Production

[Alan Durant]

I haven't quite got up to speed with what Dark Mountain stands for and the name unciivilisation worries me, as much of what I think of as civilisation I would like to keep.
Does the idea of production for need and not for profit fit with the ideas of supporters of the Dark Mountain project? As a simplified example would not the production of solar panels be a good idea if coupled with the discontinuation of production of private cars. Such a radical change would have to be done under a system of social ownership of such industry as we decide we need. The elimination of production of those things that we do not require or would actually be of benefit for us to do about would at the same time reduce energy demands.
There is much both natural and man/woman made that we should cherish. What I think we need is the power to decide what we want and need and not to have these decisions made for us by a handful of individuals and groups who can only make decisions based on profits and power.

Alan

[Alan Durant]

I had hoped that rather than me trying to read your thoughts you might have just told me what they are. If as you say all action is pointless I'll stop this dialogue.
Good luck
Alan

[John Irvine]

G'Day Alan,

In a world of already declining energy we do not, will not see our leaders calling our predicament for what it is. While individual humans are kind, considerate, even intelligent; in a herd situation it all changes - the we want ethos prevails in lieu of inteligent debate. This process is aid through democracy, where one half of voters have an IQ under average, and who are probably more easily swayed by Big Business. Here in Oz we recently had the debacle of a Resource tax that give the population a greater return on the mining of our non-renewable resources. The tax was well crafted, operating on "super profits" and giving assistance for new projects, and ones that go wrong.

The Mining Industry whipped around - raised AUD$100 Million and ran a negative add campaign concentrating on simp0listic issues, and the tax was substaintially altered, aided by the idot opposition who said they would abolish it altogether.

So the pollies and business will be of no use and help will have to come from the little people - the likes of you and I - who share produce and encourage others to become more self reliant, and raise consciousness that things will not be that bad - if you can be fed, housed and have less stress then what the heck -

[Jan Steinman]

Alan Durant said:

"I feel what we need to get rid of is Capitalism. Vast amounts of goods etc. are produced for no good reason or at best badly envisaged reasons."

Sounds like what you want to get rid of is Marketing, rather than Capitalism!

"However effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement seems to me to be OK."

That requires capitalism.

I think what most people mean when they decry "capitalism" is really greed. "Capitalism" is merely the ownership of the means of production. I buy a shovel to grow a market garden -- I'm a capitalist.

"Of course we may not all agree on what is required and how to produce it. This can only be resolved by a truly democratic system. I mean deciding what is done and not just voting for the liar in the nicest suit."

Ha. "Democracy" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

I think what is needed is closer to Sociocracy or Dynamic Governance -- some form of consensus-based governance.

There is a reason why the US loves to go on and on about democracy; it's because it is so easy to control!

[Chris Dumont]

For me, part of the name is a statement against the current pardigm.  I also think that while some of the ideas, for example of decentralised, green,federated collectives or a green anarcho-communist approach might be desirable "from each according to their means to each according to their need" to paraphrase.  As Kropotkin pointed nearly 100 years ago, those societies which practice Mutual Aid tend to flourish.  However, we are facing a situation outside anything we have experienced as a race.  Our civilisation has grown up within narrow climactic norms and we are facing a radical change beyond those norms.  The predictions for a 3-4(or more) degree C global mean temperature rise are catastrophic!  So the name UNCIVILISATION is an acceptance of that. 

[Alan Durant]

Hi Jan,

I think it's Capitalism I want to get rid of.

If as you say you want “effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement”, then you do too.

When we talk about Capitalism we are not as such talking about greed, although of course this exists.

Capitalism is ownership of the means of production. This is a big deal. Your analogy of owning a shovel and therefore being a Capitalist is not correct. If you had the monopoly of the available shovels then you may be a Capitalist. Your monopoly of shovels would make people who needed them to dig give you something in return for their use. As the only thing they are able to give is a proportion of their labour, lets say half the work that they do, then this is what they are obliged to give you in return for the use of your shovels. The part you get is profit, ie. the portion of someone else's labour that you get and they don't.

Capitalist must produce profit in order to attract working Capital and pay dividends. Capitalism must have growth to keep producing profits which is a problem as you can't have continuing growth in a finite system, ie. the Earth, universe etc. Its because of the built in unsustainability as well as all the negative effects on people that we need to replace this obsolete system.

I agree with you that voting for the liar in the nicest suit is no answer. But only by owning the means of production, land etc. can we control what we actually do. Without this ownership the power is out of our hands. You're correct that democracy is dictatorship of the majority over the minority, (if I read you correctly), but this would be a huge step forward over the current situation of a tiny minority deciding the fate of everyone else. There should however be the possibility for people to - for want of a better expression - do their own thing. You'll have to explain “Sociocracy and Dynamic governance” to me. As for the USA, does anyone really consider this a democracy, or for that matter anywhere else.

The means for dealing with many of the world's problems are already available but we are prevented from using them. People can and do cooperate for the general good even if sometimes this is very hard to achieve initially. Capitalism works directly against this possibility.

Best Alan

Jan Steinman said:

Alan Durant said:

"I feel what we need to get rid of is Capitalism. Vast amounts of goods etc. are produced for no good reason or at best badly envisaged reasons."

Sounds like what you want to get rid of is Marketing, rather than Capitalism!

"However effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement seems to me to be OK."

That requires capitalism.

I think what most people mean when they decry "capitalism" is really greed. "Capitalism" is merely the ownership of the means of production. I buy a shovel to grow a market garden -- I'm a capitalist.

"Of course we may not all agree on what is required and how to produce it. This can only be resolved by a truly democratic system. I mean deciding what is done and not just voting for the liar in the nicest suit."

Ha. "Democracy" is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

I think what is needed is closer to Sociocracy or Dynamic Governance -- some form of consensus-based governance.

There is a reason why the US loves to go on and on about democracy; it's because it is so easy to control!

[Alan Durant]

Hi Chris,

I suppose my problem is that the concept of civilisation, although it originally meant living cities, infers to me approaching the world from a rational and thought out point of view. The name uncivilisation at least is eye catching if a little gimmicky.

I totally agree with you that we are facing a catastrophe. Unfortunately most people believe that it can in some way be engineered away in the current context.

Not only that but they believe that the current Capitalist system is the only viable one and have not come to the conclusion that the only chance we have of surviving  into the future is by scrapping this obsolete system.

There is however a point of view that either humanity is not worth saving, (which may be true, but I'd like to know what happens next), or that the "fitest" will live with nature, leaping from rock to rock chasing lasses in mink bikinis, the Tarzan syndrome". Of course the media will home in on this and the serious threats which we face will be obscured.

Best  Alan

 

Chris Dumont said:

For me, part of the name is a statement against the current pardigm.  I also think that while some of the ideas, for example of decentralised, green,federated collectives or a green anarcho-communist approach might be desirable "from each according to their means to each according to their need" to paraphrase.  As Kropotkin pointed nearly 100 years ago, those societies which practice Mutual Aid tend to flourish.  However, we are facing a situation outside anything we have experienced as a race.  Our civilisation has grown up within narrow climactic norms and we are facing a radical change beyond those norms.  The predictions for a 3-4(or more) degree C global mean temperature rise are catastrophic!  So the name UNCIVILISATION is an acceptance of that. 

[Chris Dumont]

Hi Alan

I think you are right about the lack of alternative models.  There is questioning of capitalism, especially in the wake of the financial crisis, but it is fairly limited.  There seems to be a move for compassionate capitalism or green capitalism but little real searching for alternatives. 
I agree that we need to keep rationality, while I am interested in primitive living, There is definitely the "Tarzan Syndrome" you mention.   My view is that we need community suffieciency rather than self-sufficiency and that we must be wary of idealising  "the noble savage" too much.  I mean that while I think there is definitely a place for remystiification of Nature there is also a need to keep knowledge and avoid the worst excesses of superstition. 

I think that the Transition movement offers some hope in the way of  federated eco-communities, but I am of the opinion that the "if we tinker around the edges we'll be ok" mindset is far too common.  We have all grown up in the luxury of western society and it is hard to really get your head around real pardigm shift required. 

One reason I like this place is that you can have these sort of discussions without being the wierdo in the corner. 

 

Best

Chris

Alan Durant said:

Hi Chris,

I suppose my problem is that the concept of civilisation, although it originally meant living cities, infers to me approaching the world from a rational and thought out point of view. The name uncivilisation at least is eye catching if a little gimmicky.

I totally agree with you that we are facing a catastrophe. Unfortunately most people believe that it can in some way be engineered away in the current context.

Not only that but they believe that the current Capitalist system is the only viable one and have not come to the conclusion that the only chance we have of surviving  into the future is by scrapping this obsolete system.

There is however a point of view that either humanity is not worth saving, (which may be true, but I'd like to know what happens next), or that the "fitest" will live with nature, leaping from rock to rock chasing lasses in mink bikinis, the Tarzan syndrome". Of course the media will home in on this and the serious threats which we face will be obscured.

Best  Alan

 

Chris Dumont said:

For me, part of the name is a statement against the current pardigm.  I also think that while some of the ideas, for example of decentralised, green,federated collectives or a green anarcho-communist approach might be desirable "from each according to their means to each according to their need" to paraphrase.  As Kropotkin pointed nearly 100 years ago, those societies which practice Mutual Aid tend to flourish.  However, we are facing a situation outside anything we have experienced as a race.  Our civilisation has grown up within narrow climactic norms and we are facing a radical change beyond those norms.  The predictions for a 3-4(or more) degree C global mean temperature rise are catastrophic!  So the name UNCIVILISATION is an acceptance of that. 

[Jan Steinman]

Okay. "Capitalism" seems to conflate so many terms, so I fall back on Wikipedia:

 

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

 

I think the first independent clause is my definition of capitalism. That would include a farmer who acquires a shovel (or a tractor, or a farm animal) with which to produce something of value to others, to which he contributes his own labour to obtain some reasonable income.

 

Wikipedia goes on to after the first semicolon to talk about free markets. I'm still with it there; the farmer who grows a crop can decide which crop to grow, based upon local competitive situations, and also has the freedom to haul her crop to some other market, where she can get a better deal. So far, I see nothing evil to oppose here. Note that this second clause also keeps one farmer from becoming filthy rich, because other farmers will compete to keep returns nominal.

 

It seems to be the third independent clause that most people -- myself included -- have trouble with. "Profit is sent to owners" implies that the owners are <b>not</b> the farmer (or craftsman, or merchant, etc.) doing the work, but rather someone else, who passively contribute "investment" in order to "employ workers."

 

It is this third part of capitalism that I agree we could do without!

 

So, what am I, then? A "2/3rds" capitalist? What word is there for someone who believes in private ownership of the means of production in order to make use of their own labour?

 

A seamstress buys a sewing machine, and sells clothing at the local artists' market. Isn't she a capitalist, even without getting money from someone else (who expects a return) to buy the sewing machine, even without hiring others to perform the labour?

 

As another example, our co-op issues "investment shares." These shares are guaranteed to <b>not</b> "show a profit," but may pay a dividend up to the rate of inflation. Someone who is uninvolved with labour recently "invested" five figures in our co-op so we could build a large greenhouse. They know that the <b>most</b> they can ever expect back is the rate of inflation. Are they capitalists because they "invest" in the "means of production" for someone else, who will supply the labour?

 

I don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." Please, don't make me work for "the state" instead of some greedy capitalist who only invests only money and takes away profit. Therein lies the "Tragedy of the Commons," whereby Russian peasants had to give up ownership of their goats and work on collective farms.

 

I rail on against "financial capitalism," the notion that if you get enough little bits of coloured paper together, they will multiply. But the other parts of capitalism seem to have some very useful, resilient, self-sustaining benefits to all that we need to be careful not to lose.

[Chris Dumont]

In  The  Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin discusses capitalism quite well in my opinion. One of the points he seems to make is that any product is the product of many processes by many people so to claim the profit of production individually is to disregard those processes and people.

 I think that one alternative to ownership of the means of production is the idea of a sort of "usufruct" or group ownership of the land and or the means of production.  I am not talking about state ownership (I think statehood is the cause of many of our problems) but ownership by the community, with any returns going to the community. 

 

 

[Alan Durant]

Hi Jan, I love wikipedia. They do also say that there is no consensus of the precise definition of Capitalism. However I would tend towards a Marxist analysis.

It seems that you can't just choose those clauses that you agree with. If it is a coherent system then you have to look at the whole thing. Capitalism for me is having people who work for a boss who expropriates part of their Labour. If you a boss owns the factory, mill etc. people can be forced to work for them at terms which they can largely dictate. This is called profit. If we consider that all returns for labour are based on the work involved if there is to be a surplus for example for share holders then some work is being done for which the worker is not recieving true value.

If you work for yourself you get value for what you do. Even if a factory owner where only to get remuneration for the work he actually did, this would not be Capitalism, (in such a case it would be verging on a cooperative). These are all of course idealised an generalised examples.

I don't want make you to work for the state. Of course most of us do. We have little say in how are taxes are spent. For example at the last time of looking every armaments job in the UK is subsidised to the tune of £ 13000.

As far as the experience of the former Soviet Union is is concerned I would hate to have to pick between a perversion of a Socialist system and a Capitalist one. It seems that experience shows us that power has to be held equally if we are to have the possibility to do meaningful work and have the means for life. Without control over our own lives we are at the mercy of Capitalist, Stalinist, Fascist etc.

My local example is a good one. In my village there is approximately 40% unemployment. This is because high intensity farming methods have made agricultural workers redundant. They live on virtually nothing. Although most people have some land they shop at Tesco. They tend to be older and do not have access to labour saving machinary. Tesco also is very cheap. Tesco is very cheap because it forces down prices fronm its suppliers. It uses third world labour working in dangerouse conditions and is involved in things that if I put them down here I would end up in court. Competition is largley a myth. The bankers gamble with our money and loose it and we give it them back. Try that next time you go to a horse race, (don't anyway its cruel).

We might argue over the definition of terms. But ask yourself this. Are we, even in the developed and "democratic 1st world", in control of what is done in our name and to use? Can we in any way say the current system is working for us, or the biosphere we rely on? What is the system we live under?

Best wishes  Alan

competition
Jan Steinman said:

Okay. "Capitalism" seems to conflate so many terms, so I fall back on Wikipedia:

 

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

 

I think the first independent clause is my definition of capitalism. That would include a farmer who acquires a shovel (or a tractor, or a farm animal) with which to produce something of value to others, to which he contributes his own labour to obtain some reasonable income.

 

Wikipedia goes on to after the first semicolon to talk about free markets. I'm still with it there; the farmer who grows a crop can decide which crop to grow, based upon local competitive situations, and also has the freedom to haul her crop to some other market, where she can get a better deal. So far, I see nothing evil to oppose here. Note that this second clause also keeps one farmer from becoming filthy rich, because other farmers will compete to keep returns nominal.

 

It seems to be the third independent clause that most people -- myself included -- have trouble with. "Profit is sent to owners" implies that the owners are <b>not</b> the farmer (or craftsman, or merchant, etc.) doing the work, but rather someone else, who passively contribute "investment" in order to "employ workers."

 

It is this third part of capitalism that I agree we could do without!

 

So, what am I, then? A "2/3rds" capitalist? What word is there for someone who believes in private ownership of the means of production in order to make use of their own labour?

 

A seamstress buys a sewing machine, and sells clothing at the local artists' market. Isn't she a capitalist, even without getting money from someone else (who expects a return) to buy the sewing machine, even without hiring others to perform the labour?

 

As another example, our co-op issues "investment shares." These shares are guaranteed to <b>not</b> "show a profit," but may pay a dividend up to the rate of inflation. Someone who is uninvolved with labour recently "invested" five figures in our co-op so we could build a large greenhouse. They know that the <b>most</b> they can ever expect back is the rate of inflation. Are they capitalists because they "invest" in the "means of production" for someone else, who will supply the labour?

 

I don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." Please, don't make me work for "the state" instead of some greedy capitalist who only invests only money and takes away profit. Therein lies the "Tragedy of the Commons," whereby Russian peasants had to give up ownership of their goats and work on collective farms.

 

I rail on against "financial capitalism," the notion that if you get enough little bits of coloured paper together, they will multiply. But the other parts of capitalism seem to have some very useful, resilient, self-sustaining benefits to all that we need to be careful not to lose.

[Alan Durant]

Hi Chris,

I think I agree with you. Of course ther will still be a needto make sure things work and get done, schools hospitals etc.

Whatever means we choose to run our affairs it should be controlled and represent the community. How big or small how, different communities interact, is open for debate as are questions of national boundaries and so forth.

Group ownership is also what I want. I don't want to control other people or be controlled but I do want my opinion to have equal weight with every body else's depending on the logic of my arguments.  

Best  Alan

Chris Dumont said:

In  The  Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin discusses capitalism quite well in my opinion. One of the points he seems to make is that any product is the product of many processes by many people so to claim the profit of production individually is to disregard those processes and people.

 I think that one alternative to ownership of the means of production is the idea of a sort of "usufruct" or group ownership of the land and or the means of production.  I am not talking about state ownership (I think statehood is the cause of many of our problems) but ownership by the community, with any returns going to the community. 

 

 

[Chris Dumont]

Hi Alan

Thanks

I think that one of the benefits of a social anarchist sort of system is that everyones voice is equal.  

There would need to be a certain amount of "trial and error" to develop a system which worked for the individual community, but I think it would eliminate  the managers and professional politicians who are at least partly responsible for the mess we are in.  

Best

Chris

Alan Durant said:

Hi Chris,

I think I agree with you. Of course ther will still be a needto make sure things work and get done, schools hospitals etc.

Whatever means we choose to run our affairs it should be controlled and represent the community. How big or small how, different communities interact, is open for debate as are questions of national boundaries and so forth.

Group ownership is also what I want. I don't want to control other people or be controlled but I do want my opinion to have equal weight with every body else's depending on the logic of my arguments.  

Best  Alan

Chris Dumont said:

In  The  Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin discusses capitalism quite well in my opinion. One of the points he seems to make is that any product is the product of many processes by many people so to claim the profit of production individually is to disregard those processes and people.

 I think that one alternative to ownership of the means of production is the idea of a sort of "usufruct" or group ownership of the land and or the means of production.  I am not talking about state ownership (I think statehood is the cause of many of our problems) but ownership by the community, with any returns going to the community.