Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
One hand washes the other :-)

After all, the early promotion of chemical pesticides and artificial fertilisers was the work of chemical and mining corporations looking for a place to dump their toxic waste products (after they started to get complaints about dumping them straight into rivers and lakes).  Poisons aggressively marketed for use on "pests" then became antipersonnel gases during WWI, which were refined and developed and then marketed again as improved pesticides between the wars, then repackaged and marketed again as antipersonnel weapons in WWII (the sorry history of Zyklon-B and IG Farben is worth a revisit).

The Galenic (heroic/toxic) school of medicine that eclipsed the nurturing ethics of Hippocrates was battlefield medicine (Galen the war surgeon);  the use of poisons in quack remedies persisted and still, imho, deeply informs the modern materia medica and the med mafia's fascination with toxic chemicals as weapons of "war" against disobedient cells (viruses, parasites, cancers, bacteria).  The use of dangerous toxins requires an urgent justification (to cover up weak justifications like profit and macho daredevil posturing) -- what's a more urgent justification than War, War, War against sinister enemies (be they dusky furriners or "pests")?

In a sense the pharma/phood/military complex is all one, the result of a guild war in which the warrior and financier/merchant guilds (boosted by the miners' and alchemists' guild) conquered and has almost exterminated the farmer/peasant/artisan guilds.  The result is that all the activities in the culture are now modelled as some variant on mining, trade, or war:  farming is an extractive activity, mining soils and animal life for maximal (trade) value, and waging "war" on bugs and all other fauna.  Our animal farming operations now resemble POW camps more than anything recognisable to my parents' generation as a farm.

We have become unable to think about social problems or even personal life except in the language of commerce and war:  we talk about "investment" in relationships rather than commitment or covenant, for example, and even programmes attempting to alleviate poverty are marketed as "War on Poverty".

Anyway, long train of thought... seems to me that a healthy culture like a healthy ecosystem requires the balance of many guilds in tension and in harmony, each with its own world-model, jargon, skill set and so on;  if one guild (priestly, warriorly, tradely, whatever) manages to take over and impose just one mental model and language on all activities and thinking, that model will be inappropriate for many/most of those activities and there will be some kind of dysfunction (even beyond the obvious dysfunction of a power grab of this kind).  I think Jacobs explored this theme in Systems of Survival, but she divided all cultural work into just two overarching guilds:  guardian and commercial, each with its own moral system.  When the commercial moral system was applied to government (which should be a guardian-caste activity), she claimed, the result was social illness, corruption, abuse.

For a start, pursuing this line a bit OT, it seems to me that any person who owns a company larger than X employees, or serves on the board of such a company, or holds more than X stock in such companies, should be barred for life from holding public office.  The curse of our times is being ruled covertly by businessmen, by way of the revolving door between the boardroom and the assembly house.  People should choose their career, imho -- to get rich in business or to serve their community as policy makers, peacekeepers and mediators in government -- and the two roles cannot be mixed without disastrous corruption, enormous temptations to the misuse of position and privileged information to which few people would be immune.

Any takers?  The notion is so utterly radical -- shocking even -- and this itself reveals something about the mindset that the C19 capitalists succeeded in creating:  that the commercial caste somehow has the right to run the world.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sun May 3rd, 2009 at 12:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Keep writing, please!  It all makes sense, whether it is proven theory, or observation and study, it´s a lot of food for progressive thought.

Now, you keep talking about balance and social equality like that... you´re gonna need a flotilla, Cap´n!  (;

 

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sun May 3rd, 2009 at 06:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(It) seems to me that a healthy culture like a healthy ecosystem requires the balance of many guilds in tension and in harmony, each with its own world-model, jargon, skill set and so on;  if one guild (priestly, warriorly, tradely, whatever) manages to take over and impose just one mental model and language on all activities and thinking, that model will be inappropriate for many/most of those activities and there will be some kind of dysfunction (even beyond the obvious dysfunction of a power grab of this kind).

I like your multiple guild/multiple ethos model.  In some ways the domination of government and education by business interests has been facilitated by the idea of the separation church and state, as that concept came to be applied.  The ideal was important to contain the tendency of religious leaders to impose sectarian policies on a society with many sects and was not even very effective in that regard.  

Yet, beginning in the post Civil War period in the USA, college boards of trustees came to be dominated by businessmen rather than clergy.  Society came to be seen as the devalued and therefore manipulable "soil" in which businesses could grow.  However, this was a  de facto occurrence which was not consciously acknowledged or discussed.  Officially, we were a "Christian Nation."  Sometime after WW II we grudgingly became a Judeo-Christian Nation, at least in the major population centers.  But we have not figured out what to think or do about the Buddhists, who really don't buy in to the theistic deity approach but are discrete enough not to make a big deal about it.

The curse of our times is being ruled covertly by businessmen, by way of the revolving door between the boardroom and the assembly house.  People should choose their career, imho -- to get rich in business or to serve their community as policy makers, peacekeepers and mediators in government -- and the two roles cannot be mixed without disastrous corruption, enormous temptations to the misuse of position and privileged information to which few people would be immune.

IMO, separate career paths for politics/government service, and business would be a helpful but not sufficient condition for proper reform.  But even more important is seizing back the control of the financing of election campaigns.  That is what prevented, for instance, the US Senate from passing the Durban ammendment to allow bankruptcy judges to cram down mortgage reductions on lenders.  It is what will stand in the way of any meaningful reform of the malignant and bloated financial services industry.  It may be that for real reform both public financing of elections and separate career paths are necessary.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun May 3rd, 2009 at 06:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for your absolute common sense.  I don't find this on American political forums.
by Lasthorseman on Sun May 31st, 2009 at 10:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series