[extropy-chat] A long post which starts out OT, but hopefully ends up where list members may wish to comment (especially Mr Spike)

[Sean Diggins]

Below are some posts to various "left leaning" email lists as a result of
the Australian election last weekend, where the conservatives have been
returned with a bigger majority and the balance of power may reside with a
right wing party of Christian fundamentalists. Some pieces are written by
me, some by others.
I'm an Australian. I have attempted to collate and expose, within a few
extracts, the futility of arguments regarding Left/Right, Marx, Trotsky,
Capitalist systems, Communism, Socialism, Democracy et al, when the biggest
issue we all face collectively is limited resources. I'm pinning my hopes on
humanity to deliver (and permit the widespread use of) good biotech and
nanotech, while resisting my loss of faith in human nature as a collective,
which seems to me rather akin to slightly more intelligent sheep, eating all
the grass to the ground and pointing blame on other sheep. 

Much of the content within is based on recent events in Australia. Very
soon, I predict the same results will occur in the US.

As an expat Australian, I'm keen to hear what you think of all this, Mr
Spike (nee DB).

Can science one day over-rule (overcome?) the fatal flaws in almost (nay,
all) existing political and economical systems?? Can extropians forsee
humanity surviving all the political upheavels we are about to face? And
which political and economical systems will best suit extropians? Surely not
capitalism??? At least, not once the technology has been paid in full! Or
will extropians be a new type of ruling class, a lifestyle only available to
the mega rich and fiercly controlled /restricted by them?

To those of you who take the time, thanks for reading....

Sean

-------------------------------

Capitalism (Australia) Pty Ltd has now concluded its triennial job
interviews. John Howard had his contract renewed as Administrative
Assistant. Mark Latham is the new filing clerk and secretary of the office
social club.

That's all that can be intelligently said about the facts of the outcome.
Journalists and other commentators will spend vast amounts of time analysing
the office politics of the Australian corporation but this is only a
manifestation what they do for a living. It has no other useful meaning. [I
looked at Jakarta post and Radio Surabaya yesterday and the Indonesian media
didn't even report the election let alone the outcome.] The only places that
showed any interest are the major Anglo-Saxon partners in the coalition to
attack Iraq because they want to see in it some hope that they too will be
re-elected..
.
If  the senate goes their way as looks likely, the Coalition will control
everything subject only to corporate veto. Everything they stand for will be
implemented without parliamentary opposition and with the stamp of
democratic legitimacy. Their worst case scenario is a reliance on the
support of people who believe that the universe was created in six days
about 6000 years ago by an entity whose literal word is to be found in a
book compiled over many centuries before the emergence of rational
scientific reason. 

About 52.62% of Australians (on a two party preferred basis) supported the
Coalition. Labor was supported by a minority of about 47.38% Australians.
The allocation of parliamentary seats to the majority is said by
professional political commentators to constitute a "train wreck" or a
"rout" or a "landslide" which it is - but only in terms of the number of
seats won.

 The (narrow) majority said on Saturday 9th October 2004 that their
predominant emotion is fear. Fear of minor fluctuations in economic
circumstances, fear of change, fear of other people and other places, and
fear of god. 

This (slender) majority of actual human beings strongly affirmed their
support for the capitalist system and its particular values. That the
interests of individuals are best maintained by wealth-accumulating
corporations whose economic interests it is the coalition's job to serve.
That the interests of the individual transcend those of the community. That
you get the best personal result by living in a society where small amounts
of wealth trickle down from those who have a lot and that you get your share
by crawling over others. That nothing matters apart from short term
individual material well-being. That the future is now and that "history is
bunkum". 

One thing is clear from all that. The Australia (or the Australian myth)
many of us cherished is, for the time being, finished. Society and community
don't matter as issues for a coalition government. The future doesn't
matter. The environment, education, health, art or egalitarianism don't
matter. International peaceful co-existence  and the rule of law don't
matter. Truth doesn't matter. At the end of the day -government doesn't
matter. 

All that matters domestically is your mortgage and the ability to service
the loans you have taken out to fund a lifestyle that far exceeds that of
most people on the planet.

All that matters internationally is the ability to attack anyone and destroy
anything in pursuit of the economic interests of global corporations and the
debt funded lifestyles of the developed capitalist world.

Those of us who support progressive ideas should, on some levels,  be
pleased with some of the outcome of this election. We should go back to our
ideological roots and think about what the election really means rather than
to cogitate on the post mortems by professional commentators and journalists
who are just picking over the intellectual rubbish associated with corporate
ideas of what constitutes democracy.

Despite the massive and overwhelming support of the corporations and their
corporate media the conservatives could only muster a narrow two-party
preferred majority of actual human beings. The importance of that simple
fact should not be underestimated.

The coalition will control everything and so will be responsible for
everything in the eyes of Australians. [of course though, the corporate
media can be expected to find scapegoats if things don't go Howard's way but
that's a question for a later comment.]

There is a really big minority of people amongst whom many individuals have
stood up for issues of principle that transcend mere day-to-day selfish
material concerns.

Therefore, there is a chance that we will see an increasingly polarised
society that is impervious to the propaganda of the coalition and its
corporate media mouthpieces. There are very many people who might be
reasonably expected to act on principle once the Coalition's "reform"
machine gets rolling in July 2005.

Many workers already secretly hate the corporations and their bosses and
everything they stand for - insecure , shitty jobs, with low wages and lousy
conditions that reflect an inequality of bargaining power. I see evidence of
this every day in the industries I deal with. The industrial relations
policies of the coalition will alienate them even more; so the sooner they
start implementing them the better. Working people will become even more
immune to the gibberish published by the corporate media about freeing up
the labour market, and flexibility and all that stuff. It is reality that
matters and not the versions of it published by the corporate media.

We have also seen the exposure of this elements of working class society who
might be amenable to appeals of the "Brownshirt" view of history and I think
it's important to have a clear assessment of who we're dealing with in our
society. It is good to know who is fickle and easily led, and on what basis.
It's good to see the emergence of the Christian right and all those other
right wing elements who have come into the light of day. We can quantify
them and taken collectively they constitute no more than 52.62% of the
population.

Many, many people have been totally alienated by the corporate media and its
commentators over the last few years. They can see right through it and
them. They don't believe anything that the newspapers or television say and
just see them as mouthpieces of the corporations. Even with several
simultaneous wars, terrorism, economic fear mongering, and a steady diet of
distractions based on reality TV, imported cultural product and sport, they
can't deliver more than a narrow majority of people for the coalition. They
have to turn this into a "landslide" somehow. More people will go to the
internet [with all its problems] in search of alternative reports of
reality. The credibility of the mass media is utterly compromised amongst
very large numbers of people. and this is a good, positive thing. It will
motivate us to build and refine alternative means of communication that are
not reliant on corporate media. The beautiful irony of this is that it is
the corporations themselves that have, in pursuit of profit, created the
means by which large numbers of people can exchange information without
needing to buy newspapers. 

International competition for energy will continue unabated. Oil prices will
escalate rapidly. The indebtedness of developed nations trying to maintain
lifestyles based on international mal-apportionment of wealth will continue.
Increased military intervention will be necessary to protect the interests
of western corporations and they will have to try and recruit our children
to fight for them. We will resist 

The environment will continue to degrade.

 None of these external factors will be controllable by the coalition and,
in fact, they will be compelled by their own ideology to contribute to the
difficulties.

Just at the moment, thing are going along fine economically but I suspect it
is an unsustainable illusion based on a rosy corporate media view of the
world. People will continue to borrow and consume. It seems to me that
prudent people with brains should act as quickly as possible to reduce their
dependence on debt and to curtail their spending

The level of fear in Australia is so palpable amongst the "aspirational
class" [ greatly loved by the coalition and Labor] that it must be evidence
of considerable economic vulnerability. At the first sign of negative
economic impact this group of people will absolutely panic and I suspect
thing will happen very quickly when the time comes. The coalition will not
be able to control things once it starts.

The progressive elements in society have to abandon this notion of applying
to be the site managers of capitalism. We've forgotten our underlying
ideology if we think this will be possible except on the terms allowed by
the corporate bosses. It goes nowhere.

All progressive people should act  to get organised to exploit the
opportunities offered by the defeat of Labor in Australia.

(by Peter Woodward)
 

-----Original Message-----
From: chen9692000 [mailto:chen9692000 at yahoo.com] 
In Australia at present - we have a conservative victory of historic 
proportions, a weak and divided Left (however, you define it - not 
that any on this list ever does) and the discontent over 
neoliberalism being manifest in right break around "one nation" 
and "family first" and a left break around the "Greens".  These are, 
in electoral terms (which are not the only ones), the dynamics which 
socialists have to orient to.  My purpose in doing a thumbnail sketch 
of the Senate results was not parliamentary cretinism but to use it 
as a rough guide to the social currents that exist. So far in the 
face of the argument I have been told, insults notwithstanding - that 
what you intend to do is more of the same.  Since this hasn't made an 
impact for socialist ideas in the last 15 years (while the Greens 
have grown) what makes you think that it will be any different in the 
next 15?  To answer the charge that this is bad strategy it is not 
enough to show that you have been active - of course you have- the 
question is whether this has been effective?  How this should be 
measured and so on?  If you can't show how the balance of forces will 
eventually change and how you intend to participate (when you make 
quite clear that you intend to remain OUTSIDE the actually existing 
social forces) then you really are just saying that you will continue 
with the same old tactics and await some catastrophe that will bring 
the working class to you.  I don't mean this is your conscious 
project - its not- but it seems to me the unwillingness to analyse 
the situation - and I'll grant that some of what I say is simplistic 
(it is only 48 hours since polls closed) but what we need is clear 
analysis so we can assess what to do next (and preferably without the 
cheap shots).

Shane

--------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a piece Beverly Hill copied to another email list earlier today:

October 11, 2004
By Clive Hamilton
Executive Director of The Australia Institute.
   
It was not the extraordinary public spending spree of the election
campaign that sank Labor but the sustained private consumption binge
that Australians have been on for the past decade.

Booming house prices coupled with unprecedented levels of consumer debt
have left most Australians absorbed by their own material circumstances,
with little room left for thoughts of building a better society.

Driven not by financial need but by the very aspirations that Mark
Latham has lauded, Australian households are in debt up to their necks,
and that has meant hundreds of thousands of people have looked at their
partners across the kitchen table and said: "If interest rates go up by
a couple of per cent then we're stuffed."

Having the bank foreclose on you must be one of life's more unpleasant
experiences, especially if you have measured your success and place in
society by the pile of things you own.

Sure, the economists said that interest rates were no more likely to go
up under Labor than the Coalition, but why take the risk if nothing else
really matters to you?

And that is where we have got to in Australia after 20 years of
creeping affluenza, an era in which materialism and the attendant
self-absorption have invaded the daily consciousness of most
Australians.

So the Coalition victory reflects nothing more than the
narrow-mindedness and preoccupation with self that characterises modern
Australia after two decades of market ideology and sustained growth.

Private greed always drives out the social good. Not even engagement in
a dangerous foreign war, exposed as being based on lies, and the threat
of terrorist attacks can bounce people out of their financial
preoccupations.

It has been particularly disquieting to witness the total disengagement
of large numbers of young people who seemed barely aware that an
election was on. Clueless and unconcerned to the last, they had mumble
about voting for John Howard simply because they could not think of a
reason for doing otherwise.

The depoliticisation of our education systems coupled with the mindless
narcissism of consumer culture in which these young people have grown
means that, while despair for the future of democracy is warranted, we
should expect nothing more.

Ironically, Labor actually put out some policies during the election
campaign that differentiated it from the conservatives, policies that
were aimed at a fairer society that took away some of the more
outrageous middle-class handouts of the Howard years. The schools policy
was the best example, but even this was a victim of Labor's schizoid
campaign. In the dreams of aspirational voters, Mark Latham's ladder of
opportunity leads to Cranbrook or The King's School.

Building a better society through a fairer distribution of educational
resources is not so appealing if you hope to benefit personally from the
prevailing injustice. In fact, it does not look like injustice, but
"opportunity".

Of course, the relentless promotion of self-interest and the rejection
of the politics of social progress is no more than we should expect from
the Liberal Party. It is, after all, the essence of liberalism. Liberals
have always maintained that asserting individual freedoms, not building
a better society, is the object of politics, although one of the
founders of liberalism, John Stuart Mill, could see the danger of ending
up where we are today. In 1865 he wrote that he was not persuaded that
"the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading on each other's heels
are the most desirable lot of humankind".

These qualities of the aspirational society he saw as the "disagreeable
symptoms of one of the phases of industrial progress", regrettably a
phase that has been much more enduring than Mill could have imagined.

A Newspoll survey commissioned two years ago by The Australia Institute
found that nearly two thirds of Australians believe that they "cannot
afford to buy everything they really need". Even among those in the top
income group - the richest people in one of the world's richest
countries - half say they cannot afford all they need.

This sense of deprivation in a country that enjoys extraordinary
affluence is constantly re-created by the advertisers and social
pressure, and endlessly reinforced by politicians of both sides who talk
ad nauseam of "struggling families" and devise policies that pander to
the imagined woes of the middle classes.

As long as Australians are preoccupied with house prices, credit card
debts, interest rates, tax cuts and getting ahead - in other words, as
long as they define their success in life by money - Labor will never
win, except by mimicking the Liberal Party.

But there is cause for hope. Not far beneath the surface most
Australians have a gnawing doubt about the value of a money-driven life.
The Newspoll survey also found that 83 per cent of Australians believe
that our society is "too materialistic - that is too much emphasis on
money and not enough on the things that really matter".

For they suspect that the money society is at the root of the decline in
values - the disposable relationships, instant gratification, moral
laxity, selfishness, corporate greed and the loss of civic culture.

It is in showing the link between the money society and the decline in
values, and then painting a picture of a new society that is less
selfish and materialistic and more devoted to the "things that really
matter", that a new politics can be forged.
____________________________________________

In another post where somebody alluded to the economy being in good shape at
the moment, I added:

Just at the moment, things are not really going fine economically, at all,
in my opinion. Quite the opposite....it's just not fully evident yet.
Sitting at the pointy end, working in an office which completes valuations
of well over 5000 properties a year in order for people to obtain mortgages,
we are seeing a complete lack of "reality awareness" among the public
(especially those who are buying property). People are paying ridiculous,
unsustainable prices for houses which in many cases are a second or third
investment property they are hoping to negative gear. Due to an undersupply
of building products and labour, demand has grown exponentially for
established houses, as these appeal at the moment to "investors" and (out of
necessity) also appaeal to those who would normally buy a block and build.
This is unlikely to change for some time, but at the moment, if you have two
identical blocks of land, each worth $100,000.....but one of those blocks
has a house worth no more than $150,000 on it, the block with the house will
sell for anywhere from $275,000 to $300,000. 
This is not sustainable and corrections must occur. When they do occur, we
will see catastrophic results, as many of the borrowers whose "deals" we
assess are borrowing up to 95% of the value on a second or third
"investment", with no prospects of finding tenants! Our job is to ratify
such deals, based on this stupid, dumb beast of  thing called "The Market".
When something goes wrong later, valuers then get sued, hence $100,000 per
annum PI premiums. 
Australia's recent property buyers (in the laast 3 years) are generally
walking aalong a cliff edge within a millimetre of the fall of their
financial lives. All that lower interest rates do is encourage people to
borrow more! In real terms, the short to medium term "housing owner"
financial status does not change when purchasing during extended periods of
lower rates, as prices go up to reflect the increased demand. Everyone still
borrows to the hilt, just as they alwsys have and always will.
"Oh wow!" they excaim, "the Liberals have made my house worth three times as
much!" Relative to what, exactly???? It's all a dream, a mirage...

I've been a property valuer for nearly 25 years. I've seen values go
backwards twice BIG TIME. In the last two years, I have heard the oddest
rationalisations uttered by complete fools as they pay premiums to buy into
the Big Australian Dream. And nowadays, domestic Australia rides up and down
on the back of the domestic property market. Once that collapses (as it
surely must), chaos ensues...aaah, well...at least we arent all herded
together building pyramids all our lives for some vain king or queen.

I could go on, but as a slave in a deadline orientated business which only
exists so there is an entity to sue, I have to get back to work...at least I
enjoy the computing administration element of my employment.

Here's something to ponder, which is also akin to many other industries and
professions (such as musicians):
In 1978, I received a fee of $500 (500 1978 dollars) for a typical house
valuation.
Today, the fee ranges from $175 to $230 (in 2004 dollars) for exactly the
same work, but with far more liability attached and logarithmically higher
insurance fees etc.
How does my employer make money? By sheer numbers. Turnaround. Work fast,
cut corners, take chances, don't do the job thoroughly. We are defacto risk
managers. Churn churn churn, 10 hours a day. It's despicable, really.... 

Sean  

---------------------------------------------

What is my point in adding these to pieces to the last paragraph of Shane's
rebuttal at the top?

My point is, some socialists may well go on with the same type of
activism/efforts for another 15 years, with perhaps the same minor
percentile results, but eventually capitalism will eat itself....and be
replaced by another system due to the desire for change within the masses. A
minority does not grow by persuasion, it grows by NEED. It grows by filling
a void, a gap, which may be growing due to the shrinkage or decay of a
competing system. No amount of activism will serve any useful purpose to the
cause unless the time has come for mass acceptance of the cause promoted by
the activist/s. Capitalism is in the endgame stages, or (at least) "the
beginning of the end" (no apologies to WC). Globalisation, Corporatisation
and Conservatism - the three Cs of endgame capitalism, will be taken to the
fullest extreme by the ruling class and their dreaming greedy aspirants, but
the failure will be a 4th C - Catastrophe. It wont be pretty....and it's
just around the corner. Ironically, the changing nature of the political
structures in countries such as China may play a BIG role.  

Check this post sent to me a while back by a mate of mine: 
(I may have already posted this to the GL list, so apologies if you have
read this (and visited the links) previously:

<begin quote>
Mark my words, it's going to happen soon that there will be a big hassle
over oil and energy generally. China is going to be the big thing. There was
a big attack on Iraq's infrastructure yesterday that has stopped all
production from it's northern fields. Iraq at full production should do
about 1.8 million barrels per day and it has world's 2nd largest reserves..
Current global DAILY consumption is 82 Million barrels! The sums are all
wrong. Something will happen especially in the context of the US election.
The US are no way going to allow downgrading of their economic status over
oil. 

www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con

http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2004030851648

I just worked out that people in the USA are currently paying about 68 cents
Australian for a litre of petrol. Their gallon is only 3.7854118 litres and
the exchange rate is about 70 cents. They are paying between $1.80 and $1.86
US per US gallon. They think this is high and their "human rights" view  of
"lifestyle" is based on low fuel prices for gas guzzling vehicles. Imagine
what would happen if their fuel went to say Australian prices of $1.10 a
Litre (approx $4 a gallon?!). They currently use about 19 million barrels a
day; about 4 times the
daily consumption of the next closest country which is either Japan or China
depending on who you're listening to.

Much of China's industry is on reduced output due to energy shortage but
their economy is still growing in spades. I just read that if China used the
same energy per capita as the US then their consumption would be 80 Million
barrels a day which just about equates to current global daily consumption!

There is war in the middle east and there have been big problems (over
Chavez) in Venezuela, which has the world's 5th largest reserves and is a
major exporter to US. I jut heard in passing last night on a news item that
there has been a big drop recently in US reserves.
 
As long ago as the 70's Kissinger said that the US was prepared to go to war
to protect its resources and lifestyle. No matter which way you look at it,
all this arithmetic means only one outcome - ongoing and increasing war
unless some alternative source of energy materialises soon or the US makes
lifestyle sacrifices like driving smaller cars....Alternatively they can put
the brakes on China somehow? 
<end quote>

There are BIG CHANGES afoot, and I want to be around to witness the results,
but there will be dreadful struggles along the way.
Marxists, Trots et al - yep, all make compelling sense on a variety of
levels. But we STILL have a world where 30% of the population don't have a
water supply....and our resources are running out fast. Things are NOT going
to get better and socialism (of any dimension) is NOT going to become
omnipotent any time soon. But the time MAY come when society will be ready
to choose similar structures.  

Despite the FUD, I have placed my hopes in technology. I have lost my
hope/faith in human nature, as history shows the true colours of human
nature. Like dumb sheep, we will eat the grass to the ground, all the while
accusing each other of eating too much grass. Politics of any persuasion
will hardly matter. In my view, most political systems ultimately become
tools of the ruling class, no matter how the system/s begin. They just
tinker around with the upward trickle of money and power. So my hopes lie
with biotech and nanotech - new sources of re-sources... (deliberate sic).

But that hope is tempered by warnings from the likes of Sun Microsystems
co-founder Bill Joy.
His white paper, published in Wired Magazine some time ago, is essential
reading.... 

You can find Bill Joy's paper here:

www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

If you'd like me to email you a pdf of his paper, so you can easily print it
out and read it later, just send me an email.

I disagree with Bill Joy. I think the future DOES need us, and it does need
those who still yearn for better political systems to replace those based on
capitalist objectives. There are other factors of course - I fully
comprehend the existence and usefulness of this list, GLW, the socialist and
enviromental cause and the ongoing struggle against the Right and the ruling
class. But the approaching zeitgeist is not easily recognised, nor is it
easily defined in paradigm shift terms. Yet nothing changes the fact that
the rug is being pulled from under many of us as we speak.....and reality
may be that fighting hard for minority political causes such as those
described within Shane's rebuttal is not the smartest way for any human to
spend his/her time over the next 10 years. Instead, adjustment to the
inevitable may be a smarter option, without ever losing hope that the time
may come.  

Sean