1.4. Examples of slavery infiltrated free trade relations

1.4. Examples of slavery infiltrated free trade relations

sociologie Baldovin   09:41

The automatist society manifesto  

 

1.4. Examples of slavery infiltrated free trade relations

This entry continues the precedent one

Pentru varianta in limba romana clic aici

A fair society turns available services back to turn to those who offer a certain service. That means that those who benefit from someone’s service must provide on their turn something in return. If a person does not offer anything to society and only takes advantage form somebody else’s work then the society is a slavery-based one. Neither the false "illusory" or already possessed goods exchange above, such as keeping its life or immortality promise, for example, is not a fair exchange, but a classic sign of slavery. I have shown in the previous sections that there are false free trade relationships that allow the same classical slavery type of profit. This is undeserved profit and comes from an abuse. If this is a total abuse then there is a typical classical slavery relationship. If the abuse is only partial then there is an infiltrated slavery into free trade relationship, which is a embellished slavery into some kind of free trade appearance.

Every major contemporary economical powers found their "greatness" into these fake relationship abuses that generate undeserved profit. It is a long story about how human society has turned from classical slavery to this kind of modern infiltrated slavery into free trade relationship which I mentioned in some older articles and to which I will return in the next ones for more clarifications. Until then I will give some examples of such labour relationships.

It is not very difficult to identify those who are not sufficiently rewarded for various services to society. Those low quality jobs make them very unpopular, which often involves attracting immigrants to be made. The plumbers, the garbage collectors, the fruit and vegetable pickers and the other agriculture workers jobs, are in fact insufficiently appreciated by the communities. Although they are humiliating and reflect a low social status, immigrants prefer these jobs instead of those of work or social and environmental conditions in which they have lived before emigration. Unfortunately, recently, the western corporations pull the governmental strings to artificially create such imbalances in the world’s marginal areas and produce emigrants as second-class citizens and used as living tools. I have shown in detail here disadvantages of economic migration here .

A garbage collector that provides indispensable services for the whole community, although lives its life back home also in garbage because can’t afford a decent living, is one such person. It deserves a higher wage according to its work importance. The offered wage by the community is more a classic slavery concealment than an honest exchange on which the company makes for its services. A garbage collector does not rich even the 30% benefit from those whom it makes services to. Of course, his is allowed to live in the community space just as much as the classical slave was permitted to actually live in return for its services ... By denying access to the other society members services benefits this person legitimate rights are basically denied.

These people marginalization and false promise of attaining the full rights citizen status is paradoxically the key to keep them in such a position, as I will show that in details in the following sections. It is noticeable that the main difference between this type of low waged labor and the classical slavery labor relationship lays in replacing the traditional threats (with death, beating and so on) with various lies (of social ascension promise, eternal happiness and so on). In reality, after their excitement and their life will be consumed, these people will become even more marginalized and some of them even thrown out in the street. The US and China police takes care to "clean" some more of these people so to make room for others as naïve as the disappointed ones were when first arrived in the city of dreams. At the slightest mistake, those countries police would kill in cold blood these depressed people, under the coverage of a possible initial assault that had to fight against. In fact, the neo slavery system really operates here a kind of "social selection" that shadows Hitler as an amateur in social Darwinism. The similarity between police eugenic task and the punishment to the runaway classical slave is obvious.

The presence of migrants who provide services spaces below Western culture accepted human dignity has two major implications. Firstly, the main individual becomes dependent by these low dignity labor and therefore is obliged to accept the social exploitation system due to the comfort it brings. If emigrants would leave, the common people would shortly wake up with streets full of garbage, with higher prices for fruits and vegetable, with more discomfort related to domestic repairs, with decreased efficiency of public services and so on. Although it has a permanent criticism attitude towards the system and politicians, the native people paradoxically supports it exactly in the most critical area. Then, the immigrants pressure on locals to become more efficient by taking their jobs, which attracts the hostility and the disregard towards them, and deepens their sense of marginalization. I will show in detail the antisocial implications of this situation in one of the following sections.

The contemporary technology can replace those humbling jobs but there is a top state political interest for keeping these people in the dark and to perpetuate their availability to serve in future situations. Therefore any relief in their life or rising up their dignity is discreetly undermined. The Asian areas there are specialized jobs for disassembling and selecting various parts of trash thrown household or cars. It is immoral to send this waste to be disassembled there but not to invest in an automatic line to make these people’s lives easier. The electric car is an example of restraint in social evolution according to the current technology. Many such jobs in the "civilized world" are actually traps to keep people in a state of underdevelopment and spiritual retardation. They will bring profit in the future either directly or indirectly through their descendants, so that such macrosocial actions have a well defined intention.

Above the marginal social low class members there are marginalized middle class who are drunk with the illusion of social superiority. They are the central pillar of the consumer society. Although belonging to majority, they have also a marginal status; if they refuse to continue on the same path, then they too will find themselves thrown into the street as low class marginalized ones. The only difference between the two classes is that the middle class ones are well paid. Some of them are very well paid, but not well enough to waste their lives and become workaholics. The money and the illusory satisfaction of apparent luxury are actually the chains that hold them in these hard working positions. They are morally anesthetized by the high social hierarchy ideals achieving. The Cave Myth has a financial allure in the modern era. These people’s labor is very stressful and time consuming. There are a lot of such free slaves who work more than 8 hours a day, instead of socializing with family and loved ones. Therefore they either do not socialize at all or only poorly socialize inside community. Their family members’ relationship is unhealthy. They are simply marginal people isolated in more or less hermetic spaces. To counteract this handicap they pay to be accepted in specific communities or social circles. Basically, the same thing happened in the past centuries when the classical slave had to pay its right to be accepted in the community as a living person. Here's another similarity bettween this so called free labor relationship and the classical slavery!



A small or average remuneration for extremely stressful services is a sign of slavery infiltrated into free work relations between people. I can list here, for example, the labor made by the public transportation drivers, buildings construction labors and other dangerous activities or the high risk labors, either because they must be done very carefully, or because they involve various dangers for the worker or for the community. These jobs must be remunerated so that the ones who made them at some point would be able to live decently after quitting. A stressful job is unhealthy and corrosive for the mind that eventually will convert into the huge spectrum of somatic diseases known today, among which are the most lethal ones like the cancer, the diabetes and the heart attack. I would insist on this subject in one of the following sections.

In the next section I will detail how the system has developed this type of social relations in which is infiltrated the free trade slavery.

Gabriel Baldovin

1.4. Exemple de sclavie infiltrata in relatiile de liber schimb

1.4. Exemple de sclavie infiltrata in relatiile de liber schimb

sociologie Baldovin   13:33

Manifestul societăţii automatiste  

 

1.4. Exemple de sclavie infiltrata in relatiile de liber schimb

English version here
Acest articol este continuarea celui precedent 

O societate echitabila intoarce serviciile de care dispune la randul ei catre acel om care ii ofera un serviciu oarecare. Asta inseamna ca cei care beneficiaza de pe urma serviciului cuiva trebuie sa ii ofere la randul lor ceva la schimb. Daca nu ofera nimic si doar profita de rezultatul muncii lui, atunci societatea este una inca sclavagista. Nici presupusul schimb cu bunuri „iluzorii” sau cu cele deja posedate anterior, cum este promisiunea nemuririi sau pastrarea vietii, de exemplu, nu este un schimb corect, ci un semn al sclaviei clasice. Am aratat in sectiunile precedente faptul ca exista relatii de fals liber schimb care permit acelasi tip de profit tipic sclaviei clasice. Acest profit este unul nemeritat si reiese dintr-un abuz. Daca acest abuz este total atunci relatia este de sclavie clasica. Daca el este partial atunci relatia este de sclavagism infiltrat in relatia de liber schimb, adica un sclavagism mai cosmetizat cu aspect de liber schimb.

Toate marile puteri economice contemporane isi au „maretia” in aceste abuzuri ale relatiei de fals liber schimb generatoare de profit nemeritat. Este o poveste mai lunga despre cum societatea umana a trecut de la sclavia clasica la acest tip de sclavie infiltrata in relatii de liber schimb despre care am mai amintit in unele articole mai vechi si la care voi reveni in urmatoarele cu mai multe precizari. Pana atunci insa am sa ofer cateva exemple de astfel de relatii de munca.

Nu e foarte greu de identificat cei care nu sunt suficient de bine recompensati pentru servicii diverse aduse societatii. Calitatea redusa a muncilor din aceasta categorie le face nepopulare, ceea ce, de multe ori implica atragerea de emigranti pentru a fi facute. Muncile de instalatori, gunoieri, culegatori de fructe si legume si alti muncitori in agricultura, sunt de fapt activitati insuficient apreciate de comunitate. Desi sunt umilitoare si reflecta un statut social scazut, pentru emigranti ele sunt preferabile fata de muncile sau conditiile sociale si de mediu din care au plecat. Din pacate, recent, corporatiile trag sforile guvernamentale pentru a crea in mod artificial astfel de dezechilibre in zonele marginale ale lumii si a produce emigranti pe post de cetateni de mana a doua pe post de unelte vi. Am aratat in detaliu aici dezavantajele migratiei economice aici.

Un gunoier care face o treaba necesara intregii comunitati, si care isi traieste viata de acasa tot printre gunoaie pentru ca nu-si poate permite cele necesare unui trai decent, este un astfel de om. El merita o retributie mai mare conform cu importanta muncii depuse. Salariul oferit de catre comunitate este mai mult o ascundere a sclaviei clasice decat un schimb onest pe care societatea il ofera pentru serviciile sale. Un gunoier nu beneficiaza nici de 30% de pe urma celor carora el le face servicii. Desigur, lui ii este permis sa locuiasca in spatiul in care isi desfasoara activitatea cam la fel cum sclavului clasic ii era permis sa traiasca in schimbul serviciilor sale… Prin negarea accesului la beneficiile altor membri ai societatii practic acestui om i se neaga aceste drepturi legitime.

Marginalizarea acestor oameni si promisiunea mincinoasa de accedere la statutul cu cetatean cu drepturi depline este in mod paradoxal cheia pastrarii lor in astfel de pozitii, dupa cum voi arata in sectiunile urmatoare. Sesizam ca principala diferenta dintre acest tip de relatie salariala de munca si cea sclavia clasica este inlocuirea amenintarii (cu moartea sau bataia) cu minciuna (promisiunii de ascensiune sociala sau fericirea eterna). In realitate, dupa ce entuziasmul si viata li se va fi consumat, acesti oameni vor deveni si mai marginalizati, in caz ca nu sunt aruncati direct in strada. In tari ca SUA si China politia are grija sa mai „curete” din acesti oameni pentru a face locul altora noi, la fel de naivi precum erau la inceput cei ajunsi in prezent dezamagiti. La cea mai mica greseala, politia din aceste state ii ucide cu sange rece pe acesti deprimati, pretextand o eventuala agresiune initiala a acestora. De fapt sistemul neosclavagist opereaza aici un fel de „selectie sociala” care il arata pe Hitler ca pe un amator in darwinism social. Observam si in acest caz asemanarea activitatii eugenice a politiei cu cea a pedepsei data sclavului clasic fugar.

Prezenta emigrantilor ce presteaza munci sub demnitatea umana acceptata in spatiile occidentale are doua implicatii majore. Mai intai, omul de rand devine dependent de rezultatul acestor munci si, prin urmare, este obligat sa accepte sistemul in virtutea obisnuintei. Daca emigrantii ar pleca, s-ar trezi pe termen scurt cu strazile pline de gunoi, cu un pret mai mare la fructe, cu disconfort mai mare legat de anumite reparatii domestice, cu scaderea eficientei serviciilor publice etc. Desi are atitudine permanent critica la adresa sistemului, localnicul este parte activa din el sustinandu-l exact in zona sa cea mai problematica. Apoi, facand presiune asupra localnicilor spre a deveni mai eficienti pentru a nu fi inlocuiti, imigrantii atrag ostilitatea si desconsiderarea acestora, ceea ce le adanceste sentimentul de marginalizare. Despre implicatiile antisociale ale acestei situatii voi detalia intr-unul dintre sectiunile urmatoare.

Tehnologia contemporana poate permite inlocuirea acestor joburi umilitoare insa in varful societatii exista interes pentru pastrarea acestor oameni in intuneric si pentru perpetuarea profitarii de pe urma disponibilitatii lor de a servi in viitoare contexte. De aceea orice fel de usurare a vietii sau de recunoastere a demnitatii lor este discret subminata. In zonele asiatice exista locuri de munca specializate in dezasamblarea si selectarea elementelor diferitelor obiecte de uz casnic sau masini aruncate la gunoi. Este imoral sa trimiti aceste deseuri spre dezasamblare acolo dar sa nu investesti ceva intr-o linie automatica pentru a le face viata mai usoara acestor oameni. Masina electrica este un exemplu de infranare a evolutiei sociale conform cu nivelul tehnologiei actuale. Multe astfel de joburi din „lumea civilizata” sunt de fapt capcane pentru a-i tine in stare de subdezvoltare si retardare spirituala pe unii oameni. Ei vor aduce in viitor profit insa, fie direct fie indirect prin urmasii lor, asa ca astfel de actiuni macrosociale au un sens foarte bine calculat.

Deasupra marginalilor inferiori de la baza piramidei sociale exista marginalii clasei de mijloc care sunt imbatati de iluzia superioritatii sociale. Ei sunt pilonul central al societatii de consum. Desi sunt majoritari, ei au tot un statut marginal; daca refuza sa continue pe acelasi drum, si ei se vor trezi aruncati in strada la fel ca si marginalii inferiori. Spre deosebire de acestia, cei mediani sunt bine platiti. Unii sunt foarte bine platiti, insa nu atat de bine incat sa isi iroseasca viata in munca. Banii si fitele satisfacute cu ei sunt de fapt chingile care-i tin in aceste pozitii. Idealurile lor de marire sociala ii face un fel de anesteziati moral. Mitul pesterii are alura financiara in epoca moderna. Munca acestor oameni este foarte stresanta sau consumatoare de timp. Sunt foarte multii astfel de adevarati sclavi liberi care muncesc mai mult de 8 ore pe zi, in detrimentul socializarii cu familia si apropiatii. Din aceasta cauza ei fie nu socializeaza deloc, fie socializeaza prost cu semenii. Relatia cu membrii familiei este una nesanatoasa. Ei sunt niste marginali, izolati in spatii mai mult sau mai putin ermetice. Ca sa contracareze acest handicap ei platesc pentru a fi acceptati in diferite comunitati sau cercuri sociale. Practic, in acelasi fel in secolele trecute sclavul clasic isi platea dreptul de a fi acceptat in comunitate ca om liber. Iata o alta asemanare a relatiei libere de munca cu sclavia clasica!



O retributie mica sau medie pentru servicii extrem de stresante, este un semn al sclavagismului infiltrat in relatiile liber consimtite dintre oameni. Pot enumera aici, de exemplu, muncile de conducator de mijloace de transport in comun, muncile de constructori si alte activitati periculoase, sau lucrator in unitati cu activitati de risc inalt, fie pentru ca trebuie facute foarte minutios, fie pentru ca implica diverse pericole pentru sine sau comunitate. Aceste munci trebuie sa fie retribuite in asa fel incat cel ce le-a facut la un moment dat sa poata sa traiasca decent dupa ce nu le mai face. O munca stresanta este o munca nesanatoasa, coroziva pentru psihic si, ulterior convertibila in spectrul urias de boli somatice cunoscute astazi, dintre care, cele mai letale sunt cancerul, diabetul si infarctul. O sa insist pe aceasta tema intr-unul dintre sectiunile urmatoare.

In urmatoarea sectiune voi detalia modul in care sistemul social a dezvoltat acest tip de relatii de liber schimb in care este infiltrata sclavia.

Gabriel Baldovin

1.3. The false free trading relationship

1.3. The false free trading relationship

sociologie Baldovin   13:57

The automatist society manifesto  

 

1.3. The false free trading relationship.

Pentru varianta in limba romana clic aici
This entry continues the precedent one

The more or less symbolic retribution that the modern order taker gets from the employer for its work is clearly distinguishable by the based lack of a free exchange relationship that is specific to the classical slavery. Yet even here the difference is not too big because we know that the most effective slaves were those days encouraged like as today with special "gifts". Likewise the slave mistresses had greater privileges than other female slaves, much like today... The daily or longer periods free time (paid vacations) and the possibility of resignation are other elements to differentiate between classical slavery and the modern order taker status.

The unfair retribution is another common point among certain modern work relations and the classical slavery. The classical slave was paid only with the minimum necessary for existence. If the remuneration received in return for its labors is food and shelter only, without the satisfactions diversifying possibility and with major social discrimination, then the slavery is a classical one. In contrast, the free work relations from allow a clear diversification fulfillment for the everyday life needs. But if the fee is too low, smaller than the labor value, then the modern order taker is practically as unpaid as the classical slave.

Here is a trick made under the shape of free trade between pay and labor, by giving the modern order taker a symbolic retribution just for making some kind of differentiation from slave free classical slave. There is an employer interest in camouflaging this crime in a respectable sheath in order to avoid the periodical typical slave uprising, but also to obtain support from the public if blood drowning such a potential rebellion. When the retribution for labor exchange is inconsistent with the free market (meaning that it should not be influenced by manipulation and other social engineering maneuvers), that is genuine slavery. The slavery degree infiltrated in these free work relationships is directly proportional to the discrepancy between the actual labor value that one person makes and the value that evaluated by its recipient.

This type of relationship can be called false free trade slavery as the work offered is not sufficiently fair paid by the one who benefit from it, just like in the case of classical slavery. This type of slavery has been developed especially by sellers. The bourgeois mentality of the eighteenth and nineteenth century continued in the contemporary business mentality, replacing feudal classical slavery. For example, if such a seller convinces or forces through various means a citizen to buy some functional object at up to a 1,000 times higher value than the real market, this is a 999/1000 scam. 1/1000 is the exact ratio between the actual value of the exchange item and the work that is not covered by this exchange. The difference between the product received value and the product given value in this exchange relationship is a full-fledged theft.

If the good offered in this exchange to such a trader is another object, then the exchange relationship is a scam. If this exchange involves some services, possibly in the long term, then this is a sign of slavery infiltrated inside the remunerated employment relationship. The retribution is then only a specific trade hoax that can be detected or not. Unfortunately, in modern society there are special designed institutions of mystification and elevation to the religion rank value for items or services in order to enslave those who are caught in their spells.

Unfortunately there are too many products on the market that appear to be innovative only because they profit from false advertising or seductive deceiving design, as noted here. These products only create the false illusion of being innovative. And their higher prices than real worth is modern slavery practicing. Here is a true insular or partial slavery that is subtly infiltrates into a free trade contractual relationship between employer and employee in the modern age. Unfortunately, many such free trade contractual relationships became abusive relationships due to the victims’ lack of reaction.

It should be categorically pointed out here however that not any profit is equivalent to slavery. Not all the profit situations are immoral. Imagine an inventor who facilitates the life and work for the whole community or society after its invention. Such activity increases the standard of living for all those involved in its implementation as for all the community or society members. If the inventor makes profit from the sale of the product, according to community members’ free trade and without market manipulation, then it is gained on merit. Here it is really a win-win situation where everyone benefits from this innovative product. The society has to reward this emblematic figure. It really should encourage this kind of fair profit and to invest in training these people under the human civilization natural interest to evolution. For example, Bill Gates deserves his social status thanks to the innovations that the company he created has made in society, with profound changes in all our lives. This text could not be read without the social revolution made by his team and the rival teams. It remains of course debatable whether he was fair in some practices regarding his employees, but he has not created the system, he just took it as found.

Karl Marx identified the profit with the social exploitation. From his point of view, the profit is achieved by the fact that the modern order taker is remunerated less than deserved, as the employer gains more profit through what he called "surplus value". As it turns out, he was right in the case of the profit that is excessive, unfairly and with no living standards rising for those involved in it. But he was wrong when considered that any kind of profit is immoral. Of course, Marx was influenced by the naive and poorly documented JJ Rousseau's ideas about the primitive society beauty that seems to be egalitarian. From this ideal, he developed the theory of communist equality for all citizens, as idealistic as that that Rousseau imagined. But later, the cultural anthropology very clearly showed that there is very visible social stratification in primitive societies, determined either on cultural criteria (totem) or based on personal abilities, as in every community or society. Most advanced animals’ species have higher or lower differences between their members. The more genetically advanced members take their species on higher status. The profit as the social classes’ differences on the skills, capacity and other basis, is a natural fact. Of course, it remains debatable whether the economic activities profit is enough to become a general criterion of human values, but this is another discussion topic.

At the opposite pole from that of Bill Gates, exemplified above, there is George Soros. He dose not deserve the rich man's status in contemporary society. He only speculated the market and immorally enriched without innovating or inventing something that would have changed the people’s lives. Unfortunately, the contemporary society is suffocated by these people that unjustly got rich. Any such false innovation or social engineering, which involves civil liberties or living standards loss, is a sign for hidden slavery in free trade relations. Then, the living standards collapsing are explained by politicians through various stratagems that persuade citizens to accept, and thus their corporations and intelligence services governed caste obtain the slavery type profit. For example, the Iraqi war and the bad loans artificial granting by banks to potential bad debtors are modern slavery practices. These practices served for citizens’ deceiving with false explanation in order to cover up this kind of phenomenon: . that modern slavery usually uses. Moreover, the non ecological environment exploitation by cutting down forests, or fracking, that pollutes the waters, are examples of economic maneuvers that do not lead to the whole community rising living standards but, on the contrary, they lead to their decline. These social engineering actions are identical to that of water privatization, which I have mentioned above, and they are genuine modern slavery practices.

The surplus value theory was later justly rejected by many philosophers and sociologists. Here is not the time for showing their objections. But Marx was right when analyzed the exaggerate discrepancy between rich and poor. Such differences are caused by the specific modern slavery market manipulation. The existence of such rich people like George Soros falsely implies the existence and the poor unfairly. These rich wrongly speculated just social system to reach the position where they are without the company brought some improvement. Their status as social cheaters has the other extreme recoil, namely those who do not receive from society what they ought.

Unfortunately, quite often the profit is equitably divided between the other community members in general or those who directly contributed to getting it, namely the order takers. The most important clue to observe this fact is the number of poor and criminals people. The two categories of people are interrelated. These people have a lower standard of living than that of primitive tribes. They feed on garbage and risk getting sick because of germs and toxic substances that pollute urban areas. They also are often addicted to psychoactive substances and risk to freeze to death in cold areas. One can see from a mile away that these people life standard is far below the primitive. The economic standards raising false argument brought by capitalist expansion into the world primitive areas has the same value as that of the colonialists in the past centuries who grotesquely twisted Jesus moral philosophy. Such practices reveal the most odious habits of human being.

Such practices of negatively influencing the social and natural environment only create a certain illusion of free trade relationship by painting the more or less visible wage slavery into brighter colors. But if the employer pays the employee with a lower wage than the labor value market offered in exchange, then this type of employment relationship is infested by slavery. In this case Marx is right to amend the exaggerated surplus value as the "partner" does not socially progress in proportionate manner or, even worse, it is experiencing social regression.

In the next entry I will insist on hiding, disguising the sources of threat to modern slaves for hijacking their uprising to other targets than those responsible for organizing and maintaining the slave crime.

Gabriel Baldovin

1.3. Relatia de fals liber schimb

1.3. Relatia de fals liber schimb

sociologie Baldovin   11:29

Manifestul societăţii automatiste  

1.3. Relatia de fals liber schimb 

Acest articol este continuarea celui precedent

English version here

Retributia mai mult sau mai putin simbolica acordata executantul modern de ordine in urma muncii prestate catre angajator se diferentiaza net de lipsa principiala a unei relatii libere de schimb din cazul sclaviei clasice. Cu toate astea nici aici diferenta nu e prea mare deoarece e usor de inteles ca cei mai eficienti sclavi erau incurajati si in acele timpuri ca si astazi prin „cadouri” speciale. In acelasi fel sclavele amante aveau privilegii mai mari decat celelalte, cam ca si astazi... Acordarea timpului liber zilnic sau pe perioade mai lungi (concedii platite) dar si a posibilitatii de demisie sunt alte cateva elemente de diferentiere intre sclavia clasica si statutul modern de angajat.

Retributia neechitabila este un alt punct comun intre anumite relatii moderne de munca si sclavia clasica. Sclavul clasic nu era platit decat cu cele necesare unei minime existente. Daca retributia primita in schimbul muncii sale este doar hrana si adapostul, fara posibilitate de diversificare a satisfactiilor si cu discriminari sociale profunde, atunci sclavia este una clasica. Dimpotriva, relatiile libere de munca permit o clara diversificare a implinirii nevoilor vietii cotidiene. Insa daca retributia este prea mica, neconforma cu valoarea mai mare a muncii depuse, atunci executantul modern de ordine este practic la fel de neretribuit ca si sclavul clasic.

Se poate observa aici o pacaleala de forma liberului schimb intre retributie si munca prestata, acordandu-i mai mult simbolic executantului modern de ordine o oarecare retributie tocmai spre a parea liber si diferit de sclavul clasic. Exista un interes al angajatorului de camuflare a acestei crime intr-un invelis respectabil are scopul evitarii revoltei specifice a sclavului, dar si a obtinerii sustinerii din partea opiniei publice in cazul inecarii in sange a unei potentiale revolte. Atunci cand schimbul retributie contra munca este unul neconcordant cu piata libera (neinfluentata de manipulari si alte manevre de inginerie sociala), deja vorbim de sclavie. Gradul de sclavie infiltrat in aceste relatii libere de munca este direct proportional cu discrepanta dintre valoarea reala a muncii prestate si cea apreciata de beneficiarul ei.

Acest tip de relatie se poate numi sclavie de fals liber schimb pentru ca munca oferita de cel ce o presteaza nu este suficient de echitabil platita de cel ce beneficiaza de ea, la fel ca in cazul sclaviei clasice. Acest tip de sclavie a fost dezvoltat in special de comercianti. Mentalitatea burgheza de secol XVII-XIX s-a perpetuat in mentalitatea contemporana a afacerilor, inlocuind sclavia clasica de sorginte feudala. De exemplu, daca un astfel de comerciant convinge sau forteaza prin diferite mijloace pe cetateanul X sa cumpere un oarecare obiect functional la o valoare de 1000 de ori mai mare decat cea reala a pietei, acest lucru este o escrocherie in proportie de 999/1000. 1/1000 este raportul exact intre valoarea reala a elemntului de schimb si ceea ce este munca neacoperita de acest schimb. Diferenta intre valoarea produsului primit si cel cedat in aceasta relatie de schimb este un furt in toata regula.

Daca bunul oferit la schimb catre un astfel de escroc comerciant este un alt obiect, atunci relatia de schimb in cauza este una de inselatorie. Daca schimbul se face contra unei prestari de servicii, eventual pe termen lung, atunci acesta este un semn de sclavie infiltrata in relatia de munca retribuita. Retributia este in acest caz doar o pacaleala specifica comertului ce poate fi depistata sau nu. Din pacate, in societatea moderna exista institutii speciale de mistificare si ridicare la rang de religie a valorii unor obiecte sau servicii tocmai pentru inrobirea celor care se prind in vrajile lor.

Din pacate, sunt foarte multe produse care par doar inovatoare datorita reclamelor mincinoase ce li se fac sau a designului seducator, dupa cum am aratat aici . De cele mai multe ori ele doar creeaza iluzia unui produs inovator. Iar comercializarea lor la preturi mai mari decat merita este principiul practicilor sclavagiste supravietuitoare in relatiile de aparent liber schimb din epoca moderna. Se poate vorbi aici despre o adevarata sclavie insulara sau partiala, subtil infiltrata intr-o relatie contractuala de liber schimb intre angajator si angajat din perioada moderna. Din nefericire multe astfel de relatii contractuale de liber schimb devin relatii abuzive pe fondul acceptarii termenilor contractuali de munca, adica a lipsei de reactie a victimelor.

Trebuie insa precizat categoric ca nu orice profit este echivalent cu sclavia. Nu orice profit este imoral. Sa ne imaginam un inventator care usureaza munca intregii comunitati sau societati in urma inventiei sale. Astfel, activitatea lui creste standardul de viata atat al celor implicati in punerea in practica a acesteia cat si a tuturor membrilor comunitatii sau societatii. Daca el realizeaza profit din comercializarea produsului lui, conform liberului schimb cu membrii comunitatii si fara manipularea pietei, atunci il obtine pe merit. Aici este intr-adevar vorba de o situatie win-win cand fiecare are de castigat de pe urma acestui produs inovator. Societatea ii este datoare sa-l recompenseze pe acest om emblematic. Ea chiar trebuie sa incurajeze existenta acestui gen de profit just si sa investeasca in formarea acestor oameni conform interesului natural spre evolutie a civilizatiei umane. De exemplu Bill Gates isi merita statutul sau social datorita inovatiilor pe care compania pe care a creat-o le-a facut in societate, cu schimbari profunde in viata tuturor. Acest text nu ar fi putut fi citit fara revolutia sociala facuta de echipa lui si a echipelor rivale. Ramane desigur de discutat in ce masura el a fost echitabil in unele practici cu proprii angajati, insa nu el a creat sistemul ci l-a preluat asa cum l-a gasit.

Karl Marx identifica profitul cu exploatarea sociala. Din punctul lui de vedere, profitul se realizeaza prin faptul ca executantul modern de ordine este retribuit cu mai putin decat ar merita, in timp ce patronul obtine profit prin valorificarea a ceea ce el a numit „plusvaloare”. Dupa cum se vede, el a avut dreptate in cazul unui profit exagerat, inechitabil si fara ridicarea standardelor de viata a celor implicati in realizarea lui. Dar s-a inselat atunci cand a crezut ca orice fel de profit este imoral. Desigur, Marx era influentat de ideile naive si insuficient documentate ale lui J.J. Rousseau despre frumusetea societatii primitive care pare egalitarista. Pornind de la acest ideal, el a si dezvoltat teoria comunista a egalitatii tuturor, la fel de idealista ca si cea a lui Rousseau. Ulterior insa antropologia culturala a aratat foarte clar ca in societatile primitive exista stratificare sociala foarte vizibila, stabilita atat pe criterii culturale (totem) cat si pe baza abilitatilor personale, ca in orice comunitate sau societate. Majoritatea speciilor avansate de animale au diferente mai mari sau mai mici intre membri. Cei mai evoluati sunt si cei care duc mai departe genetic specia, avand statut superior. Existenta profitului si a diferentelor de clasa sociala pe criterii de pricepere, abilitate si altele, este un fapt natural. Desigur, ramane de discutat in ce masura profitul din activitati economice este suficient pentru a deveni un criteriu general al valorilor umane, dar asta e o alta tema de discutie.

La polul opus fata de cel al lui Bill Gates, exemplificat mai sus, este George Soros. Acesta nu isi merita statutul de om bogat in societatea contemporana. El doar a speculat bursa si s-a imbogatit imoral, fara a inova sau inventa ceva care sa fi schimbat radical in bine viata oamenilor. Din pacate, societatea contemporana este sufocata de acesti oameni ajunsi bogati pe nedrept. Orice fel de astfel de falsa inovatie sau orice inginerie sociala, care implica pierderea libertatilor cetatenesti sau a standardelor de trai, sunt semne ale sclavagismului camuflat in relatii de liber schimb. Apoi scaderea standardelor de viata sunt explicate de politicieni prin diferite stratageme pentru a-i convinge pe cetateni sa le accepte si astfel tagma lor guvernata de corporatii si servicii secrete sa obtina profit de tip sclavagist. De exemplu razboiul din Irak si acordarea artificiala de credite neperformante din partea bancilor catre potentialii rau platnici sunt practici sclavagiste. Ele au servit drept falsa explicatie data cetatenilor pentru acest fenomen. De asemenea, exploatarea neecologica a mediului, prin taierea masiva a padurilor sau fracturarea hidraulica ce polueaza apele sunt manevre economice care nu conduc la ridicarea standardelor de viata ale intregii comunitati, ba din contra, conduc la scaderea lor. Aceste actiuni sunt identice cu cea a privatizarii apei, despre care am amintit mai sus, si constituie practici de sclavie moderna.

Teoria plusvalorii a fost amendata pe buna dreptate de numerosi filosofi si sociologi ulterior. Nu este momentul aici a unei expuneri ale lor. Dar Marx a avut dreptate analizand diferentele prea mari intre bogati si saraci. Astfel de diferente sunt datorate unei manipulari a pietei specifice relatiilor abuzive de munca. Existenta a unor astfel de oameni bogati pe nedrept precum George Soros implica si existenta si a saracilor pe nedrept. Acesti bogati nejustificat doar au speculat sistemul social pentru a ajunge in pozitia in care sunt, fara sa adus ceva imbunatatire societatii. Statutul lor de trisori sociali are reculul in extrema cealalta, respectiv a celor care nu primesc de la societate ceea ce li s-ar cuveni.

Din pacate, destul de rar se intampla ca profitul sa fie impartit echitabil cu ceilalti membrii ai comunitatii in general sau chiar cu cei care au contribuit direct la obtinerea lui, in speta angajatii. Cel mai important indiciu pentru observarea acestui fapt este numarul saracilor si infractorilor. Cele doua categorii de oameni sunt intercorelate. Acesti oameni au un standard de viata mai scazut decat cel al triburilor de primitivi. Ei se hranesc cu gunoaie si risca sa se imbolnaveasca datorita microbilor si substantelor toxice care polueaza spatiile urbane. De asemenea, ei sunt de cele mai multe ori dependenti de substante psihoactive si risca sa moara de frig in zonele reci. Se vede de la o posta faptul ca standardul de viata a acestor oameni este mult sub cel al primitivilor. Argumentul ridicarii standardelor economice adus de expansiunea capitalista in zonele primitive ale lumii are aceeasi valoare precum cel al colonialistilor din secolele trecute, prin rastalmacirea grotesca a conceptiilor sociale ale lui Isus. In astfel de practici se pot vedea cele mai odioase apucaturi ale fiintei umane.

Astfel de practici de influentare negativa a mediului social si natural doar creeaza o oarecare impresie de liber schimb si cosmetizeaza sclavia salariala intr-un mod mai mult sau mai putin vizibil. Daca angajatorul isi plateste angajatul cu o retributie mult sub valoarea de piata a muncii pe care el o ofera la schimb, atunci acest tip de relatie de munca este infestata de sclavie. In acest caz Marx are dreptate cu amendarea plusvalorii exagerate in conditiile in care „partenerul” nu progreseaza social direct proportional , sau chiar experimenteaza o regresie sociala.

In urmatorul articol voi insista pe ascunderea, camuflarea surselor de amenintare a sclavilor moderni pentru deturnarea revoltei lor catre alte tinte decat cei vinovati de organizarea si intretinerea crimei sclavagiste.

Gabriel Baldovin

1.2. The inequitable profit

1.2. The inequitable profit

sociologie Baldovin   07:49

The automatist society manifesto  

 

1.2. The inequitable profit

This entry continues the precedent one
Pentru varianta in limba romana clic aici

From now on I will publish a series of 6 interconnected entries on the very critical issue of the classical slavery as it has remained in the modern labor relations reflexes, even after its official abolition. I will start with a first group of three entries focused on the similarities and differences between the two types of labor relationships. Then I will continue with the 4th entry in which I will show clear examples of what I said in the first 3 ones. In the 5th entry I will make a comparative analysis concerning the slavery evolution from the ancient times to the present. Finally in the 6th entry I will try to theoretically counter those social structures that allow and encourage this type of unhealthy human relationships in the shape of the legislative implications. I, therefore will begin with describing the inequitable profits as a first similarity between the classical slavery and modern labor relationship.

According to the official vision, the slave is that kind of past servant or laborer that can be sold, punished or even killed by his master. Of course, the slave is not entitled to leave the workplace. Such a work relationship is forbidden today. It exists only inside the unofficial mafias. The contemporary worker radically differs from the classical slave in this regard. It is neither killed nor corporally punished if resigns from work or refuse to work more efficiently. Moreover, its employer does not sell it to another employer. In the modern society there is no need for this. The modern society problem is to persuade through various means to make the servant accept the obedience. If an employer wants a more efficient worker it is sufficient to grant him a higher wage and it will come alone freely.

These differences are considered to be essential, but in the next entries I will show that they are not the main differentiators, although they are important in terms of morality. Beyond these clear differences, between the two types of labor relations there are larger or smaller similarities. The most important similarity between them is the subordination. Both the worker and the slave accept orders from the master or employer. But not just any subordination relationship is equivalent to slavery or worker status. The concept of "subordination" is broader than the "slave" and "worker" combined. There are different from of subordination than that of the slave and the worker. For example, a child who is under the command of parents or guardians is not a slave. The adults around the child are supervisors of its experimentation and social integration behavior. They help the child to avoid irreversible mistakes or to easier pass those made of inexperience.

Then the slave’s subordination is different from that of the worker. An adult who accepts subordination to another adult orders is not necessarily a slave. Originally, the human being wants to make certain services to society if pays respect and brings its own services in exchange. This is the human evolution principle that everyone has deep etched in blood. An order received from a client for a particular product or service does not necessarily involve slavery although in this case there is a subordination relationship: one orders and the other runs the order. But here we are talking about the goods and services free exchange relationship. This working relationship is a subordination partnership type. The beneficiary exchanges a product or service that is generally equivalent to its determined on the open market value, according to supply and demand of all the market participants. This exchange type is either team relationship (indirect exchange) or direct exchange. The direct exchange relationship involves a simple goods and services exchange between the two partners. The indirect exchange relationship (team) involves producing a product or a service within in a team which led by a manager, that uses the famous labor division. The product is then exchanged out into the society on other products and services, and then they are secondary redistributed between the team members.

The subordination to another more experienced adult is fair if it helps to achieve a common goal and involves a fair profit sharing. For example, a sportsman accepts the coach vision and orders about winning competitions strategy in which he is involved either individually or inside the team. The coach is a guide in this case. He sees the game as a whole. On the contrary, the player sees the game only partially, limited by the level in which it plays. Focusing on this side, that player can not see the whole picture and needs this guide. We have here a partnership relationship between the authority and the subordinate guide.

Unfortunately, the line between slavery and free relationship of subordination to the team or direct exchange of goods and services is very fragile. The slavery can imperceptibly infiltrate within this fair relationship and here must be said that the greed for huge profit is causing this. Any attempt to influence in a way the environment in which this exchange happens, in terms of a disproportionate profit for one certain part, makes the working relationship to become an abusive one. For example, the ancient slave is involved into an abusive exchange relationship with his master; the first provides products and services and other one offers "in exchange" the life or bodily integrity of the other. Given that these goods must be free, it is an abuse to trade them.

The slavery specific subordination is a hermetical one as the beneficiary (slave’s owner) does not really offer in exchange a product or a service generally equivalent to the determined in the free market value for the product or service offered by the slave. Inside the classical slavery system, the exchange value is unilateral, made from the slave’s owner only interest and not that of the free market. Offering a product or service in exchange for not receiving corporal punishment from the master or for allowing the classical slave to "benefit" (!!!) form its life is not free trade but a kind of theft. Unfortunately, the rumors about water privatization in Western society, rather threatens to return to classic slavery. We are dealing here with an abusive transformation of a free good into an economic good. As the slave’s life was “privatized” by the classical master, as the slave must pay to accepting slavery to “benefit” from it, the same way such a measure turns a free good, namely the water, into an economic one. In the famous America there are areas where the rainwater collection is illegal and those who practice might bear the consequences.

Any exaggerated or unfair profit from an exchange relationship is a sign of slavery, because most often it is the result of an abuse over the vulnerable part of this labor relationship. The more unfair profit is distributed the bigger slavery degree infiltrated into the interpersonal exchange relationships. In classical slavery’s case the uneven profit lies in the lack of remuneration as the relationship between those involved is based on free exchange but on threatening. The classical slave services are not paid according to natural free trading relations, but simply stolen by force. In modern slavery’s case its sign is the excessive profits achieved by deception without improving the life of those who are involved in this exchange relationship. In fact either there is no retribution at all or it is a symbolic one only, so there is no fair, equitable distribution of the profit realized from this collaboration. Sometimes, not only that from this toxic relationship the other part living standards are not improved, but these standards even decrease. And the result is poverty and diseases, as I will show in one of the future entries.

This stealing / deception distinction is able to compare the classical slavery and modern labor relationship. It mainly consists of two general features. The first one is the false free trading relationship that the slave owner uses to give some respectable appearance slavery crime. The other one is the indirect threats coming not directly from the master, but from the mediators that the master controls. In the next entry I will develop the false free trading relationship theme and in the next after that theme I will analyze the indirect threats, in addition to those previously mentioned here and here.

Gabriel Baldovin

1.2. Profitul nejustificat

1.2. Profitul nejustificat

sociologie Baldovin   00:11

Manifestul societăţii automatiste  

 

1.2. Profitul nejustificat

English version here

Acest articol este continuarea celui precedent

Conform viziunii oficiale, sclavul este acel servitor sau muncitor din trecut care poate fi vandut, pedepsit sau chiar ucis de catre stapanul sau. Desigur sclavul nu are dreptul sa paraseasca locul de munca. O astfel de relatie de munca este interzisa astazi. Ea mai exista doar la nivelul organizatiilor mafiote neoficiale. Executantul modern de ordine se deosebeste net de sclavul clasic din acest punct de vedere. El nu este ucis si nici nu este pedepsit corporal daca isi da demisia de la locul de munca sau daca refuza sa munceasca mai eficient. De asemenea, angajatorul sau nu il vinde unui alt angajator. In societatea moderna nu este nevoie de asa ceva. Problema societatii moderne este a-l convinge prin diferite mijloace sa accepte statutul de supus. Daca un angajator vrea un angajat mai performant atunci este suficient sa ii acorde un salariu mai mare si el vine singur.

Aceste deosebiri sunt considerate nete, insa in articolele urmatoare voi arata ca nu acestea sunt principalele elemente de diferentiere, desi si ele sunt importante sub aspectul moral. Apoi, dincolo de deosebiri, intre cele doua tipuri de relatii de munca exista asemanari mai mari sau mai mici. Cea mai importanta asemanare dintre ele este subordonarea. Si sclavul si angajatul accepta ordine de la stapan sau angajator. Dar nu orice fel de relatie de subordonare este echivalenta cu sclavagismul sau cu statutul de executantul modern de ordine. Conceptul de „subordonare” este mai larg decat cele de „sclav” si „angajat” insumate. Exista subordonare diferita atat de cea a sclavului cat si de cea a angajatului. De exemplu, un copil care se afla sub comanda parintilor sau tutorilor nu este un sclav. Adultii din jurul copilului sunt supervizori ai comportamentului sau de experimentare si integrare sociala. Ei il ajuta sa evite greselile ireversibile sau sa poata trece mai usor peste cele facute din lipsa de experienta.

Apoi, subordonarea sclavului este diferita de cea a executantului modern de ordine. Un adult care accepta o subordonare fata de comenzile unui alt adult nu este neaparat un sclav. Originar, omul vrea sa faca servicii societatii daca si societatea il respecta si ii aduce serviciile ei. Acesta este principiul evolutiei omenirii si fiecare om il are in sange bine intiparit. O comanda primita de la un client pentru un anumit produs sau serviciu nu este neaparat o relatie de sclavie desi in acest caz exista o relatie de subordonare: unul ordona iar celalalt executa ordinul. Aici vorbim despre o relatie de schimb liber de produse si servicii. Acest tip de relatie de munca este subordonare parteneriala. Beneficiarul ofera la schimb un produs sau un serviciu echivalent cu valoarea lui stabilita general pe piata libera, conform cererii si ofertei tuturor participantilor la piata. Aceasta relatie de schimb este fie de echipa (schimb indirect) fie de schimb direct. Relatia de schimb direct presupune un schimb simplu de produse si servicii intre doi parteneri. Relatia de schimb indirect (echipa) presupune producerea unui produs sau serviciu realizat intr-o echipa coordonata de un manager, adica celebra diviziune a muncii. Produsul este apoi schimbat in societate pe alte produse si servicii care sunt reimpartite apoi secundar membrilor echipei.

Subordonarea fata de un alt adult mai experimentat pentru atingerea unui obiectiv comun este justa cu conditia impartirii juste a profitului si fara influentarea liberului arbitru al potentialului subordonat. De exemplu un sportiv se supune viziunii antrenorului despre strategia de castigare a competitiilor in care el este angrenat fie individual fie in echipa. Antrenorul este un ghid in acest caz. El vede jocul in ansamblu. Dimpotriva, jucatorul vede jocul doar partial, limitat la spatiul in care se desfasoara. Concentrandu-se pe aceasta parte, el nu poate vedea ansamblul si are nevoie de aceasta ghidare. Avem aici o relatie de parteneriat intre autoritatea ghidului si cea a subordonatului.

Din pacate, granita dintre sclavagism si relatia libera de subordonare pentru echipa sau in schimb direct de produse si servicii este foarte fragila. Sclavia se poate infiltra pe nesimtite in interiorul acestei relatii echitabile si trebuie spus ca lacomia unui profit mai mare decat este meritat este cea care cauzeaza acest lucru. Practic in acest profit nejustificat din relatiile moderne de munca se regaseste munca neplatita de pe urma careia profita stapanul de sclav clasic. Orice tentativa de influentare intr-un fel a mediului in care se desfasoara acest schimb, in sensul unui profit disproportionat pentru o anumita parte, face ca relatia de munca sa devina una abuziva. De exemplu, sclavul antic se afla cu stapanul sau in relatie de schimb abuziv; primul ofera produse si servicii iar celalalt ofera „la schimb” viata sau integritatea corporala a celuilalt. Tinand cont ca acestea trebuie sa fie bunuri libere, a face schimb cu ele inseamna un abuz.

Subordonarea specifica sclaviei este una ermetica pentru ca beneficiarul (stapanul) nu ofera la schimb un produs sau serviciu echivalent cu valoarea stabilita general pe piata libera a produsului sau serviciului oferite de sclav. In cazul sclaviei clasice, valoarea oferita la schimb este una unilaterala, realizata conform propriei dorinte si nu cu cea a pietei libere. Cedarea unui produs sau serviciu stapanului in schimbul suspendarii pedepsei corporale sau permiterii vietii de care "beneficiaza" (!!!) sclavul clasic nu este liber schimb, ci un altfel de furt. Din pacate, zvonurile despre privatizarea apei in societatea occidentala, cam ameninta cu o intoarcere la sclavia clasica din acest motiv. Avem de a face aici cu transformarea abuziva a unui bun liber in bun economic. Dupa cum viata sclavului era „privatizata” de catre stapanul clasic, iar sclavul trebuind sa plateasca cu sclavia pentru a „beneficia” de ea, la fel o astfel de masura transforma un bun liber, respectiv apa, intr-unul economic. In prea vestita „libera” America exista zone unde colectarea apei de ploaie este ilegala iar cel care o practica risca sa suporte consecinte.

Asadar orice profit exagerat sau neechitabil in urma unei relatii de schimb implica sclavia, pentru ca el se realizeaza in urma unui abuz asupra partii vulnerabile din aceasta relatie de munca. Cu cat profitul e mai inechitabil distribuit cu atat gradul de sclavie infiltrata in relatiile interpersonale de schimb este mai mare. In cazul sclaviei clasice profitul neuniform consta in lipsa de retributie, iar relatia dintre cei implicati in ea nu mai poate fi una de schimb liber ci de furt realizat in urma amenintarii directe cu moartea. Serviciile sclavului clasic nu sunt platite conform unei relatii naturale de liber schimb, ci pur si simplu furate prin forta. In cazul sclavagismului infiltrat in relatiile libere de munca semnul sau este profitul excesiv realizat prin pacalire, fara imbunatatirea vietii celui sau celor cu care se realizeaza schimbul. De fapt retributia nu exista sau e doar una simbolica, asa ca nu se pune problema de impartire justa, echitabila a profitului realizat in urma colaborarii. Uneori nu doar ca in urma acestei relatii toxice nu se realizeaza ridicarea nivelului de trai al celeilalte parti a acordului, dar chiar se ajunge la scaderea acestui nivel. Iar rezultatul este saracie si boala, dupa cum voi arata intr-unul din articolele viitoare.

Aceasta distinctie furt/pacalire, este in masura sa faca diferenta dintre sclavia clasica si relatia moderna de munca. Ea consta in principal in doua caracteristici generale. Prima este relatia de fals liber schimb pe care stapanul o foloseste pentru a da un oarecare aspect respectabil crimei sclavagiste. Cealalta consta in amenintarile indirecte venite, nu direct de la stapan, ci din partea unor resorturi intermediare pe care stapanul le controleaza. In urmatorul articol voi dezvolta tema acestei relatii de fals liber schimb iar în cel ce ii va urma voi analiza tema amenintarilor indirecte, pe langa cele spuse anterior in acest spatiu aici si aici.

Gabriel Baldovin

The sex education among conservative hypocrisy and corporatist greed

The sex education among conservative hypocrisy and corporatist greed

sociologie Baldovin   02:35

Click aici pentru varianta in limba romana!

Everywhere in the civilized world there are two main opinions concerning the sexual education for children. The first one is the conservatives, who go on the old stork myth as birth explanation for children. The other one wants to stay out of misconceptions and insist on directly telling the detailed truth to children. The first one has the disadvantages of causing anxiety and insecurity feelings to children who perceive it like a little strange, in one way or another. The second version has the disadvantages of causing also anxiety and insecurity feelings to children who do not see irregularities in the stork story. So, there are two types of children, some with greater and others with smaller * concerns about sexuality.

The two types of children actually reflected two opposing mentalities of today's society, the conservative and the progressive one. I have been a progressive mentality supporter for a long time, denouncing the conservative negative aspects, such as malnutrition, infant mortality, low life age, population cleansing through wars and, not least, the classical slavery. I think they are even today black spots on the civilization’s face. The sexual abstinence is a feature of this lifestyle. As the cities became too small and the intimate spaces were becoming smaller, the sexual abstinence was a solution to regulate these aspects.

Unfortunately, once with the direct capitalism experience, I saw that the progressive mentality has about the same issues, and sometimes even bigger ones, failing to fully solve those of the conservative. For example, the food problem is not solved at all, once with the abundance, the excess and the waste specific to contemporary life. The genetically modified organisms and a lot of substances added into food threaten the contemporary man’s life just as the malnutrition did in the past. Also, the obesity is a problem as big as the malnutrition. So, just as in the past one could die from malnutrition, today the obesity is as deadly. Also, the food, in which is added all kinds of suspicious substances, can cause cancer. The children death from various diseases in the past is as tragic as that caused by the today’s abortion. The outside wars with other countries, or those made within the state towards certain social classes causes such kind of population’s cleansing. For example, the US police simply hunt "bad copies" of "population", as does the forester with the hunting. If you are homeless and have made some minor irregularity, then you risk to get shot by the police and be removed in a disgraceful manner. A more efficient worker will get US visa to take your place. Likewise, the slavery has changed a little on the surface, but basically it remained the same. The wage slaves were offered paid time off, holidays and possibility to choose their master by resigning. But, through various social engineering, they are still forced to perform some work.

The modern sexuality derives from these benchmarks. It is the main driver of the “American dream” corporatist myth. As shown here http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2010/01/examples-of-spiritual-mutilation-made.html , the sexuality is used as emotional bait for advertising. The sexual freedom has almost no restriction, but sex life came as trivial as drinking water, many loosing its full satisfaction and endlessly seeking it. Being nostalgic for the astral experience of past ages sexuality, some refuse it all today, as if boycotting its very freedom. A corporatist lifestyle, driven by the every second manic need to compete with someone and a win, involves such a sexual behavior exacerbation, due to the libidinal overexcitation. The bourgeois mentality abstract Puritanism, which turned into the neuroticist culture, was abandoned for the raw, simple eroticism. The hypersthenia is its main landmark. Absorbing the libidinal energy by the libido peripheral memory networks is minor. The only libidinal overflows besides the rough neutralization, which is the repeatedly sex activities, are the male’s need for more female partners and the female’s hysteriform need for adoration from the accepted partner and / or the rejected partners.  

Whether the sex education is adopted or not in the society highest decision-making bodies, the children still have enough resources to know quite in details the phenomenon. The today’s children have the Web at their fingertips, as the printed sources can be seen at every street corner. The TV stations also provide plenty of information about this through movies or other shows. The sex education is lately done during the ... work, as learning was once done. This civilized world reality quickly spreads in the whole world, creating turmoil in some conservative traditional spaces. Although they are still teenagers, many of today's children have already experienced a lot of sexual options, positions and alternatives. Instead of dreaming for the classical love or for finding the lover secrets, many of today's 18 years old teen women pour out the 35 years old bitterness that already have family and children. At this age nothing seems to motivate them than seeing their children recognized as geniuses. But, luckily, they had fulfilled their mission somehow. The today’s 18 years old divas will probably have children at 50. The career ambitions are more important now for them at this age. They want to unnecessary prove at all costs that have a penis, and many even succeed that. Others surround themselves with effeminate men and still demonstrate something. Slowly but surely losing their femininity, they do not think much of children.

I will not forget here the sexually corporatist man, who creates the illusion that it is the alpha male and has as many real or imaginary mistresses. He is neither satisfied with his nonsexual life, which is directly reflected in the sexual one, meaning that he either wants sex too frequently or wants something else. As he feels threatened by the superiors, this man would make a sexual partner out of anything that moves, as his jealous female partners contemptuously describe him. His sexual hyperactivity is directly influenced by his lifestyle. Feeling threatened, the corporatist man wants to spawn somewhere, guided by the sexuality basic natural principle, but aberrantly mutilated by the corporatist lifestyle. The more his partner is "alien" and able to further carry on his genes, the more corporatist man dies to mate with her. The women from his life can confirm his choice for ... lunatic partners! The inconsistency between his ejaculation centered sexuality and his female partner's, which is centered on prelude, brings to serious couple problems, which often ends up in separation.

The wage slavery system has much to gain after pornographic or hyperlibidinal culture as it gains from any desire that is ready to satisfy or to promise satisfaction in return for a service. The more diverse and unmet are the desires the bigger is the dependence on the capitalist system of gratification. A person with a very high sex appetite is a hyperactive one, wanting high social status from which to choose as many mistresses. For such a social status he that person is able to make compromises and to join the corporatist social hierarchy. The difficult tasks stress and the subordination humiliation find compensation into the alpha male illusion, by owning as many women as possible. The woman has almost the same profile. The difference is that her interest is not to have as many men as possible, but to get engaged with a celebrity or someone famous person. Her hyperlibidinal ambition is focused on various professional relationships and the activities that facilitate them. So, as the exchange relations slavery, the capitalism works and cultivates this hedonism in which the sexuality is its top.

If, in the 19th century, the sex pulsion artificial inhibition caused distress, on the contrary, in the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century, this suffering comes from extorting a as bigger as possible satisfaction from the poor genitals, and they are simply being abused. The classical neurosis is at the opposite point of contemporary hyperlibidinal culture. We got rid of neurosis but we are now stuck in the cyclothymiac or even bipolar temperaments. The libido has lost its natural fluidity and became more and more tortuous. The genetic combinations roulette between the various different types of libidos parents can create predispositions for bizarre sexual behavior, as I have shown here: http://baldovin.netai.net/acte/Din.psi.abis/texte/libidinale.htm . Many “sories” about the abstinence virtues are being taught today by a shadowy emotional background. Unfortunately, 70% of such options come as another form of frigidity, vaginismus or atrophied sexual appetite, generally specific to women. Because of these problems some men became effeminate as many women possess a virile sexuality at the mental level, of course with no correspondence in the physical level. The most married women had no compatibility with their husbands from the very relationship beginning concerning the sexual impulses fervency that requires satisfaction through intercourse. This problem is also due to the different nature of female sexuality, but it is also deepened by these disorders listed above. Most women prostitute themselves legally through the marriage, which is accepting a sexual life with the husband, grinning and beating it and closing their eyes, imagining themselves a kind of Virgin Mary that made the marriage compromise only to save the human species from extinction. Some of these women later chose separation or divorce but neither one of those ways are solutions for escaping these intricate traps concerning them or for their children in terms of libido optimizing.

Well, that is what the little children receive from their parents, these pillars of contemporary civilized society. As long as they live disturbed lifestyles, they could not send better life. The mental legacy is not a matter of willingness. The “Christian teachings” about the temperance have no meaning in this temptations nightmare specific to corporatist life. The stork story is also unnecessary for the child “polymorphous perversity” born from a corporatist sex couple. Those children whose parents were able to stay away from civilization corporatist turmoil are very rare. For them, the stork story is perfect. But the others ones need directed sexual education and protection against any sexual abuse that can came after their obvious curiosity for the subject. Moreover, these children need psychotherapy, as well as their parents.

Unfortunately, under the getting out of preconception guise there often lays the filthy interest of establishing a pornographic culture since the early ages. Around this honest island of sex education there is an ocean of mental harassment to children so their libido to be deformed and boosted according to the capitalist objectives for domination through dependence. The pornographic websites, magazines and TV channels easily get in the children hands, amplifying their already distorted libidinal predisposition inherited from their parents previously made compromises. So, a Victorian education turns out to be as harmful to the future adult as it is the hedonistic one. Being frightened by the psychopathological developments prospect of neuroticist type made by the Victorian education, there can be said that the capitalism simply subsidizes the pornographic culture, thus luring the future slaves with the constant and indefinite erotic desires dependence.

* Most psychologists recommended to first try stork version, and then, if the child shows signs of discontenting, to be told the truth following the levels of detail, depending on its response to the information received. Of course, when the child keeps asking for more and more details, it is recommended to be sent in psychotherapy.

Gabriel Baldovin

Situatia din Grecia- o ironica reactualizare moderna a dilemei stoicism - hedonism

Situatia din Grecia- o ironica reactualizare moderna a dilemei stoicism - hedonism

sociologie Baldovin   10:51

Exista doua pareri diametral opuse despre situatia din Grecia. Una este cea conspirationist-economica si cealalta este cea neoliberala. Prima are alura umanista si sustine ca Grecia e supusa unui asalt colonialist, de anihilare a independentei si cucerire economica. Cealalta e vizibil corporatista si sustine ca grecii nu muncesc si se imprumuta de la occidentali pentru o viata de huzur.

Desi, conform formatiunii mele teoretice, sint mai aproape de viziunea umanista, din start sustin ca adevarul e pe undeva intre cele doua puncte de vedere. Cred ca fiecare dintre cele doua viziuni au puncte slabe. Am sa le analizez pe fiecare in parte, mai intai pe cea corporatist-neoliberalista de care ma simt mai strain.

Remarc mai intai ca mass-media bombardeaza naivii cu aceasta idee care a ajuns sa fie sustinuta inclusiv prin reclame, asa cum se vede aici:



Numai faptul ca acestei idei i se face reclama o face din start dubioasa in ochii mei. Resping aceasta viziune din start pentru ca stiu ce inseamna reclamele. Am aratat aici (http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2011/01/exemple-de-manipulare-si-obedienta.html) ce inseamna publicitatea, asa ca lucrurile sint clare pentru mine. Vorbim aici despre un fel de picatura chinezeasca a manipularii.

In aceasta reclama se spune foarte malitios ca „Grecii au inventat democratia si statul… degeaba” . Dupa cum voi argumenta mai jos, o astfel de idee contine ceva adevar, insa, asa cum o prezinta reclama in cauza, ea este o exagerare grotesca. Daca ne uitam la statisticile orelor lucrate de greci vedem ca sint destui europeni care lucreaza mult mai putin decat grecii:

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

Iata ca acest grafic, si multe altele de acest gen, arata faptul ca ei, de fapt, lucreaza destul de mult. Sunt putine tari din lume care lucreaza mai mult ca ei. De exemplu, belgienii lucreaza putin peste 1500 de ore pe an. Inclusiv „harnicii” nemti lucrau putin peste 1400 de ore pe an pana in 2008. De atunci incoace lucreaza chiar sub 1400 de ore.

Desigur, faptul ca Grecia este presata atat de agresiv de Occident nu este un lucru chiar intamplator. Protestele de acum cativa ani din Atena, cand cetatenii au sfidat autoritatile in bloc, de la mic la mare, au legatura cu aceste presiuni. Ca o dictatura cosmetizata, democratia occidentala nu priveste cu ochi buni acest tip de punere in discutie a autoritatii pe care grecii au exersat-o atunci. UE a adus Greciei acelasi argument cu care fermierul isi docilizeaza animalele: ori faceti ce vrem noi, ori va inchidem conducta.

Folosirea mass- media ca varf de lance al acestei presiuni se explica prin interesul de a-i convinge pe europeni de falsa idee ca scaderea nivelului lor de trai se datoreaza grecilor care, chipurile, ar primi fonduri pentru a-si mentine un stil de viata risipitor. Desigur, in aceste conditii, profitul angajatorilor va creste, angajatii acceptand conditii mai defavorabile de lucru. In fond, „scaderea cheltuielilor” propuse de multtrambitata austeritate, fata de care s-a si facut celebrul referendum, este tot o strategie pentru convingerea „subordonatilor” sa presteze munca mai multa pentru o retributie mai mica. Acest fapt inseamna un profit mai mare pentru corporatisti. Desigur, de fiecare data cand exista o adancire a prapastiei dintre clasele sociale implicate in aceasta relatie, este vorba de un anumit tip de colonialism, adica de un ansamblu de abuzuri mai mult sau mai putin vizibile asupra subordonabililor pentru a fi transformati in subordonati.


Si totusi, personal nu pot fi de acord nici cu atitudinea conspirationista prezentata in acest documentar:


Asadar lenevia si huzurul care li se imputa grecilor, sint manipulari media. Problema economiei Greciei este insa a eficientei acestei munci, adica de raportul dintre salariul platit de angajator si valoarea acestei munci. Cu alte cuvinte, salariile lor erau cam mari pentru ceea ce produceau ei si vindeau celorlalti. Cum e posibil asa ceva? Foarte simplu: daca ari o anumita suprafata de pamant cu sapa atunci muncesti mai mult decat cel care o face cu tractorul. Cam asa ceva a fost si cu economia Greciei timp de peste o jumatate de secol. Occidentul a cam pompat bani in spatiul grecesc pentru a se crea iluzia unui capitalism functional spre a nu cadea prada comunismului precum celelalte tari balcanice. Grecia a fost moneda de schimb pentru care Occidentul a lasat Rusia sovietica sa influenteze viata politica in Europa de est. Principalul motiv pentru asta a fost faptul ca acolo s-a nascut insasi Europa si insasi societatea civilizata, acum mai bine de 2500 de ani. Nu se putea face un experiment social in aceasta zona. De asemenea, pericolul islamic venit din partea Turciei cu care Grecia a avut un conflict secular, a necesitat un astfel de transfer discret de capital.

Daca ne uitam la statisticile castigurilor medii pe cap de locuitor in 2012, vedem ca venitul mediu in 2012 era de 2300 $, cu mult peste tarile balcanice.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/226956/average-world-wages-in-purchasing-power-parity-dollars/

Dintre acestea doar Ciprul (tot un fel de Grecia) o depaseste. Si nu turismul cel vestit al grecilor este cel care ducea fraul economiei grecesti, conform Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece

Dealtfel, in acest clasament Grecia (si Ciprul) este prima tara turistica la venit pe cap de locuitor. Or fi frumoase locurile lor dar nu cred ca ar fi cele mai frumoase.

Cu alte cuvinte, economia greceasca a fost impinsa din spate. Ea s-a dezvoltat intr-o relatie de dependenta fata de Occident. Stilul occidental de viata al grecilor nu avea acoperire in economia lor, la fel cum cineva face cumparaturi peste bugetul sau. Dar iata ca, acum cand Rusia „s-a dat pe brazda”, devenind ea insasi capitalista, nu mai e nevoie de un astfel de punct. Dar, intre timp, grecii au ajuns deja momiti cu iluziile vietii inaltului standard. Capitalismul vrea sa treaca mai departe si sa investeasca in alte tari „lenese”, cum este cazul tarilor arabe recent convertite la democratie pentru a le aduce cetatenii sa traiasca o viata trepidanta ce ii imbogatesc pe corporatistii de pretutindeni. E timpul ca Grecia sa presteze profit.

Situatia asta se foloseste si la nivel microeconomic. Aceasta este si pacaleala cu care tinerii sint atrasi in corporatii cu salarii mari initiale (momire). Dupa aceea, devenind dependenti de fite si (fals) statut social in fata cunoscutilor conform acestei momiri, corporatiile ii exploateaza nemilos, ei neputand sa se desprinda de acest stil de viata supraevaluat. Cei care nu fac fata „strangerii surubului”, dupa momirea initiala, sint pur si simplu concediati, cazand prada depresiei odata cu scaderea standardului de viata. Afara asteapta alti naivi cu atitudine de invingator sa fie transformati in legume dupa ani de sclavagism prin corporatii. Am trecut personal prin aceasta experienta cu corporatiile asa ca pot sa inteleg perfect acest mecanism diabolic, responsabil cu explozia tulburarilor psihice in secolul al XX-lea.

Si totusi situatia aceasta imorala este practic imposibil de transat conform principiilor moralei clasice. Corporatistii invoca faptul ca, prin astfel de mecanisme, economia si tehnologia evolueaza si nivelul de trai creste. Cei care ies desfigurati emotional dupa ani sau poate zeci de ani dintr-o astfel de experienta corporatista, sint sacrificatii in numele evolutiei speciei. Cei drept, aici au dreptate, viata in general ofera numeroase exemple ale individului sacrificat in numele speciei. Acelasi argument este reluat , la nivel macrosocial, in cazul situatiei din Grecia: pe de o parte occidentalii sint de blamat pentru ca au destabilizat o societate dupa cel de-al doilea razboi mondial, momind-o precum corporatiile pe tineri si obisnuind-o cu un stil de viata peste puterea economica, subminandu-i practic independenta economica. Dar, pe de alta parte, occidentalii nu sint de blamat pentru ca nu vor sa mai transfere capital in acest spatiu. Nimeni nu poate fi blamat pentru ca nu ofera ceva cuiva fie pe gratis fie la schimb.

Dar lipsa de scrupule a Occidentului in relatia cu Grecia e evidenta. In documentarul de mai sus se vorbeste constant in el despre presiunile facute de Occident pentru unele privatizari frauduloase. Coruptia din jurul acestor privatizari se vede de la o posta. Bunurile statului, au ajuns astazi sa fie vandute pe nimic la licitatii trucate. Insa, in aceeasi masura, multe dintre aceste bunuri au fost facute de banii occidentalilor pompati dupa cel de-al doilea razboi mondial. Cumva situatia se echilibreaza.

De asemenea, asanumitele ajutoare financiare, chipurile, menite sa ajute economia Greciei, de fapt, cu concursul unor politicieni corupti, au intrat in depozitele sucursalelor bancilor occidentale, dupa cum multi au observat. Iar povestea transformarii si multiplicarii banilor si datoriei cu care ei vin se poate vedea in documentarul de mai jos pe care il repostez si pentru cei care inca nu-l stiu, sau l-au uitat, ca o lectie ce trebuie mereu si mereu reluata.


Dar, dincolo de aceste realitati economice dure ale unei hartuieli din partea unor adevarati pradatori umani, ramane un adevar: Grecia are o mare problema cu dependenta financiara fata de Occident. In plan concret asta inseamna ca Grecia primeste o gama de obiecte sau servicii, mai mult sau mai putin vitale, pentru ca acestea nu se fac la nivel intern in ograda proprie. Cei care le fac pot sa ceara orice pret pentru aceasta dependenta, printre care si aceasta alambicata austeritate. De fapt austeritatea sociala exact acest lucru inseamna, respectiv un pret mai mare in cadrul acestui schimb. Iar atata timp cat nu poti sa spui „Nu” acestei dependente si esti santajabil intr-un anume fel cu retragerea suportului financiar, inseamna ca economia ta nu functioneaza. Adica te-ai intins mai mult decat iti e plapuma. Daca scoatem Occidentul din aceasta poveste urata, Grecia tot nu isi poate rezolva problemele. Caci in momentul de fata nu se mai pune problema datoriilor de platit catre creditorii occidentali ci colapsul economic. Banii se retrag de la o vreme cu portia de la bancomate. In scurt timp economiile personale ale cetatenilor se vor epuiza. Cinismul partenerilor occidentali e una; dar faptul ca tu nu te poti organiza economic ca stat, fara influenta acestor hiene, e cu totul altceva. Aici grecii sint pe cont propriu in asumarea acestei crize.

Am spus-o si o voi repeta mult timp de acum inainte: trebuie sa ai puterea sa iesi dintr-un contract ale carei conditii nu le doresti. Nu poti si sa beneficiezi de avantajele unui contract fara sa ii si respecti conditiile. Ai tot dreptul sa spui „NU”. Ai tot dreptul, ca sistem social, sa iesi tu insuti din zona euro. Ai tot dreptul ca individ sa iti dai demisia de la job. Ai o scuza pentru situatia ta dificila din prezent prin faptul ca ai fost naiv, ai fost tanar si n-ai stiut in ce capcana intri. Dar, daca ramai in aceste capcane, e si vina ta pentru aceasta dependenta si trebuie sa-ti asumi aceasta slabiciune. In loc sa protestezi impotriva austeritatii impuse, trebuie sa protestezi impotriva lipsei tale de organizare personala. Invata tu sa fii eficient!

Contraexemplul Greciei este revolutia din Islanda din 2010. Aceasta tara mica a reusit atunci sa iasa din aceasta capcana a hedonismului. Ea a refuzat dependenta de fite si destabilizare economica venite in special de la Londra si supravietuieste bine-mersi fara nici un fel de sustinere „mesianica”. Si-a nationalizat bancile si si-a organizat economia pentru a functiona pentru proprii cetateni, nu pentru corporatii. Dar, pentru asta, Islanda a suferit o adevarata izolare pe scena internationala. Mass-media (controlata de corporatii) nu a spus nimic despre aceasta Revolutie Islandeza.

Pe langa intrebarea stiuta daca sint de acord cu masurile de austeritate, grecii trebuiau sa mai raspunda la inca una, anume daca ar fi dispusi sa iasa din aceasta zona de santaj occidental si sa-si reinventeze ei insisi economia de la zero, cam cum a facut Descartes cu filosofia. Dar asta ar insemna si un pic de coborare la munca de jos, la producerea de bunuri pe care toti le-o dedica tuturor. Din pacate, Grecia nu vrea sa faca acest pas inapoi si sa o ia de la zero. Ea vrea sa fie in prim-plan. Ea are impresia ca i se cuvine conducta cu finante pe baza faptului ca grecii ar fi urmasii zeilor, iar restul umanitatii trebuie sa fie sclavii lor in virtutea unui alt tip de drept divin. Si aici e marea problema a Geciei. Protestele din zilele astea din Grecia nu cer iesirea din zona euro sau UE. Ele cer doar suspendarea austeritatii, adica continuarea situatiei in acelasi fel ca si pana acum. Nu cred ca se va mai putea.

Voi fi mereu un anticorporatist pentru ca respect dreptul omului simplu de a trai un stil de viata auster, fara momelile corporatiste care au dat sclavagismului o noua dimensiune. Din acest punct de vedere Grecia chiar are nevoie de acest gen de austeritate, una chiar autoimpusa ci nu impusa din exterior de UE. Solutia pentru aceasta ofensiva corporatista este refuzul falselor idealuri ale „Visului American” si un soi de decenta personala si comunitara care, din pacate, lipseste noilor generatii cam peste tot in lumea civilizata. Copiii de astazi sunt imbatati cu povesti hedoniste pe care le vor plati mai tarziu cu dependenta, cam la fel cum s-a facut cu Grecia. Ironia face ca, in antichitate, o astfel de dilema sa fie reprezentata chiar de doi filosofi greci, Zenon si Epicur. De la ei istoria a dezvoltat o dilema inca nerezolvata nici pana astazi. Unul a predicat cumpatarea, celalalt obtinerea placerii prin orice mijloace. Cred ca urmasii lor l-au cam uitat pe Zenon in favoarea lui Epicur.

Gabriel Baldovin