this begins to dawn on people, then, of course, the contribution of religion to social order will begin to decline. There are other problems with religion too; many of them are psychological as opposed to philosophical in nature. Take, for example, the peculiar and somewhat hypocritical attitude religions exhibit towards the 'sins of the flesh': Although they may object that they are concerned rather with less sense-bound feelings, such as joy and despair, ultimately religions implicitly acknowledge the hedonistic principle that human beings are driven by the need to seek out pleasure and avoid pain. (This I would regard as ancillary to the most profound need driving us: the desire for happiness). The extremes of such experiences, after all, are supposedly afforded by heaven and hell respectively. Even if it is argued that these are states of mind or 'planes of existence' rather than physical locations, heaven and hell are seen as conditions that happen to and are imposed upon people, to which people react in ways which bear comparison with reactions to pleasurable and painful stimuli. Yet this all sits rather uncomfortably with the puritanical disapproval evinced by most religions – particularly those in the Abrahamaic tradition – of any display of a life-affirming sexuality outside strict social boundaries. Thus we find certain Muslim fundamentalists self-righteously demanding the lash, or even the bullet, for women transgressing the rigid mores of their societies. In the same breath, they will wax rhapsodic at the prospect of eternal orgiastic rutting in paradise in the company of seventy two virgins should they lose their lives whilst attempting to butcher innocents in some squalid Middle Eastern marketplace or in the anonymous streets of some Western city. (More recently, there have been unconfirmed reports from Iraq – that bastion of Western-sponsored freedom– that religious militias have taken to gluing the anuses of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and then giving them a drink causing diarrhoea, which results in a horrible death). Whilst these barbaric acts may not be in accord with the Quoran – somewhat hypocritically, religiously-minded people tend not to be too bound by their holy books – and owe more to the backward-looking societies in which it they occur, the point of view informing them is nevertheless a religious one, and mainstream Muslims would well to consider what succour they give to these deranged fanatics  (Not so long ago, for example, we witnessed the Karzai regime in Afghanistan introducing legislation effectively legitimising rape within marriage in order to appease conservatives within that benighted country). Christianity is no less hypocritical. Witness the spectacle of millionaire preachers in the American Biblebelt surrounded by their business managers and power-dressing spouses, spluttering about hellfire and damnation only to be found with their pants down being pleasured by some vacuous young congregationalist. Or have a look at all of those dreary Catholic priests with a furtive craving for altar boys, intoning their baleful sermons on the evils of masturbation. The more vehemently religion proscribes; the more sordid-seeming are the infractions that inevitably follow. However, it is not just in matters sexual that religion casts an angst-laden pall over everything. In all sorts of ways, religion, I would contend is a sort of neurosis that weighs heavily on the human soul. Verily, it is the 'sigh of the oppressed creature', as Marx so eloquently put it. It engenders a sense of dread, a hesitancy, about living life to the full and without reservation. One might even construe the story the Garden of Eden in which God forbade Adam and Eve from eating the fruits of the apple tree as some sort of parable admonishing people against indulgence and extolling restraint instead. No wonder that the rise of consumerism in Western societies since the war has closely tracked the fall in religious observance.

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.

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. 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.

我決不會聲稱所有在共產主義理想：它是合理的假設，在解決擁抱共產主義，人類將不得不生活在一個品種的過渡期問題'幾十年以前的事情開始順利進行。 而且，當然，棘手的問題的關係，個人與社會的需求將繼續關注。 在討論這個關係，政治理論家有時指的是觀念的'社會契約'。 要文字的頭腦它，這是，當然，小說，再一次錯誤的類比思想，而個人和社會都視為具有準法律關係的每一方擁有的其他義務，或在其中社會形成個人簽訂合同後，與對方有關的社會本質。 嚴格講，作為一個比喻，這個描述失敗：沒有類比法院或審判長（除非上帝在天上符合這個描述 - 但後來將他制裁一些令人髮指的社會存在的今天，人們要問 - 修辭）應該作出裁決違反本合同，這是荒謬的詮釋這種合同視為已商定在特定的時間點，隨後個人有義務行為規定的限制內。 當然，這個概念的一個社會契約，正是想傳達的是，個人得到的種種好處屬於一個社會，但這樣做需要他們做一些在特定範圍內，並有助於社會。 然而，社會給予個人和在何種程度上，後者可能符合社會規範的變量。 換句話說，我們要考慮的性質的社會的問題時，看這種關係。 在接口之間的緊張關係的個人與社會的也許是不可避免的：一個或其他可能受到影響的各種社會安排。 在一個極端，我們可能會發現自己生活在一個自由放任的叢林中很少或根本沒有社會約束的是個人在其放在追求財富或享樂的生活方式，在法律和秩序是最小或不當運用，其中一個'狗吃狗'精神主持，並在小有留意的社會影響 - 無論是無情的東西已被封存普遍認為資源，壓迫的窮人，弱者和易受傷害，污染和環境退化，創造的反感，暴力，文盲，而且往往在政治亞文化，或花哨的城市環境和建築不協調。 這樣的社會沒有任何意義上的共同性。 然而幾乎相同，可以說極端的反烏托邦社會領主它在對個人，粉碎任何開花的個人主義，符合要求和總的忠誠。 這如同噩夢般的法西斯模式在於呼籲全社會，強大的國家。 有趣的是，有點諷刺的是，這兩種模式不同的元素似乎共存，在許多當代社會，中國是最值得注意的例子。 共產主義，另一方面，雖然不可能完全消除緊張關係的個人與社會，肯定是唯一形式的社會能夠從根本上減少這種緊張局勢，因為這將有利於個人自由的最大可能的範圍內對社會和諧的框架。

人們誰沒有宴請了前共產主義思想的普遍響應懷疑他們盡快成為熟悉它。 也許這是可以理解的：這是一個深刻的革命思想，使人們懷疑許多根深蒂固的假設人與社會。 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'.
• 這個'奶油山'實際上體現另一種類型的浪費驚人發現資本主義：廢物產生生產過剩。 正如市場可能確定非常工廠，辦公室，礦山，農場不再經濟上可行，必須取出的commission be，it可能也決定了產品和服務的流動從這些設施的剩餘來要求'和要被廢棄。 我們認為這種週期性的資本主義經濟循環的困擾，基本上發生，因為資本主義已經走得太遠本身。
• 此外還有其他一些方法，使廢物可以產生。 例如，公司經常會竭盡所能，提高化妝品的外觀，從而使'可銷售對他們的產品沒有一定質量的改善後者，這可能導致揮霍大量廢物。 崔斯特瑞姆司徒雷登，在他的新書，的浪費，揭露醜聞的全球糧食廢物'，claims，例如，有25％的水果和蔬菜生產在英國是浪費在生產過程不只是因為這些不看正確的形狀，顏色或大小。 味道和營養價值都無關緊要。 關於這個問題的普遍浪費食物 - 包括消費者和食品工業 - 它已經估計，僅美國什麼廢物 each年的兩倍之多，需要以足夠的飼料 9.23億營養不良 people在今天的world（獨立，2009年7月9日，P9的）

• 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'

關於作者

Check Out This Prada Glasses Case YouTube Video

Kev Blaze - Watch How I Do This (with lyrics)

普拉達眼鏡盒