The real issue

Essentially what is happening with privatization is not the abolishment of the state.

Rather it is a change in how people get into positions where they can have power over how the state is run.

Basically people are saying that rich people would be a better bet than elected people.

They aren’t really saying anarchy at all. They’re just dogs who want to change the man who holds the leash.

Of course the current state of affairs is rubbish.

It allows a small group of people to amass for themselves what everyone else wants and with that to either buy elected people or train people to be elected.

Which is why we need to tackle that issue.

People say us lefties have no real solutions.

We do.

Do to the work place what we did to the government.

Swap corporations and agencies for co-ops.

Instead of 1 share (basically one lot of money) for 1 vote on who gets to make decisions in a company. Make it one worker 1 vote.

Exchange shareholders for stakeholders thus taking away one means by which the rich disproportionately enrich themselves.

It’s not the final solution but if there was one thing, one simple thing we could change to most effectively make things better quicker it would be that.

I actually think us on the left have made a huge mistake in going for equal rights between women and men and people of different races.

Not that I think they are unequal.

But that I think they all result from the basic form of exploitation in the workplace.

By going for those issues we have made ourselves battle on many fronts. Where if we tear down one inequality more subtle and worse forms of inequality arise.

I don’t give a fuck what colour, race or sex you are I want all of us to be paid what we really earn and to have an equal say in how work is organized and the products of Labour distributed.

That is the only issue.

The issue behind all the issues.


Do you even know what you are arguing for or against

What is communism?

Another question:
What is capitalism?

Another question:
What is Marxism?

Now you can go out and buy books on these things.

You can school yourself on them.

You can learn the arguments for and against.

Then compare the theory to the practice.

Practice often fails because we are dealing with the issue of playing against yourself at chess. You always cheat.

So the practice of any of these systems (And there are good and bad examples on both sides. There are Hitlers on the side of capitalism and Maos on the communist side) is no criticism of the system itself.

Unless that is you can derive the bad practice from the logic of the system itself.

I mean people claim to support capitalism but they don’t know who Adam Smith is or hayek… they literally don’t have a clue what they are supporting.

And they say communism is bad but haven’t read any Marx or Engels.

They have no grasp of the theory.

Therefore their opinion is as worthless as my opinion concerning cars.

My knowledge extends to saying “that is a blue car”.

They are like I would be if I advised you on the relative benefits of a turbo over a turbo charger.

I don’t know the difference but a turbo is better.

Employment is slavery cont.. .

When you are employed you create a certain amount of value every hour you work.

But you don’t get that value. You get a percentage of it and your employer gets the rest.

The employers are the shareholders.

Like the slave owners they do nothing and reap the profits.

Where do you think profit comes from?

It is the value the worker creates above and beyond his wage.

Now say that the product you make in an hour is sold for $20 and you get $7.50 for that hour.

That means that for 3/4s of that hour you are working for nothing.

What is slavery if it isn’t working… exerting Labour for someone else’s benefit and not your own.

I mean you can call a chicken a fish if you want but if it clucks and it’s got feathers it’s a chicken.

Now at the beginning of capitalism they tried all sorts of ways to get people to work for longer hours.

Because the more hours you work the more money you make for your employer.

So they thought if they increased the wage the employee would work longer for a greater reward.

What they found was that the employee worked less. He worked enough to maintain his level of life.

I’m getting that from Weber’s “Protestantism and the capitalist…” I forget the title lol.

Anyway they found that the only way to get the worker to work long hours was to keep him at subsistence level.

To insure he never reached financial security.

Don’t you see that the slave owners didn’t go away. They just bought the political system and put on a pretty mask.

Oh, you special SOB please don’t be special to me.

Nobody really wants to be special. At least not in the sense they think they do.

What is special?

It’s one of those words that doesn’t really mean anything.

To be different?

Well why not just say “different”?

To be different in a good way is what I suppose you mean by it.

Really what you mean is that you want people to enjoy you.

When you look at concrete cases that’s what people do when they try to be special.

“Look mummy look what I can do!”

The child isn’t trying to rub it’s parents face in the ability it has.

It’s really quite an innocent and pure thing.

The child wants to be enjoyed by mummy.

It shows something beautiful about us.

We want each other to experience enjoyment or pleasure in us.

We want to cause nice feelings in others.

This is the pure seed at the heart of pretty much all human endeavour.

But then it gets twisted by words like special.

Due to the fact that special mixes this desire to cause pleasure in others with the idea of being different people do all sorts of atrocious things just to be special.

This is behind a lot of serial killers. You know the cliche: a serial killer wants to get caught.

Why? Because he wants to be special.

And you can’t be special if nobody knows you’re special.

Even here though ultimately it results in the pleasure of others.

Do you think anyone really suffers over the crimes of Jack the ripper anymore?

Come off it. Of course they don’t.

But how many people enjoy that narrative, go to London specifically to do the Jack the ripper tour?

It’s a wonderful way to experience a vicarious thrill.

See all the nastiness is gone and we’re left with excitement and interest.

The same is true of ww2 and the holocaust.

That was awful. But nobody suffers from it anymore.

That feeling of horror and revulsion is a thrill.

It’s not the feeling of starvation and suffering.

That’s always temporary.

Again why did hitler do that?

Because he wanted to maintain or create the specialness of blonde bimbos.

Isn’t This wonderful.

I meant to moralize about how perverse special is.

And it is. This nothing tagged by a word causes all sorts of suffering unintentionally.

It’s fun to be enjoyed by other people and it’s fun to enjoy other people.

If we kept it like that we could navigate the course of our desires with much less suffering.

But don’t worry.

No matter how bad you think you are, no matter how much suffering you cause it will all be all right in the end.

It all comes out in the wash eventually.

On leaving home

What are the fundamental problems that society has to deal with in the current era?

To be fair these problems are really the fundamental problems for society across all eras but the reason they seem particularly problematic now is that we are failing to meet them.

These problems are:

The raising of children.

The care of the elderly.


These problems have been exacerbated by the desire of the young to leave home and make it on their own.

This idea of making it on your own is now seen as a virtue.

The mature adult who stays at home is looked down upon.

Why is this?

I mean think about it. What would be the best way for a family to flourish?

Wouldn’t it be if the members of the family stuck together and shared the cost of basic living?

The more members the family has the less it would cost each member to live in a house.

They could share the load of rearing the next generation amongst themselves.

Do you think bad parenting happens because the parents don’t know how to bring children up or don’t love their children?

Don’t be dense.

The reason is because the parents are worked too hard. They have to work jobs to feed their family.

These jobs are designed to suck the effort capacity of the employees and turn it into profit.

The parents are shattered and this is why they don’t parent well.

I mean come on!

Parenting is supposed to be a full time job right? How can you expect them to do it after working a full time job?

Well if you had 3 generations living under the same roof (children, parents and grandparents) then the load is lessened.

This is fucking basic. I mean how stupid have we been made to be?

The grandparents would then have a role to play into their dotage.

They wouldn’t have to spend the pittance they save for their children’s inheritance on being poorly cared for by strangers.

They would be in the bosom of their family.

Now though you have parents who essentially rear their children for corporations.

Once the children become competent they leave the family home and basically work for the estate and letting agents.

Why this state of affairs?

It wasn’t always this way.

A lot of the ills of the modern world can be put down to this.

Alienation. Old people being depressed and isolated.

We’ve been hoodwinked.

To go out and make it on your own, to have your own place doesn’t benefit you at all.

You’ve been tricked. On tv they can make you want things just by having cool people want them.

It doesn’t benefit you but it does benefit the people who lend mortgages. Who make money through the sale of houses.

How? It increases market size. Isn’t this obvious.

Mummy issues

When I was younger I used to have a go at my parents for how they brought me up.

I would criticize them for not making me fit in more.

I think this is a common thing with us humans.

It takes many guises but all the forms it takes share a common theme. You are blaming someone for you.

You are saying that because your parents did this you’re a fuck up.

That because you didn’t have parents you’re a fuck up.

That because this person did this horrible thing you are a fuck up.

So you have a go at these people or parents. You’re angry at them.

But say you get what you think you want.

You have a go at them and they cry. They get down on their knees and say “sorry”.

What good is that to You? You’re still a fuck up right?

All of us can do some things and can’t do other things. Every one of us knows what we should do and to varying degrees don’t do it.

This is universal and this is why you think you’re a fuck up.

Everyone reacts to stimuli differently. A thing a parent does to one child that makes them happy could traumatize another.

Human interaction is a game of roulette.

All that we are doing when we blame other people for ourselves is avoiding the issue.

You don’t like yourself. That is the problem. You think you are a badly made human being.

Even if this is true what good is an apology? After all it would just be someone else agreeing with your self loathing. “I’m sorry I fucked you up.” Is just “You’re a fuck up” wearing a smiling mask.

Why do you think you’re a fuck up?

According to whom?

Where did you get your standards from? Do you even know?

Don’t you see that as long as you operate within this framework you will never stop hating yourself?

That even if you manage to be who you think you should be there will be that little voice at the back of your head that says “You’re a fake.”

On cultural appropriation

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture.” Wikipedia

This whole thing against cultural appropriation is silly.

Cultures when they come into contact mutually seed one another.
This is good and leads to a flowering of the universal human spirit.
What cultural appropriation is is just a negative tone taken towards this glorious process.
Cultures are not things to be safe-guarded because by doing so you make them dead things. Just pieces of fossilized carcasses in a museum with a plaque instead of a life-giving context. Cultures are meant to consume one another – cross-fertilize.
All these cultures that are dying now are like flowers. They were once a small seed. It grew into the beautiful flower. The entire purpose of the flower is to blossom and reproduce. After the flower has blossomed and reproduced the beauty of decay takes place.
This is beautiful because not only does the flower create more biodiversity through evolutionary forces it’s death and decay feed this process in things that aren’t flowers such as mushrooms.
All that being against cultural appropriation is is another vain attempt of man to freeze and bottle life. He thinks that thereby he has captured life and made it his own. Luckily he cannot be successful; mother nature will have her way with culture as with flowers. Even if he could be successful all he would have is a petrified corpse with no life.

Why I hate morality

The main thing that motivates my interest in morality is compassion.

I see that in society the weakest and most miserable members are treated with disdain, made to feel ashamed and often abused all because of particular propositions of the status quo morality.

For instance I had a friend at work. He was a compassionate person and the worst I could say of him was that he was incredibly indoctrinated by the status quo and had a temper. Apart from that he was one of those decent people that make up a lot of the working class.

His attitude towards the homeless and drug addicts though was based upon the ethic of capitalism. He didn’t know this but it was.

These people didn’t work and expected hand-outs. They would steal etc…

It was a focus entirely directed towards just one aspect of the people in this class. It was a myopic perspective.

He would say that they should get a job.

He even told me a story once about how a tramp asked him for money and he replied “I wouldn’t even give you the steam of my piss”. He said this with pride and he probably had a feeling of righteousness in saying it. This is how morality makes monsters out of people.

It was sad because he was not prepared to even discuss it. To even entertain the idea that these people are deeply unhappy. That is why they seek the comfort of oblivion through narcotics to such an extent that it destroys the rest of their lifes. That causes them to break the law so as to run back into the arms of that oblivion away from their life of extreme poverty and misery.

For him it was black and white. These people were bad.

There was no inquisition into the social conditions that give rise to these people. How he is also subject to them. How the same force called capitalism that oppresses him and forces him to work the majority of his life is the force that has broken them.

That the homeless are symptoms of a society fundamentally incompatible with the human pursuit of happiness. That they indicated not a threat in themselves but a greater threat that hangs over us all. A threat with the only redeeming feature being that it should make brothers of us all.

His attitude was one of disdain and hatred to these people who in my eyes should – at the worse – be seen as people with a debilitating illness.

The same is the case with prostitutes and women in general when it comes to promiscuity. Men when they are promiscuous aren’t socially frowned upon. Sure there’ll be some old biddies in the local baptist church who would express moral outrage at them but in the main society doesn’t condemn them.

But women on the other hand…

Compare women and men in their ideal form. The man is a big, muscular, strong person who can handle stuff. The woman is the opposite. Yet who gets treated worse for sexual promiscuity?

The fact that morality is often directed against the weakest and most vulnerable elements in society shouldn’t be shocking. One of the psychological pay-offs of morality for those that make up the power-structure is that it allows them to go to sleep at night knowing that they’ve done service to absolute good by stamping on the face of the poor.

Power, Morality and Sex

In order for a power structure to exist there has to be a perceived need for it. It is important to note that for the intentions of the members of the power structure to be fulfilled it is irrelevant whether the threat is a real threat or not.

It just needs to produce the reaction in the populace that is typified by the child who runs into the arms of daddy when he is scared.

One of the most powerful ways of doing this is to create as many threats as possible and to make those threats common. Morality is the means through which the elites have done this over the ages.

With morality the elites have been able to cause the response to threats to happen in response to evil. That is to say that instead of the threat having to involve risk to life; with morality it can also include people who are seen as morally wrong.

For example take the case of prostitutes. If you read my previous blog here you’ll see that prostitution in-itself is not harmful. Now by making prostitution a moral evil the power-structure creates another excuse for it’s existence. The man in the street – who is generally heavily influenced by morality – sees prostitutes as a threat and a threat that he is unable to deal with on his own.

Prostitution and sexual things generally are a brilliant choice for this because they are so common. What the elites have done is to take what is natural and habitual to humans generally and called it morally evil.

Also because the threats are based upon natural human inclinations and behaviours they are ineradicable. This is perfect for the person in control who wants to maintain his position because it is an ever-present reality. This – in the eyes of the heavily brain-washed man in the street – requires the ever-present assistance of the power-structure.

A funny thing about this is that it doesn’t require the conscious intention or knowledge of the people that constitute the power-structure. The phenomenon of morality perpetuates and sustains power like a natural force.

It’s much like a genetic trait that aids the survival and reproduction of organisms in nature. Once the inheritable trait occurs it is irrelevant whether or not the consequent generations know about it because it will nevertheless aid their survival through evolutionary mechanisms.

It could be that thousands of years ago morality came about. This may have been an intentional act of a power-structure, the result of people thinking, the spread of disease or whatever. Once it came about though it stuck because of how it facilitated power.

On prostitution

Common-sense morality is generally quite warped. It often seems to be nothing but a way for people who are the oppressors to maintain their position on the top.

One of the typical examples of this is prostitution. Why do we consider it bad and shameful? What are the effects of the context of morality that surrounds this the oldest form of occupation?

Firstly let us strip it down to its essentials. Prostitution is an act in which one person sells the sexual use of their body.

Concretely it involves two people being sexual and an exchange of money.

Just look at that on its own for a bit. Why does this activity garner so much moral attention?

It’s perfectly fine to sell yourself as a labourer, a masseuse and it’s even fine to sell yourself as a killer but the second you sexually please someone for money suddenly there’s something wrong. This seems very bizarre and warped to me.

If we wanted to trace this moral approbation historically and sociologically I reckon we could see the cause of it in the fact that systems of power have used repression of certain drives (predominantly the sexual drive) as a means of gaining power over the masses.

Orwell recognized the power this repression had in freeing libidinous energy for the service of the state by redirecting it towards veneration of a person in the anti-sex league of “1984”.

One of the effects of this is that the sex worker (and to a lesser extent the service user) is seen as something shameful, less valuable or even valueless. They become less than human in the eyes of the masses. This of course leads to the horrendous treatment they so often receive.

Also as a result of this the people in the sex trade are often the weakest and most vulnerable of our species. They see themselves as worthless and incapable even before entering the profession and that is why they become prostitutes.

It’s not that prostitution in-it-self is without worth but that because of the morality constructed by the elite it becomes the job of last recourse. Something that desperate people do because they are desperate and because of this there is such an atmosphere of mental illness and misery around it.

You could imagine a different social context in which the prostitute is respected. In fact only recently we had such an example in Victorian doctors. There was an epidemic of hysteria and the prevailing medical opinion concerning the cause of it was sexual frustration in women. So women would go to doctors to get fingered. The doctors were paid for this service though eventually they gave it up when the dildo was invented to alleviate strain in doctor’s wrists.

So when you strip it down the Victorian doctors were prostitutes but because there was a different social context and moral feeling around their action they didn’t feel guilty or ashamed; quite the reverse in fact.

To conclude I am saying that everything bad about prostitution (except STDs but risk of illness is present in almost all occupations) is caused by the moral feeling towards it and isn’t endemic to it.