|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2020 16:32:43 GMT
Is Capitalism a Disease?monthlyreview.org/2000/09/01/is-capitalism-a-disease/Utterly opportunistic, but still very interesting: - it suggests that our historical difficulties in both dealing with and preventing wide health issues such as pandemics and plagues is related to the way our current scientific models and deracinated mentality views "disease". In the West, it notes, there is a “kind of scientific narrowness” - i.e. a de-contextualised approach to health care and welfare, a sort of hyper 'left brain' approach which prioritises detailed, very focussed and analytic approaches ( (ie what the article calls “tunnel vision”), but is very poor at understanding wider, more holistic, contextual, and environmental aspects and features of disease - which is of course how viruses work and spread - i.e., "the western scientific tradition of reductionism, which says that the way to understand a problem is to reduce it to its smallest elements and change things one at a time.” So the typical failure, it suggests, has been "a refusal to look at complexity. The successes have been successes of the small, where we could focus on isolated elements." The spread of plague in previous times, it observes, was crucially linked to social sanitation in medieval Europe, rates of poverty, and so on - just as the spread of COVID-19 is linked to the state of post-austerity social health systems today, and densely crowded and impoverished neighbourhoods. In this "class", of course - how we divided societies into rich and poor areas - plays a vital role: “There is a growing body of literature that says that the poor and oppressed are more vulnerable to nearly all health hazards. But we still don’t recognize class differences in the United States. Researchers discuss differences in income or a mother’s education level or even socioeconomic status. But U.S. epidemiology does not deal with class, even when class is the best predictor of life expectancy, of old-age disability, or the frequency of heart attacks. As a predictor of coronary disease, it is better to measure class position than to measure cholesterol.” It asks why our current health systems are so unable to deal with crises. "In the United States, even though we spend more than any other country on healthcare, we have among the worst results among the industrial countries". It suggests four reasons for this: "One, we don’t actually get more healthcare; we just spend more for it. The rate of profit of the pharmaceutical industry is greater than that of capitalism as a whole, and much of that is in the United States. Doctors’ salaries are huge, as are charges for hospital rooms. The consequence is that 'investment' per patient is enormous. Two, even when we do get more healthcare, it is not always good healthcare. We have more MRIs and more CT scans and more dialysis machines than most other countries. So why is our health not better?" [It suggests it’s because having invested so much money in these, the hospitals come to serve the machines, rather than the patients - e.g. "A hospital buys an expensive machine to attract both doctors and patients. But once on hand, it has to be used. You can’t allow an MRI machine to sit idle in the hospital, so doctors are encouraged to use it if only to amortize the institution’s investment ... But does it make sense have all that expensive equipment? Hospital administrators will tell you it does because the hospital down the road has it."] "Three, the healthcare system is built on a foundation of inequality. Only some of us actually receive or have access to the healthcare we need, while most don’t. Finally, the fourth hypothesis: we have created a sick society, even as we invest more and more to repair the damage. We are exposed to more pollution and increasing levels of stress and therefore exposed, ironically, to more opportunities to display our cardiac surgery skills. We make more people miserable, so we spend more on psychiatry and on psychotropic drugs. Ours is a sick society that demands ever greater expenditure to repair the damage to public health that it has itself inflicted." - Monthly Review It also notes a number of possible alternatives available: Ecosystem Health; The Environmental Justice Movement; Alternative Medicine; The Health Care for All Movement; and the Social Determination of Health (Richard Wilkinson “noticed that mere social hierarchy, social differentiation, makes your health worse everywhere, not only among those in extreme poverty". "A radical critique of medicine has to deal with the things that make people sick and the kind and quality of healthcare people get. A Marxist approach to health would attempt to integrate the insights of ecosystem health, environmental justice, the social determination of health, 'healthcare for all,' and alternative medicine."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 16:33:42 GMT
Is Capitalism a Disease?monthlyreview.org/2000/09/01/is-capitalism-a-disease/Utterly opportunistic, but still very interesting: - it suggests that our historical difficulties in both dealing with and preventing wide health issues such as pandemics and plagues is related to the way our current scientific models and deracinated mentality views "disease". In the West, it notes, there is a “kind of scientific narrowness” - i.e. a de-contextualised approach to health care and welfare, a sort of hyper 'left brain' approach which prioritises detailed, very focussed and analytic approaches ( (ie what the article calls “tunnel vision”), but is very poor at understanding wider, more holistic, contextual, and environmental aspects and features of disease - which is of course how viruses work and spread - i.e., "the western scientific tradition of reductionism, which says that the way to understand a problem is to reduce it to its smallest elements and change things one at a time.” So the typical failure, it suggests, has been "a refusal to look at complexity. The successes have been successes of the small, where we could focus on isolated elements." The spread of plague in previous times, it observes, was crucially linked to social sanitation in medieval Europe, rates of poverty, and so on - just as the spread of COVID-19 is linked to the state of post-austerity social health systems today, and densely crowded and impoverished neighbourhoods. In this "class", of course - how we divided societies into rich and poor areas - plays a vital role: “There is a growing body of literature that says that the poor and oppressed are more vulnerable to nearly all health hazards. But we still don’t recognize class differences in the United States. Researchers discuss differences in income or a mother’s education level or even socioeconomic status. But U.S. epidemiology does not deal with class, even when class is the best predictor of life expectancy, of old-age disability, or the frequency of heart attacks. As a predictor of coronary disease, it is better to measure class position than to measure cholesterol.” It asks why our current health systems are so unable to deal with crises. "In the United States, even though we spend more than any other country on healthcare, we have among the worst results among the industrial countries". It suggests four reasons for this: "One, we don’t actually get more healthcare; we just spend more for it. The rate of profit of the pharmaceutical industry is greater than that of capitalism as a whole, and much of that is in the United States. Doctors’ salaries are huge, as are charges for hospital rooms. The consequence is that 'investment' per patient is enormous. Two, even when we do get more healthcare, it is not always good healthcare. We have more MRIs and more CT scans and more dialysis machines than most other countries. So why is our health not better?" [It suggests it’s because having invested so much money in these, the hospitals come to serve the machines, rather than the patients - e.g. "A hospital buys an expensive machine to attract both doctors and patients. But once on hand, it has to be used. You can’t allow an MRI machine to sit idle in the hospital, so doctors are encouraged to use it if only to amortize the institution’s investment ... But does it make sense have all that expensive equipment? Hospital administrators will tell you it does because the hospital down the road has it."] "Three, the healthcare system is built on a foundation of inequality. Only some of us actually receive or have access to the healthcare we need, while most don’t. Finally, the fourth hypothesis: we have created a sick society, even as we invest more and more to repair the damage. We are exposed to more pollution and increasing levels of stress and therefore exposed, ironically, to more opportunities to display our cardiac surgery skills. We make more people miserable, so we spend more on psychiatry and on psychotropic drugs. Ours is a sick society that demands ever greater expenditure to repair the damage to public health that it has itself inflicted." - Monthly Review It also notes a number of possible alternatives available: Ecosystem Health; The Environmental Justice Movement; Alternative Medicine; The Health Care for All Movement; and the Social Determination of Health (Richard Wilkinson “noticed that mere social hierarchy, social differentiation, makes your health worse everywhere, not only among those in extreme poverty". "A radical critique of medicine has to deal with the things that make people sick and the kind and quality of healthcare people get. A Marxist approach to health would attempt to integrate the insights of ecosystem health, environmental justice, the social determination of health, 'healthcare for all,' and alternative medicine." Humanity is diseased.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2020 16:41:05 GMT
What's the cure? Please don't say Christianity / Jesus - 2 thousand years of that has Not worked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 18:45:06 GMT
What's the cure? Please don't say Christianity / Jesus - 2 thousand years of that has Not worked. Well since you asked, the short answer is the Kingdom of God. The gospel is only part of the solution in my opinion. The ideal society is the Kingdom of God. That comes later when Jesus returns. Christianity as we know it today is only the opportunity to pick a side. The Kingdom of God turns the power dynamic on it's head. The way to advance is to serve. The way to become a master is to obey. It is characterized by justice and peace. There is no oppression of the poor. And it's not a bunch of people with harps floating around. It is literally the presence of God dwelling fully with both heaven and Earth. The whole Bible, in my opinion, is God restoring unity with mankind and creation. The temple won't be a building. Creation itself will be the Temple of God. Heaven, I believe, won't just be some boring place. There will be mountains, trees, cities, things to do, and the glory of God will be part of every aspect infinitely shining and glorious. No matter how you look at one aspect of the glory, there will always be another, and another. Like a multifaceted jewel. In that sense, I believe we'll never stop finding new reasons to worship the Lord. There is no system of government or political party that can bring Utopia. There can only be systems that limit corruption by various degrees. That s why any theocracy on Earth is destined for corruption. I feel the same way about Marxism/Communism, and socialism. People would start out with such good intentions. But absolute power corrupts absolutely. The way to get power in a capitalist society is to have a big company. The way to get power in a socialist society, is to get in government and then have control of the distribution of money. Either way, the power corrupts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2020 19:13:48 GMT
Well since you asked, the short answer is the Kingdom of God. i can see us ending up with some form of Global Communism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 20:35:09 GMT
Well since you asked, the short answer is the Kingdom of God. i can see us ending up with some form of Global Communism. I have no idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 8:18:46 GMT
I think communism works best in local communities. You see local communities helping each other right now, with the current situation. So it can be done. Until global travel is done in an ethical and environmentally compatible way, maybe is best to stick to local communities helping each other, in makeshift communes.
Naominash, if everyone in the world lived their life as Jesus taught, maybe communism would work better. And you are right that humanity is diseased. So we could amalgamate the two ideas, communism in smaller communities living as Jesus would have wanted. Most faith based systems have broadly similar ideas on how people should live and treat each other, not identical but similar. Certainly there is the Golden Rule Admin mentions. But until people learn to live in a co-operative and less selfish way, globalisation is probably not going to work, and certainly not the polluting aspects of it. Yes we are all human beings and we should be aware of that, all nations should be seen as equal, all people are equal, but nations don't really promote that way of thinking, they have a 'me first' attitude. Local communities are more likely at least in the short term to maybe bring about that kind of awareness. Baby steps. Just a thought.
We do behave like petulant children as a species.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2020 12:10:49 GMT
I think communism works best in local communities. You see local communities helping each other right now, with the current situation. So it can be done. Until global travel is done in an ethical and environmentally compatible way, maybe is best to stick to local communities helping each other, in makeshift communes. Naominash, if everyone in the world lived their life as Jesus taught, maybe communism would work better. And you are right that humanity is diseased. So we could amalgamate the two ideas, communism in smaller communities living as Jesus would have wanted. Most faith based systems have broadly similar ideas on how people should live and treat each other, not identical but similar. Certainly there is the Golden Rule Admin mentions. But until people learn to live in a co-operative and less selfish way, globalisation is probably not going to work, and certainly not the polluting aspects of it. Yes we are all human beings and we should be aware of that, all nations should be seen as equal, all people are equal, but nations don't really promote that way of thinking, they have a 'me first' attitude. Local communities are more likely at least in the short term to maybe bring about that kind of awareness. Baby steps. Just a thought. We do behave like petulant children as a species. Humanity never seems able to sort out all it's problems & differences does it? Always seems to be more to divide than to genuinely unite us all. There was the Communist revolutions - there was the league of Nations - then the UN & WHO - but it never properly works. There is this very weird paradox with people seeing a united World as a bad thing, as in the NWO, & then people who want a united World, in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2020 1:13:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 10:45:35 GMT
I think communism works best in local communities. You see local communities helping each other right now, with the current situation. So it can be done. Until global travel is done in an ethical and environmentally compatible way, maybe is best to stick to local communities helping each other, in makeshift communes. Naominash, if everyone in the world lived their life as Jesus taught, maybe communism would work better. And you are right that humanity is diseased. So we could amalgamate the two ideas, communism in smaller communities living as Jesus would have wanted. Most faith based systems have broadly similar ideas on how people should live and treat each other, not identical but similar. Certainly there is the Golden Rule Admin mentions. But until people learn to live in a co-operative and less selfish way, globalisation is probably not going to work, and certainly not the polluting aspects of it. Yes we are all human beings and we should be aware of that, all nations should be seen as equal, all people are equal, but nations don't really promote that way of thinking, they have a 'me first' attitude. Local communities are more likely at least in the short term to maybe bring about that kind of awareness. Baby steps. Just a thought. We do behave like petulant children as a species. Humanity never seems able to sort out all it's problems & differences does it? Always seems to be more to divide than to genuinely unite us all. There was the Communist revolutions - there was the league of Nations - then the UN & WHO - but it never properly works. There is this very weird paradox with people seeing a united World as a bad thing, as in the NWO, & then people who want a united World, in a good way. It depends on the intentions of those who are in charge. If it's not for the good of all nations, and it doesn't treat all equally, it won't be a good thing. Knowing humanity's history, this is likely. That is not to say it might never be doable but as we are at present, I doubt it would work. I think for now at a local level might be best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 19:38:26 GMT
I think communism works best in local communities. You see local communities helping each other right now, with the current situation. So it can be done. Until global travel is done in an ethical and environmentally compatible way, maybe is best to stick to local communities helping each other, in makeshift communes. Naominash, if everyone in the world lived their life as Jesus taught, maybe communism would work better. And you are right that humanity is diseased. So we could amalgamate the two ideas, communism in smaller communities living as Jesus would have wanted. Most faith based systems have broadly similar ideas on how people should live and treat each other, not identical but similar. Certainly there is the Golden Rule Admin mentions. But until people learn to live in a co-operative and less selfish way, globalisation is probably not going to work, and certainly not the polluting aspects of it. Yes we are all human beings and we should be aware of that, all nations should be seen as equal, all people are equal, but nations don't really promote that way of thinking, they have a 'me first' attitude. Local communities are more likely at least in the short term to maybe bring about that kind of awareness. Baby steps. Just a thought. We do behave like petulant children as a species. I support local communities wanting to distribute resources amongst each other in Jesus' name. That's what the early founding members did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 7:34:53 GMT
I think communism works best in local communities. You see local communities helping each other right now, with the current situation. So it can be done. Until global travel is done in an ethical and environmentally compatible way, maybe is best to stick to local communities helping each other, in makeshift communes. Naominash, if everyone in the world lived their life as Jesus taught, maybe communism would work better. And you are right that humanity is diseased. So we could amalgamate the two ideas, communism in smaller communities living as Jesus would have wanted. Most faith based systems have broadly similar ideas on how people should live and treat each other, not identical but similar. Certainly there is the Golden Rule Admin mentions. But until people learn to live in a co-operative and less selfish way, globalisation is probably not going to work, and certainly not the polluting aspects of it. Yes we are all human beings and we should be aware of that, all nations should be seen as equal, all people are equal, but nations don't really promote that way of thinking, they have a 'me first' attitude. Local communities are more likely at least in the short term to maybe bring about that kind of awareness. Baby steps. Just a thought. We do behave like petulant children as a species. I support local communities wanting to distribute resources amongst each other in Jesus' name. That's what the early founding members did. Good idea, but everyone should be doing it, whether they believe in Jesus or not. He would not have discriminated between believers and non believers either. Have heard that some do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 21:18:59 GMT
I support local communities wanting to distribute resources amongst each other in Jesus' name. That's what the early founding members did. Good idea, but everyone should be doing it, whether they believe in Jesus or not. He would not have discriminated between believers and non believers either. Have heard that some do. At the time, Christianity was highly persecuted. They felt the need to stick together.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2020 21:22:53 GMT
At the time, Christianity was highly persecuted. They felt the need to stick together. Early Christian history is highly debated - have you studied it all?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2020 21:24:31 GMT
|
|