this is old but it says it for me
WE AND ME
TONY 9/3/05

SITTING HERE WONDERING WHAT I CAN SAY TO OTHERS AND TO MYSELF ABOUT WHAT "KATRINA"HAS EXPOSED ABOUT US AS A COUNTRY AND A PEOPLE.I'M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT THE NEW DEAL UNDER FDR WAS AN ILLUSION AND THAT DEEDS DO NOT MATTER AS MUCH AS WORDS.HOW,I WONDER,CAN THIS COUNTRY BE A NATION OF ME'S,A COUNTRY THAT THINKS IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAN TO SHARE.
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE STEPPING UP TO HELP AND HAVE DONE SO IN THE PAST.BUT AS SOON AS THE CRISIS IS OVER EVERYTHING REVERTS BACK TO THE ME.I'LL BET THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD IS HOPING THAT SOMEONE YANKS US OFF THE WORLD STAGE.OTHER PRIMA DONNA'S HAVE COME AND GONE AND I'LL BET MY ASS IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.
THE WE LASTS AS LONG AS THE CRISIS DOES AND NO LONGER AND NO COUNTRY,NO HOMELAND (I HATE THAT WORD,IT SOUNDS SO NAZI)NO PEOPLE CAN LAST IF IT IS "ME" THE PEOPLE.
IF IT IS NOT WE THE PEOPLE THEN WHAT?

I hold it to be self-evident that there is no ME without WE.

Capitalism has always held some appeal for those who were motivated to most benefit their own small group, e.g. the individual (group of one), the nuclear family, or the extended family, often at the expense of outsiders. The empathy was felt for members of what one thought of as one's own group, not for the outsiders. Partly as a result of new scientific understandings and new perspectives on ethics, and through the advances in modern technology, most of us are increasingly making connections with others around the community, the nation, and the world, and our deep-felt sense of what constitutes our group is expanding, even for many to a group consisting of the entire human race. The motivations and effects of capitalism conflict with this sense of an expanded group as capitalistic behavior can have negative effects on those we empathize with.

It appears that some of the ultra-elites are countering this trend (not so much by conscious conspiracy but by following similar and related interests) by actions that tend to develop a somewhat cohesive and separate, by a wide gulf in wealth, ultra-wealthy group, whose members will only identify with and feel empathy for others in that group. And I suspect that many are hoping to use genetic engineering to consciously create a permanent and wide chasm, so that there are two clearly separate groups with different interests and different destinies.

So recognizing the importance of and ubiquitousness of empathy is helpful, but we are still stuck in a swamp of greed, malice, and intrigue.

You certainly dont need science to tell you this.
Darwin was used to justify vivisection and social darwinism.

I wish science would investigate the sadism urges in humans-especially why scientists are so detached from concepts of morality and use torture chambers.

That really would be worth studying.

I think that when you put something out there, some part of you, how it is taken by others dictactes what you do from ther on.

One can not be a predator if the prey is ready to eat you up as well.

The systems in most capitalists markets have been set up such that there are a few predators, and the prey can never see their downfall coming.

Well its time to get some transparency, so we can bite back.

Love
Zero

Hard-wired for empathy doesn't mean we're all empathetic. Like all human hard-wires, there are degrees - some people are very empathetic, others not so much.

The problem is, those in the not-so-much category have no problem repressing and/or eliminating those in all other categories, seeing as how their empathy volume knob is turned way down (IOW, they truly just do not give a shit.)

And, since replacing the hard-wiring is impossible, our goal should be the ability to identify the least empathetic among us and do what we can to keep their hands off of our money and power.

The average person in the US if almost illiterate. Advertisers have taken advantage of our natural tendency to pay attention to moving objects - that's why TV, movies, and the like capture our attention - they once presented life-or-death situations. Now that humans have the ability to destroy the planet, it is all the more important that we use logic and reason to defeat those who would corrupt our natural tendency to be empathetic. The self-defense mechanisms that once protected an isolated group of humans now threaten to annhilate all of us - yet we have not (can not) evolve fast enough to develop new traits that will protect all of us from those old survival traits. We are the victims of our own proliferation - overpopulation. Even if we could properly feed, house, and care for every human being on this planet, we cannot cope with the problems created by overpopulation. We did not evolve to exist in this manner - and our 'survival' skills, developed over millions of years, now threaten to destroy our species. Only the capacity for logic, reason, and learning will save us. The 'capitalism' gene is an anachronism - it has to be suppressed or we will all die - extinction is Nature's answer to those who fail to adapt to changing conditions. We are on the road to extinction now - and capitalism proves it.

I find that we reward the assertive, the extroverted, the "go-getters." If they have a square jaw, well, even better then for us to relinquish our power to so that we will be "safe." Sure, we have empathy, but we do not want that quality in our leaders, at least not over the last few years. Empathy has successfully been branded as weakness by the powers that be. We sign over the instinct in our supposed best interest every time we vote for a "tough" candidate. Thankfully, this fallacy of protection by these people is being exposed as Bush's people's birds come home to roost.

We can end authoritarian systems by having no leaders but our collective self.

A leader is authority. Without leaders, there is no authoritarianism.

http://ni4d.us/

Very interesting article by Gary Olsen. What Gary is doing is confirming the existence of "the spirit" of empathy with biological research. I guess we need that hard physical evidence in our materialistic culture.

But all along, many people are aware that American capitalistic culture is the destroyer of spirituality/empathy/compassion/fairness/justice and the destroyer of American democracy itself because democracy is an exercise of the human spirit as well.

By the way, capitalism and private enterprise can be okay on a local level, but once capitalism is institutionalized it becomes an uncontrollable and unsustainable beast. Institutional capitalism seeks only its' own perpetuation through any means whatsoever. It becomes an acceleration system without breaks and blinded by greed, it eventually drives off the cliff and at great public expense.

I agree with Gary Olsen, our economic current crisis is now the opportune time for deep national introspection. It may be the last evolutionary opportunity for humankind.

Not all capitalism is bad. Regulated capitalism is what is needed and I remember the days my parents and relatives could rest in peace back then. Unfettered and rigged capitalism, on the other hand, is what we need to get rid of.

The fable about the devil not being able to come in unless he is invited is apt here. Decency toward others, and therefore oneself, does not allow one to buy at a price which is unfairly low, and then sell for a price that is unfairly high.

Who is to say what is fair? Each person must determine this for himself. People sell themselves at different prices. If my business makes a profit which is neither too great nor too small, it is fair.

I suggest that making money as a measure of success is morally incorrect, and can never bring satisfaction.

I've wondered this for a long time: what exactly is so "Christian" about capitalism? If Marxism hadn't adopted atheism as a sideline, would Christians feel the same way about it? 'Cause it seems to me that the Church, particulalrly its more evangelical sections, is firmly in thrall to Mammonism...

To the editors of Common Dreams: More like this one please.

Anybody heard of David Graeber's work? He's an anthropologist who is also trying to expose the pathological assumptions of capitalism

Capitalism is by nature exploitive, which puts people in the position of choosing to profit by causing harm. This erodes the fundamental sense of connectedness that is every human's birthright and produces narcissists and sociopaths who seek to further control etc. which is what we have now; sociopaths in control.

If,

“neuroscience research which shows that the human brain is hard-wired for empathy, the ability to put oneself in another's shoes. This is the discovery of the mirror neuron system or MNS, a finding some scientists believe rivals what the discovery of DNA meant for biology,”

then how is it possible,

“Capitalists maintain domination, in part, through subtly but actively creating society's prevailing cultural norms. Antonio Gramsci's writing reminds us that this control is achieved through the mass media, education, religion and popular culture as subordinate classes assimilate certain ideas as "common sense." It isn't that individual deviations don't occur within the interstices of society but generally they don't threaten elite control?”

Certainly sympathy, not just the more limited experience of empathy, is a human trait, else society would be impossible. Surprisingly economists acknowledge this, David Colander conceding,

“Different sciences have various explanations for why people do what they do. . . . Economists . . . argue that if we want an analysis that’s simple enough to apply to policy problems, . . . heavy psychological explanations are likely to get us mixed up. At least to start with, we need an easier underlying psychological foundation. And economists have one—self-interest. People do what they do because it’s in their self-interest.” [David Colander, Microeconomics, sixth edition (Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006) 188.]

Accepting “heavy psychological explanations . . . get us mixed up” because considering more variables than the “easier underlying psychological foundation” of economics, it is difficult to understand how economic resolution of “policy problems” can be successful since considering fewer variables than apparently more accurate “heavy psychological explanations,” they must fail more often than not.

Still, sympathy being wholly determinant, how is corruption possible? How can conceivably, “people simply stop believing in the assumptions that justify its [an institution’s] existence?” Only if humans are not wholly sympathetic. Ignorant of the literature on the, “mirror neuron system or MNS,” I must wonder if less than a complete depiction is presented in this article.

Please Don’t Jump

Mr Sugarstein please don't jump
there's room for one more engaging hump
like Trumps that don't take their lumps
just stump for ‘An act of God’... please don’t leap

Begger thy neighbor still has plenty of feet
like the ones that compete
since....
Rational Homo economicus man is so upbeat
and he’s got the whole world as his teat

Is failure the host for success we need?
Is the chaff of sustenance a snake or a staff?
Do we compound the bull or cull the golden calf?

What is the footprint of desire?
Sugarstein is your limmo now for hire?

I'm sure the discovery of the mirror neuron system is a profound one for science, but much of our difficulty lies in how far behind the reality curve our social constructs lag behind the findings of science. Just think of George Wanker Bush. We're hard-wired for empathy but we're deeply brainwashed against it, and so most in the US, even those calling themselves progressives, still religiously believe that capitalism is by far the highest achievement in economic and social history. Arguing otherwise, among both highly and poorly educated Americans, can be like trying to convince them that reading actuarial tables is better than sex. The poor little mirror neuron doesn't stand a chance against the 24/7/365 onslaught of a hypercommercialized culture, beginning with the umpteen millions of TV ads, print and radio ads, and the braindead megaphone (as George Saunders brilliantly puts it) of all corporate media, including far too much of the internet, droning ceaselessly into our sensory systems that if we're not buying something constantly we're a total failure as a human being.

This article doesn't mention an even more important recent scientific finding- that monkeys exhibit an innate sense of fairness and equity

popular level article
http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

scientific article
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18854

Proponents of capitalism maintain that it is inevitable because innate human nature is greedy and self-centered. Now we have evidence that a sense of fairness and equity is innate in primate nature. Perhaps it's actually the case that dislike for capitalism is a consequence of innate human nature.

It seems to me that evolutionary theory says that there are reasons for us to be both selfish and empathetic. How can our overdeveloped brains make decisions under these circumstances? I think it was John Nash who realized that 'What is best for the group is for the individual to choose both what is best for the individual AND what is best for the group.' Economics reaches a point of failure when it becomes impossible for us to specify a currency that allows us to value things commensurably. I have been led to believe that our closest cousins are the bonobos, who seem to value sexual activity above all else. While many humans may claim to value sex very highly, our actions, on the whole, do not indicate that we really value it much at all. Family? We regard as successful those who spend most of their time jetting around the world while their children see them on television. I recently saw families living on the sidewalks of Mumbai, working together seven days a week weaving baskets. Who would choose their lives? Who wouldn't want to have the kind of transcendent togetherness that they have? I don't think many of us would renounce our love of independence, or our ability to make choices, even if there are corporations, priests, or other demagogues who are influencing these choices? But how can we make rational choices when we can't understand the costs and benefits? Perhaps I've rambled enough.

A friend said to me the other day "Communism and Capitalism are twin brothers. One has died of natural causes. Do you really think the other will live forever?"

Of course, as the capitalist economic system reaches its final stage in the US, marked by imperialism, monopoly and empire, it generates ever more human pathology and a debilitated or “weak” populace. The system has come to the place where it simply needs the people to consume now. It’s down to one “economic stimulus” check after another. The lazy and incurious man who occupies the White House read a statement from our economic masters and their system after the events of 9/11. “Go out and shop.” Let desperate men among you with no other options fight wars in the deep background of your lives. Let immigrant workers do the jobs that involve real effort and discipline.

Why is it that human impulse studies are ignored time and again?
Scientists, psychologists and thinkers from Lorenz to Fromm to Dave Grossman, Matin Lindstrom, and others have repeatedly told us the human brain has been hard-wired by evolution for survival. And we carry survival impulses: sexual, acquisitive, sadistic/masochistic, validation, territorial, tribal, religious, revenge, etc. In their different manifestations we can locate all the varieties of human behaviors.
We "feel good" when we _follow_ these impulses. But conditioning and personal experience can either reinforce or tame these impulses. And all _leaders_ from Napoleon to Hitler to Castro to W know that there is nothing like conditioning to bring certain behaviors to the fore. Want war? Appeal to the embedded tribal and religious impulses. Want capitalism? Appeal to the acquisitive, sadistic and sexual and validation impulses where that impulse "cocktail" produces one fine specimen of corporate man.
Those impulses can be controlled and channeled, but a pre-requisite is a fine-tuned awareness of their very existence and how they work on our daily habits and behaviors. Be aware that these evolutionary impulses work at the emotional, not the intellectual level of awareness. And be aware of the cheap, conditioned appeals made to our emotions by our leaders and our culture and the cultural triggers that set them off like saliva from a Pavlovian dog. Try listening to the National Anthem at a baseball game and think back to Kindergarten when you first stood up and how overwhelmed with emotion you were then and how it all comes back... That's conditioning, baby. When _THE PRESIDENT_, our national icon, tells us "WE" HAVE BEEN INSULTED/OFFENDED/ATTACKED, the old tribal impulse kicks in like clockwork, and so forth. The religious impulse is so overwhelming in many instances that it overcomes the natural revulsion against homicide by transporting killing into a religious/moral dimension/plane. And with God and country on our side, killing is good.
When the acquisition of, nay, a collection of pieces of paper and countless pieces of rust-proof metal "validate" and define us, and the culture says, "this is good. You merit high praise, honor, respect and sexual standing," we have been conditioned.
A few years back it was called being either "outer" or "inner directed." It makes little difference. How one feels about one's self in all that matters. And those who control how _you feel about yourself_, _control_ you.
_Who_ controls your emotional centers, the seat of your evolutionary impulses?
If it's you, I welcome you as existential man who assumes full responsibility for his actions, but if you need a cultural crutch and someone to blame for your actions, continue on your path of self-delusion and unharnessed impulses.
God and morality have nothing to do with it. Every single one of these survival impulses can be harnessed with a little bit of human empathy. And that brings up the real function of religion, psychology, and literature in our culture, to teach us the human virtue of _empathy_. Be it _The Odyssey_, _The Count of Monte Cristo_, _Les Miserable_, _Crime and Punishment_, _The Time Machine_, _Journey to the End of the Night_, _The Plague_, _Catch-22_, _Slaughterhouse-Five_, or that perennial Christmas favorite, _A Christmas Carol_.
In psychology read about Martin Lindstrom's studies on the nucleus acumben. Revolutionary. We are wired for pleasure/ecstasy, i.e. "to feel good."
Be well.

DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL.

Most moderate size groups (over 5 people) will, if left to themselves, fall prey to power struggles. "I" want to be heard, obeyed, respected. The result is either 1) that the group devolves into chaos and accomplishes very little, or 2) an individual or an oligarchy seizes control. Is this a biological or a cultural product? I don't know, but it is what I see around me; the well known dialectic between anarchy and dictatorship.

SKILLED DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP is the way out. There are people who are more interested in hearing every point of view than in winning for themselves. There are known techniques. Go around the circle; insist that everyone be heard; ask more questions to stimulate thought than assertions to control it. If enough of us learn these techniques, and study to learn more; if we practice listening and appreciation, THEN we will be able to challenge capitalism and all of the other systems of domination.

We can not create economic or political democracy unless we first know how to practice it within our own movement. I enjoy reading anti-capitalist theory, but the practice of cooperation is more important.

MY prediction revolves around one specific country:

CHINA.

the 4,000 year old , and oldest continuous civilization on earth -- while having its kingdoms (which were - unusual among "empires" - ws limited WITHIN its borders in that period of time once the disparate kingdoms were gathered under one , showing that it seems alien to the chinese character to impose itself outside of its borders, perhaps because of a very chinese characteristic that is being revisited today , "harmonious existence" - albeit using the power of modern government) -- IF they succeed in changing courrse from being an export oriented economy - to one of greater self-sufficiency and domestic markets aimed at raising the general welfare of people (as the government seems bent on doing by putting REAL money where it is needed - which would have gone to more lending to the USA ) -- and raise the wages and income of people , thus creating a greater general welfare - and real prosperity for the common person -- will likely prove to be teh way towards eventually supplanting capitalism -

i say this because the chinese character is inherently COLLECTIVE in its nature. the idea of hyper-individualism from the west - central to capitalist theory - is alien to chinese culture which has lasted continuously for at least 4,000 and PERHAPS has lasted THAT long BECAUSe of its collectivism.

in reality -- communism brought about by mao (despite the killings and resulting poverty -- again, remember they had to function during the ascendance of western imperialism beating at every wall across the globe) - was in part a HYBRID of western marxist thought and predicates AND the NATURAL collective character of the chinese culture.

now -- SHOULD china ELECT to , to be precise, RAISE the wages and by that enable the chinese population to become prosperous as a whole and ABLE to have a surplus of wealth as a result that will support any and all industries and commerce - it will, imo, spell the death , finally , of capitalism itself.

china - according to the astutely historical analyses of henry ck liu - could change the balance , in bring a model in which the value of a nation and its inhabitants, if structures were made so that inhabitants are NOT prevented from developing themselves properly -- as capitalism prevents them (unjust educational access, for example, the banking system, crony capitalism, ) -

having 1.3 billion people also has the corresponding wealth RESPECTIVe to the same 1.3 billion....
as 300 million americans, properly in a more equitable soceity would also accrue wealth appropriate TO 300 million, etc.

without any particular group owning MORE than its proper allocation (by natural means) .

the problem of capitalism is that it has DISTURBED this balance...- as exemplified by the report by General Smedly butler:

:"US foreign policy is geared towards gathering unto ourselves as much of the world's resources as possible to the expense of other nations".

THAT is the REAL aberration in history. and a lot of it is tied with the imposition of a global structure which inherently depends on low wages ...and in which china, emerging from its decline through the rise of capitalism had to function and therefore function today as the "cheap exporter economy" ...

but ONCE it decides to ENHANCE and ENRICH ITS citizens through the simple means of mandating higher wages - AND by removing ITSELF from being TIED to the DOLLAR hegemony in order to rid itself of dictates on its LABOR values and resource value by the dollar hegemony (which is the case throughtout the globe)

if china can succeed in doing THAT --other countries, in their OWN national interests - will follow suit...and gain INTERNAL PROSPERITY where, truly , ONLY EXCESS values are exported as trade . and only trade for those which they don't possess but which because they have excess values they can trade with fair values for things they don't have......

from that the theories of adam smith , ricardo, hayek, etc...will COLLAPSE completely -- and the capitalist system will collapse....having been supplanted by a more equitable society whose principles were already actually in place , though not yet as modern , for thousands of years.

there is a reason why china enjoyed great power and wealth for centuries until it was "isolated" by capitalism - until of course it "woke up" in recent years. although practicing a form of capitalist industrialisation....but which they seem to be seriously addressing NOT to fall into ITS traps.

in time, with that development, by ensuring they have policies geared towards PROSPERITY within their own country THROUGH livable wages and not being dependent on their :"oil": which is cheap labor according to the demands of the capitalist market OUTSIDE - even the totalitarian party will cease - as they come closer and closer to a balance of their own OLD "collective" cultural power - that actually enhances INDIVIDUALITY rather than chokes it.--- and in good balance between the WHOLE and the PARTS.

watch china., folks,. it is not JUSt about "cheap products" or "trying to be capitalist or pollution or suppression of *demoracy* or being a totalitarian state".

those might YET prove to be but a PHASE in china's finding its PROPER role in the world - as it always had for thousands of years , long before any western civilization was even a dream.

baruchzed said

"Capitalism is by nature exploitive, which puts people in the position of choosing to profit by causing harm. This erodes the fundamental sense of connectedness that is every human's birthright and produces narcissists and sociopaths who seek to further control etc. which is what we have now; sociopaths in control."

Nature, by nature is exploitative. All creatures in nature exist by the death of other life. We shouldn't be surprised when the best of the killers rises to the top. The trick is how we reign that in so that the rest of the pack doesn't suffer.