I’ve been reading through a collection of essays about the nature of work in a book called Why Work? In this post I’ll summarize a very interesting piece called “Useful Work Versus Useless Toil” by William Morris. It says some really interesting things.
This essay, like so many in this collection, assumes that work in its unexploitive state is pleasurable. The kind of work which is pleasurable offers three kinds of hope: “hope of rest, hope of product, and hope of pleasure in the work itself” (36). The good kind of work offers the promise of a break; even the good kind of work can be painful at times! It also offers a product which the worker has the satisfaction and fulfillment of completing; that is, the worker is not one tiny cog in a vast process of which he or she is not aware and of which he or she never sees the final product. Lastly, the good kind of work is good because it exercises our faculties and complete selves as humans. We are not reduced to machines.
As Morris so succinctly states, “All other work but this is worthless; it is slaves’ work—mere toiling to live, that we may live to toil” (37).
Using these two kinds of work as a value system, Morris levels a critique on our economic system. First of all, it is no surprise that work is unevenly distributed among the classes. The rich (even though they may work hard) produce very little, but they consume very much and are dependent upon the work of those below them. The middle class also produces more than they consume and are comprised of whole sectors of purportedly useful professions which serve “the system of folly, fraud, and tyranny of which they form a part” (38). The middle class, much like the rich, are also invested in acquiring wealth and assets to the effect of not having to work anymore in the future. Work is something for the lower classes. Both the rich and the middle class are supported by the production of the poor who are in an inferior position. The poor produce real wealth but they also produce waste.
As Morris says, “Wealth is what Nature gives us and what a reasonable man can make out of the gifts of Nature for his reasonable use. The sunlight, the fresh air, the unspoiled face of the earth, food, raiment, and housing necessary and decent; the storing up of knowledge of all kinds, and the power of disseminating it; means of free communication between man and man; works of art, the beauty which man creates when he is most a man, most aspiring and thoughtful—all things which serve the pleasure of people, free, manly, and uncorrupted” (39).
All the rest is waste and is part of a system committed to producing only waste in a circular process which perpetuates the inferiority of those who produce. The poor, in addition to supporting the needs and wants of the upper classes, also produces cheap wares and goods of which the poor itself consumes, but these goods are only “miserable makeshifts” of what the rich and middle classes can afford, “with coarse food that does not nourish, with rotten raiment which does not shelter, with wretched houses which may well make a town-dweller in civilization look back with regret to the tent of the nomad tribe, or the cave of the pre-historic savage” (40). Because of this massive waste of human potential and work, Morris argues that our civilization wastes its own resources.
With the advent of machinery and technology which significantly decreases the amount of labor needed to complete a task, as well as all manner of conveniences, we should all living a lifestyle which is significantly better than all those before us. But it’s obviously not this way. What to do?
Morris’ answer is no less than abolishing the class system which allows for a higher class that doesn’t produce wealth as Morris has defined it. This unleashes a vast potential of human resources to produce REAL wealth. This would result in the creation of more wealth of which more could have a part. Effort could even be made to ensure that the work which is necessary is made to be pleasant.
But here’s the rub: those in power don’t want this to happen and this speaks more directly to the nature of capitalism. What follows is a fairly standard Marxist critique of capitalism. Essentially, the capitalist is not interested in allowing for a “good” kind of work; he wants a profit. Since he is a monopolist and owns the means of production, he can more or less dictate the terms under which he hires labor. He can compel cheap labor out of the working classes because they have no where else to go. All markets have been monopolized. The means of production must be distributed evenly among every man and woman, not to a select few.
The rest of the essay is a very interesting piece of speculation about what a society without class, capitalist monopoly, and exploitation might look like. First of all, the work day would be short. Given the fact that more people would be working, and given the fact that the goal of work would be only to produce wealth, not waste, there wouldn’t be a need for as much work as is demanded by the system now. Second of all, there would be variety of work. Since a man or woman wouldn’t have to devote all of their time to one job, a person could devote a smaller amount of time to a variety of different kinds of work, with the emphasis on developing the WHOLE person. You might vary more sedentary work with more physically active, for example.
Education could be more concerned with drawing out the talents and skills of a person instead of stamping onto a person what the market needs. Doing this would unleash untold creative potential. All men would have time to create and engage intellectually and artistically with the world around them.
Morris believes that we should live and work in surroundings which are pleasant, and in this way he begins to sound like Chesterton, emphasizing the value in beautiful surroundings. The chaos and ugliness of our modern living and work conditions are simply a result of an economic system which values profit: “For all our crowded town and bewildering factories are simply the outcome of the profit system. Capitalistic manufacture, capitalistic land-owning, and capitalistic exchange force men into big cities in order to manipulate them in the interests of capital; the same tyranny contracts the due space of the factory so much that (for instance) the interior of a great weaving-shed is almost as ridiculous a spectacle as it is a horrible one” (48). In many ways the labyrinthine structure to our society and the spaces in which we live are a result and product of an economic system driven by profit. The modern labyrinth is a function and product of capitalism!
Morris’ speculation turns the prison-like factory, devoid of inspiration and creativity, to a center of intellectual and social work where products are created but where also the factory worker would engage in other activities as well such as gardening, or the study of art and science. Workers in this kind of factory are masters of their own time and energies, serving only themselves and their community.
As Morris concludes, “So you see, I claim that work in a duly ordered community should be made attractive by the consciousness of usefulness, by its being carried on with intelligent interest, by variety, and by its being exercised amidst pleasurable surroundings” (49).
9/13/2007
America: Freedom to Fascism
This documentary by recently deceased filmaker Aaron Russo crysallized some fears of ours concerning the abuses of big capital and our public government. Essentially, the documentary tracks exactly how economic forces have warped and perverted how our government operates and what it does. Guess who suffers?
There's some really shocking stuff here and the arguments are very persusasive. Many of the legal cases cited are public record and easily verifiable. It's truly scary! Mainly, the documentary tracks specific abuses of power which are perpetuated to maintain the ever increasing distance between the rich and the poor. One of the most disturbing is how the Federal Reserve system was created. Did you know it's a private institution beholden to a group of unnamed banking clans? Did you know that it is this private organization (and not our own government) who mints the money? Did you know that there has not been an accounting of the bullion in Fort Knox, leaving many to believe that there isn't gold backing to our dollars. Think about that for a second!
Russo makes a good point: as individuals we used to have autonomy, privacy, and tangible assets. Now we live in a semi-police state which can take your assets at any time, which will spy on you if it wants (this is legal!), and which wants you to become mired and dependent. The new national ID card coming in May 2008 is one of many attempts to localize our identities in very easy to track databases where every single financial transaction can be monitored and controlled. What's scary about this is that given the electronic nature of how money circulates, it's very possible that undesirables could be X'd from the system if they irritate the wrong people. Sounds a little like Revelations to me!
But beyond the worst case scenerios, the documentary argues persuasively what happens when money and power are centered in elitist and unaccountable agencies. And it ain't good for the rest of us!
There's some really shocking stuff here and the arguments are very persusasive. Many of the legal cases cited are public record and easily verifiable. It's truly scary! Mainly, the documentary tracks specific abuses of power which are perpetuated to maintain the ever increasing distance between the rich and the poor. One of the most disturbing is how the Federal Reserve system was created. Did you know it's a private institution beholden to a group of unnamed banking clans? Did you know that it is this private organization (and not our own government) who mints the money? Did you know that there has not been an accounting of the bullion in Fort Knox, leaving many to believe that there isn't gold backing to our dollars. Think about that for a second!
Russo makes a good point: as individuals we used to have autonomy, privacy, and tangible assets. Now we live in a semi-police state which can take your assets at any time, which will spy on you if it wants (this is legal!), and which wants you to become mired and dependent. The new national ID card coming in May 2008 is one of many attempts to localize our identities in very easy to track databases where every single financial transaction can be monitored and controlled. What's scary about this is that given the electronic nature of how money circulates, it's very possible that undesirables could be X'd from the system if they irritate the wrong people. Sounds a little like Revelations to me!
But beyond the worst case scenerios, the documentary argues persuasively what happens when money and power are centered in elitist and unaccountable agencies. And it ain't good for the rest of us!
9/09/2007
Let's Be Idle!
“In Praise of Idleness” By Bertrand Russell
Now before you go out and buy yourself a Lazyboy chair with refrigerated, beer holding armflaps, know that Russell demands we actually DO something worthwhile with our time!
I bought a book called Why Work? at a used bookstore in Asheville, NC one weekend. It’s a real gem: it’s a collection of essays about work, capitalism, and consumerism. The introductory essay is called “In Praise of Idleness” written by philosopher Bertrand Russell, originally published in Harper’s Magazine in 1932. I’d like to take a few moments to summarize his argument below.
Russell begins by explaining that there are three classes: the first works, the second works mostly by telling the first what to do, and the third lives by owning land and capital, forcing the others to pay him while he does just about absolutely nothing. Although this creates a space for leisure, it is not desirable. See below.
Essentially, according to Russell, the history of man up until the Industrial Revolution has been one whereby the peasant class has worked just enough to be able to subsist. Any surplus has gone to the warrior and priest class. Russell states that the peasant class—to further perpetuate the idleness of the warriors and priests—is fed a certain amount of ideological persuasion in the form of the value and benefit of WORK (or toil). This justifies the peasant’s suffering while others idle. He can comfort himself with the knowledge he is being ethical. It is his duty to work hard. This has been the primary economic situation for just about all of pre-industrial history. As Russell states, “The conception of duty, speaking historically, has been a means used by the holders of power to induce others to live for the interests of their masters rather than for their own” (26). The peasants toil, and the warrior and priest classes leisure.
Here’s the rub: a civilization actually NEEDS a certain amount of leisure to advance itself. As Russell states, Athenian slave owners used their time in a way which would not have been possible without slaves. It opened up time for philosophy, the arts, and debate, all at the expense of a toiling, suffering working class. But certainly this state of affairs is not desirable. What to do?
Answer: “By the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world” (27). Because of modern technology, we are able to produce more by working less, so why don’t we work less? The answer to that is above: our pre-industrial attitudes about work persist. We MUST work because it is our duty to our nation and our government. To add to Russell’s explanation one might add we work to continue the consumption cycle that we have unwittingly entered into. Our desires immediately fill any kind of surplus state that is opened up when we make more money. We make more money; we expand, stretching ourselves like some monstrous balloon.
Russell proposes: “If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody, and no unemployment—assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization” (28-29). “Moving matter about” just isn’t the point to our lives, argues Russell. It is unjust that so few should idle while so many toil. It is also less productive, paradoxically.
If we worked less, we would become more active. Russell states that the reason we are so passive in our leisurely pursuits is that we are so drained and active during our work. If we worked less, we could be more active in our leisure pursuits, pursuing all forms of leisure which make a civilization civilized; after all, it was the leisure class which “cultivated the arts and discovered the sciences; it wrote the books, invented the philosophies, and refined social relations. Even the liberation of the oppressed has usually been inaugurated [by the leisure class]” (33).
Above all, an individual could be more happy and joyful, leading interesting, fulfilling lives instead of dreary, depressing ones.
To put it simply: To be idle is to have the freedom to work hard at what makes us most human.
Works Cited
Russell, Bertrand. “In Praise of Idleness.” Why Work? London: Aldgate Press, 1983.
25-32.
Now before you go out and buy yourself a Lazyboy chair with refrigerated, beer holding armflaps, know that Russell demands we actually DO something worthwhile with our time!
I bought a book called Why Work? at a used bookstore in Asheville, NC one weekend. It’s a real gem: it’s a collection of essays about work, capitalism, and consumerism. The introductory essay is called “In Praise of Idleness” written by philosopher Bertrand Russell, originally published in Harper’s Magazine in 1932. I’d like to take a few moments to summarize his argument below.
Russell begins by explaining that there are three classes: the first works, the second works mostly by telling the first what to do, and the third lives by owning land and capital, forcing the others to pay him while he does just about absolutely nothing. Although this creates a space for leisure, it is not desirable. See below.
Essentially, according to Russell, the history of man up until the Industrial Revolution has been one whereby the peasant class has worked just enough to be able to subsist. Any surplus has gone to the warrior and priest class. Russell states that the peasant class—to further perpetuate the idleness of the warriors and priests—is fed a certain amount of ideological persuasion in the form of the value and benefit of WORK (or toil). This justifies the peasant’s suffering while others idle. He can comfort himself with the knowledge he is being ethical. It is his duty to work hard. This has been the primary economic situation for just about all of pre-industrial history. As Russell states, “The conception of duty, speaking historically, has been a means used by the holders of power to induce others to live for the interests of their masters rather than for their own” (26). The peasants toil, and the warrior and priest classes leisure.
Here’s the rub: a civilization actually NEEDS a certain amount of leisure to advance itself. As Russell states, Athenian slave owners used their time in a way which would not have been possible without slaves. It opened up time for philosophy, the arts, and debate, all at the expense of a toiling, suffering working class. But certainly this state of affairs is not desirable. What to do?
Answer: “By the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world” (27). Because of modern technology, we are able to produce more by working less, so why don’t we work less? The answer to that is above: our pre-industrial attitudes about work persist. We MUST work because it is our duty to our nation and our government. To add to Russell’s explanation one might add we work to continue the consumption cycle that we have unwittingly entered into. Our desires immediately fill any kind of surplus state that is opened up when we make more money. We make more money; we expand, stretching ourselves like some monstrous balloon.
Russell proposes: “If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody, and no unemployment—assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization” (28-29). “Moving matter about” just isn’t the point to our lives, argues Russell. It is unjust that so few should idle while so many toil. It is also less productive, paradoxically.
If we worked less, we would become more active. Russell states that the reason we are so passive in our leisurely pursuits is that we are so drained and active during our work. If we worked less, we could be more active in our leisure pursuits, pursuing all forms of leisure which make a civilization civilized; after all, it was the leisure class which “cultivated the arts and discovered the sciences; it wrote the books, invented the philosophies, and refined social relations. Even the liberation of the oppressed has usually been inaugurated [by the leisure class]” (33).
Above all, an individual could be more happy and joyful, leading interesting, fulfilling lives instead of dreary, depressing ones.
To put it simply: To be idle is to have the freedom to work hard at what makes us most human.
Works Cited
Russell, Bertrand. “In Praise of Idleness.” Why Work? London: Aldgate Press, 1983.
25-32.
7/28/2007
Master Card PAID
This little number had been with us since we bought our new Imac. Basically, I applied for what was called an "Apple Loan" and was given instead a Master Card. It was one of those deals that started you with a low interest rate which slowly got larger and larger over time. Jen and I used it more than we should have--it became a kind of safety net when I wasn't making as much money. After a few late payments, we realized that they had raised our APR to 30%!
You know the story. High interest rate equals high finance charges which means you have problems paying off the balance. We were a case study in the kind of consumers whom the credit card company loves.
Well, that has changed now!! Burn to you "Apple Loan"!!! Burn to you fake loan which is actually a credit card with incredibly and insanely and wickedly high APR! We have now paid you OFF!! This happened yesterday. Quite the momentous occasion for us. Now we only have one more credit card to pay.
One step closer to our independence!
You know the story. High interest rate equals high finance charges which means you have problems paying off the balance. We were a case study in the kind of consumers whom the credit card company loves.
Well, that has changed now!! Burn to you "Apple Loan"!!! Burn to you fake loan which is actually a credit card with incredibly and insanely and wickedly high APR! We have now paid you OFF!! This happened yesterday. Quite the momentous occasion for us. Now we only have one more credit card to pay.
One step closer to our independence!
7/21/2007
Easy Credit
The following was written by Dr. Peter Chojnowski on The ChesterBelloc Mandate from an article “Distributism: Economics as if People Mattered.” Footnotes refer to Schumacher's Good Work.
"There is one fact which separates our day from the days of the 30s and 40s, however. The concentration of wealth and capital, the inadequacy of a man's pay to provide the basics of life and to provide for savings for the future, the lack of real property generously and broadly distributed, is masked by the reality of easy credit. Easy credit, which is not ultimately "easy" at all on the borrower, anesthetizes the populace to the grim facts of capitalist monopoly. Since we seem to be able to get all the things that we want, the reality of real money being increasingly unavailable to the average man is lost in the delusionary state of the consumerist utopia. Only when the "benefit" of usurious credit is cut off, do we realize the full extent of the problem. The greatest problem with liberal capitalism, however, is not the concentration of wealth or real property, the greatest "existential" problem created by capitalism is the problem of the very meaning and reality of work. To work is essential to what it means to be a human being. Next to the family, it is work and the relationships established by work that are the true foundations of society.6 In modern capitalism, however, it is productivity and profit which are the basic aims, not the providing of satisfying work. Moreover, since "labor saving" devices are the proudest accomplishments of industrial capitalism, labor itself is stamped with the mark of undesirability. But what is undesirable cannot confer dignity.7"
The entire article can be found here.
"There is one fact which separates our day from the days of the 30s and 40s, however. The concentration of wealth and capital, the inadequacy of a man's pay to provide the basics of life and to provide for savings for the future, the lack of real property generously and broadly distributed, is masked by the reality of easy credit. Easy credit, which is not ultimately "easy" at all on the borrower, anesthetizes the populace to the grim facts of capitalist monopoly. Since we seem to be able to get all the things that we want, the reality of real money being increasingly unavailable to the average man is lost in the delusionary state of the consumerist utopia. Only when the "benefit" of usurious credit is cut off, do we realize the full extent of the problem. The greatest problem with liberal capitalism, however, is not the concentration of wealth or real property, the greatest "existential" problem created by capitalism is the problem of the very meaning and reality of work. To work is essential to what it means to be a human being. Next to the family, it is work and the relationships established by work that are the true foundations of society.6 In modern capitalism, however, it is productivity and profit which are the basic aims, not the providing of satisfying work. Moreover, since "labor saving" devices are the proudest accomplishments of industrial capitalism, labor itself is stamped with the mark of undesirability. But what is undesirable cannot confer dignity.7"
The entire article can be found here.
7/19/2007
Land Ownership By Families
The following was written by Dr. Peter Chojnowski on The ChesterBelloc Mandate from an article “Distributism: Economics as if People Mattered.” The article explains why and how Distributism circulated as a concept by a group of English thinkers and writers, among them G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc:
"Being Englishmen, the idea that the land meant wealth was inevitably ingrained in their conception of economics. Ownership of the land by the families who themselves worked the land would also mean financial stability, no fear of unemployment, a family enterprise which could engage, in some measure, all members, an ability to put aside food and supplies to create a hedge against destitution, a way of providing not only for one's children but for one's children's children, along with creating an economic structure which is not oriented towards corporate profits but towards providing for familial subsistence and a local market. Belloc speaks of this type of Distributist economy as the one most general throughout the history of mankind, with the possible exception of the slave economy. Capitalism and Socialism are certainly recent interlopers on the human economic scene."
The article in its entirety can be found here.
"Being Englishmen, the idea that the land meant wealth was inevitably ingrained in their conception of economics. Ownership of the land by the families who themselves worked the land would also mean financial stability, no fear of unemployment, a family enterprise which could engage, in some measure, all members, an ability to put aside food and supplies to create a hedge against destitution, a way of providing not only for one's children but for one's children's children, along with creating an economic structure which is not oriented towards corporate profits but towards providing for familial subsistence and a local market. Belloc speaks of this type of Distributist economy as the one most general throughout the history of mankind, with the possible exception of the slave economy. Capitalism and Socialism are certainly recent interlopers on the human economic scene."
The article in its entirety can be found here.
7/16/2007
Sustainable Is Good
Jen found this blog which I have now added to the Resources and Link section.
"Sustainable is Good covers products, trends and developments in the green marketplace. Focusing on marketing, branding, PR and packaging & materials related to green products and services."
"Sustainable is Good covers products, trends and developments in the green marketplace. Focusing on marketing, branding, PR and packaging & materials related to green products and services."
Article About Solar Power
Jen found this which is an article titled "Harnessing the Sun: Facts and Myths About Solar Power." It's a kind of Solar Power 101. Good read.
Love Your Work
Men always work harder and more readily when they work on that which is their own; nay, they learn to love the very soil which yields in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance of the good things for themselves and those that are dear to them.
That is a famous passage from the encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891) which is a Catholic argument indicting capitalism and socialism. The "third way" which was being discussed by men such as Chesteron and Belloc was called Distributism, a system which navigates between the two. Distributism allows for ownership but it is distributed equitably among families.
That is a famous passage from the encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891) which is a Catholic argument indicting capitalism and socialism. The "third way" which was being discussed by men such as Chesteron and Belloc was called Distributism, a system which navigates between the two. Distributism allows for ownership but it is distributed equitably among families.
7/14/2007
Off the Grid
Off the Grid is a site which follows innovations in off the grid technologies world-wide. I have added it to our Resources and Links.
Homesteading Article from Get Rich Slowly
This is a link from a non-homsteading website which argues the frugality of homesteading. It serves as a nice, little "how do you do" for someone who might be thinking about it.
7/02/2007
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media
Neil and I just watched Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media yesterday and it was very good and definitely worth the time (it runs about three hours). Mostly what Chomsky aruges is a fairly standard structural approach which leans heavily on Marx and Althusser: Marx for the economic critique and Althusser for the ideological one. Mostly, what Chomsky does is to argue how institutions mask reality by feeding the public watered-down or more pleasurable instances of events so that the public remains diverted. A democracy must deceive in this way because (in theory at least) political decisions must be made with public approval. A dictator just goes to war. A president must "manufacture consent" and this requires sophisticated and deceptive methods. Although this doc was produced in 1992, it has obvious applications for today.
Chomsky takes a specific intance in the media, that of East Timor, and aruges that the media downplays this particular instance of genocide for the more poltically favorable Cambodia.
I think there can be obvious parrallels with how big business affects and produces desire in certain products and convinces us to favor some over others. It also makes me think about the line in Brave New World: "ending is better than mending." Big Business doesn't necessarily want us to be independent. They want us in a circle of consumption, endlessly toiling on the wheel like rodents, always diverted and never independent, locked into this prison of consumerism.
Chomsky takes a specific intance in the media, that of East Timor, and aruges that the media downplays this particular instance of genocide for the more poltically favorable Cambodia.
I think there can be obvious parrallels with how big business affects and produces desire in certain products and convinces us to favor some over others. It also makes me think about the line in Brave New World: "ending is better than mending." Big Business doesn't necessarily want us to be independent. They want us in a circle of consumption, endlessly toiling on the wheel like rodents, always diverted and never independent, locked into this prison of consumerism.
7/01/2007
Strawbale House
Jen and I are fond of this strawbale home. It is a beautiful 1800 square foot house with four bedrooms and two baths. It has a great open kitchen/living area with walled bookshelves. It also has an indoor/outdoor fireplace. Really beautiful. It may be a bit large for us, but we're really leaning toward the strawbale style. In addition to being energy efficient, there's something very cozy about them. Here is the link: http://www.architecturalhouseplans.com/home_plans/44 as well as the site which has plans of all shapes and sizes.
6/30/2007
Documentaries
If you're anything like Jen and me, you love Netflix because of their documentary selection! We just recently subscribed and we have been working our way through. I've posted a few that we think are particularly relevent to our plans and our rationale for making the kinds of decisions we're making. Mostly, if you read alot of Harper's (especially Lewis Lapham) and the Utne Reader, you're already informed, but these documentaries are good for their entertainment value and work as a refresher!
The End of Suburbia
This gives a good history of our dependence on oil and what will happen to those who are still living high on the hog in a consumer lifestyle. It is a critique of consumerism and the suburbs.
Who Killed the Electric Car?
This doc examines the heterogenous forces which caused the electric car to go belly up in the seventies. Discusses how big oil manipulates the market to keep our dependence high.
A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash
Another good doc about peak oil theory: what this means and what are the consequences.
Maxed Out and In Debt We Trust
These two work well together as a critique of how companies encourage debt in the consumer and how they take advantage of those who need money. Maxed Out focuses on the debt collections business and In Debt We Trust is more historical.
The Corporation
This documentary discusses how the corporation begins as a chartered organization for the public good and tracks how it develops into a capitalist leviathan with rights and a personality all of its own.
The Big One
One of Michael Moore's docs which would be a good pairing with The Corporation. This one is funnier as you watch Moore torment PR staff in the lobbies of their companies.
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers
Corruption 101. Shows how big business affects how and why we make war.
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
Shows how Fox News is a puppet station with a specific political agenda. A good doc which shows how big business affects journalism.
The Persuaders: Frontline
This is a great documentary about the business of advertising and how big business convinces us to buy the things we don't need.
The End of Suburbia
This gives a good history of our dependence on oil and what will happen to those who are still living high on the hog in a consumer lifestyle. It is a critique of consumerism and the suburbs.
Who Killed the Electric Car?
This doc examines the heterogenous forces which caused the electric car to go belly up in the seventies. Discusses how big oil manipulates the market to keep our dependence high.
A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash
Another good doc about peak oil theory: what this means and what are the consequences.
Maxed Out and In Debt We Trust
These two work well together as a critique of how companies encourage debt in the consumer and how they take advantage of those who need money. Maxed Out focuses on the debt collections business and In Debt We Trust is more historical.
The Corporation
This documentary discusses how the corporation begins as a chartered organization for the public good and tracks how it develops into a capitalist leviathan with rights and a personality all of its own.
The Big One
One of Michael Moore's docs which would be a good pairing with The Corporation. This one is funnier as you watch Moore torment PR staff in the lobbies of their companies.
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers
Corruption 101. Shows how big business affects how and why we make war.
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
Shows how Fox News is a puppet station with a specific political agenda. A good doc which shows how big business affects journalism.
The Persuaders: Frontline
This is a great documentary about the business of advertising and how big business convinces us to buy the things we don't need.
6/27/2007
The Urge to Homestead
I can't remember what page or the exact wording, but G.K. Chesterton writes about the importance of owning a home in his book What's Wrong With the World. His sensibility is more Catholic: our urge to protect, and nurture, and build comes from a divine urge and mandate to be stewards. I felt something like this when we bought our house. It's only 1400 square feet with a small backyard, but I felt fulfilled knowing that we owned this fenced in plot and that it was ours.
Or if you're more into cultural constructivism, you might say that the older versions of masculinity always relied on ownership of some sort whether it be an aristocratic, genteel, patriarchal ownership or an artisnal one where a shop was owned and the craftsperson could build something from start to finish without being alienated and fragmented during the process.
I'm not sure when it was that I started to kid my wife about becoming Mars colonists! I think it started when I began to feel controlled by the market and forced to be apart from my nuclear family (not my wife and kids, but my parents and brothers). Oddly, it made me think that if I couldn't be close to my family, I might as well own a homestead far away somewhere where Jen and I could build and nurture and grow. Jen is exactly the kind of woman you'd want out there on Mars! She is resourceful, beautiful, and tough!
But the homesteading impulse must be a national solution as well. It seems natural that a country whose citizens are colonists and explorers might have it in the blood. I've wondered if homesteading as a social solution is something which is mostly American. Perhaps because we have room enough to run off to?
Mostly I want to divorce myself from the corporate forces which surround me like a matrix. I know it's impossible to do this completely--unless you block yourself completely off from the market, but I think there are degrees of dependency and I'd like to decrease my dependency immensely!
But there's also something to owning a plot of land, building a house to your family's specifications, having a garden, being responsible for goats, chickens, dogs, and cats. I think stewardship as a concept describes this feeling for me well. It fits. In some ways I think owning a house and a plot I can call my own has made me feel more masculine, or at least more responsible, more myself, more in control. Perhaps decreasing one's dependency increases the others?
Or if you're more into cultural constructivism, you might say that the older versions of masculinity always relied on ownership of some sort whether it be an aristocratic, genteel, patriarchal ownership or an artisnal one where a shop was owned and the craftsperson could build something from start to finish without being alienated and fragmented during the process.
I'm not sure when it was that I started to kid my wife about becoming Mars colonists! I think it started when I began to feel controlled by the market and forced to be apart from my nuclear family (not my wife and kids, but my parents and brothers). Oddly, it made me think that if I couldn't be close to my family, I might as well own a homestead far away somewhere where Jen and I could build and nurture and grow. Jen is exactly the kind of woman you'd want out there on Mars! She is resourceful, beautiful, and tough!
But the homesteading impulse must be a national solution as well. It seems natural that a country whose citizens are colonists and explorers might have it in the blood. I've wondered if homesteading as a social solution is something which is mostly American. Perhaps because we have room enough to run off to?
Mostly I want to divorce myself from the corporate forces which surround me like a matrix. I know it's impossible to do this completely--unless you block yourself completely off from the market, but I think there are degrees of dependency and I'd like to decrease my dependency immensely!
But there's also something to owning a plot of land, building a house to your family's specifications, having a garden, being responsible for goats, chickens, dogs, and cats. I think stewardship as a concept describes this feeling for me well. It fits. In some ways I think owning a house and a plot I can call my own has made me feel more masculine, or at least more responsible, more myself, more in control. Perhaps decreasing one's dependency increases the others?
6/26/2007
Kill Debt
That seems to be one of the biggest problems. The best way to get yourself off the grid is to actually decrease your dependency on all of those things that we are expected to buy which includes the bigger house, the bigger car, the better electronics, etc., etc. Don't ask me why, but for the longest time I just assumed that I would go from my Camry, to the Avalon, to the Lexus! And am I really getting more performance out of the car? A better engine? Better gas mileage? Or just better branding and fancier leather seats?
So Jen and I have been blessed with an increasing income the past few years. Instead of immediately filling that vacuum with more desire, we are trying to stay at the same standard of living, paying off the heavy credit card debt, and then saving the rest for higher up-front costs which we will have to incur for the land, the house, and all of the rest (solar panels, energy efficient appliances, etc).
I think it was Thomas Veblen who coined the term "conspicuous consumption." It seeks to describe that kind of consumption which doesn't arise from utility. It is wanting a Lexus not because you need it, but because it holds a certain amount of status. I suppose getting out of debt has alot to do with decreasing one's conspciuous consumption.
John
So Jen and I have been blessed with an increasing income the past few years. Instead of immediately filling that vacuum with more desire, we are trying to stay at the same standard of living, paying off the heavy credit card debt, and then saving the rest for higher up-front costs which we will have to incur for the land, the house, and all of the rest (solar panels, energy efficient appliances, etc).
I think it was Thomas Veblen who coined the term "conspicuous consumption." It seeks to describe that kind of consumption which doesn't arise from utility. It is wanting a Lexus not because you need it, but because it holds a certain amount of status. I suppose getting out of debt has alot to do with decreasing one's conspciuous consumption.
John
6/25/2007
Homesteading Today
The first link to our Resources and Links list is already one of my favorites: this forum discusses everything from alternative energy, to goat cheese recipes, to how to prevent varmints from devouring your garden. A great source with some knowledgeable folks.
John
John
John's Introduction
Hello cyberworld!
Just a quick rationale for the blog: Jen and I after some years of discussion have decided to pursue a dream of getting "off the grid." As this is quite a process which requires tons of research, discussion, and thought, we thought this blog might be a good place to work through the material that we are collecting as well as make posts which theorize about the reasons and rationale for making our decision.
For me, I've gone from wanting to own a 3,000 square foot house and a Lexus to wanting to be self-sufficient by living a homesteading lifestyle. My antipathy toward my dependence on oil and my growing distaste for corporations, suburbia, and consumerism has led me to believe that going off the grid is the best option for me and my family. To be honest, it'd be nice to get the whole family involved and Jen and I have talked to my brother, Neil, who also shares the same sentiments regarding excessive living. So who knows, it might be a compound!
So where is this blog going? I don't know. Jen and I will both post as we make discoveries and find information. We'll also make posts when major life decisions are made that bring us closer to "degriding"!
John
Just a quick rationale for the blog: Jen and I after some years of discussion have decided to pursue a dream of getting "off the grid." As this is quite a process which requires tons of research, discussion, and thought, we thought this blog might be a good place to work through the material that we are collecting as well as make posts which theorize about the reasons and rationale for making our decision.
For me, I've gone from wanting to own a 3,000 square foot house and a Lexus to wanting to be self-sufficient by living a homesteading lifestyle. My antipathy toward my dependence on oil and my growing distaste for corporations, suburbia, and consumerism has led me to believe that going off the grid is the best option for me and my family. To be honest, it'd be nice to get the whole family involved and Jen and I have talked to my brother, Neil, who also shares the same sentiments regarding excessive living. So who knows, it might be a compound!
So where is this blog going? I don't know. Jen and I will both post as we make discoveries and find information. We'll also make posts when major life decisions are made that bring us closer to "degriding"!
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)