An Alternative to Capitalism's Production Mode

Introduction:

Capitalism is the name of the system that saw us born and lead for few centuries in the world. Capitalist’s mode of production in Marxist theory. Whatever you call it, this does not alter its characteristics. This mode of production is characterized by the notion of private ownership, a monopoly over the means of production, exploitation of productive force, alienation from work and pays the same, called salary. I won’t explain here the meaning of its component because it is not the intention of the essay, since that information is readily available and we’d be diverting from the subject’s matter.

As simple note, all pillars are interrelated and are guarantors of the operation of the other and together, forming a sort of password vault, which is a necessary condition the proper functioning of all its parts to maintain the proper system. Like any another production mode, capitalism does not escape to the process of dialectics, in which one the system evolves to its average fuel burning is vital, productive force, it means, men in their productive stage.

Historical Context:

Before capitalism, at least the men had access to means of production in which worked the land, which operated in exchange for use of it, which hardly enough for subsistence. In this period when capitalism is slowly beginning to appear in what is known as the primitive accumulation of capital, between the XVI and XVIII. Once that was achieved on a basis which was settled by imposing progressively changing the way of life known to there and changing the design of the world. This is when men from outside the economic development that was gesture perplexed admire the new impositions that are beginning to weigh on the company. Not only that the farm grows even larger, but also are deprived of land, means of production which had its times of habitat, and living in the same place where they worked alongside his family. From now on start to receive payment for services rendered to the detriment of the enjoyment they were accustomed. This process involves a change to the naked eye only in habits, but really masks the situation of helplessness and insecurity with which the worker and his family must deal with from now on.

The land is to peasant what flour to bread, while one determinate the existence of the other. This nascent capitalism began to grow quickly and spread rapidly. It should be mentioned and take into account that which is not born phoenix from the ashes, but on the contrary finds support in a process that provided the basis material. To know, the “discovering” of the new world, America. Not that the discovery would mean vital to the process of gestation of capitalism, but yes what they find in the new world.

America will lead Europe to a beautiful and valuable gift, precious stones and workmanship available and cheap. It should be noted that in Europe at that time reigned precious metals as a measure of change, as the Commercialism and Physiocracy were the economic paradigm of the moment. That is where lies the importance of discovery in the new continent. Equivalent to find an island full of dollars today. Not only is this gift but it is what becomes the basis of material that made the nascent capitalism belly, becoming the accumulation mentioned as a prelude to capitalism.

But no mistake, Europe found anything in America that was left to drift, but on the contrary, was possession of the peoples who inhabited this continent. Despite this, Europeans did not hesitate a moment as pigs go hungry for what there was of interest. Subjugated to all people that lived there and destroyed all what interfered to their plans.

Destroyed the environment and exterminated most of the population, while the remaining part of it was enslaved and used as cheap labor to exploit minerals and upload their ships to get the loot for his land, the old world. The best hunter he escapes the hare, and Europe did not escape the rule, because it was such great the metal that was imported that brought a deep crisis, which is known as “revolution of prices”, and resulting consequences chaotic as precipitous devaluation of the currency, lower purchasing power, unemployment and a change in the diet of the society. While prices rose in that period, was only nominally as the purchasing power tended to decrease significantly, so point that almost any merchandise purchase cost about four times else.

The cereals were the mean that spread the economic crisis over, since they were the products most suffered the "price revolution". This situation led to the need to begin to have larger areas of land for agriculture at the expense of livestock. But it also had its side effects, as fewer cows means less fertilizer, which has a direct impact on soil fertility. Those who received a permanent usufruct were most affected by rising prices as it saw as growing your money worth less in market prices.

As for landlords, the situation was different because if the agriculture becoming more center stage and the prices of goods produced their land, thus land values also increase. In this particular situation as landowners welcomed the opportunity to fully dispose of land without relying on anyone else and pay a wage predetermined by the service, thus losing any relationship of dependency with the servant and do what it pleases unhindered as limiting. It is then, as I noted, the time when the worker is deprived of land, half of its production, its habitat, its certainty. Remember that the labor and land were an indivisible unit, a it rotates once the worker loses all kinds of security and social protection. Nothing governs the relations of dependence that policies are carried forward by a rising middle class to which the workers, under penalty should be adjusted jobless. Many workers are fleeing the city in search of a better quality of life and greater likelihood of employment, transforming many of them in crafts and manufacturing, which in hindsight, at least some of them end up as part of the rising bourgeoisie.

I

.Is posible eliminate the Capitalism?

Having defined our object of study and circumscribed in its historical context and development of training, I will develop the theme that relates to this test:

A method of production involves a number of parameters, which define and circumscribe. The same can not be viewed separately as they do not represent anything concrete things rather than isolated, but on the contrary they must be addressed together, since they are configured in this way giving concrete shape to the object, in this case, the mode of production. A mode of production is conceived as a structure, which means that it builds upon and through concrete pillars, these are the aforementioned parameters. In turn, the entire structure is manifested as a body, which is a necessary condition the smooth functioning of all the parties to it can be sustained. If any or several of its parts (parameters) are corrupted, it automatically falls into the same structure that was weakened and finally disappears.

It is clear that when a structure becomes obsolete and disappears, you do not leave a vacuum, but on the contrary it appears that another substitute, which in turn has been brewing within the will disappear. It is impossible for can live two or more structures at the same time as some of its parameters are presented as antagonistic to the other, making one definitely is imposed, which in some cases may constitute the reason for a decline, being replaced by that led to such a fate.

Assuming these assumptions we can deduce that there is any structure that is immune to disappear or to impose other. And it is the cornerstone of this test, demonstrating that it is possible to replace a structure on the other, without departing from the variation in which these principles are based. All that man is made to your satisfaction. This happens on any scale, which means that companies and countries pursue the same purpose.

II

The Anarchism as mean to change

I was never sympathetic to the political parties, but in order to move
within the parameters capitalists must accept them, something what
I resist, but I can not deny.
The two sides of the political coin, namely, right-wing to left-wing,
are born in Capitalism times, which means that even
Left-wing has characteristics from Capitalism, a detail that is not difficult to discover if compare parties from both sides, left and
right wing, and realize they have so much in common, which is
antagonistic to any kind of philosophy of the opposition and even the
dialectic.
All this made me look with respect and affection to Anarchism
as true philosophy of the opposition. It is true that
Anarchism was also born within the incubator of capitalist, but
is configured in a way a little more original and autonomous, and
professing something that neither the left nor the right wing do, that is the decentralization, a point which is the cornerstone of capitalism, the centralization, and even socialism and communism also support, but in a democratic and natural way, but not
ensures guarantees against despotism. Left-wing like me a lot but is presented as the ‘gray’ against the ‘black’ Capitalism (or right-wing), when in fact what is needed is a whole new palette of colors, and I believe anarchism could reach be.

I hold the above because, in my opinion, is not the problem of what hands should administer and distribute the profits within society, but the centralization as a concept, centralizing the social means of production, (centralization – the Achilles heel of capitalism). The right-wing argues that the bourgeoisie must do so, while the left-wing that worker should do, what I believe still the two sides of the same coin when we really need another currency, which in their dialectical struggle against Capitalism remove it and place a new system.
Anarchism does not notice whether the centralization of the means of production must be, in the hands bourgeois or workers, but
who rejects the centralization, and it is this innovative and crucial! Once state apparatus has been decentralized, people may be recruited in a socialist way, but not before breaking the block
centralizer.
So anarchism seems to be the bridge of transition and bound
mesh to weaken and kill Capitalism.

Thinking about sex

Thinking about sex

It is true that now legally male and female are equal, now at more existential issues and social, there are shades of an abyss of civil strife between the sexes by the dominance of certain fields, as well as the unconscious need for of one sex to another.
Taking this as a base material add to my hypothesis that sex is not immune to this issue of indigenous struggles for dominance between the sexes of this practice (such struggles in the context of competition between the sexes only).
however, sex is determined and standardized by the unconscious itself from the tradition of the company, which makes everything to escape these "rules" become customary taboo, but nothing abnormal but not likely to break with the royalties.
and anal sex has always been called a transgression in many cultures. Heavily influenced by religious beliefs that practice has been considered taboo in public, for centuries.
Today time is running other companies today are engaged in breaking many of these dogmas to surrender completely to the transgression and experimentation of new phenomena, but that does not detract from that tradition does not continue to make a counter weight. Any particular part of the same sex and expands into general, ie society.
As a corollary argue that anal sex is presented as the target to break into the social and cultural and as such a tool to maintain the dialectic of the "struggle" for dominance between the sexes in this regard, the dialectic that allows progress to form more complex and development of sex as a means of production and reproduction of societies, as well as a means of pleasure for them. ¹

(1) Taken from a discussion forum on Facebook where I wrote this.

Speech about friendship

If not ask me what is the friendship I know, but on the contrary, if you ask me what I no longer know. The same seemed to happen to St.Augustine of Hippo in time centuries ago. Along with friendship, and while there are a multitude of phenomena which fall into the same problem of definition. This happens because they are abstractions that are strongly rooted in the man making it almost impossible to surprise them to analyze as if they were material things. Many do not repair in this situation need not believe it but when the need to define this emerging phenomenon is known to address issues raised by this problematic subject of estudio.Esta not only introduced me to my course, but he had already been presented, for example, Socrates makes a negligible amount of centuries ago. This demonstrates the problems raised by addressing such issues, because with the passage of time has not been a holistic response to this, only conjecture about the issue but nothing quite convincing. And I'm afraid that I do not escaparé to huge list of mediocre guesswork to the topic, but at least try to form a complete idea of this phenomenon from my experience and from a logical reasoning, if the logic is in this field, which I doubt much. Anyway it should be noted that it would be hypocritical to try to give an objective definition of a subjective phenomenon par excellence is friendship, which can be defined as diverse as many people there. This is because all people have different conceptions of friendship which is a product of their experiences, the point is that people who can say that it does not exist. But if there is something we all share and that nobody can deny that we all relations between us, because man is man is so immersed in society it would die. Hence the need to interact with other peers makes creating bonds of different characteristics but are founded on trust. The same may be greater or lesser extent but with the depth that determines the relations between men will be developed, showing affinity to the degree that one can have with some people and others.

Also factors such as shortage of equality or similarity between individuals determine the degree of affinity that a person can save the other. In fact, it is common to see different personalities tend to be more akin to similar personalities. Perhaps this is because when you relate to other people look at what they do not have one, and we encounter someone who is a very different view and allows us to compare features in order to draw conclusions that allow us to improve aspects that we believe few developed in us. At the same time compared with others allows us to have a parameter with which medirnos to know how we are. In turn, this leads to healthy comparison the stereotyping of people who in some cases become image to imitate.

But this is more about relations between people themselves in terms of friendship, which was founded in those relations being in a sympathy that keeps the characteristics of another, to be more sympathetic than one feel for the rest of the people.

Criticism of the opposition

Criticism of the opposition

The opposition is guilty of sectarian, political parties and schools of students and all kinds of opposition demonstrations, engage in discussion among themselves, fighting between factions of power as well as the struggle for interests of party and do not realize that the real face is common to all the press alike. There is no opposition, and if it lies there like a puzzle, is heterogeneous and jealous of herself. The only way to change the reality is joining forces and finding the drive, listening to people who claim to represent, ironing out differences and put aside the internal issues to form a common front of struggle that involves all. The opposition must be united by a sense of shared struggle and not because of minimum difference of belief. The opposition should be to propose a change from the grassroots, from the popular struggle, promoting the education of young, growing awareness and creating an atmosphere of tolerance and integration. While the fight is not sectarian and remains popular there will be no possibility of change. Therefore, the change starts from the self. ¹

[1] Cut taken from a discussion forum on Facebook Hitoriadoresmdq in which to answer the question by adding these words.

Reflexion of a random teenager...

As much I read the intellectuals that we think are less simple to understand. Perhaps this is because when doing a micro analysis of the subject it is for new meanings about a superficial vision of it. If you just tried to deal with the intention of obtaining from them their ideas is very likely that this problem does not occur, but this is not the case when it is of great intellectuals, as they analyzed the problems giving rise to multiple analysis and valuations for the same purpose. First I called preocuparé by economists for their great contributions. It should be mentioned here that the economists who have called are those who have large shed light to the functioning of social life of his time and after reaching the present day. Example of these would be known as Classical economists: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus and Karl Marx. But this is the detail that makes increasingly less understand the more elaborated on their ideas, because in most cases the contributions they make are designed to benefit a small portion of society, in which portion generally they are included. Therefore their input materials and lay the theoretical groundwork which inequality is built, a detail which I think are clearly aware.
A complex design theories turn for the better functioning of the economy within society, theories that are being undertaken as a vital requirement for the inclusion of any society within the production process, but in allocating the benefit that these new economic measures entail, it is completely uneven, and excludes a large proportion of the individuals involved in its development, making people who have privileged access to a portion of it to obtain a benefit that much from the equity holders of the means of production and if they perceive a benefit due to the relatively high ownership of the portion of those who do not already seen through the increasing extraction of surplus value. Ricardo accepts and allows to distinguish as the process through which the capitalist appropriates much of the total production in the form of benefit, which in some cases exceeds 2 / 3 of total production, making the 1 / 3 remaining income is divided between the land and the wage bill. And, as if to serve as a consolation, he says that long term the market tends to pay out of subsistence.
Adam Smith is not too far to see Ricardo as the division of labor in the higher productivity that allows an increase in wages that is expressed in a higher per capita income that gives workers the opportunity to achieve higher levels of annual consumption, resulting in a greater wealth of a nation. But it looks as Ricardo, and that after a hike in the salary of the product division of labor and increased productivity it brings, allows improvements in the quality of life, manifested in increased the birth rate, which in the medium term the company would generate the need for more jobs, and since this is limited, leading to the inclusion of more people in the productive process and the substantial decrease in wages for workers order to cover the costs of the new workforce. Process to medium and long term is reflected in a declining quality of life and poverty insipiente that will result from the death of those who do not have the means to survive. Smith that the poverty and death of part of the population reaches the point where the available labor in society and the people who are up in equilibrium.
It was Malthus who finished developing the ideas of Smith to the population and the means to produce their own subsistence, in his well-known Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) which suggests that food increases only to an arithmetic progression (2-4-6-8-10), while the population doubles every generation in a logarithmic progression (2-4-8-16-32), and the only way to avoid this phenomenon was through a control birth rate (measured Malthusian) or through a natural control which was "positive." The type of natural control is to wars, epidemics, pestilence, plagues, the famines and human services, which combine to control the volume of world population and limited to the food supply.
It is then at least I understand, because if these individuals were able to explain the reality and how it works, why their ideas were not aimed to overcoming these problems, and not, instead, to create new and more complex, considering that the last function of the economy is to serve the people and not use it. Repaired only in the possibility of designing systems that were applicable to the company the benefit of a few and the detriment of about many.
Unfortunately those who do not possess the means of production are predestined to be the need to sell their production (which is the only asset they possess) on the market as a commodity and in return receive the same wage, that the great most cases it bear with the little amount of work given to change it. This contract is carried out between those who possess the means of production and who have only their labor the point that provides the essence and inequality in its most pure and complete.
It is in the midst of these problems occur when the story is an individual who, unlike the classical economists mentioned above, sought a solution to the problem, the problem of inequality and the possession of means of production as well as to the private property itself. It is Karl Marx.
Karl Marx had already been persuaded of these problems from an early age, and it is he who coined terms such as labor force, means of production surplus, and so on. Terms that describe both escape since it does not suggest who should play each roll but does not look within a certain time and space.
Marx who is also to analyze the economy from a different perspective to the traditional, in other words, not a bourgeois. It should be noted that the ideological conception prevailing in the year Marx was imposed by Hegel, namely, the philosophy of the idea. The notion that the reality was determined by the idea disturbed Marx demonstrated that the legal relations as forms of rule can not be understood by themselves or by the so-called general development of the human spirit, but are, on the contrary, material living conditions. That's when Karl Marx understood that the production of their life, men against certain necessary relationships, independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to certain stage of development of their material productive forces. All these relations of production form the economic structure of society, the real basis on which stands the legal and political superstructure and corresponding forms of social awareness. Hence the assumption that it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, by contrast, is a social being that determines consciousness.
But beyond these ideas and theories of the functioning of society, the most remarkable is that Marx was an active revolutionary, was characterized by pragmatism in their way of life, was a person who said what he thought and did what it said . Behavior that earned him a number of exile in the countries where it was settled throughout his life.
But Marx, like Smith, Ricardo and Malthus responded, or at least tried to present their problems. The odd thing is that today we continue to take the theories advocated by these men, which in many cases, are already obsolete. Not because they are close in their training, but because times change and it would be an anachronism to use them. But the curious to look at this is that if the contributions of these intellectuals are still valid that means that we are witnessing a process where intellectual production has declined since that time. This situation necessitates the use of those theories, which have more than 150 years and continue to answer many of the problems in our society today, which if you think intellectual production which suffered a period of stagnation or, for In contrast, the company which is in a static period in the evolutionary process.
The second hypothesis seems trite, but we could not dismiss it because, as the accused often illuminated the medieval period was a dark and stagnant, that vision of being tested, would be applicable to this situation. But could not fall into the naivety of assuming that there was no progress in society since that time, as the development of technology accuses the presence of a strong and growing intelligentsia.
Is required except that when I refer to intellectual stagnation, do not pretend to say that the society remain the same at that time, but increased, but following the lines of those intellectuals then unable to overcome yet. But within these lines of thought have been surprising that more progress, which have revolutionized the whole economic structure as well as the entire superstructure in Marxist terms.
I think if we target the division of labor can perhaps find the explanation for why the intellectual stagnation or intellectual state. I submit that this is because it is well known as the division of labor makes it more problematic to focus on more timely, ie, tends to go from the general to the particular, making our intellectuals today are experts in different themes which are prepared, but this leads to the production of what we know as culture becomes increasingly scarce, or, worse, what we consider as general a view increasingly skewed from reality.
I spoke to our intellectuals today to make an analogy with the intellectuals of the previous centuries, but this issue is reproduced in all individuals. And this is clearly visible in the trades today, just the low diversity of individual offices, or even more clearly to the greatest expertise on the topic making people lose interest in almost no other disciplines believe useful in terms labor. It is true that in previous centuries it was possible to cover a number of different offices negligible since the field of knowledge to be had for each discipline was rather more limited than it is today. Today would not have the number of trades that could have a person capable of the 17th century, since knowledge of these trades yourself today have far exceeded those of that time, a detail that would make a person to collect the current number of offices need two lives or a life over time.
I stress to the caveat that the potential difference between this approach to different disciplines in one season and another is not a criticism of the current, but it's just an observation between the two eras. Centuries ago a few men could explain almost all the questions of humanity, today this is impossible, today thousands of specialists who try to give such explanations. Today we must use an interdisciplinary approach to finding answers to questions of great complexity.
One reads Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Darwin, etc.. and it seems that you can hear almost everything on earth and human life, but the development of work and its inevitable fragmentation makes it necessary to venture into increasingly complex issues, which makes it increasingly complex to be updated in the knowledge scientific and more complicated still be a part of it. Individuals named as civilians can not understand in many cases due to various issues investigated the intellectual background necessary to decode this information is not within their reach or simply had not purchased. So you can see an intellectual competition against the clock to be part of that tiny portion "privileged." It's like an eternal learning never ends and it undergoes a painful recognition of the ever will know everything, or never finish any knowledge of something.
This is a detail of how the present society, but what concerns me personally is to know how far reaching this is, what is the roof of this intellectual development, is that man has a greater mastery of the world where you live or on the contrary can make the man I have a shrinking of the same domain? And what purpose is pursuing this development and what is the future destiny lies as a society? Is possible that some day the man I have complete mastery over the world in which he lives? This development tends to unify the companies or on the contrary tend to differentiate them? And if the domain of the world is obtained, it will be a collective or a few?
These and many other questions have to be the engine that drives me to the world of scholarship to find answers for the moment not more than I can ask about the conjecture, but I hope to be able to hopefully find an answer at all plausible, and to that target direct my efforts ...

Society Reflexion

Reflexions:

.Many times when i see the people’s behaviour i can see a lack of values, i can see a lack of honor, i can see the people don’t love it self, i see the society looking around trying to find a way, anyone who let it have a Rich life, rich in superficial things, a material life. It is logic, because we are a consumer animal, we had lost our human instinct since became in a sociable animals, the humanity is not more parto f the animals Kingdom, we are outside, living in the anarchy’s instinct. We are throught the fields, like forbidden souls, or maybe souless.

What the society is? I think there is not harder question to do. The are a lot of wise person waiting in the front lines for teach me the answer, because if there is something we have nowadays are wise man/woman living to the society the key to the heaven’s doors, but there are not people who work for make it. How much had the society changed not? We passed from an slave society to a wise and not handworker society. Sound fantastic!the people ledt to use it’s hand for star to use the mind, that strange muscle who is the head of the Capitalism.

But, what about the inside the society? That big bowl crowd of people running for anywhere, living at full trying to be usefull to the system, such great people who try to develop for the World advance…

Is almost impossible to digest such hipocretic message, but we need try to hide we know about it’s lie. But i have a question for my wise Judge reader, how much often that usefull people stop for think about it self? How much often the system stop for make same? Maybe my question sound thin, without a deeply body, but it have a good one. So where we are stand up? What is it where we live and relieve understand? We have mobiles phones, digital cams, pc’s, automóviles, all the technology… but how much we have about human? Where is the human side of the society?

Perhaps to much question for such wise public, maybe they can answer it is parto f the society development, evolutions explainings, Darwin, Spencer, Ricardo, Smith, and a long list more…all genious of the pen and paper, but what they knew about the humanity? About the beginning of the human?

Nothing to answer, because never, NEVER the society goes for instincts, only for “wise” man, who came with the divine solution and message. How much GOD know about feel hungry or died for ignorante?

The society never had a scense, only inertia, the invisible hand about Adam Smith talked for long, but nothing said about the Engine of the society, nobody know nothing about it.

Please!!! It is a calling to the reflexion, it is a calling for stop the cars, turn the phones off, shutdown the energy and ask our self where we are going to, who is our destiny, who are our goals, where is the real heaven…

Since the humanity live in society live in crisis, an identity crisis, an instinct crisis…

It is not an anarchy message for those who tild this reflexion like that befote keep thinking. If our mind, that muscule that we need under obligation develop since we born is not able to think about the deeply and important thing about the life!?why if we are the most intelligent and rational animal we can’t stop with the explotion from to men to men? Why we can’t fight against to the freedom? But not the freedom of book, that one who is discussed on parlaments, the real freedom, the mind and soul freedom… we are slave of our fear, the fear to fight for our values and right, but not writen right, but animal Rights… we need stop for a while and think why we are still alive here when we didn’t nothing to achieve that, why are stay still on Earth when we don’t have a sure future..

All is like a ramdom life-style, we born and while we keep going we see for the most confortable way, but always from the individualim, never as society.

So, if we do al from that, why we are living still in society, in the system who don’t represent anybody, who is abstarct and ideal…

So, don’t try on me the answers, because i have not them, i only give the first boot for start to use the mind in the correct way, in the way of the humanity. So, start to critic our self, look into our heart and minds and try to fin dan explaining for our scence, try to find in this society, like a Pandora’s Box where is our lost scense and give a solution for this ill society, from the humanity to the humanity.

God was nevero n your side!!!we stayed there, now is time to fight together. Stop to look in each other the danger, the thief, the problem, start to look in our self the real problema and start to get better as human for change the humanity, for return to the human beginning, when the men look to each other as same, as human…

Carlos Alberto Alvarez….

Argentina

22/05/2009