My how things change.
If I could go back in time to tell my 20's-self that I was in the process of building a garden--and that I was ENJOYING it, my past self would think one of three things:
1) I had become a victim of indentured servitude.
2) I had become a farmer.
3) I had become possessed.
It might be a function of working at home, but lately it has been very nice to get outside. Perhaps this is what Morris meant by engaging in productive work. I'm not as exhausted from "the office" so I have more energy to engage in physical activity. Working out of the home seems to encourage a lifestyle centered around home-productivity. I sit at my computer; I teach Olivia a reading lesson; I grade some papers; I go and garden. My past self snickers!
Even so--there is indeed something rewarding about it all, especially since Olivia really loves to help.
Showing posts with label rationale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rationale. Show all posts
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.
7/21/2007
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
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.
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
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)