Money Troubles

Despite what the title says, I don't actually have money troubles. Not in the conventional sense, at least. I signed up for a PayPal account yesterday so I could transfer some funds from my bank to the PayPal. The latter said that they sent two small deposits into my bank account which I need to confirm with them so I can transfer funds into my account, amongst other things. Okay, I understand it's a security measure. It sounds easy enough. Today comes and PayPal says that they sent the money into my account. I check the transaction records; none recorded from them. I haven't received my latest bank statement yet, so I'll check that one when it comes. Except I don't know when my next bank statement comes. I'm certainly not going to wait an entire month (my last statement came on the 27^th) to transfer a few dollars into my PayPal. The bank is closed for the rest of today and tomorrow as it's a Sunday, so I'll have to call them on Monday to see when my statement comes. Unless they can tell me the deposit amounts off the phone.

That's the first 'money trouble' I'm experiencing at the moment. The second problem concerns Amazon, the online retail giant. I want to do business with its Canadian subsidiary. I plan to purchase The Simpsons Season 2 DVD box-set. On the site, Amazon says it accepts debit and credit cards. But when you check out the methods of payment it accepts, it only lists credit card issuers (Visa et al), and only accepts debit cards issued from those companies. A credit card has been added to my online account, but it hasn't physically arrived in the mail, let alone activated. I dunno when my card will arrive. The online card has been posted to my account for about a week or two, so I assume my application was accepted on the same day. The physical credit card typically arrives 7 to 14 days from the day the application is accepted. I think, then, I can expect my card to arrive either on the first or second week of July. When I receive it, I'll use it to purchase The Simpsons, and pay off the balance with my debit immediately. I don't understand why Amazon just doesn't accept debit cards. It would mean more business for them, I would think.

I hope these problems resolve themselves soon. In spite of purporting to offer convenience, both PayPal and Amazon fail to see the shortfalls of the methods they pursue. 

Graduation

I officially graduated from high school today! I'm so proud of myself and the others who took the effort to show up and collect their diplomas. Especially those who won awards, one of which I am a recipient. I won the Knights of Columbus Good Shepherd Award for service in the community. The love I feel for my school and broader community is worth more than its monetary value.

Thanks to Mr. Easton, Mr. Beckett, Mrs. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Gulliver, Ms. Campeau, Ms. Kyle and others I cannot presently mention, though it's many, for preparing me with the knowledge I now possess to take on the real world.

From this point on, I am enrolled as an undergraduate university student, so my profile will be updated to reflect that.

Moral Refutations

In this series of refutations, I engage in argument with an atheist whose vitriol for religion, it seems, is almost unparalleled. Enjoy. I am '1'. He is '2'. Notes and commentary inserted for clarity. 

2: [in response to someone else] You clicked that link and saw all that and you are criticizing me instead of the dogmatic ignorance, pain, and human suffering engendered by human superstition? You are a dangerous fucking psychopath if you place meager and morally bankrupt personal beliefs over the anguish of actual human beings.

1: You're addressing an extremely small minority of theists who are very aggressive and vocal. Human superstition does not cause ignorance, it's the result of ignorant people. I find it offensive that you'd call someone else dangerous for having the sense to understand that there are both dangerous and non-dangerous theists. There's no inherent moral quality to religion itself. It's the people who follow such morally questionable edicts (like Sharia law) that should be questioned, and institutions such as Sharia law to be critically examined in light of this. People with attitudes like yourself are the reason people of different beliefs refuse to get along: they see only the negative.

2: Religion is a net loss for humanity, arguing otherwise is the domain of a naive apologist. Religion is anachronistic, unhelpful, unnecessary, and detracts greatly from the human condition in the 21st century.

All religion (with maybe the exception of Jainism) is intellectual fascism.

1: Those arguments seemed tailored towards institutionalized religion as opposed to personal faith, in which case I would agree. And I disagree with your characterization of my arguments as thinly veiled apologetics -- in the first place, I don't condone religious terrorism, so it's inaccurate to imply otherwise.

2: Personal faith is delusion masquerading as virtue. Read it as many times as it takes to sink in. Superstition as faith is supremely arrogant in it's ignorance.

1: [I quote him]. Implying virtue is a universal set of ethics. The two are not so opposed to each other as to be rendered as mutually exclusive concepts. Are you saying a religious person cannot act ethically in accordance with the tenets of his faith? I would agree that unrelenting insistence on a deity's existence would qualify as arrogance, but denigrating seemingly everyone who aligns themselves with theism does not excuse yourself from acting arrogant -- which you appear to be doing here in your vicious attacks on theism.

2: [He quotes me]. Not sure how you got that from what I said. I didn't imply anything.

[He quotes me]. What two [concepts]? What are you talking about?

[He quotes me]. Let's say I am practicing alchemy (I'm trying to turn lead into gold, for example) and I accidentally create a chemical reaction by mixing 2 substances. I take this as a sign that I am nearing my goal of turning lead into gold. Does this make alchemy a science? Does this make me a scientist? No. The reaction was an accident, and the wrong lesson was taken away from it. The objective lesson is ignored. The subjective lesson is flawed as it is based on a false premise. Any decent 21st century moralist should be acting ethically for the sake of acting ethically. Not for fear of religious punishments or promise of religious rewards. Any religious compulsion or motivation does detract something ethically speaking, absolutely. It could be oversimplified to say religious people are essentially ethical "on accident". This is illustrated by the fact that countless religious people believe they are acting ethically when they are clearly inflicting harm. Many of these people thought of these actions as ethical or virtuous. This is the warp of delusion. [WARNING: Large (30,000 x 660) and graphic compilation of images]. 

1: [I quote him]. By framing faith as 'masquerading' (insincerely imitating) virtue, you necessarily disqualify religious faith as being capable to practice acts which can be deemed truly virtuous or possessing a set of ethics deemed virtuous in itself. In order to forward the claim that faith insincerely imitates virtue, you must have an idea of what constitutes true virtue already in mind. I deduct from this that either you're deferring to a supposed consistent set of ethics which you call virtue in order to forward this claim, or your own idea of what virtue is -- if so, you didn't elaborate in your last post.

[I quote him]. The two concepts that you were contrasting: personal faith and virtue. You said that personal faith, more or less, acts as a facsimile placeholder for real ethics -- I've asked you to define what constitutes a real set of ethics.

[I quote him]. In other words, securing divine favor is unethical because it treats 'moral' action as a means rather than an end in itself. I would argue that any incentive system that selects for these behaviors is unethical to the extent that it produces net negative results, for reasons I will clarify below.

How would you illustrate acting ethically for its own sake, then? It seems convenient that you invoke ethics several times but refrain from elaborating on what you think this consists of, although I think I detect traces of it in your argument. 

Why should individuals be compelled to act for the end's own sake? What defines this end? By saying we should act ethically for the sake of acting ethically, you're placing a moral imperative which exists independent of this act. What is this imperative?

 Not that I disagree on this point, but you're arguing, from what I can surmise, from a black-and-white perspective.

[I quote him]. If a person acts in a way that produces a net positive result, but this was not the end-in-itself, is it still an ethical action? If not, how much does acting morally as a means to an end detract from proper ethical practice, considering that net negative/positive results can presumably be measured in terms of an effect's scope?

If acting morally as a means to an end necessarily devalues an action, it must be metaphysical in its significance, since there are outward effects which can be reliably measured that would negate such objections, even if based on principles seeking to regulate these behaviors. 

In fact, if these principles were institutionalized, I argue that their utility is limited as they fail to account for means-as-ends actions that produce a visibly greater net positive effect compared to some actions as ends-in-themselves. 

They may be partially effective at addressing religious violence, but they also inhibit other behaviors which are not religiously motivated that culminate in net positive effects. You see, you don't have to be religious to treat an action as a means to an end -- where's the line drawn where we can say, "Okay, it's unnecessary to condemn this guy because the end justifies the means (greater net positive effect)". 

If people clearly inflict harm (a measurable value) when they think they're acting ethically, you must agree that the moral value of that act is deduced from the effect it has, not from how it's treated as a means to an end. This is how you have framed your argument so far. That they think they act ethically is another matter. There are theists which you'd agree act ethically because their actions have positive effects. To say they don't, or that its significance is devalued because it's a means to an end is to hold a double standard. 

One group -- the violent ones -- you are judging based on the effects they have, hence your illustration of religious terrorism. The 'good theists' are, you argue, selfish because their net positive actions are religiously motivated, but you agree they must be ethical because of those effects. This isn't a consistent position. 

I will demonstrate: Is an action (valued as an end in itself) which produces a net negative effect ethical? I think you're placing too much emphasis on a particular brand of ethics which you have either poorly elaborated upon or not at all.

2: I don't find the semantics and "philosophical" acrobatics you seem to enjoy necessary.

[He quotes me]. It is you that are thinking black and white. Ethics can be measured on a gradient. One ethical action can be more ethical than another ethical action. Two of the same action can carry different ethical values based on intent. Giving a homeless person $5 because you want them to have money for food is more ethical than giving them $5 because you want to curry favor with the divine.

Let's keep this simple: a 21st century moralist should strive to increase the happiness and decrease the suffering of other human beings because you are also a human being.

1: [I quote him]. No, the semantics of this case are important to the discussion at hand. Instead of addressing those arguments directly, you choose to dismiss them out of hand as 'acrobatics'. If you think it's not necessary, fine. I won't argue its necessity any longer.

Case in point: [I quote his example]. 

Now we get to the root of my objection. Namely, intent and its effects. We judge actions based on consequences as well as intent. Would you say this is a fair statement? Where Islamic terrorists might see the intents of their actions as ethical, the consequences of their actions visibly aren't, in terms of damage caused. In the terrorists' mind, the end justifies the means, so this point isn't arguable on a metaphysical level if we assume the Muslim conception of God exists and has been faithfully represented. To them, the intent overrides any visible harm caused; that's secondary to pleasing God. I'm not engaged in apologetics here, I'm just stating how they see things. 

If you believe intent is the weighting factor of an ethical action, then means-as-ends are irrelevant to the case. What you mean to attack are actions based on negative intents, not means-as-ends. Showing compassion to a homeless person is indeed a means to an end. The action of giving them five dollars is a means to fulfill your desire (the end) for them to eat.

[I quote him]. I never denied this. It was quite clear when I asserted that means-as-ends acts can yield greater net positive effects compared to ends-in-themselves acts. In my opinion, net positive effect and intent are what weigh the ethics of an action. If intent is positive, but the effect is negative, than any benefits yielded are negligible. I would never condone people intent on committing violent acts, since those are negative intentions likely to carry negative consequences.

Where we differ is how we value intent. You see means-as-end intent as negative because it's self-interested. But in the theist's mind, that intent is ethical since pleasing God supersedes placing other's needs ahead of your own. In addition, self-preservation (through pleasing God to avoid punishment) shown outwardly as selfishness is justified when you espouse faith in a vindictive deity who'll eternally banish you to the endless depths of a fiery Hell if you reject Him. The same acts, performed by two different people with two different motives, have the same net effect, and in their own minds, have the same ethical level of intent.

[I quote him]. Agreed, but I don't think that attitude is confined to any period of time. As Jesus said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." He may have existed, but not in a divine capacity, so don't take this to mean that I'm a theist or something.

I'll note, finally, that 'selfishness' is a term I actually despise. It's demonized to the point where it weighs seriously down upon moral decisions. People should question what constitutes selfishness, in what contexts it can manifest, and the utility it serves that justifies and necessitates its perpetuation, for starters. You could never advance your own interests if you weren't allowed to be selfish. Where it needs to be addressed is when it advances the self to the detriment of others. If it advances the self on a metaphysical level as well as satisfying someone's needs, is it as morally repugnant to you?

[He didn't respond to me past this point. I suppose he thought I was delusional or something.] 

Capitalist Refutations

I'm not explicitly a socialist, but I'm attracted to its allure. I've been studying socialist politics for about a year now. It follows that I've familiarized myself with its core basics and have been able to refute common misconceptions surrounding it. Here are a couple of arguments between a capitalist and myself. 'C' is capitalist. 'I' is me. Notes and commentary inserted for clarity.

Basics of Socialism

C: [in response to someone else] The fact that you keep using that word ['proletariat'] tells me you're no different than any other rebellious teenager who hates the idea of having to work for a living. Stop leeching off your parents and the rest of society. Contribute for once in your life and maybe you'll feel a sense pride that will overshadow your profound jealousy of your betters. 

I: You're an idiot. No socialist dislikes work (socially useful labor time). What they oppose is work based on wage-labor, which is fundamentally exploitative and therefore should be dismantled. Socialists envision a society where work-places are democratically managed, and where labor and resources are freely used and contributed to. In addition, work in a socialist society has infinitely more utility than it does in a Capitalist society.

C: [Quotes me]. That's the thinking of someone that doesn't understand how economies work. It's not exploitative, it's voluntary. "Socialists" envision a society where they can get the same as people smarter and harder working than they are without putting in as much effort. The idea that everything should be mutually owned and shared is childish nonsense.

I: Haha, no. The extraction of surplus value which constitutes the profit that the employer pockets from his wage-slaves, and forms the basis of exploitation, is not at all voluntary. 'Surplus value' refers to the labor time for which the employee is not compensated for. Employers pay their workers less than what their labor is worth. Therefore, workers can only buy back a limited amount of what they produce. 

The continued exploitation of labor creates a large disparagement in wealth between the worker and the owner because the worker has a set salary while the owner can continue to profit as he hires more wage-slaves and profits from the additional labor.

The working class cannot rise above its condition because their labor is being undersold to them and labor’s product is being oversold to others, creating a cycle where they must earn more than their initial labor to buy back something worth much less. 

These conditions create and sustain social relations based around hierarchal structures of power. Those who control the means of production and distribution have the power i.e. the Capitalist elite. You cannot voluntarily enter into contracts with someone who claims a monopoly on the means of production: your existence is dependent on your access to those means, meaning usage is involuntary, not voluntary. 

This places people who don't have access to those means at a disadvantage as they must sell their labor-power in order to continue living otherwise. Limiting who may have access to and control those means, is to say the least, is undemocratic as it creates social relationships based on authority. 

You don't understand how economies work, never mind the fact we're not discussing economics, we're discussing the social relationships that wage-labor perpetuates. Capitalist economics depends on wage-labor to maintain its coercive monopoly on the means of production and distribution. 

It cannot be voluntary, as resources are bought with wages, which comes from hiring out your labor power. On the other hand, people may freely contribute to and use resources in a socialist society, which is inherently opposed to wage-labor. 

You've completely ignored my rebuttal. That socialists oppose wage-labor doesn't mean they oppose work. My point is that socialists oppose how work is oriented in a Capitalist society. The utility of Capitalist work serves only to sustain the Capitalist system and thus has no use to the individual performing that work. Work in a socialist society is of infinitely more utility, so people have much more incentive to do so (as it wouldn't be seen as drudging wage-labor, but rather socially productive labor time). 

Now that you've mentioned economics, I should point out that Capitalist economics is thinly veiled apologetics designed to wave-away the 'naturally resulting' inequalities of the 'free-market' system. 

That is to say, economics isn't a science, so understanding its biased suppositions is not necessary in terms of qualifying its truth-value. What is necessary to understand about capitalist economics is how it's designed to serve the interests of private tyrannies and how it adapts to changing social conditions to reflect this fact. 

Capitalist economics has been shown several times to be extremely unscientific. It continues to rely on suppositions which have been proven wrong, has numerous problems with internal consistency, and if it does change in it assumptions, takes a long time to react (essentially as long as those assumptions about reality serve Capitalism. They're discarded once exhausted of utility). 

I know you think "socialism" (as you put it) is some selfless utopian theory that's completely opposed to human nature. Well, I only have to observe your attitude to know that you understand nothing about socialism. 

In the first place, socialism is not altruistic. To be altruistic means to care for others at your own expense. You have nothing to lose by contributing to a socialist society. Socialism offers incentives that greater fulfill ends than could be satisfied under capitalism. 

Whereas in capitalism you're focused on economic self-preservation (which is naively mistaken by conservatives as 'individualism'), socialism is focused on true individualism (self-affirmation and expression) and solidarity (popular unity whilst recognizing individual autonomy). 

Secondly, socialism isn't a 'utopian theory'. It's at once both a methodical analysis of the socioeconomic nature of capitalist phenomena and its mechanisms, as well as a reaction to it in the forms of a workers' program (democratic takeover and control of the means of production).

In short, it has much greater truth-value, as its suppositions about Capitalism aren't metaphysical, but grounded in testable observation of its phenomena. It's very scientific in its methodology (how it approaches its analysis of capitalism). This means the theory can be adjusted to offer a more accurate account of Capitalism's machinations as developments unfold. 

Hence largely why original Marxist analysis of Capitalism is out of date: many changes have taken place within Capitalism since then. We must remember that his analysis was written in the context of an industrial capitalist society. Nations have moved into post-industrialism; commerce is now fully global and stream-lined. 

Several large changes have taken place which Marx could not have predicted. Our behaviors and subsequent social relations are shaped and influenced by these changes. Policies in reaction to new technologies, for example. Technology is much more efficient today at de-skilling the worker so he's more easily replaceable and his labor more easily exploitable. This creates a permanent labor market of unskilled workers. 

Whereas Marx wrote in a context where skilled craftsmen occupied the ranks of the proletariat, today unskilled laborers occupy the bulk of the working poor. What this means is that workers today are much less involved with the products of their labor: alienation of man from his labor has been greatly increased, as now even intangible services can't escape commodification.

[I quote him]. I didn't assert that everything tangible should be mutually owned. The means of production which is to say the means of sustaining life, which is impossible to avoid using, should be democratically owned as everyone is dependent on the fair allocation of resources to meet each of their needs. To claim a monopoly on the means of production, thereby alienating persons who have a right to cultivate its fruits, unfairly raises dependency on its use. In would be sensible to eliminate extraneous dependence and therefore relinquish the means of life to common ownership. You are dependent on it as well. Why should you be forced to sell your being to survive? Cut out the middle man.

Marx certainly wasn't correct in all his assertions, and I have yet to read all those assertions to pass any judgment on them. He wasn't perfect, so you shouldn't take this to mean that I revere him. But it's a shame to see that one of his most valuable contributions to society is so poorly misunderstood.

Selfishness In A Socialist Society

C: [This capitalist proponent is different from the previous one]. Human behaviour stems from human nature (unless you think there is something non-physical driving our brain functions), and it seems that capitalism is close to said 'nature'. Human selfishness does not only explain why capitalism works in our society, it also explains why every socialist attempt so far (communist or other) has failed: smart and able people, under produce because the return for their work is capped. A smart selfish individual will deduce that since there is no extra gain for his services, it is beneficial for him to work as much as the lowest producing worker in his unit.

I: This is exactly my criticism of Capitalist proponents. Capitalism is not reflective of human nature, it's four hundred years old. Unless you mean to say that the behaviors that Capitalism specifically selects for are 'natural', I can assure you they aren't as they are selected for, they don't bubble up to the surface. It's also more accurate to term these behaviors as 'self-preservation' (e.g. working for a much lower wage). In a socialist society, the same selfish behaviors would serve a different end which end up having a greater utility to the individual, as there's much less to lose and much more to gain in terms of self-advancement.

Successful socialist societies have flourished all throughout human history. Even before Capitalism was in its genesis, communes exhibiting largely socialist features (e.g. democratic control of the means of production and resource allocation) worked with other communes to meet the needs of individuals. These societies were crushed as merchants and other feudal puppeteers took advantage of the potential these growing communes had, which eventually took the shape of small towns, and eventually cities. Laborers, once free to cultivate and freely disseminate the fruits of their labor, were subsumed to the will of the upper class. 

This had been in cycle in many places around the world at this point, but mostly concentrated in Europe where this historical mode was predominant. Once feudalism collapsed, people were free to exchange goods without fiscal constraints (i.e. money itself) or having to follow the edicts that social relationships flowing from unlimited property rights produced. 

Capitalism disproportionately rewards people who happen to have skill-sets it arbitrarily values. This is why stock-brokers, investors and so forth can make far more than the common laborer without as much effort. Realistically, his labor investment is a pittance compared to what the worker has to expend. Think about it. Does someone who earns $600,000,000 a year work 20,000 times harder then someone who earns only 1/20,000th of that amount? No. For a fraction of a fraction of the same effort, the broker is awarded 20,000 times the amount. 

The Capitalist upper class historically constitute the bulk of earnings with little productive hours spent compared to the working class. This is not a sign of their efficiency; it's a sign that Capitalism disproportionately awards people for the same amount of effort. This system cannot be meritocratic (i.e. hard work leads to reward) in light of this fact. 

Not to mention that in order for an upper class to exists, there needs to be a permanent working class tier to feed the rich and build the toys they play with. In other words, there are many who will be consigned to selling their labor power their whole life to sate the petty needs of the elite. 

I have already explained why the working-poor and petty bourgeois engage in the behaviors they do: capitalism offers ultimatums (disguised as genuine incentives) to the working class that are designed to greatly benefit the elite. This leads the working class to enter into self-preservation mode: acquiescing to a lower wage, competition amongst workers and so forth. 

The elite don't engage in these behaviors; they draft policies which encourage them (tax cuts for the rich, wage slashes, firing without cause, etc.) whilst getting disproportionately awarded off non-labor income. 

If behaviors were truly selfish, they'd have greater utility to the individual as they'd entail self-advancement. Working for a lower wage is not beneficial; there's no other option. It's either work for pittance or die from hunger. Ostensibly it may somewhat resemble behaviors in socialism, insofar that self-interest is limited toward preservation and not advancement of said conditions. 

Socialism is much more selfish than Capitalism as it involves seizing the means of production for the worker's benefit, not the exploiter's. That's what it boils down to, if you want to discuss selfishness. Never mind the increased utility of labor and free time individuals have to themselves in a democratic socialist society.

C: Too much text that has nothing to do with my point: why would a skilled worker put anything but the minimum effort since his returns are capped? Example: You can produce 3 TV sets per hour working at your best while I can produce 1 per hour working at my best. Why shouldn't I produce 3 per hour (no-one will complain), and have it easy? If you need real life examples of the above visit Cuba or any government paid agency in my country.

I: Cuba isn't a socialist country. By definition no socialist country can exist, unless it's a transitory stage as conceived by Marx wherein the means of production are democratically held by the workers, who elect recallable representatives to socialize property of public utility. Once property of utility to the public has been relinquished to common ownership, the delegates are recalled and the transition to communism has ended. That is the socialism Marx describes.

In its general usage, 'socialism' is an umbrella term which refers to schools of sociopolitical thought which seek to change the relations between labor and capital in favor of the people who use the means of production. This includes communism (and its various strains), libertarian socialism (which flows into anarchism and its numerous strains) and other movements which seek to abolish all hierarchy (including the State) in favor of a stateless socialist society. 

The above is a summary of what the basic tenets of socialism are and what it's used to refer to. 

In contrast, Cuba's a state-capitalist enterprise. The difference between a socialist society and a state-capitalist one is the usage of wage-labor. In the former, the workers control the means of production, thus circumventing the notion of wage-labor. All capitalist societies use wage-labor. Therefore, Cuba is capitalist. 

Let's keep it simple. Communism (and socialism) aren't about equalizing wages or the amount of resources people can produce and consume. To ensure that all outcomes are equal requires State force. Socialism is opposed to the state. It doesn't view 'equality' as equal allocation of resources or abilities. Rather, it champions the notion that each individual should be free to pursue their own goals, in addition to freely contributing to (and using) communal resources (tools for work, recreation, expression, and so on). 

Government-owned agencies aren't exemplary of socialism. They are capitalist, hierarchial enterprises whose head is a government bureaucrat which nominally represents the public as opposed to a private bureaucrat who represents private interests. Aside from who's in charge, the concepts are exactly the same. 

I can't address your point directly since it completely strawmans socialism. It's not my burden to answer your question. The onus is on you to properly educate yourself about socialism.

C: So much text without answering a simple question: why should I put the effort to do my best without reward? There is no burden for you to answer anything, this is the Internet after all, but can I assume that according to your reply, if I educate myself in socialism I will find a reason to go against my self interests in my hypothetical TV building scenario?

 I: Your question assumes that you work under a society that uses wage-labor. Correct me if I'm wrong. In that case, I should point out that in a socialist society (Cuba is not socialist so it's not an example), people are free to produce as much as they please. Likewise, the needy can take as much as they require. People generally have enough sense to not consume more than they need, so there's no worry for depletion.

In terms of reward for labor. You're not paid in wages, as the method of resource distribution is different. It's more accurate to say that the community 'rewards' you by allowing unhindered access to its recreational resources. The point to understand is that there's no contract of work involved. People are free to produce and distribute the fruits of their labor, keeping whats necessary to satisfy their needs. 

In Capitalism, wages are used to purchase goods like televison sets. The purpose of producing these televison sets isn't to directly satisfy someone's needs to watch televison, but to sell for profit. However, the only way you can continue to purchase goods is if you continually hire your labor power for wages, which you then use to purchase goods. 

In other words, your access to resources is dependent on your ability to work, whereas your reliance on those resources to live isn't. This means in a socialist society, people who can't work (due to disability, etc.) still retain access to resources to fulfill a meaningful life. Both consumer and producer are rewarded alike because of their unhindered access to the means of life. 

That's about the best way I can answer your question. It's not that you aren't rewarded for your effort. Rather, you're rewarded in more meaningful ways.

C: What you describe is a 'saints/angels' society: produce what you can, receive what you need. Even if you can imagine a society which covers "all needs", some people will want something "better" in order to apply their talents. Case in point: if you compare the average western world citizen with his counterpart 300 years ago, he should be happy, he has everything without working via the state unemployment benefits: a house, food, basic medical care. Still he will not contribute to the society unless payed: why?

I: You describe a society where contributions are valued as number of hours worked or wages earned. People who are on disability or other state benefits are seen as not being able to contribute to society. Indeed, they cannot 'contribute' to capitalist society, as they have no labor power to be exploited.

The term 'contribution' here I think is a loaded one. It's meant to have a positive connotation, and it's a pretty exclusive notion. That is to say, contributions are what society values to be useful. All labor power is useful, but it's not the only thing that can be contributed, or of utility. 

How does someone on unemployment not contribute to society? This may be easier for people entrenched in Capitalism to answer. But you still retain your creative and expressive power on unemployment. Authors are a great example. J.K. Rowling was a single mother on welfare before she became an author. People valued her work enough that she was able to pull out of welfare. 

Unfortunately, other people with unique talents or abilities not valued by Capitalism aren't so easily noticed. It takes a lot of luck to be successful in a Capitalist world. In socialism, you can advance in society on your abilities alone. Not in terms of material wealth, but certainly in reputation and authority (in the sense that Noam Chomsky's an authority on linguistics). 

We can't assume that people don't have the ability to give back to society just because they're on the receiving end of it.

[I quote him]. It's not that he refuses to contribute. He has no choice. Acquiescing to wage-labor is the only way the working class can sustain a living (unless you have no labor power to be exploited, e.g. disability) since we're so entrenched in it. If it were easy to abandon Capitalism, there'd be no need to consign yourself to wage-slavery since there'd be more efficient ways to obtain the resources you require.

C: No choice to contribute, [seriously] now? Why can't they (people on unemployment benefits) pick up the trash from the street? Who is stopping them? Carry the bags for the elderly? Clean their houses? There is so much free shit that an unskilled unemployed worker can do, if your theory is correct, they should be lining up on the street offering their free services (the society is covering their needs after all)

I: Hmm? Who says they don't do that? My point was that contributions that capitalism values are the ones that can be exploited, and more importantly, used to perpetuate its existence. Purchasing a television set in a commodity market fuels commerce and by extension capitalism. The profits from the TV you bought with your wages is piled on top of the company's profits, who can hire more employees to earn them more profit (or technology to further deskill said employees). What you consider to be a contribution is irrelevant. Not trying to be antagonistic. Just stating the case.

C: Where is this place that you live and you witness the majority of unemployed (living under benefit programs) lining up to serve society for free? Tell me and I will visit. There can be no exploitation under capitalism because by definition both parties must agree to the exchange: the company cannot force the customer to buy their product and the customer cannot force the company to sell at his price. Unless they both agree, the transaction will not be done. The same applies to workers: they are free to leave for better jobs, and the company is free to get better workers.

I: [I quote him]. They don't have to be lining up anywhere. It happens. Do you think they just sit at home all day, sitting on the couch and munching potato chips? Not every unemployed person volunteers, as some may be in no physical position to do so. This detracts from my point though. The point is that Capitalism is a global, hegemonic economic system. For its effects to be extinguished on any reasonable scale, we must institute world socialism.

The incentives and utility of voluntarily producing and distributing goods is easier to see when the entire world is engaged in it. Not literally every person, but a great portion of what are now the laboring class, expressing their abilities to greater serve themselves and the population. Work would not be seen as back-breaking or drudge weary. 

It would manifest under a fresh paradigm: one of solidarity and self-affirmation. People work harder at something when they enjoy it. They may enjoy it because it best expresses their talents, or merely because they are helping to build a society where everyone's basic needs are met (which is not necessarily altruistic, since every person shares this same interest of fulfilling individual needs).

[I quote him]. Weak argument, sorry. The bargaining power between an individual who has to sell his labor power to survive and someone who claims a monopoly on the means of life is not equal. The 'agreement' is a rubber stamp. Sure, you can leave for a better job, but many don't have that opportunity. What entails a better job? Higher salary? Better working conditions? Higher retention? Worker benefits (vacation time, sick days, etc.)? Besides, you still won't escape from the dilemma of having to sell your being for wages.

You're just better off than the tier below you. And unless you have the skills and connections, you won't advance much higher. The decision to purchase commodities itself (and thus adopt a consumer role in the capitalist sense) isn't voluntary. Again, your continued existence depends on the continuous expenditure of necessities. 

Sure, you get a choice between different brands, but that's about as voluntary as it gets. Someone who has a nice-paying job can purchase greater amounts of commodities, but that's not fair to the destitute who get priced out of the market thanks to the profit motive. Needs could be greater fulfilled if there weren't barriers to resource access. The solution isn't to find a better paying job, it's to overthrow the construct that unfairly perpetuates inequality and to institute a sane system based on equitable resource distribution.

C: It happens in an invisible minority, while is should be the norm for the majority of unemployed with benefits (under your theory of course). Just because "some" do it, does not support your theory.

Who has a monopoly on the means of life? (unless you are referring to the pre-fall USSR [Soviet Union], where I would agree that the state could target you and deny you EVERY single job). The rest of the post is based on this baseless assumption (unless of course you mean USSR, China, [North Korea], etc. of course)

I: [I quote him]. My point again was that what you consider to be 'contributions' are irrelevant. Your personal musings concerning the matter don't change the fact that labor-power is not as socially useful as it would be in a socialist society. Debating whether or not the unemployed can 'contribute' detracts from my point.

Labor-power under Capitalist dominion has a specific utility and purpose which inherently stunts its liberatory potential. Thus, its 'contributions' toward society are limited in scope as they don't advance a state of affairs for either an individual's or society's benefit. 

Participating in the commodification of life is not liberating, it's alienating. My second point was that whilst labor-power can directly contribute, its not the only tangible concept that people can consider to be of value. 

Ideas themselves contain value. Thus books contain value. My example to support this was J.K. Rowling and her literary success. Unfortunately, ideas containing genuine value are also commodified, which does not help to stall the degradation of society's deplorable state.

[I quote him]. No, it's not a baseless assumption. It's an observation very strongly backed by centuries of Capitalist development. The Capitalist elite (that is, the super-rich and politically powerful): the ones that draft policies concerning wage-labor, regulations regards working hours, compensation, wages, etc. are those which ultimately control the means of life. The corporations and other private interests which fund these policies have their piece of the pie as well, as corporate welfare and subservience help establish a permanent labor and consumer market which the former can freely penetrate to their satisfaction.

The means of life should not belong to any single individual, state or capitalist. It should be relinquished to common ownership where it can be used to its greatest effect, as I have explained previously.

C: Lets keep it simple: according to your socialist theory (as described in your posts, please re-read what you write), individuals take what they need and offer what they can.

Unemployed citizens under benefits, receive from society what they need: food, shelter, medical utilities (my country sends them on vacations too). Their possible contributions (which they CAN give unless handicapped) are too numerous to list but lets give it a shot:

Pick up the trash, help elder citizens, reforestation, road building, etc etc, you get the point.

But, they do nothing of this sort. You have to explain why your theory is falsified by this simple observation: they receive but offer very very little (the "little" is from your personal anecdotes, I am still waiting to see someone cleaning the roads if not employed by the city, or getting a call from my grandmother telling me that I do not need to do shopping for her because a young unemployed man is offering to carry the bags)

Theory does not stand against observation.

I: Completely incorrect. You fail to take into account that your observation takes place within capitalism. In order to prove that my argument is incorrect, your suppositions must be formed within a socialist context.

I see you've made some assumptions in your argument which I'll have to address.

You suppose that the same people who are currently unemployed in Capitalist society will not participate in its socialist equivalent. However, work in a socialist society is voluntary, as it's not dependent on wage-labor. Consequently, we see a distinction between the incentives to work in a socialist society and in a capitalist one. 

What drives incentive to perform work in a socialist construct? There are several. The satisfaction in expressing your abilities and thus affirming your being is one. Many people work harder doing something they enjoy. Indeed, many professional craftsmen enjoy what they do despite the weary fact that their being is tied to wage-labor. The knowledge that you're secure in your access to necessities is another. People have much more free time to contribute in meaningful ways since they aren't occupied earning wages to sustain a living. 

What drives incentive to work in a Capitalist society? As previously mentioned, people work to sustain a living. Indeed, ostensibly in both socialism and capitalism, work is needed to continue living. But this superficial glance overlooks the subtle differences between the two states of affairs. Whereas labor within its socialist conception is life-affirming, labor in capitalism is performed to earn wages to continue living. This is life-degrading. But you can't continue living without having to earn wages to access the commodity market to purchase goods which were sold to you at a profit. 

There are two principal ways in which consumer-workers perpetuate capitalism. The first is purchasing products with wages. The second is consigning to wage-labor. It's within this cycle that the proletariat (working class and people who otherwise would be, such as the disabled) must escape to liberate their being. Since the proletariat constitute the bulk of capitalist society, ending our forced participation in it by seizing the means of production for our benefit would essentially consign capitalism itself to the history books. 

It's in this way that socialism is also much more selfish than capitalism, since the means of production are used for the benefit of the worker.

Participating in the market in any capitalist sense (either by being a consumer, or laborer; both whose existence is reliant on wage) means that labor is used to sustain capitalism, and consumption of commodities continues this production. 

This is because labor is used to produce commodities which necessarily accrue profit for the owner of the means of production. This is what I mean by 'labor has limited utility in Capitalism'. It alienates the worker from the production process (he cannot keep what he produces), from other workers (competition), and his self (self-worth). The end result of labor is to accrue profit. In socialism, it's to realize the self. This benefit, coupled with the incentives people are offered to voluntarily perform labor, is one of the prime reasons why socialism is a preferable alternative method of economic organization to capitalism.

In the end, your observation does not translate to the failure of socialism, as it was observed within a capitalist context. This speaks more towards the shortfalls of Capitalism: people are so dependent on wage labor or other means of income that they rarely contribute in other ways; merely because those efforts won't be reciprocated in a capitalist construct. There's no incentive to voluntarily work (indeed, that is the antithesis of capitalist doctrine), so that's a failure on its part, not socialism's.

C: [He quotes me]. There is voluntary work in a capitalist society, but unemployed under benefit programs don't do any. Invalid argument due to observation.

[He quotes me]. Why would they not be satisfied with helping via voluntary work? Senior citizens would thank them x 1000. Your assertion is baseless.

[He quotes me]. Unemployed under benefits have all the free time in the world to contribute - they do not have a job to do, remember? No-one is asking them to do anything, they can volunteer for whatever they choose/like/etc.

I am not advocating that the lack of voluntary work is the fault of socialism, I am simply pointing that PEOPLE do not volunteer even if their needs are covered and nothing is required of them.

Nothing is stopping them from voluntary work, and the last sentence in your post contains all the truth of the matter: There's no incentive to voluntarily work.

I understand your pipe dream: somehow in socialism people will get satisfaction from voluntary work (that they do not get now), and they will start doing so. 

I hope you understand that this is a baseless assertion: I could argue for example that dodekatheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Polytheistic_Reconstructionism) will help people realise themselves and become the true incentive to work. Actually, you can repeat your whole post, and replace socialism with any -ism you choose. There is no evidence/explanation, why people will start behaving differently.

I: [I quote him]. No, there isn't. If you've failed to comprehend my argument thus far, it's useless to pursue further discussion with you. It's not voluntary if dependence on the means of life is involuntary and extraneously elevated thanks to an illegitimate monopoly on it. Your observation is invalid since you've formed within a Capitalist construct. Do you not understand this? Have you not seen my reasoning? I've made it clear as day.

[I quote him]. Invalid supposition due to the fact that your supposition is founded on a capitalist basis. You really don't get this, do you. There's no incentive to voluntarily perform labor in a capitalist society. That's the anti-thesis of capitalist labor. It won't be reciprocated on a large-scale in the sense it would be in its socialist equivalent. Capitalism isn't designed to benefit the common man, its to benefit the exploiters of his being. I'm completely skipping over your next point since it's based on that same invalid supposition.

[I quote him]. I've belabored specific parts to my post germane to my point. Socialism has been realized in communes before, during and after the development of Capitalism, as I explained in my first reply to you. Right as I type this, there are several hundreds if not thousands of participatory communes in which people voluntarily perform labor and retain free access to resources. If it were on a large-enough scale, they'd be much more successful than they are now (hard to keep a commune together when it's so difficult to keep distance from capitalism itself).

People are afforded limited insight into the complex machinations of capitalist phenomena since they view it through a capitalist framework: false consciousness. If you constructed a framework which exposed the realities of capitalism quite neatly, people would gain clarity into the possibilities and benefits a socialist conception of society has to confer.

 C: [He quotes me]. Why? Because you say so?

In order to avoid playing with words allow me to paste the definition from the dictionary: 1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will 2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward

Is an unemployed person (under benefit programs) free to pick up the trash (hence helping voluntarily) whenever the fuck he wants to or not? If not, what is stopping him? (be specific pls). Will there be anyone con-straining him from doing so? If yes, who and how? Is there any reward from picking up the trash on your own? 

In order to dismiss this basic observation that refutes your theory, you are trying to redefine the meaning of "voluntary": there is a "capitalist voluntary" different from "socialist voluntary" (and I guess different from "whateverist voluntary")

To sum up, discussion has come to a "no true voluntary fallacy", it seems there are more things needed to be called voluntary apart from free will, willingly, without constraint and no reward.

I: [I quote him]. No, I have explained to you already why there are no incentives to work voluntarily in a capitalist society. I thought I had made myself clear. There's no "capitalist voluntary"; it's literally coercion dressed as free agreement. This is distinction I had made in my argument. You can't accuse me of the No True Scotsman fallacy when I had explicitly said that capitalist labor is coercive. Nowhere in my argument did I attempt to redefine 'voluntary.

You're the one forwarding the definition of voluntary without critically considering the capitalist shortfall to it. Hence why you belabor that capitalist labor is voluntary, which involved redefinition on your part, ironically. I have sought to explain why it isn't. The general usage of voluntary (found in a dictionary) is directly contradicted by the notion of capitalist labor.

[I quote him]. Belaboring this point. Nowhere have I said he isn't free to pick up the trash. My point is that wage labor isn't voluntary. Picking up the trash is voluntary unless it's under wage-labor. In which case, picking up the trash to the extent you're free from physical constraints to do so, is a means to satisfy the end of earning wage.

Now, why is wage-labor coercive? Simply put, as I have expressed before, it's married to your continued existence. 

In order to live, you must eat. In order to eat, you must have food. In order to have food, you must purchase it from a commodity market, which itself sells products manufactured under the exploitation of labor-power to sell at a profit. 

To participate in the commodity market as a consumer drives the production of these products, and thus by extension, capitalism. To purchase products, you must earn wage. To earn wage, you must hire out your labor power. Labor-power is undercompensated. 

This is what socialists call "appropriation of surplus value". In other words, employers only pay for a fraction of what your labor is worth. This payment is the 'wage' portion of labor. That which isn't compensated is the profit. The employer can sell the product of your labor (whose value is derived from the labor you invested into it) for higher than what your labor is worth. 

This is the source of illegtimate appropriation: the employer is making money off what you produced, but weren't paid for. This appropriation constitutes the basis of profit and necessarily capitalism. Why? Capitalism is concerned only with investing capital. 

What is capital? A tangible/ntangible asset which can be invested for future returns (profit). Labor-power constitutes a portion of the pantheon that is capital (which includes tools for the performance of work, such as machinery, and tools dedicated to the streamlined erformance thereof, such as automated systems, which deskill the worker as the system performs essentially the same work more efficiently -- suited to the purpose of commodification rather than quality, of couse). 

The means of production is married to profit. It isn't used to satisfy need; rather to continuously accrue profit. Usage of the means of life is involuntary. If you restrict access to it, you unfairly raise dependency on its use. 

Case in point: why can no worker keep what he produces so he may distribute it? It's instead directed to a commodity market designed to accumulate profit for the owner of the means of life. This is because the capitalist has monopolized the means of life and is using to profit. If the means of life were socialized and used to directly satisfied need, as socialism advocates, real demand could be properly satisfied without worries of overconsumption. (Capitalism artifically induces scarcity and demand. Very rarely do prices reflect supply and demand, and if so, to a negligble degree). 

Instead, the laborer is required to dole out the same product for pittance whilst being alienated from the production process.

Thanks to the profit motive, those who require necessities moreso cannot adequately satisfy those needs, whilst those who're better off are encouraged to buy more than they can consume. Such is the nature of the commodification of our precious resources. 

No company would produce to satisfy need since that's anathema to the profit motive (whose betrayal has economic and legal implications for the company). How may more people could obtain the resources they require if this weren't the case? 

People with genuine needs are cornered then, into selling their labor-power to access the commodity market to satisfy those needs. This is why wage-labor is both coercive and involuntary. It's not that you agree to wage-labor, you have no choice to unless you're disabled. It's the lesser of two evils. The second evil is starvation and inevitably death. This is the truth. To argue otherwise is the domain of a naive apologist. 

I'm not the one redefining free agreement to fit an agenda. However, you're unwittingly playing into the agenda of the bourgeois.

C: [He quotes me]. Finally, yes! on topic!

My observation involves unemployed people (under benefit programs), who do NOT work, and are NOT under wage-labour or any labour. Food, housing, health, education, vacations are provided for FREE, and nothing is required of them (apart from filling up the paperwork). These people live with the above facilities as we speak in most western countries (mine is one of them). These are the facts, and my observation follows:

Why don't you see any of these people, go out on the street, on their own FREE WILL, start picking the trash voluntarily? Again: they don't have to, no-one can force them to (no-one will look down on them for not doing it either), they can do it whenever they feel like it for however long they wish. They also know that no reward is given apart from a possible applause by the bystanders, and a possible feeling of good doing for themselves.

According to your theory, we should be seeing most of them doing this or something similar (or at least the majority)

[He quotes me]. Please explain the coercion done to an unemployed who DOES decide to go out today and do something good for the planet: pick up some trash.

I: [I quote him]. I didn't say that. I don't think you understood that part of the argument. In fact, I don't think you even recalled it correctly.

[I quote him]. You have completely failed to note the connection between the necessity of wage-labor in capitalist society and how it differs from free agreement in its socialist equivalent. If you truly have that much difficulty comprehending, then I will sum it up for you: access to means of life. That's it.

An unemployed person's efforts will not be reciprocated, so there's no incentive to voluntarily perform labor. Why won't it be reciprocated? Because no one else can direct the fruits of their labor to a communal pool where such can be freely taken from thereof. If there were a communal pool swelled with resources of public utility, people would find much more time to propel their own interests in meaningful ways. 

How so? People can freely take from and contribute to the communal pool, instead of spending the majority of their time occupied earning wage to obtain such resources. Hence, your incentive to voluntarily work in a socialist society. Your being isn't attached to wage-labor, and consequently your labor-power is much more life-affirming. 

The products your labor-power produces are much more useful since they aren't produced for profit, they're produced to directly satisfy need. This is not the case in capitalist society, since the means of life aren't held in common. Hence why there's much less incentive to voluntarily perform labor in capitalist society. There is your answer, in summation. 

You want evidence of voluntary labor happening? Look at socialist communes all throughout history. Their actions are a result of the incentives that a socialist construct offers. Further, the decisions to perform these actions on any large-scale are freely agreed upon, democratically. Persons affected by the decision have a say in how the decision affects them. 

You're operating from the premise that voluntary labor is necessarily altruistic and thus should not require incentives to be performed. My argument is that voluntary labor is inherently selfish, since there are many more incentives to do so which greater fulfill our selfish ends. In contradistinction, wage-labor is not selfish, as you have argued; it's limited in its utility to serve selfish ends, as I've explained earlier. That's the full answer to your question. 

Voluntarily labor is selfish, not altruistic. Hence why it cannot be performed as expected in capitalist society: there are no incentives to fulfill our selfish ends to voluntarily perform labor. You must detach yourself from the naive preconception that voluntarily labor is altruistic, or that any aspect of socialism is such. 

However, there's a task all socialists must partake in to incentivize voluntary labor. We must seize the means of life so that we may produce and distribute for our benefit as opposed to the capitalists'. With people producing to satisfy their needs, much more time will be allotted for leisure and so forth. Though seizing the means of life, we also transform the notion of labor from a dreary one to a life-affirming one that best fulfills our selfish ends.

C: [He quotes me]. Of course they will not be reciprocated, because that would imply a reward of some sort (thanks dictionary again), making the "voluntary" nature void. Are you trying to troll me with circular logic?

Let's try to stay on topic: If you read the rest of the partially quoted paragraph and put it as a reply to my question you get this: An unemployed person will not voluntarily pick up the trash because there is no communal pool swelled with resources of public utility, which would allow people to find much more time to propel their own interests in meaningful ways. 

Wut?

I: I did fudge up on the term 'reciprocated' a bit. My apologies. The last paragraph is my direct answer to your question about free labor in a capitalist society. I recommend reading the following two paragraphs to understand where I'm coming from before reading the last one. The text in-between isn't needed to get the gist of what I'm saying.

What is "reciprocated" is the act of contributing to society itself on a large-scale. That is to say, no individual should have to worry about contributing involuntarily to society in some shape (such as through wage-labor) since its been abolished. In its place, many people partake in the same activity of contributing to and withdrawing from resources. In this sense, 'reciprocation' is not an individual expectation, as in a contract between two parties, but a secured societal expectation regards access to necessities. 

In other words, you can nearly always expect to obtain what you need (the extreme but unlikely cases include freezing to death in a subarctic plateau somewhere) without first currying society's good will. It's not an explicit contract between society and yourself to secure a service or good, but it's mutually understood to exist in a passive sense. This is what I meant by 'reciprocated'. You can see the thought is quite complex, so I had difficulty describing it initially. This does not render my previous commentary irrelevant, however. It just turns out I have a lot to say. I have difficulty being succinct, as you can see. I think that many points are germane to this exchange, so I work them into my case where possible. 

In contrast, capitalism does not secure the same expectations or offer the same incentives to voluntarily labor. In capitalism, many disadvantaged people suffer and even die thanks to lack of basic necessities. Why? The infrastructure for work itself may be inadequate (think severely underdeveloped business co-ops in Africa, south-east Asia, etc.), the economy may be in a depression, and other structural deficits which rely on the robustness of the economy to forestall their decay (but nonetheless can still appear. Refer to Attawapiskat in Ontario, Canada). This intricate connection to the economy in some ways stalls the potential for progress since its so reliant on capital to propel itself. 

The solution in the short-term may be to turn to radical self-reliance (and communal co-operation to bear the grunt of crisis) in the face of this austerity, but the sensible answer would be to overthrow the system that perpetuates inequalities and stalls progress. This is how structural asymmetries (wage-gaps between sexes, races etc.) can be extinguished, since everyone would have an opportunity to benefit from access to the means of life, as opposed to merely drifting in tandem with the fortunes bequeathed upon capital. 

Returning to societal expectations. For example: clothes, tools and sustenance will be voluntarily produced. The neat thing is that whilst production is socialized, socialists aren't picky about personal property rights. Items designed for personal use, such as clothing, are considered your possessions, since you use them for personal purposes over an extended period of time. 

People have opportunity to work for their benefit, and not the capitalists'. They will work to directly satisfy their needs as they get to keep what they produce, whereas in capitalism what you produce is sold to the consumer for profit. In this way, you directly control what you may receive and contribute to society. 

If someone is too ill or otherwise cannot reasonably contribute in some form to society, he won't be shunned. There are more than enough able-bodied people to provide for their self-interest and secure the health of another. I will point out that this isn't altruism, but rather an enlightened form of self-interest. We necessarily all share the same interests. No expenses are incurred caring for someone else in a construct where the cost (which can be socialized by the combined efforts of society) is worth the result. 

Co-operation is not a linear transaction. It remains in continuous flux amongst the rising and falling of different tides; persistently punctured by the incongruities present in between the varying needs, abilities, and decisions formed between people in free agreement within the flow of time. That is to say, humanity itself is in constant flux within socialism, since it has fully expressed its nature and cultivated the fruit of its labor: never again to be rendered predictable by economic trends or constraints. Resources and man himself has been liberated. You cannot compare the two states of affairs. 

That last paragraph was more poetic prose than concentrated argument. I decided to end with a flourish. In summation, capitalism does not secure the same incentives or societal expectations that socialism does. There's no mutually understood expectation that your needs will be sufficiently met in capitalism. You might say that socialism offers a wider and more useful safety net than capitalism ever could. That's oversimplifying the point, but captures its essence well. 

The apathy one encased in a capitalist construct feels, in the knowledge that he isn't secure in his well-being, leads him to think his efforts are of no use. The disenfranchised are alienated. The issue isn't the lone instance of 'voluntarily picking up trash'. It's the lack of security behind that principle that's so foreboding.

C: I have to give it to you: you win the argument by sheer force of out-of-topic wall of text :-)

You wrote a bazillion words about capitalism and socialism, while our topic is a simple real life observation: unemployed under benefit programs do very very little voluntary work (free work, under their own free will), that could contribute to our society.

[He quotes me]. Let's format your explanation together with my observation: unemployed do not volunteer in our society because they are not secure for their well being (A), they think that their efforts are of no use (B) hence they are alienated (C).

(A) False: their well being is secured by law (they are under benefit programs). If some believe they are not secured there is nothing to be done, it is their free will to believe things not based in reality (some believe this planet is 6000 years old)

(B) Do you think unemployed people are retarded or uneducated (or both)? What can possibly prevent them to come to the conclusion that picking up the trash is not useful? 

(C) That's a big assumption. Unemployed take part in our society 100%, 50% of the people I know are unemployed [for fuck's sake]!

[I didn't respond further because I was exasperated by this point, frankly. If he won't get it, I'm more than happy to leave him wallowing in his pathetic, myopic delusions concerning reality. I hope you enjoyed this exchange.]

Reflections on Western Democracy

I've had the honor of engaging in thoughtful discussion with a user named Molality on Reddit. Reproduced below are some topics we've breached which I feel are important to understanding, in some sense, the current state of the Western world's democratic affairs. '1' refers to myself. '2' is Molality. 'Px' is any third party involved in the discussion. Commentary and notes in brackets inserted where necessary. 

On Bipartisanship

1: What are your thoughts on the idea of a "united Left"? How do we eliminate our propensity to sectarianism as a result of our diverse tapestry? Is it even possible to accomplish?

2: I personally think that there is a great deal of disenfranchisement from all sides of the political spectrum. Because of the mechanizations of the mainstream media, political discourse in this country has been lowered so much thanks to party fragmentation, simplistic reductionism and extreme polarization that any movement hoping to gain traction needs to, for the time being, abandon the contrivances of left and right - let alone party in-fighting and focus specifically on bipartisan issues that motivate the disenfranchised to engage in political action once again, serving to raise the overall quality of political discourse in the country in the process.

Examples of issues that IMHO [in my humble opinion] might accomplish this would be: Publicizing and demonstrating against the brutish and polarizing First Past the Post voting methodology, widespread legalization of marijuana vis a vis ending the Drug War and the serious pursuit of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] rights on a national scale. Also, Lessig's Rootstrikers [non-partisan grass-roots organization] is an excellent start as well.

Until we find a way to redress the debilitating effects of melodramatic battling between politcal [sic] factions, rampant use of ad hominem as a legitimate rhetorical device and hyperpunditry in general, we are doomed to an abysmal level of national discourse that is a shame to us all as Americans. We have to learn how to stand in solidarity once again and act in ways that help the disenfranchised feel empowered if we hope to achieve the kind of voting turnouts and evolution of discourse necessary to affect actual change in this country.

1: Yes, good point on the bipartisanship. I feel the reluctance to address those sort of issues stems, at least partly, from the elevation of ideology above solidarity and the fact that politicians pander to specific demographics rather than issues that affect all. And of course, when issues are compartmentalized, no one is truly represented -- except for the lobbying corporations and corrupt unions pulling the campaign strings, of course.

And I think the tendency to appeal to polarized voter bases is an epiphenomenon of how the democratic framework is constructed. In other words, since political power is valued higher than humanistic interest, there will be an incentive to pander to bases that can best secure power i.e. the corporations et al. [Latin abbreviation meaning 'and others'] So I think democratic reform is also a top priority because at present, no genuine movement can expect to obtain momentum under the powers that be. Perhaps an exception could be Occupy [social protest movement], but they have few representatives in Congress echoing their views to affect real change. 

Capital and State can merely crush the momentum of movements seeking unification of disparate platforms. There needs to be a democratic intellectual undercurrent developing in tandem with pursuit of bipartisan issues to expect any real change in what people perceive to be their interests to come about. 

Switching from FPTP to PR would be a good first step to ensuring genuine representation of voter interests. We'd need to sever the corporatist umbilical cord from the mainstream media to reduce polarization and to keep citizens informed by an intelligent discourse rather than distracted by the trivial and inflammatory. And the question of democratic reform naturally implies campaign finance reform too. This would help expunge corporatist influence from the ballot boxes and the media.

2: I couldn't agree more. Moving further, I feel that the technocultural paradigm shift [change in popular awareness] that is occurring as the internet becomes the dominant media distribution mechanism instead of television, radio and print may leave a window of opportunity to leverage (on message) viral media against hyperpunditry in an effort to elevate discourse. To be more explicit, we netizens are currently in a war to secure the interests of new media/social media in favor of the people, the disenfranchised, and few of us are even fully conscious of it yet.

Also, I feel that a new and recontextualizing metanarrative is neccessary [sic] to move past party boundaries and unite on issues that will serve to open up popular discourse from its partisan deadlock.

P: It has been possible in Denmark, where the Communist Party joined with a few other socialist parties to make the Red-Green Alliance(Danish: Enhedslisten, literally unity party) that currently [cut off] 

I don't necessarily think that unification of the left parties is possible because what might be considered to be petty is to the ideologies very essential. This is not the case for right-wing parties that all support Capitalism and differ mostly on value-based politics and how Capitalism should work.

Addressing Apathy/Disenfranchisement

2: It's clear to anyone who has seen voter turnout figures that there is a major sense of disenfranchisement and apathy running very deep through the veins of America. People feel powerless against the mighty juggernaut of mainstream media and beltway politics. Hypothetically, what type of events would motivate you as an individual to join together with others and rise up against this oppressive regime?

Put more concisely, what would be the tenets and presentation of an activist organization you would feel personally connected with?

1: The phenomenon has extended its icy tendrils of apathy to Canada, as well. Which I'll note is where I currently live. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but it seems to be a global phenomenon where democracy is genuinely installed. There are specific tactics Westerners can use, thanks to the luxury of unadulterated free expression and the boon of a decentralized Internet, to revitalize our lethargic populace.

I'll use a real-world example to illustrate what Canadians are doing to challenge government infringement on our liberties. In our Parliament, there's been a Bill tabled, titled "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act", otherwise known as Bill C-30. We have a majority Conservative government at the moment, so it's likely to pass if it hasn't already (though it'll be big news when it does). It gives police the power to search and seize computer hard-drives without a warrant, amongst other things. 

Vic Toews, the Minister of Public Safety pushing this Bill, has been the rightful target of criticism and opposition, as our personal privacy would be infringed. Canadians are e-mailing their MPs to vote against the Bill. A Canadian branch of Anonymous [online hacktivist group] has even leaked Vic's divorce proceedings papers in an ironic act of defiance to humiliate him. 

So there's definite opposition to government power trending recently. If you're interested, check the 2012 Quebec student protests. It's the largest protest in Canada at the moment, possibly in its history. It gives me hope that Canadians won't let themselves be pushed around by government any longer.

I personally feel connected to progressive, democratic reform groups. So the Canadian federal Green Party fits the bill here. They advocate open government (allowing Canadians to have a greater say in the process of drafting legislation), switch to Proportional Representation, to name just two aspects I appreciate about the Green Party. It's involved in Parliamentary politics, though. At the moment, our Parliament is more of an immobile circus than any serious institution. There are politicians which represent our interests there, but their power pales in comparison to the Conservative's majority.

I think large-scale civil disobedience and protest would have to obtain momentum to affect change in the direction we want, parallel to electing a Party which embraces democratic reform. I'd like to march up to Harper and literally throw him out of Parliament, myself. The next best thing would be to mobilize the apathetic populace (and trust me, Canadians are apathetic. We've had it going well for so long, and this starts happening. Our proclivity to protest has been dulled by first world-luxuries and relative security) through agitation and grass-roots campaigns, to get the public informed and, if you like, radicalized. Essentially, place the power in the public's hands.

P: Why would you trust "people power" though? What if they make worse decisions once they actualize power than the previous congresscritters? I'm just not sure I'd trust a big mass of people to do anything beneficial for the "common man" . A flash mob united under a banner of "Lets make shit better!" is well meaning... but... effective?

1: Ideally, in my view, political power would be decentralized, so people have control over their own interests as opposed to delegating them to politicians who do an about-face on us. People would freely associate with those like-minded to achieve particular goals.

It wouldn't necessarily be a mob of people doing one thing collectively. More like disparate, small groups setting goals and realizing them. These groups could also freely associate with each other through a sort of federated system. 

There would be no need for parliamentary politics. I eschew the whole notion of representative democracy in a capitalist construct. Its democratic potential can certainly be liberated through reform, but in my personal scheme, that's the first step towards abolishing the process in favor of a more liberating one to supplant it. I realize not everyone shares my mind-set, so I'm open to changing my view on some points. 

In terms of "people power's" effectiveness in getting things done, I imagine it'd be more dynamic and flexible within my conception of it. There's much less conflict of interest there, I think, than in electoral democracy where politicians proclaim to get things done, but rarely do, and if so, not well enough. As you can see, I'm quite cynical.

P: I'm more surprised that you think small groups of people would ever work collaboratively towards a common goal/banner. Take something as simple as parking spots at the mall and think of all the myriad of ways it can be solved (less handicapped spots = more regular spots, more concrete = less environment, smaller spots = more door dings for the Door Repair Lobby, less spots = public transportation lobby loves)

Political parties are not a la carte. You dont [sic] get to pick and choose what you will support and deny others. Its been picked for you in advance by the people with the money/power. Learn to exploit and take advantage of this fact and you'll do fine.

Why "Rage Against The Machine" when you can exploit the Machine's Law to your own advantage? Not only will you be ahead under the current system... if some Machiavelli (read: you or molality) manages somehow to change the system into something better -- you are already prepared for that and looking for the next system of loopholes and workarounds.

1: I agree with you, in one respect. It's a great idea -- and it has been done -- to exploit the machinery of the state and capital to the disenfranchised's advantage.

But electoral democracy has particular obstacles to participation which render it difficult to penetrate, let alone exploited. It's controlled by and for the opulent. There appear to be occasional lapses in these trends (e.g. implementation of stronger welfare programs), but that doesn't address the root of the downtrodden's problems. It dulls any attempt at independent action, because we simply let the rich take care of our problems to some degree. 

It's in this respect that I think parallel action would be justified -- by engaging in proper action which the state incorrectly deems to be criminal (i.e. civil disobedience) and other, broader routes of direct political action to turn the cards in our favor somewhat. 

Don't forget that there are existing constitutional principles the masses can take advantage of -- freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression et al. that can propel the causes of our movement. It's a broad spectrum of action, essentially. 

Now electoral democracy is problematic because the public sees electoral interactions, more or less, as the whole scope of our democracy. Parliamentary politics is merely micromanagement -- the prime method to push party policies (yay alliteration!) mandated by popular consent, or so the theory goes. 

And if the public opposes these policies, there are other ways to implement them. In fact, because the public is alienated from the majority of the democratic process (e.g. the drafting of legislation, overview, input and editing), public consent is irrelevant to the extent the mandate lasts for. 

This to say that what message do we send to our constituents when a genuine reform movement participates in electoral politics? Cynicism is greatly apparent by this stage in this game. I think it undermines the authenticity of our project. Current electoral politics is partisan -- we're a bipartisan project. We focus on intelligent and civil discourse -- our counterpart focuses on pandering rhetoric and polarization. 

I think the proper course of action would be to develop parallel solutions to the democratic problem, not to exploit its failures for political expediency, however well meaning it may be to do so. This is not to say that we should completely eschew the notion of electoral politics at this point in time, but agitate the populace into wanting and working towards change too. 

Only then will our politicians, too, be eager to support our cause. They can only skulk behind campaign jargon for so long. What mandate will they have to justify their politics when the public refuses to give them one? If we want our representatives to embrace change, we must demonstrate that they would be powerless without us. The worst case scenario is that they abandon popular consent to buffer political legitimacy and instead turn to brute force to toe us in line -- which is not inconceivable an outcome. In that case, we would fight back altogether. 

This is more or less why I support extra-parliamentary action to encourage democratic reform. It strikes fear into politician's hearts, and rightfully so. 

2: [Quotes '1']. I'm not sure I am understand the portents of this entirely, but if do then I really like it, apologies if I am off-topic. My POV is that we need to focus on issues above all else - this is counter to the technique that is currently popularized dealing primarily with parties and politicians. Sadly, because we are so polarized right now, focusing on anything but issues is not possible. It is the stringent adherence and attachment towards overlapping but still somewhat opposed ideologies that lures us into partisan bickering time and time again. 

In other words - first things first. You don't need to start out with something as complex, multifaceted and prone to being sensationalized as economic policy, for example. I mean, why even discuss it when we don't even know how to talk about anything anymore without getting angry and divided. Lets have some civil rights successes, start opening up national dialog about the drug war and get people to know what in the hell First Past the Post is and why it sucks before having dialog about highly theoretical and complex policy that gets people pissed right off the bat. Everything is due time - we need to recognize the exact nature of the power we have before we can learn to wield it effectively.

[Quotes '1']. Politicians will come along for the ride when we have enough momentum and the proper strategies to troll nationwide media into moving beyond talking points and smug self-satisfaction. We are the internet generation after all, if we can't do it for the lulz with adviceanimals and viral video, why even bother?

Yeah, we could end up on the wrong side of a gun, but better to go down with friends who believe in change than someone filled with disillusionment and hate. If we hit full on dystopia, we're all in it together anyway. Freedom of speech is almost all that's left, we need to take advantage of it before it gets taken away or perverted like "corporate personhood".

[Quotes '1']. We shall become a movement who participates in internet activism and insurgency as if it was a self-produced reality TV show.

1: [Quotes '2']. For sure. I think that this is any sane person's point of view. I'm sure the public at large is weary of partisan bickering, too. It's strange. If I may comment on the state of our politics, for a moment. It seems the public is numb, in a sense. They float in limbo between awareness of the problem and the will to do something productive about it. Have we become so defeatist in our attitude that we let politicians push us over? I think I've been affected by this attitude. I tell you, I am no activist. But I like to theorize, as you've seen.

Perhaps my reluctance to protest et al. lends more to personal disposition than true apathy. But theorizing courses of action -- familiarizing oneself with the battleground terrain, if you will -- is I think, an indispensable action in itself. A positive thing about our present situation, though, is that there's a multiplicity of movements which are action-oriented and not too disparate in terms of outlook. So there are people taking action against this current system. 

I just think it's funny how I can sit back and theorize whilst I see Occupy protesters doing the work. Perhaps I'm more of an observer; a commentator and theorist rather than someone directly involved in affairs. I just think a central question to a reformist project such as ours is, what is our role? We seem aware of it, and we discourse in a manner that contextualizes our identity. But sometimes I doubt my efforts. It's a strange cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, it's calming and reassuring that like-minded individuals like yourself can engage in dialogue with others about these issues and propose solutions to them. On the other hand, I feel as if all I can do is theorize. 

I think I can empathize with our voters when they lack a sense of direction on what to do. I think we have a clearer idea of that moreso than the public. But for some odd reason, it's been so long and just now are the masses beginning to wake from their slumber. Occupy, the Arab Spring, SOPA et al. have sent a much-needed jolt to our constituents. I think we're just beginning to regain our sense of direction -- out of the dizzying maze of partisan bickering and taking matters into our own hands.

[Quotes '2']. I agree. And I would add that this seems to be accomplished, in some respect, by Occupy and other movements shedding light on the failures of our current system. So there is hope that the public will catch on to what needs to be done.

[Quotes '2']. We have an entire litany of strategies at our disposal. I hope that our struggle towards a civil discourse -- as an element within the broader context of true democracy -- doesn't culminate in wide-scale violence. We can agitate and embarrass the media with the tried and proven techniques. This is a point to keep in mind when scheming future strategies against oppression. 

[Quotes '2']. If it comes to the point where our liberties are totally eradicated, I would be all for fighting back. What's freedom worth if you're not willing to die for it? I know it sounds extreme at the moment. But sometimes I fear that our struggle could really come to that. The state of our democracy presently is pretty shitty. At the same time, I'm blessed to be living in a place like Canada and not N. Korea. That's just a point I use to calm myself. Certainly not a reason to dissuade legitimate and much needed action. I'd do anything to prevent us from becoming like North Korea. Pardon me if this sounds like a slippery slope. Perhaps Mexico would be a better comparison.

2: [Quotes '1']. You know what? God bless Occupy, they put some people who were scared, real and very disenfranchised in front of television audiences and said "Now what?" And we are that. Just because we didn't know how to support the cause back then doesn't mean we can't get off our chess playing/meme making bourgeois asses and start trying to force accountability for the shitty state of affairs we are in. Just because you weren't there doesn't mean you didn't feel something tug at you when you saw some very confused, hurt and concerned people try to stand for something even if they didn't know exactly what it was at the time.

[Quotes '1']. Face it, we all want to be Jon Stewart or President Barlett or this guy. And if we start becoming geeky political internet tough guys and try to reach out without skepticism to people of like minds using the internet, we might have a chance. It could totally blow up in our faces, too, but I think most people in the know kind of expect it to blow up even if we sit on our asses. So then, what options do you really have? We all have to learn the importance of going down with the damn ship. Oh yeah, and flashmobs.

P: When I suggest to exploit the current system, I was not referring to the voting system in the US. I was referring to the entire system of government. Exploit the laws put in place for your own benefit. Learn what loopholes get made and use them. That kind of thing.

I guess what I was saying was there's no reason to try and fix it. Its much too broken and the corruption is RIDICULOUSLY deep. In some cases its not worth fixing at all. What project did I stumble onto that thinks it will reform the American political system even a LITTLE bit? 

If your point is more the pitchforks and torches route (Marching down the street and protesting)... that's fun and all but cops have guns/batons/stun guns/smoke/tear gas/rubber bullets/riot shields/protected radio frequencies/handcuffs/etc and are paid to use them.

1: Oh. I would very much agree with you about the exploitation, then. I mean, I still retain my preferred course of action. I won't shy away from yours, though. Do you think a mix of the two could be possible (parallel action + exploitation of loopholes)? 

P: I doubt it. Protesting is about as effective as voting. Its bad theatre. [sic] The escalation of protests never ends well. The government has the trump card of ammo, bullets, tanks, radio frequencies, and little regard for the outcome.

1: Parallel action does not have to merely include protest, mind you. Not in the conventional sense of being direct and vocal, anyhow. And if push comes to shove, well, smash the state.

P: As a long time non-voter I'll chime in. I'm a well educated, informed, and financially literate citizen in a non-battleground state. There's no organization or group of people I'd trust to run a country of this size or as nimble as it needs to be. All sides must be heard and respected and that simply cant happen in our toxic environment anymore. Compromises must be made without regard to a concealed (or not) political motive. American's Elect [activist group] was an example of good natured people trying to make a difference. It failed miserably.

I honestly cant think of a tenet, presentation, ethos, moral position, or belief structure a group could claim for me to consider joining or assisting -- I would assume its fancy advertising and tune out. My cynicism has reached the point where "Nuke it from orbit" is the only means of fixing what is wrong. Start over. From scratch. 

I wont go into the myriad of reasons why voting is ineffectual at best in the 21st century as that wasn't your question.

2: Thanks for joining the discussion!

Let me say that I can relate to your sense of disenfranchisement. Furthermore, I think the voting turnout shows that the majority of people in America also share your point of view that mainstream politics and the propaganda engine that supports them have intelligent discourse in a stranglehold. The toxic environment you describe, one where ad hominem attacks are lobbed at any opinion existing outside of the sickeningly narrow focus of the mainstream has poisoned hope in this country.

I would be naive if I thought I could convince you of some fanciful "sunshine and rainbows" narrative that might help you feel more empowered. Every modern internet activist movement has had fundamental problems that keep them from crossing over into the mainstream, why would "Project: Overhaul" be different? What I can say is that instead of trying to enlist your commitment to one cause or another, I would ask something entirely different of you.

If what I am writing right now is that last thing you were to read that I could present to you, I would ask a few short things: be absolutely true to yourself, don't be afraid of your anger and resentment towards the political oppression you face and most importantly, in every aspect of your life, strive to be the best communicator and collaborator you can be.

Life if [sic] short, whether we have to "nuke it from orbit" or grin and bear it until the damn thing devolves into complete dystopia, we are all on the same ride and companionship and understanding are hard to find in this world. If we are to move ahead together, we won't do it without coming to terms with the PTSD and Stockholm syndrome we have all faced thanks at the hands of old media.

Once again, thanks to taking the time to participate in the discussion. 

The Need For A Unifying Meta-narrative

2: (An excerpt from a piece I am writing)

Once again returning explicitly discuss metanarrative, it is postmodernism that holds it suspect as alluded to at the top of the chapter. As Jean-François Lyotard famously quoted: “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.” This incredulity is the most identifiable trait of postmodernism that can be witnessed in people with no prior exposure to the idea of the postmodern or exposure to related schools of thought like constructivism. Unfortunately, the people who would most benefit from a frank discussion about a loss of faith in metanarrative and other posits of postmodernism are alienated from the discussion because of the academic terminology involved and the technicality of the philosophical arguments presented when digging deeper into the discussion.

For this reason, let us evaluate metanarrative once again, but this time from the angle of the sardonic reaction towards metanarraive that leaves people paralyzed when it comes to acting on their beliefs. Its clear the world is ideologically divided, a broken mirror where any attempts to see our collective humanity only shows reflections in fragments. Conflicting metanarratives are responsible for this, so it is no wonder that we are incredulous towards this type of thinking that has proved so violently divisive when carried out to its logical extreme. However, this incredulity is not inherently self-aware. The people most incredulous towards metanarratives are also the ones who cling so pitifully to the most harmful metanarratives of all (religious superiority, nationalism, etc). For these people, there is essentially no hope they will exit the glass houses in which they reside.

However, for the generation born into the postmodern, this incredulity is somewhat more self-effacing. Members of this generation do hold on to metanarratives, but because they have at times had to actively reject the rigid metanarratives of their parents, they have adopted somewhat more flexible attitudes towards metanarratives thanks to the looser personal philosophies they have embraced instead. However, members of this generation are surrounded by feelings of hopelessness, disillusionment, cynicism and moral ambiguity that have resulted from the distinct lack of a unifying metanarrative such as the ones their parents claimed. Postmodernism tilts favorably towards the individual because of its focus on subjectivity, but thanks to this there is a generation in crisis who no longer sees itself reflected in mainstream media known to deal almost exclusively in simplistic and anachronistic metanarratives. The result is an age where communications technology is entering a golden age but no one can cooperate.

1: Interesting piece. I've mentioned in previous discussions with others that naive political syncretism (the temptation to frame narratives as being by necessity monological and subsisting on static identities) leads to self-imposed exile in the name of ideological puritanism. In other words, effective polarization. This appears to be the case with past generations who grew up with old media in the context it was used (e.g. propagandizing capitalism and fear in the Cold War sustained a sanitized meta-narrative of American identity in the West).

You bring up an excellent point about how the current generation doesn't see itself reflected in mainstream media. It's concerns are not sufficiently voiced. This is an inherently undemocratic tendency which I think can be, and is being addressed by the more sensitive, decentralized medium of the Internet and other new media. 

There are very little, if any, class barriers and the like to restrict access to it. It's far reaching and trends in the public interest can be tracked effectively to inform legislation, both on a local and national level. Some US government departments are democratizing this process to an extent by polling citizens via Twitter and other social media platforms on certain pieces of proposed legislation (for obvious reasons, the powerful don't let the citizenry decide whether or not their liberties should be restrained). 

The process is in its experimental stage, but there's a trend shifting toward allowing citizens to voice their discontent effectively, and to organize similarly. This can be seen through how the recent Egyptian revolution developed. Thus we have supplanted the perpetuation of these tired narratives with a process that is sensitive to contemporary popular opinion and consequently more dynamic and fluid rather than rigid and binary. 

Now on the issue of post-modernism's role itself. I agree with your general message, but perhaps you're overstating the importance of post-modernism's influence in the resurgence of cynicism. Can't the deterioration in a unifying meta-narrative be attributed to several factors? The expansion of the left within the previous fifty years ... leading to increased sectarianism and shifts in focus to different issues. Conservatives have grown apart in the last fifty years thanks to the rise of neo-liberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union, bringing into question America's current role in the world. 

The subjectivity of postmodern analysis facilitates the synthesis of personal narratives, but I don't think it accounts as much for the increasing disconnect between the populace and media. Identity politics and polarization are definite causes behind this cynicism, but is the post-modern an acceptable way to frame these? If I'm understanding your point, that is.

2: Ooh this is really great, I'm thankful to get some detailed and thoughtful criticism of this writing.

I agree that the internet is adapting well to take over the role of old media in representing the more progressive viewpoints that have become maligned by mainstream media. The primary point I feel needs to be addressed is just how drastic the paradigm shift is between the monodimensionality of old media and the pandimensionality of the internet. If it weren't for the cultural background we share it would be hard to conceive of the absolutely and fundamentally massive differences between these two types of media.

I personally feel as if we have an "old media hangover" that is causing a lot of discontent over the internet from people who still are existing in limbo between old and new media. When the jump has been made once and for all, however, in the pandimensional world of social media on the internet, the term mainstream carries a lot less weight as each of us is capable of retreating into our personal filter bubbles. We are in need of some unifying themes to prevent the kind of polarization and fragmentation runs rampant in old media from overrunning new media.

This brings to head the primary challenge facing the internet as the replacement for old media: how it may is be used to reliably organize with the intent of affecting political change. This is where metanarrative comes in: because of the intuitive distrust of sweeping narrative those born into postmodernity have acquired, we no longer have faith that there are unifying causesworth actively pursuing in terms of political activism - hence devastatingly low voter turnouts, et al. I would posit that to organize effectively over the internet, a generation wide recontextualization and reassessment of the role of metanarrative needs to occur. The reasoning is that due to the peculiarities of human nature, metanarrative is the primary mnemonic device we have to motivate ourselves to action.

I agree that postmodernism doesn't account for the disconnect between the populace and media. My point of bringing up postmodernism is that the omnipresent disillusionment with metanarrative is the primary connection that the layman has with postmodernism. I feel that the full portents of postmodernism or even a general understanding of it - especially in light of some of the high theoretical philosophical arguments that come along with it - are generally relegated to academia despite being potentially relevant to anyone who has seriously questioned metanarrative, consciously or unconsciously. I feel like postmodernism lies at the brink of most people's tolerance for philosophy, after a certain point it just starts to sound like a bunch of irrelevant bullshit. However, incredulity towards metanarrative is extremely easy to explain to anyone, it is the primary cultural touchstone we have to start to bridge the world of academic philosophy with that of the layman.

In my estimate, it is the incredulity towards metanarrative, the fear that the subjective and objective are doomed to irreconcilable differences that is emblematic of our current cultural climate - like a spurned lover we are not wont to give our heart away so easily this time. The further theoretical complexities presented by postmodernism and post-structalism cause problems for - from my understanding - even those who undertake the study of philosophy academically. How can we expect laymen to care enough to move beyond the heartbreak that our society inflicts so callously? How do we explain the basic tenants of postmodernism in a way that heals instead of confuses?

There are very deep ideological divides currently that fragment the citizenry into many different factions. I would characterize this as a result of competing metanarratives. The particularly pernicious metanarratives are ones that encourage secularism and in some manner confer a sense of divine sanction. When I say that metanarrative needs to be recontextualized, I mean to say that - much like the Hero's myth - we need to popularize discourse and understanding about metanarrative specifically so that people grow to understand the extreme power it holds. As alluded to above, I believe metanarrative is the primary mnemonic device used to form faith and belief, it is the holy grail of cognitive software if you will. If we intend to deprogram/reprogram ourselves as a generation ready to be online 24/7, a very real discussion about metanarrative needs to occur globally. Metanarrative is the layman's connection to postmodernism and by extention, philosophy. If we are to eliminate ad hominem based discourse, we should replace it with honest and critical discussions about metanarrative.

1: You articulated your point well. I have little to comment on, but I will say this. The sources behind the perpetuation of these vestigial narratives especially ought to be questioned and criticized. That we of course, agree with. The emergent sources behind meta-narratives, i.e. filter bubbles, presented by new media need to be addressed in light of popular search for meta-narrative, as well as the ones present in old media.

By virtue of how the Internet is designed, we are selective moreso of the information we consume. It's not much different from what newspaper we choose to read, I suppose. It's a sort of positive feedback loop pertaining to confirmation bias. I admit even I exhibit this. Many of my news sources are left-leaning, and I regard them as having a higher propensity for truth than their conservative counterparts. Perhaps I'm wrong. 

But I'm careful (or I like to think so) about placing too much stock in the information I consume i.e. its veracity. People exhibiting confirmation bias need to be cautious of showing religious devotion to one-sided news sources, or even those which appear to be neutral. The filter bubble nature of online consumption is an additional way that these polarizing narratives then, can be disseminated. 

More importantly, even if the information we consume is not politically charged (i.e. needlessly partisan), the way we consume our information can encourage polarizing behavior in political settings. Then we get a situation like /r/politics [popular political subreddit]. We have the active exclusion of legitimate contrary opinions and the promotion of progressive ones. There are occasional lapses in this behavior in certain respects (Ron Paul et al.), but it's pretty homogeneous and exclusionary overall. 

In short, although the Internet is promising in terms of its liberatory potential, it can simultaneously shackle us down in what I believe to be the downfalls of its own strengths. Because information distribution evolves, so too does our selection of information to align with our world view. It's a fact peculiar to human nature. We need to be cautious of the dangers new media presents as well as its opportunities when scheming a collaborative politic with focus on a unified meta-narrative. 

We have a great power residing within our hands. As you said, we must learn to harness its strength and use it wisely.

2: I'm with you 100%.

It is a very slippery slope we are addressing. Internet activism and insurgency is still in its infancy. It's clear that the internet has a great potential for independent distribution of media but the popular examples of that are cat videos and Rebecca Black's "Friday".

Anon [shorthand for the hacktivist group], Occupy, the Arab Spring and SOPA [widely protested Internet regulatory bill] have all made significant impacts on people but how do you design an internet focused movement that has the infrastructure to last decades if necessary? The best example I can think of lies in the beginning of American history with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are talking fundamental paradigm shifts that need to occur in the public consciousness for an internet activist campaign to exist independently from the expectation of it being a flash in the pan. There is a great deal of patronization that occurs when anyone tries to express themselves authentically outside the realm of fluffy or sensationalistic entertainment. We openly invite ridicule of ourselves by making the mere admission that there may be a solution to our long standing cultural ills. . . even if that acknowledgement comes with the caveat that it may be the hardest thing we ever do.

It's an absurdly redundant and trivial dance taking place between the watchers and the watched right now. The sooner people become aware that what they thought was novelty is essentially one giant repost and that most "fact" they come across is thinly disguised ideological provocation meant to perpetuate political theater, the sooner we can see the spread of consciousness instead of distraction.

We have been in the middle of the spin zone for so long now that our minds crave the g-forces. What do?

[His last question was critical, yet perhaps rhetorical. I didn't respond to it, but we continued further discussions on related matters]. 

[I hope this catalog provoked some thoughts, dear reader. This post will be updated as our discourse expands.]