This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org.
Topic: Production
Part of the forum "Ishmael and Saving the World" in the IshCon Forum Archive
| Poster and Date | Post |
| Ghost Fri May 23rd, 2003 at 04:58 PM |
For lack of a better place to put this, I've created a new thread. What the motive thread clarified for me was; what impelles someone to produce? The answer rested in one of Quinn's theories. When you create a hierarchy, those that are in control of the surplus can impell the Labour class to produce a surplus and furthermore, the system can not function without a surplus. This is why Takerism and Hierearchy are unsustainable. So what impells a Leaver to produce? Simple; need. Leavers produce at a subsistence level, not because they are altruists or angels who are modest enough not to create a surplus. They basically do it because they are lazy. There is nothing impelling them to create a surplus. That requires back breaking labour. The kind of labour that someone can only be forced to undertake. So without hierarchy, there is no surplus. So how this works for tribal businesses is simple. The food production tribe produces enough food to sustain the tribe. If it enters a federation of tribes or a TRIBE OF TRIBES, then they will produce enough to feed themselves as well as the artist tribe, the house builder tribe and the clothing manufacturer tribe that they have entered a federation with. But tribes still have to contend with Quinn's notion, that a tribe member must justify extending the living of the tribe to include him. So if the food production tribe can only feed the federation by working 10 hours a day, they probably won't join the federation. So if the given resources, and I suppose that includes human resources, cannot sustain the tribe, or the federation, then the tribe must reconsider what it is willing to support. The point being that a Tribe will produce at a subsistence level for the sake of keeping the Tribe, or TRIBE OF TRIBES sustainable and viable. They will produce no more because they are not impelled to. What do you think? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Ron Fri May 23rd, 2003 at 07:38 PM |
Daniel, Please read my last post on page 3 of the MOTIVE thread before you respond to this one. Despite my surly tone, the issues there relate to Matts post here. Thanks for your clarification!!!!! Matt, I think this is much clearer! It is about the individual's motive to produce, a proper use of the concept of motive. "the system can not function without a surplus" - I'm not entirely sure about this. Dan the man will have more insight about this than me. I'm thinkin' about it. On an unrelated note - I was listening to the BBC world news in the car today. A leader of the African Union said today (this is as close to verbatim as I can remember): "As long as first world nations continue to DUMP their surpluses into Africa, we will never acheive population control or independant food production." WOW! He went on to describe the negative consequences of first world "humanitarian aid". This is a hopeful sign, yes? |
| Ghost Sat May 24th, 2003 at 01:26 PM |
"On an unrelated note - I was listening to the BBC world news in the car today. A leader of the African Union said today (this is as close to verbatim as I can remember): "As long as first world nations continue to DUMP their surpluses into Africa, we will never acheive population control or independant food production." " The unfortunate thing is that this is not a new phenomenon. It's been going on for hundreds of years. Here's the latest incarnation of this practice. A country like Rwanda, devastated by a genocide, is now forced to grow coffee and tea for westerners in a futile attempt to pay back their IMF debt load. They will never make enough money off of these sales to satisfy that debt and as a result, must sell to us for whatever price we decide. This has the effect of using up their arrable land for our purposes instead of local food production. They then have to buy food from, you guessed it, us western food producing dynamos. So this has the double effect of enslaving their arrable land to our needs and providing them with a food surplus from us. Their population grows and becomes further dependant on our surplus to feed them. It's a safe bet to say that areas like Ethiopia can no longer support the current population, but thanks to western surplus dumping, we keep that population artificially inflated. Organisations like Oxfam have recently come to understand this and have stated that they have been going about famine relief incorrectly. Like anything that is inflated, the bubble must someday burst. When that happens, there will be a poppulation crash in many areas of Africa. So the leader of the African Union's statement is correct. The only problem with the statement is that most Africans live in a hierarchical organisation. Most tribes only still exist in name and not in practice. As a result, the independant food production he speaks of, will inevitably be a surplus production. (edit: Unless of course there is a massive change of vision. Let's hope.) This brings me to your doubt, Ron. " "the system can not function without a surplus" - I'm not entirely sure about this. Dan the man will have more insight about this than me. I'm thinkin' about it. " If I own you and you produce enough food to feed yourself, how does that help me. At the very least, you have to produce enough for me as well. Right there, the labour class is producing more than is necessary for their own needs. But this isn't a surplus, because that need now includes the owner. But this is exploitation. The problem is that the hierarchical system produces a surplus. All production is geared to produce to the max, as Quinn stated. There is a word that seemed isolated to me until I realised that it was the most importnt factor to ALL modes of production. That word is OVERHEAD. A dictionary definition of this term: The operating expenses of a business, including the costs of rent, utilities, interior decoration, and taxes, exclusive of labor and materials. Pretty straight forward. For Leavers, the overhead is the only goal. Tribes want to break even. To break even is to perpetuate the Tribe. They are not impelled to produce any further than that. So they don't. In all the other modes of production, the ownership class wants to profit form the production of the Labour class. This means that they want to keep production to the max, a product of their vision, and keep overhead down. They want to maximise profit. They impell the working class to work as hard as they do by virtue of controllig the surplus that is produced. This is why the profit motive didn't work in isolation, becasue ALL Taker economies wanted to maximise profit, not just capitalists. So all profit is, is the gross production minus the overhead. If there was no surplus, there would be no profit and no point for the ownership class to exploit the labour class. If there was no surplus, there would be no chance for the ownership class to arise in the first place. The key to the ownership class' power is coercion. Coesrcion means this; do this or else. Access to the surplus is the chief 'or else'. The ownership class uses it's standing armies to crush revolt when that is not sufficient anymore. So Taker culture is based off of surplus. It is the only thing that satisfies the Taker vision and it is the only way for a hierarchy to develop. That is why the system cannot function without a surplus. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Huby7 Tue May 27th, 2003 at 04:55 PM |
:) Talking about production, three quotes come to mind by, Derrick Jensen. These aren't his exact words, but pretty close. "This culture values production over life itself" "Essentially, production is turning the living into the dead." "We sacrifice our landscapes at the altar of production." |
| Ghost Tue May 27th, 2003 at 10:24 PM |
Nice. Who's Derek Jensen, what has he written and where did you pull those quotes from? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Heretic Wed May 28th, 2003 at 01:32 AM |
He's a remarkably good writer. I just finished reading his book A Language Older Than Words. A must read for anyone here. It's all about how the abuse he suffered as a child reflects the abuse and subsequent denial of it our culture has against the environment. I really think you'd enjoy it. He talks about production several times, how our culture values production over life (trees aren't trees, they're two by fours and paper. Fish aren't fish, they're fish sticks). I didn't think any book would be able to mimic the "just kicked in the head" feeling that Ishmael gave me. I'm about 150 pages in to his other book, the Culture of Make Believe, and so far it's just as good. Check 'em out. :wink: |
| silas Wed May 28th, 2003 at 04:05 PM |
We featured a news story about Derrick Jensen a while ago: http://www.ishcon.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=33 If you haven't already, I suggest reading through the Stories Archive so you're familiar with topics and stories and people that have already come and gone on the site. Silas |
| Huby7 Thu May 29th, 2003 at 11:15 AM |
Ghost, I would also like to add about Derrick Jensen that you can find out more about him and his work at his website. www.derrickjensen.org I've ordered autographed copies of A Language Older Than Words and The Culture Of Make Believe through his site too. I've also communicated with Jensen through email. Each time he has taken the time to share stories and answer my questions thoroughly. He is a very kind man... :lol: |
| This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org. |