There is an Alternative to Capitalism

[ENT8]

No cooperatives are not capitalist structures. Sure they are currently stuck in a capitalist system but you yourself just explained what capitalism is essentially: 'an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit'

But cooperatives are about common ownership and they are not always profit driven. The definition of a cooperative as given by the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) is: 'a cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise'

That's why they're called 'cooperatives'....because its about cooperating which is why it developed (by Owen, Fourier and the Rochdale Pioneers) in response to the harshness that came out of capitalism which is essentially about greed and competition

The first cooperatives were set up to ensure workers and their children got educations, cheap food and reasonable work conditions...they weren't set up to maximise profit

Cooperatives also cooperate with each other in networks and therefore offer a viable alternative to the market economy

The number of people around the world whose livelihoods rely to a significant extent on cooperative ventures is 3 billion....which is half the worlds population

EDIT: Ok, here is the wikipedia definition of capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

And, by this definition, the organizational structure of the entity would not be relevent, be more traditional corporate, or co-op... it would still be considered a capitalistic entity if it produces goods or services for profit,
and the ownership of the company is private. Private ownership could very well be equally shared by members of the company. I happen to be a part of a family business, and indeed, this is EXACTLY the case. So, it does
work as a co-op, capitalistic entity. They are not directly opposing concepts.

Personally, as long as the cooperative IS profit driven (as the one in the example is)... then I like it.

Otherwise... well, it may be a better working environment, but it tends to not be as appealing to me on a personal level

Another concern I would have about cooperatives in general is the "democratically controlled enterprise" aspect. Don't get me wrong though... I see many advantages to this. HOWEVER, as an organization grows in size
the complexities nearly always increase with that growth. Now, suppose this cooperative I'm speaking about happens to be a "for profit" enterprise... not a community farming project or the like...but lets say a tech company that
is organized in a "cooperative" manner. Obviously, some ideas for how it should be operating, what products should be developed, how they should be marketed, how they will best serve clients, what price points items should be sold at...etc...

In other words, many of these types of decisions are made at the management level, or even the executive level, in a traditional corporate structure.... and there is good reason for such: the higher up the food chain you look in a corporate
hierarchy, the more informed and better equipped these types tend to be at making the optimal choice for these various aspects that must be made.

Let me give you a very easy example. If I were to walk into a McDonalds, and if by some magic power I could judge which of the people working behind the counter would have the raw capability and potential talent to be able to best become the future CEO of McDonalds corp... I would likely end up with a "best candidate" and a "worst candidate".

So, if it came to making decisions for the future of the company, I would rather have the opinion of the "best candidate" be weighted more than the "worst candidate"

If they all had equal say...but, lets for a moment say that this best candidate is also "new", or maybe they are not particularly charming, or charasmatic, or whatever... but, they have a good enough amount of the OTHER attributes needed by a CEO that they are indeed the best over all....

and lets say that the "worst candidate" is also Mr/Mrs attractive & charming...but they just don't have the level of critical thinking skills needed to make even a decent CEO...

in this hypothetical situation, it is very possible that the best ideas would be continually passed over because that"best candidate" person didn't have the level of social charisma of the "worst candidate"... but yet the worst candidate would be able to often sway opinion to vote for their way of running things.

In a top heavy organizational structure, this problem would occur much less frequently.

See, IMHO, there are some goals and types of organizations that are more homogenous in their interpersonal composition, as well as very clear on the goals, and these goals happen to be universally important to all parties in the organization. These types of organizations lend themsleves well to operate as a co-op of some sort, within, or without, a larger capitalistic structure.

But, there are distinct advantages to a top heavy hierarchy, and they work better in groups with less universal needs, or those who may not necessarily be working for the "goals" of the entity, but for what that entity can provide for them, or if the goals are not universally important to all parties, or in groups that are comprised of a very diverse social makeup... where the needs and values of each member are in fact quite different and distinct from one another.

In these situations, a "co-op" situation can be highly ineffective. I can give examples later to further clarify my points...

but, I think what I'm saying here is actually the most logical, most likely "reality", because it seems to make some good, basic, human condition sense.

People are different. cultures and communities are different as well.

Sometimes, one types of organizational structure can be very effective for some people, to acheive some particular goals.

and other times, a DIFFERENT form of organizational structure can be very effective for some people, to achieve other types of goals.

They both have their place in the world IMO. And, I think we can see examples of this throughout all of humanity for the history of the world. People form different communities, different cutures, practice their beliefs differently, etc...

so why should one organizational entity be "THE ONE"

It's not, IMO...and to think otherwise is very smilar to the "commie vs. yankee" argument of yesteryear... neither communism/socialism nor capitalism is "best"... but, they each have their advantages, and which one should be utilized will depend on the situation, the goal, and the composition of the people involved in that situation who are working towards that goal.

Thoughts?

-E

 

[This]

In the same way gambling addicts like placing bets; you may spend your whole life poor or flush away a fortune overnight but hey, you always have a chance to win more (insert flashy, neon casino signs here)!

Chance has very little to do with it, it has a lot more to do with persistence, determination and knowledge of the field. Unlike in gambling, luck is rarely what makes fortunes.

 

[ENT8]

Why? I don't see how flexicurity shouldn't work in America - in fact, I suspect it would make you all stronger.

- well, denmark is a highly homogenized culture. the U.S. is the antithesis of this... therefore,
the needs and opinions and values of various groups are sometimes diametrically opposed at a much higher frequency than in a country like denmark.

... IN RESPONSE TO MY ANALOGY OF A PURE DEMOCRACY...

We don't do that in Denmark - we have a representative demoncracy system like in the US.

I know that, I was using this as an example of a socio-political model that is successful based primarily on the size of the group who participates. 300 people? it works great. 3,000? probably works very well. 300,000,000 people? it would very likely completely break down.

It's just a different economic model. Don't get me wrong - there's flaws to it! I just referenced the flexicurity model as a way of telling people that there is a middle way. Saying that you have to have extreme liberty or extreme nationalism is missing the point in my opinion. Whenever you let "ism's" win, the middle class are usually the first to pay.

Ok, very possible. But, we in the U.S. don't have "extreme" liberty. it's technical a "liberal capitalistic" structure, but your right, the middle class would suffer more often in such an environment. And to put theory into practice would require very specific plans that would have to fit into an overall vision that would be shared by all. And frankly, in the U.S, there are a great many citizens who are in fact opposed to universal health care coverage. This is what I mean by a non-homoginous culture.... we can't even agree on whether universal health care is a good thing. and this isn't some extreme fringe group thinking... I daresay it's the MAJORITY of U.S. citizens.

It works when people generally agree. It doesn't when they don't. Middle ground must be found...but sometimes in the U.S. in particular, middle ground can be so overly broad that it really can't be converted into a policy of any sort.

In Scandinavia, and most other European countries, there are a large and diverse number of political parties. I think that has a lot to do with the success of the model too. You usually don't get a "supreme leader" president, but a coalition government, like in the UK between the conservatives and the liberals. In Denmark the current government is made up of three parties and a supporting party - the social democrats, the socialist peoples party and the social-liberals, with electoral support from a left-wing party. Before that, we had a centre-right government. Usually this way makes politics very centralistic, and very beneficial for the middle class and the lower middle class.

Yes, this is why it is successful in those states you mentioned... but I believe you underestimate the degree of various opposing opinions in the United States... To many, a thought of even democrats having a "coalition" government with republicans in some sort of visible agreement would likely cause public protests and demonstrations in various places. What I'm about to say may sound irrational to some degree, but the culture of individuality is so strong here that many would prefer such liberties to securities. I'll give you a little microcausm of an example here:

a few years ago, there was some sort of vote on a proposed tax in california that was a sort of "rich dead uncle" tax... in which it would be a tax on any heirs to an estate over a certain dollar amount (I believe $640,000 U.S. dollars, but I could be wrong)... if these heirs were not specifically mentioned in a will. In other words, you didn't know you had a rich uncle, and he didn't mention you in his will, but lo and behold, he just kicked the bucket, and your his closest living heir, so you get a shitload of money and only have to pay the current standing taxes under law...but you wouldn't have to pay a new possible additional tax.

Needless to say, the vast majority of people in california and the U.S. do NOT have "unknown" relatives who are worth over half a million dollars. Therefore, such a tax would serve a good deal of benefit for the general public, since only a tiny minority
would ever benefit from this tax being shot down.

But, the OVERWHELMING vote was "we don't care, we don't want that tax!" Imagine that. it would affect less than 3% of the population...yet over 50% of voters shot it down. That's the type of value that U.S. citizens place on their individuality... and, there is even a greater degree of opposing opinions when it comes to other areas (like health care even!)

I agree that being culturally close knit helps speed things up, and it has brought with it a standard of service and trust in the government. But besides that, I disagree. We are a highly individualistic society, and very few agree on anything politically. Personally I don't see how the scandinavian model wouldn't work in the US. I think you would knock it out of the park .

Maybe. but as it stands right now, a good percentage of the population wants to hang the president for his work on passing a health care bill that DOESN'T have a "public option"... in other words, it still all filters through private insurance and medical corporate entities.... and this still is intolerable to many, many, many people

If we can't even decide on how to spread resources that are still kept essentially in a completely capitalistic structure without even a "public option" (which would have been more socialistic than the current law) on such a basic and universal human desire for "health and existence"... then how are we going to make it work in ANY way...at least here in the U.S.?

You may be right... but I tend to think otherwise, and our track record of division and VAST diversity of culture, opinion, needs, goals, etc... will make such a proposal or idea.... extremely unlikely to even be attempted, nevermind actually work.

-E

 

[Saru Inc]

Sometimes it's easier to ignore such vitrol and anger, thinly veiled as sarcasm, than it is to try and carry on a conversation with someone who is bound to ignore everything you say.

So you ignore what I said in case I might ignore what you say.

But either way then, only one person is ignoring, and thus avoiding the truth, which in this case is you. And it wasn't sarcasm, and it was anger at the injustices going on in Europe that is celebrated by this infantile forum.

 

[ENT8]

No cycles don't just happen, they are created by the central banks expanding and contracting the money supply

Central banks absolutely play a role these days, that is true... but with or without central banks, cycles do still happen, as a matter of fact. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as a "golden age" for a civilization. I will say that central banking policies and actions have done little to contain rises and falls in the business cycle, and I know for a fact recently have absolutly contributed to cycles... but economic and cycles of prosperity in general existed before central banks.

No the situation is not the same as the last recession, this will become more clear to you as time goes on

this is true... but the same can be said of any specific economic period in time.

And yet, what is always the same is that there is a cycle, and after things fall apart, they rise back up again, in some form or another.

Personally, to quote from a financial show I listen to on occassion, I believe this is more like "Credit Purge 2.0" - Credit Purge 1.0 was the great depression, in case anyone is wondering.

I'm not saying for certainty that a depression worldwide will be the result, but an equal if not worse economic period to 2008-9? ya... I think so. and a fast recovery for all? no, I think not. But for some? ya...totally.

And I am pretty sure that however it develops... at the end, the majority of the western world will still have shops on street corners, and accept some form of printed currency in exchange for those products, in an attempt to make a profit for themselves.

two world wars, and the great depression are yet to derail capitalism. Even "communist" china agrees. In fact, the U.S. fought the cold war with the communist powers for years trying to prove that a capitalistic society would better provide prosperity and power... and unfortuantly for the U.S.... we won that cold war!

We could argue all sorts of point-counter point on why capitalism is here, and why communism didn't work so well, and why socialism is ok for some, and not others... and blah blah blah blah. But I don't think any of that is really relevant.

I think it comes down to the fundamental nature of man. There is a very powerful survival instinct in mankind. As an extension of that, a segment of the population has a particular psychological makeup that feels a great need to attempt to control ones environment or influence ones circumstance in order to be better prepared to "protect themselves" from that which they see are threats to their well being. We could also call this trait of a certain large segement of the population: a desire for power.

There will always be some who seek to gain power over their situation and surroundings. Altering an economic paradigm or construct will not dampen this human attribute. Some do it in healthy ways, and wield power in a more just and benevolent fashion than others... (think Ghandi, MLK Jr, or even just a very caring, wise and protective mother or father to a family...etc), others, in not so healthy ways (hitler, stalin, the physically abusive and controlling husband, other despots, etc). But the bottom line is, to seek more power requires one to seek more influence over their situation and environment. Money... and capitalism, by their very nature, provide a structure in which this very basic human desire can easily express itself. Concepts like socialism and communism simply do not facilitate such accessable ways for humans to express this very deep, instinctual desire.

If they are somehow altered to be able to do so and yet retain the aspects of what make them "socialism" or "communism"... or any other socio-economic form of social structure... well, then maybe it'll have a good shot at usurping capitalism as the predominant socio-economic structure.

But people are just not so universally generous or considerate of his fellow human being. Utopia may someday exist on earth... but not until humans nature as it currently is... changes.

And the end of the euro as a currency (or not) really doesn't mean a hill of beans in terms of changing that aspect of human nature. Not that i'm saying that one great powerful entity will arise either mind you... as this desire for power in many people is... well, in many people. and they don't often want to share it with others. I know for myself, in my family, what I say... goes. But not because I "force it", because I always make decisions that will best maintain the family resources and guide their usage and distribution in the most fair and impartial way possible between all family members. And after doing this for a few years consistently, my family now looks to me to decide on many issues, as the "final vote". Earned power, not forced power...yes! But make no mistake about it, there is no accident why I have the level of influence that I currently enjoy within my family, and if something were to threaten the vision or direction I believe is best for the family, I would fight it. I'm not talking about someone having a different opinion of what should be done in XYZ situation. I'm talking about something that fundamentally could disrupt our resources or our unity of vision of how they should be used. If something threatened this? I would likely fight it to my dying breath. I have a visceral reaction to such a threat. It's more of an instinctual thing...

and I just don't see an alternative to a "for profit" structure of society that would allow me act in ways that would allow me to express that need in a healthy manner. I have worked in a non-profit before, and I remember always feeling like our hands were tied from doing so many of the things we wanted to do...in large part due to a lack of resources...many of which could be gained if we had access to larger amounts of capital. This was incredibly frustrating and inefficient in my eyes... and partially why I've spent a good deal of my adult life seeking to gain access to larger pools of capital... because it would provide me the power to shape my environment and surroundings as I see fit.

Show me an alternative that allows for a healthy expression of this human instinct besides a for profit, democratic society, and I'll show you an alternative to capitalism that may work. But communism won't be it, and because I would, on an instinctual level, feel stifled and controlled by a society in which I could not get ahead in... I wouldn't want to be a part of a socialist group either. And if being an outsider to such a group made me in some way an opponent to the group. So be it. I can't, and won't, repress my own natural desire to have a larger degree of control and influence over my world, be it my immediate family, extended family, my business, my community, or wherever I see a place that I can make an impact and further my own view of how I want my world to operate.

Call me a power monger if you want, but the fact is there is a basic insinctual need in many people to have a sense of control over their destiney. And so far, capitalism provides the greatest and most accessable format in which that need in people to express itself.

-E

 

[ENT8]

So you ignore what I said in case I might ignore what you say.

But either way then, only one person is ignoring, and thus avoiding the truth, which in this case is you. And it wasn't sarcasm, and it was anger at the injustices going on in Europe that is celebrated by this infantile forum.

Well, ok, i'll bite. I won't ignore your post Saru. But for myself, it's by no means enough to convince me that the overall beneifts of such a country would necessarily outweigh the detractors.

Restricting one personal liberty, and having a culture that is more narrow minded regarding social and racial differences is not enough for me to disregard the value of an entire society.

I daresay that the U.S.A in 1841 was pretty good at violating the rights and freedoms of a couple of minority folk here and there. And even with that being what it was... I still would not say that the U.S.A. was a vile nation. I would say that particular policy is one I strongly oppose, and maybe even would have said it was vile. But, it wouldn't have necessarily prevented me from choosing it as a nation to reside in at the time.... if I had other reasons that I felt in my own personal day to day life were a greater benefit than the detraction and vileness of state sanctioned slavery.

Of course, I could suggest that if you feel so strongly about how broken it is over there... all the more reason to move there, get politically and socially active, and work to end the "vile" corruption that you see runs rampant over there. But I get the feeling your not really interested in doing something like that. I don't like it either, but honestly? i don't give a shit. I don't have kids, don't care if someone can or can't homeschool their kid. It's too bad, sure, but for me, I really just... don't care! I'm not sure why you do... besides the abstract idea of it being a violation of personal liberties, unless you have a particular reason to highly value this one liberty... do you? were you home schooled? do you homeschool your kids? do you have kids? does your best buddy homeschool his kids?

I ask because words like "vile" to me are pretty strong to use... and I usually don't find they apply in situations to me unless they have directly affected my life in the past in a very negative fashion.

I think north korea is a bit more "vile" than any country in europe...but maybe that's just me.

Maybe your more sensitive to these things than I am... ::shrug:::

oddly enough, I feel more emotion regarding your negative reaction to being "ignored", than I do towards some random people being thrown in jail because they home school their kid! And I don't even know who you are or have any genuine connection to you in my day to day life lol!

So...yea... nope. I don't agree with your statement of it being as bad as you say it is. I daresay it's a pretty decent place over all!

-E

 

[Saru Inc]

@ENT8

I understand your argument, and can appreciate it in a sense. You are right, I was homeschooled, and I've had many people be racist towards me, as well as my friends, so both of those hit close to home.

The part I find issue with, is I have problems with anyone's life being violated. If a girl is being sold for sex at only 13 years of age in the brothel that is Yugoslavia, just because I do not have kids does not mean I am ok with her pain. We as humans must show compassion and grace for other humans -- Each have their own reasons, I'm Christian so I believe I am charged with helping those around me. Atheists could say it'd be to our evolutionary advantage, etc. I have an issue with the atrocities going on in Europe, because they are ignored -- people are proclaiming that Europe is a Humanistic safe haven for all. I'm trying to show its not, I understand I get a little bonkers about it, and I probably get more heated than necessary. Its probably more just related to my inability to effectively relay my emotions in a topic.

I hear almost everyday "finally America is being more like the world" and it makes me wonder, what do Americans think the world is like? I've been blessed with having a dad who's an international reporter, so I know first hand (ok technically 2nd hand but you get the gist) what its like elsewhere in the world. The good of it, and the bad. America has more freedoms than so many countries, and we're trading them for "security. However, people tend to forget -- there is no "guaranteed" security in this world, think about it. The other issue, though albeit unrelated to the original point of this discussion, but still applicable to this topic is this: The left tries to make equal results, but that simply cannot exist. The Founding Fathers saw this, and thought if we cannot have equal results, what can we have? Equal beginnings and equal opportunity. There is no system anywhere in nature that can support equality at the level the left want. Its simply not feasible, and to those who may say "well then you're ok with inequality?" simply don't understand the point I'm making.

So I got a bit off topic as I tend to, but yeah.

 

[Quiet]

Im with Jackie Moon on this one, ELE! E L E!

There are many great alternatives to capitalism, as posted by the op and others. Whether people in this current generation like it or not, capitalism is dying and it will be superceded by a better, more inclusive system. Most people have had enough, and its obvious that this current system is anti-human, anti-life and ineffective.

I think capitalism has been important for our development as a 'species', and we have learned a lot through this system. We have learned a lot more about the value of the individual man, our relationship with each other and with our environment. We have certainly tested the boundaries. It seems to me that on a spiritual plane, capitalism was a mass experiment we created and participated in to learn from. We create, experience, observe, learn, develop and evolve. Its now time to move on, to a more creative, collaborative, efficient and more open source system. We need a new system that celebrates life and helps us develop as individuals and as a community of people. E L E!

Some random information from Seth:

The race must learn the value of the individual man. The race is
also learning its dependence upon other species, and beginning to
comprehend its part in the whole framework in physical reality.

Now: some individuals are being reborn at this time simply to help
you understand. They are forcing the issue, and forcing the crisis,
for you still have time to change your ways. You are working on two
main problems, but both involve the sacredness of the individual,
and the individuals relationship with others and with ALL physically
oriented consciousness.
The problem of war will sooner or later teach you that when you kill
another man, basically you will end up killing yourself. The over-
population problem will teach you that if you do not have a loving
concern for the environment in which you dwell, it will no longer
sustain you --you will not be worthy of it. You will not be
destroying the planet, you see. You will not be destroying the
birds or the flowers, or the grain or the animals. You will not be
worthy of them, and they will be destroying you.
You have set up the problem for yourselves within the framework of
your reference. You will not understand your part within the
framework of nature until you actually see yourselves in danger of
tearing it apart. You will not destroy consciousness. You will not
annihilate the consciousness of even one leaf, but in your context,
if the problem were not solved, these would fade from your
experience.....

 

[Saru Inc]

People hate Capitalism, but yet are shocked when they do away with it the rewards fail.

I think this generation is missing something. We believe due to wikipedia/wikileaks whatever that we have more information than ever before, that we are moving to a new stage of existence -- here's the thing, we are still human. We are no different than Rome, Greece any other great nation that has fallen. Why do we not heed their blood and deaths as a warning? We can still be wiped out by plague, greed, war, and other means. There's no evidence that shows we are any different from any human in the past. Sure we have shiny new toys, but so did Rome compared to the Barbarians. Communism/socialism has not and can never work. Capitalism brings out the best of all people, well, that is until they're spoon fed by the government and gluttonous wanting only more, but never caring enough to work for it. In what right mind does giving EVERYONE in the econmy essentially tenure = massive advancements in everything? Look at the school system.

 

[magister343]

I don't feel like reading the whole thread to see if anyone has presented a Georgist perspective, but I'll do so briefly in case no one has.

(The term Georgist comes from the economist Henry George, but the ideas did not actually originate with him. He merely emphasized and expressed with greater clarity a certain aspect of what Classical Liberals historically believed. I myself came to such positions not from reading his magnum opus Progress and Poverty, but from reading 2/5 of Adam Smith's very poorly written Wealth of Nations. The works of John Locke or David Ricardo would have been a better starting point.)

The term "means of production" is overly broad, and includes categories that should be treated differently on both ethical and practical grounds. The factor that ought to be addressed separately is Land, which in economics refers to any resource which occurs in nature rather than being the product of human labor. (Water, air, radio frequencies, oil, minerals, etc, are all Land.) Land is essential to any economic activity. It is a prerequisite to the creation of any sort of property, but classical economics does not actually permit true ownership of Land.

The common argument that property is originally appropriated my mixing labor with unowned land and thus acquiring an eternal right to the exclusive use of the land is a perversion of John Locke's actual homesteading principle. Locke was clear that claiming land as private property was only acceptable so long as one left enough land of equal quality for every other individual who might wish to do likewise. The Lockean Proviso thus limits the homesteading principle to circumstances where land is not scarce and has a market value of zero. When Land has value, then appropriating is theft. Locke was also very much against permanent claims to land. To him, a individual had a right to monopolize land only while doing so is necessary to protect the actual fruit of his labor. It is not acceptable to continue to hold land that was acquired while plentiful and free once scarcity has driven up its value. Even if it was perfectly just to acquire land originally, it is an act of aggression against your poorer neighbors to keep it without paying some form of compensation. Locke said that in a small primitive society this is best done by simply bribing one's neighbors with occasional free produce, but that as communities grow it becomes more efficient to institute a government to protect property. He considered a tax on the value of land to be the most just way to fund the government, and the upholding of justice for all as a form of compensation.


Governments still disproportionally protect the landed over the landless though. The payments that landowners pay to governments tend to be used to oppress rather than empower the victims of landlessness. This is tantamount to hiring private security agents to protect stolen property from its rightful owners. Today governments are financed primarily though taxes on income from people's labor, while it remains fairly easy to get rich without any productive labor by collecting rent payments and speculating in the land market. Common sense says that taxing something results in having less of it. However, this is only true for elastic goods, those where the supply can vary with price. Labor is certainly elastic, so income taxes very much discourage productivity. Land however is perfectly inelastic; its supply remains constant regardless of how much or how little it is taxed. Taxes on land value do not distort the free market by generating dead weight losses. They only determine who gets to benefit from the "free lunch" of unearned rental income. High land value taxes can actually increase the available supply as they discourage speculatively holding land out of use. They drive purchasing prices down low enough that it is no longer necessary for individuals to get loans from private banking institutions in order to afford the land that they need. Our current system that purports to encourage home ownership is actually a huge subsidy to banking institutions and the cause of most private debt.


Some Georgists propose using taxes on land value to invest in public goods such as infrastructure, which in turn increase the value of the land being taxed. Other prefer a more direct redistribution of wealth that is less likely to give special advantages to politically connected companies that bid for public contracts. Providing Citizen Dividends to provide unconditional basic income guarantees to everyone is actually cheaper than forms of welfare than depend on large bureaucracies to perform means testing, and provides no perverse incentives that discourage the poor from working in an attempt to better themselves. There would still be some free riders, but only redistributing rents rather than incomes stops wealth that is actually earned from being given to the undeserving. (Perhaps the best Geoist mechanism is the sort of Gleaner's Rights provided in the Law of Moses, but it would be hard to apply those in non-agricultural societies.)


While there is a role for the redistribution of wealth derived from rents, it is dangerous to extend this to wealth in general. Free Enterprise is a very good thing, far more efficient, adaptable, and ethical than central planning. Individuals must be free to enter willing contracts (except contracts to do harm to unwilling parties). Capital in general (excluding natural capital) is the reinvestment of the proceeds of its owners' labor, so confiscating it is theft.

 

[muir]

Don't you think people have legitimate reasons to be critical of every other ism as well?

I haven't said they haven't

The challenge as i see it for society is to balance the responsibilities of a person within a group with their personal freedoms and i don't think capitalism gets this balance right

I think crime is rife, war is rife, environmental damage is rife, corruption is rife, exploitation is rife and i would argue that these are all the product of a system that values profit above all else for example it places profit above people, the environment and the truth

It seems like a lot of the 'down with capitalism' people assume that socialism is inherently 'good' and immune to abuse and corruption, whereas capitalism is inherently 'bad' and a product of abuse and corruption. Do you believe that once we get rid of capitalism that human beings everywhere will suddenly enter a state of utopia?

No i think that we need to build a system that puts people before profit

I also think that there is a lot of validity in the 'decroissance/degrowth' movements arguments that the current obsession with 'growth' is not going to solve our problems as such a system looks only at the commercial value of things and does not take into account 'externalities' such as human exploitation or environmental exploitation.

Forget 'utopianism', we need to have a cold hard look at how we are using the resources of this earth. You weild the word 'utopian' as if it is synonymous with the word 'naive' but 'utopianism' is simply the belief that we can improve the world and every act has to begin with a belief that something is possible

All 'new' movements begin in a state of idealism and tremendous hope, but when the reality sets in some time later the old patterns inevitably return and a whole new set of problems emerges. Russia is a perfect example of that. You can say it wasn't true socialism/communism, which I would have to agree with, but then you really do have to ask yourself why it wasn't true communism,

It wasn't true 'communism' because it didn't reach a state of communism. Part of the problem was that the method used was to create a vanguard of revolutionaries who aggressively pushed through the revolution dragging everyone else with them. This vanguard then simply formed a new elite that then centrally controlled the means of production and forced changes on the way the rural section of society farmed. Lessons should be learned from this

Many disagreed with this method at the time and events have simply proven them right. Change must come because enough people want it and act to bring it about. Which brings us to the problem of creating the correct consciousness for change

This is why movements such as the occupy movement want to create publicity because they want to point out to people the huge imbalance in wealth that has occured particularly under neoliberalism and especially after deregulation in the 1970's. If enough people can see what the cause of the economic upheval is then they will want change and creating the correct consciousness required to then change their behaviours and ways of doing things.

Aligned against such movements seeking to increase awareness, is the corporate media which will always seek to make people more cynical. Just look at the news; all it talks about is crime, war and peodophilia! When does it ever talk about the good things people do? It doesn't and the reason for that is to crush your hope that humanity can rise above a dog eat dog state of capitalism

There is truth in the saying that wherever you get centralised power you get corruption and exploitation. Working of that foundation it is then logical to realise that to create a fairer, healthier and happier society we should de-centralise power to the people so that they feel empowered, have more freedoms and more dignity

and then ask yourself if you really think that 'true' communism (or whatever it is that you're advocating, because I have no idea) would actually last, or being able to produce a better or worse result than what we have now in the long term. Marx himself actually said that all systems inevitably become oppressive... and it seems to me that communism does so in a matter of moments. I think it took... what... a whole 6 months for Russia to become one of the most oppressive countries in history, and also inspire other revolutionaries to remake their own nations along the same line, again leading to all sorts of backwards regimes where even the most basic human rights, the things that you are currently taking for granted, were basically ignored.

I'm not taking basic human rights for granted...you're putting words in my mouth again instead of actually listening to what i'm saying

Marx wrote a brilliant diagnosis of the problems with capitalism. But his solution had a large flaw. He argued that we need a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to bridge the gap from a state of capitalism to a state of communism.....to unwind capitalism if you like

This doesn't work as i've said above due to the nature of centralised power

We have to transition directly (i would like to transition to a state of anarchist communism) which can only be done with enough awareness among the populace but eh corporate elite will seek to deny that awareness to people by controlling the output of the media and therefore the flow of information and ideas to people

Do you think that after the revolution, suddenly there will just be unanimity? Billions of people all over the world will just spontaneously reach complete agreement on the best way to proceed with the course of human history?

I don't want to see unanimity!

Think about what capitalism is doing right now. What neoliberal capitalism is doing right now is forcing a certain way of doing business on the world. Countries who don't toe the line are forcefully bashed into line or 'structural adjustments' are imposed on them. Neoliberalism is pushing the same clothes, the same music, the same food, the same fashions, the same ways of doing things on the world....the mcdonaldisation of culture. this is a process of homogonisation. So please recognise that what capitalism is imposing on us is unanimity

Anarchist communism would allow for regional variation and cultural and individual diversity. It would allow the individual greater freedom to try different things and find what they like doing, whereas capitalism can often be restrictive and due to specialisation people often become just cogs in the machine

Concerning billions of people adapting their ways from capitalism...i think the underlying cooperation required for anarchist communism still shines through in peoples behaviour despite the best attempts of capitalsim to set us all to competing with each other

The more people who adapt to a less coercive way of doing things the more of an example is set for others to see and thereby recognise an alternative. they will however all have to overcome elites who will want to maintain a status quo under which they are empowered above all others

In order to effectively organize a complex society, some people must make the decisions, and some people are in a better position to make those decisions that others. And inevitably, this leads to a degree of corruption, exploitation and oppression. It's not a condition that's unique to capitalism, but it's easy to say that it is because capitalism is the only system that you actually know.

No capitalism is not the only system i know....you really need to stop imposing your perception of reality onto me and instead listen to what i'm saying. this is something you have done again and again in discussions with me. Instead of saying that i am saying something i'm not could you not instead style it as a question to me?

I have travelled to other countries and even within my own country i have in many ways rejected capitalism. For example i left a company that was a coercive heirarchy and i have set up a voluntary association of workers that share decision making and responsibility and in which no one is bound to do anything if they don't want to. My personal relations are not defined by contracts as well but are rather voluntary associations

Concerning what you've said about people being in the best place to make decisions.....the people best placed to make decisions are the people on the spot....the people at the coal face. The further power goes from the situation the less quickly and efficiently it can act and the more likely that there will be break downs in communications and crossed purposes due to the vested interests of those in power

The only thing that's going to prevent your oncoming fascist apocalypse is if Jesus returns to Earth as a televangelist/irresistibly charismatic Internet prophet, aliens appear from the sky, or the media evolves into an irresistible mind control device with a single agenda.

I can understand wanting increased regulation, or health care, or education, and more separation between the government and the corporations, etc... but all of these Socialist narratives being thrown around remind me of when I was a lot younger, a lot more naive and totally clueless about what people are really like.

Well a person on the left could easily chuck insults right back at you and say that you are 'naive' and 'clueless' to think that capitalism is sustainable. You might be interested in the ATTAC movment (Association for the taxation of financial transactions and for aid of citizens) which aims to protect democracy in the face of rising corporate power

The things you have mentioned above are achievable but the reason they are not being achieved is because there is an elite who don't want to see those things acheived



[video=youtube;4jQT7_rVxAE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE[/video]

 

[muir]

I like capitalism, it gives me the opportunity to create abundance for myself in a way that socialism never possibly could.

How do you know that? Have you ever lived in a libertarian socialist society?

Also i've made this point to you before and i'm going to make it to you again. This isn't just about you. There are over 6 billion people in this world and if we are to avoid conflict because a few people are hoarding everyting then perhaps we need to think about creating a fairer and more balanced society

 

[muir]

EDIT: Ok, here is the wikipedia definition of capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

Capitalism leads to profit seeking and to the consolidation of power

And, by this definition, the organizational structure of the entity would not be relevent, be more traditional corporate, or co-op... it would still be considered a capitalistic entity if it produces goods or services for profit,
and the ownership of the company is private. Private ownership could very well be equally shared by members of the company. I happen to be a part of a family business, and indeed, this is EXACTLY the case. So, it does
work as a co-op, capitalistic entity. They are not directly opposing concepts.

The spirit of cooperation that is embodied within the cooperative movment is antithetical to the spirit of capitalism which is about competition.

People in the cooperative movement may believe however that to overturn the current system you have to compete with it but if a network of cooperatives overturns the current corporate model seeking to put people before profit then we will have something different from capitalism

Personally, as long as the cooperative IS profit driven (as the one in the example is)... then I like it.

Otherwise... well, it may be a better working environment, but it tends to not be as appealing to me on a personal level

Are you saying that profit is more important to you on a personal level than the working environment of the people in your business?

Another concern I would have about cooperatives in general is the "democratically controlled enterprise" aspect. Don't get me wrong though... I see many advantages to this. HOWEVER, as an organization grows in size
the complexities nearly always increase with that growth. Now, suppose this cooperative I'm speaking about happens to be a "for profit" enterprise... not a community farming project or the like...but lets say a tech company that
is organized in a "cooperative" manner. Obviously, some ideas for how it should be operating, what products should be developed, how they should be marketed, how they will best serve clients, what price points items should be sold at...etc...

In other words, many of these types of decisions are made at the management level, or even the executive level, in a traditional corporate structure.... and there is good reason for such: the higher up the food chain you look in a corporate
hierarchy, the more informed and better equipped these types tend to be at making the optimal choice for these various aspects that must be made.

I disagree with that. The higher up the ladder you go the more sharp elbowed the people are. Management are not necessarily the most creative or talented people they just ride on the back of the work and talent of others. Also if you go to the very top of the ladder you find global investors who are using inherited family wealth....hardly a meritocracy! Which is why our system is collapsing

Let me give you a very easy example. If I were to walk into a McDonalds, and if by some magic power I could judge which of the people working behind the counter would have the raw capability and potential talent to be able to best become the future CEO of McDonalds corp... I would likely end up with a "best candidate" and a "worst candidate".

So, if it came to making decisions for the future of the company, I would rather have the opinion of the "best candidate" be weighted more than the "worst candidate"

I think if people think in terms of profit before people and of people as resources to be evaluated then corporations like mcdonalds will continue to get away with causing massive deforestation to make the beef that they put into their nasty, processed burgers

If they all had equal say...but, lets for a moment say that this best candidate is also "new", or maybe they are not particularly charming, or charasmatic, or whatever... but, they have a good enough amount of the OTHER attributes needed by a CEO that they are indeed the best over all...

and lets say that the "worst candidate" is also Mr/Mrs attractive & charming...but they just don't have the level of critical thinking skills needed to make even a decent CEO...

in this hypothetical situation, it is very possible that the best ideas would be continually passed over because that"best candidate" person didn't have the level of social charisma of the "worst candidate"... but yet the worst candidate would be able to often sway opinion to vote for their way of running things.

In a top heavy organizational structure, this problem would occur much less frequently.

No this process happens all ther time in the current capitalist system where social mobility has decreased and the gap betwee the rich and the poor has grown

The bests system would allow everyone input and that would see the best outcome. Because profit is an abstract thing. What is real is health and happiness and we should be looking for ways to maximise that not to compete all the time in an resource sapping spiral of hurt

management has started to coopt the term 'empowerment'. What the term is really about is people developing enough self esteem that they believe that they can build a better society and a better life for themselves and everyone else; it is about people having hope and self esteem so that they can realise that they have a right to have a say in the running of their community.

But 'managment' (in the sense that i'm using the word) being a product of elites has hijaked the word and uses it to mean letting workers have a little more input into how they carry out particular tasks but really this is an illusion of freedom because it is still occuring within very restrictive parameters and the end result is the enrichment of the management at the expense of the creativity of the 'empowered' workers

See, IMHO, there are some goals and types of organizations that are more homogenous in their interpersonal composition, as well as very clear on the goals, and these goals happen to be universally important to all parties in the organization. These types of organizations lend themsleves well to operate as a co-op of some sort, within, or without, a larger capitalistic structure.

But, there are distinct advantages to a top heavy hierarchy, and they work better in groups with less universal needs, or those who may not necessarily be working for the "goals" of the entity, but for what that entity can provide for them, or if the goals are not universally important to all parties, or in groups that are comprised of a very diverse social makeup... where the needs and values of each member are in fact quite different and distinct from one another.

It is this 'top heavy' centralised form of power that deregulation enabled that has created the current economic crisis

In these situations, a "co-op" situation can be highly ineffective. I can give examples later to further clarify my points...

but, I think what I'm saying here is actually the most logical, most likely "reality", because it seems to make some good, basic, human condition sense.

People are different. cultures and communities are different as well.

Sometimes, one types of organizational structure can be very effective for some people, to acheive some particular goals.

and other times, a DIFFERENT form of organizational structure can be very effective for some people, to achieve other types of goals.

They both have their place in the world IMO. And, I think we can see examples of this throughout all of humanity for the history of the world. People form different communities, different cutures, practice their beliefs differently, etc...

so why should one organizational entity be "THE ONE"

It's not, IMO...and to think otherwise is very smilar to the "commie vs. yankee" argument of yesteryear... neither communism/socialism nor capitalism is "best"... but, they each have their advantages, and which one should be utilized will depend on the situation, the goal, and the composition of the people involved in that situation who are working towards that goal.

Thoughts?

-E

My thoughts are that capitalism and particularly neoliberal capitalism is forcing a very homogenous world on us all in terms of business practice and in terms of culture so really you should be critiquing capitalism here when you caution against a system adopting 'the one' approach

I am talking about the possibility of an alternative system (anarchist communism) which sees: ''the abolition of private property (except small personal items of course) and of monetary exchange. instead, work should be under the direct control of producers. Goods and services are directly exchanged or given according to desire and need. Production and society in general are organised through sefl-directed communitie and organisation is based on the principles of free association and individual affinity. More complex social structures are built from networks based on voluntary federation by smaller units.'' (Parker, Fournier & Reedy)

Here's a video called 'capitalism and other kids stuff' made by the Socialist party of Great Britain who's approach i have sympathies with (bringing change through increased awareness)

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/capitalism-and-other-kids-stuff

 

[ENT8]

How do you know that? Have you ever lived in a libertarian society?

Also i've made this point to you before and i'm going to make it to you again. This isn't just about you. There are over 6 billion people in this world and if we are to avoid conflict because a few people are hoarding everyting then perhaps we need to think about creating a fairer and more balanced society

It's a nice thought muir...it really really is. I like it on the whole.

But either human nature will have to change, or you'll have to exterminate a large percentage of the population.

Because frankly, on a core level... I do not, and will not, ever trust others to take care of my needs. This is why I've always worked for myself (well, since I was 19 anyway)... I've had bad times... thrice I lost a business, a two of those three I was sleeping on couches and sometimes even hungry, literally. I traded what possessions I had in order to compensate friends for "couch rent". At this time many years ago, my family was not willing to help much due to my choice to start my own business, rather than attend college. I had made my bed, so to speak, and I was sleeping in it (or wasn't as the case sometimes was...)

But in the end, I worked it out. And in the meantime, the general family business that another member started long ago has done very well over the last decade. And as I mentioned in a post earlier, I've made it a point to make sure that I have the most influential role in that as well...

You know why? really...really why? I'll tell you. Because as I said, on a core level, I don't trust anyone, or any man made construct, other than myself, and my wits, to provide and protect what I value, including my comfort, my family, my friends...etc.
I do trust people pretty easily, and I have a great deal of practice at knowing who and what I can trust... but I trust nothing and no one other than myself, to best take care of myself. There is a distinct difference, one I have no problem with, the other I will never be able to accept.

If this was a socialist structure, I would make absolutely sure that I had a controlling interest in it. If you tell me that isn't possible, then I will venture out into the wild on my own... and carve my own world out however I need to. And if you have a problem with this, then we will toe off. I'm a very reasonable guy. I believe and support both in practice and in theory a lot of socilistic and more leftist ideals and social constructs. And I have no desire to get in your way... as long as you don't get in mine.

But, should an organization or other entity come around to try to take from me what I don't want to give, I will die for that. I'm not saying I don't believe a more liberal world isn't possible, and i daresay it might be better over all. REALLY better! At least I'd be open to the possibility. But a completely liberal world? one where I wasn't able to choose for gain for myself on my own merits what I felt I would need in order to better protect myself from being a victim of injustice? Not unless I could rise and control what I felt I needed to in order to protect MY interests. I'm a loner by nature, and I would prefer to run my life as I want to..but if this was quite difficult to do for whatever reason, I would then find a way to have a great deal of influence in your society, to make sure that I could better defend myself from any potential injustice. If such power was unable to be gained, I would risk the hardships, and I would go out on my own (i've done it before in other ways, and I'd do it again, no matter the price to my own personal being)

And if for some reason I wasn't allowed to do this. Well, then I guess this planet isn't big enough for the both of us.

I remember a very good movie by a brilliant film maker... Stanley Kubrick.... and his move "A Clockwork Orange". The movie was what I believe is a brilliant response to the age old question "what right do we have as a society to restrict freedom of choice" Kubrick and I agree on this... the answer: NONE. EVER. AT ANY COST. Yes, this includes great atrocities, murder, theft, sexual violence, the whole lot of it. I hate it all, and I would like to see it end... but NOT at the expense of free will. I know, this is not very "nice" or "compassionate" of me. You'd be right...it's not. but it IS what is most important to me. It's as important to me as your desire for a more fair and equal world. See, fair and equal are SECOND on my list. My freedom of choice over my destiny... that's number ONE on my list. And it always will be.

I like and support many liberal ideas. But if something ever came up that wouldn't let me dictate my own way... well, It wouldn't work for me. ever under any circumstances.

And here's the thing. I'm not the only person that feels this way. Not by a long shot. And here the OTHER thing... I'm not even who you'd have to worry about! LOL! I'm just a guy who has a few wins and losses to his name in the capitalistic game. I currently have my own company (with me as the only employee), and I help out with another family business. I'm not even a multi millionaire at this point. My home is NOT paid for free and clear. I just want to be able to live my life as I choose. But that's not so much a desire, as it is a fundamental way of life for me... and I'd die to keep that particular liberty. And really, I think such a revolution is so far away it's the 2nd coming will occur sooner. But if it does, I'm not under any illusion that it would be built on the influence and direction of a few "powerful" individuals. You show me an socio-political-economic entity, and I'll show you someone who had a great deal of power and influence in it. Whether it's Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, George Washinton, Benjamin Franklin, Ghandi, MLK Jr, Buddha, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Joan of Arc, Barak Obama, Vladimir Putin... etc.

Every great cause, both evil and saintly and somewhere in between, has a few who "lead" it. Well, I'd figure a way out to be closer to that leadership hub than the average joe. If this wasn't possible, I wouldn't be a part of it, and you'd have to kill me to prevent me from building a world that I want, as I best saw fit.

I'm not a sociopath, I can be very generous, and even extremely affectionate. My love and concern for others and my community is significant. But all of them come after one core fundamental value in my life: That I be able to be my own master as I exist on this planet.

Capitalism gives me this freedom. Would your ideals of socialism or a more liberal society? If so... please explain how.... maybe i'll become even MORE open minded to it.

But if not, it's not gonna work. Cuz I'm not gonna give in, and I've spent my entire life learning how best plan, organize, marshal resources, follow my vision, convince others of the same (if need be), and finally, get what it is I'm going for. And... as part of my nature... I actually LIKE a good fight! I respect it, and I enjoy the intensity of it. And whats more...this is part of who I am. It's as much me as your desire for world equality. And if someone threatened that, I'd be somewhat well prepared to stop them, and nothing short of my death would prevent me from fighting for that liberty.

I just don't see how your gonna get the people like me to be a part of what you propose. You would need to have some sort of positive outlet for this...and I don't think the theoretical model of what you envision would ever be able to accomodate this aspect of my being.

Again... clockwork orange... one of the greatest movies of all time. To this day, I can't sit through every scene...they are just too disturbing, I feel filthy, as if i've sold a part of myself, if I were to ever watch some of the scenes that I saw the first time. But the point is not lost on me, and there is nothing I wouldn't do to defend this degree of freedom of choice, and freedom to decide my own path and destiny.

Tell me where someone like me would fit in. I am open to hearing it, and actually kinda hoping you can challenge my current point of view (again, I like and respect a good fight!) I just, at this point, see that your most basic, fundamental value could be in opposition to a degree to MY basic, most fundamental value. But... i'm open to you proving me wrong.

I'll await your response...

-E

 

[ENT8]

I am talking about the possibility of an alternative system (anarchist communism) which sees: ''the abolition of private property (except small personal items of course) and of monetary exchange. instead, work should be under the direct control of producers. Goods and services are directly exchanged or given according to desire and need. Production and society in general are organised through sefl-directed communitie and organisation is based on the principles of free association and individual affinity. More complex social structures are built from networks based on voluntary federation by smaller units.'' (Parker, Fournier & Reedy)

Here's a video called 'capitalism and other kids stuff' made by the Socialist party of Great Britain who's approach i have sympathies with (bringing change through increased awareness)

lol. looks like you answered me as I was responding to you. I'll dig through and give you a more complete response later...but for now, I'll address this last aspect of your post.

Man... you seem to be blind to the fact that there are people in the world who are NOT sociopathic or otherwise crazy... but who want more control over their destiny than that, and want to engage in a more high stakes game than what this last aspect of your post entails. I love "BIG, INTENSE" things. I love music that kicks me in the chest, I love great nights in the bedroom, I love stories that make me laugh OR cry until I can't take any more, and I love the idea that I can attain any level or type of life that I want, if I do what is required to get that. I'm not gonna lie and steal or rob for it...again, i'm not nuts... but I will spend a great deal of time and energy playing above the board, to get that.

Your really talking about a utopia... and I don't see how your society as you quote above would be able to satiate certain desires I have to live my life how I want, as I want.

And yes, I value this higher than anything else in this world. And I always will. As I said before, I LOVE capitalism! And I'm not too shabby at it either these days...although that took years to get "down"
I DO value it over someone else's well being, because I see they could choose to do things differently, but choose not to. And that's on them. (I'm NOT talking about the impovershed or malnourished or depraved societies and regions of the world...I have totally different feelings about that... totally different). But, I live with my consequences of choice, both the good and bad, both those that affect me, and others. Some I feel great sorrow over, some I wish I could take back. Some that even could be considered "haunting", But the ability choose and risk making these mistakes again? Ya, i'll die for it. And someone would have to kill me, to prevent me from fighting for it.

Anyway, good luck with the utopia. If it holds me back from what I would seek out... then I won't be a part of it. If this is a "with us or against us" situation, well, guess u and I are gonna clash. But because my ideology happens to be one that is more pervasive due to it's competitive factor, by it's very nature than yours would be... I would bet on me. Besides, we've seen that show before, the cold battle, cold argument...oh well, anyway, something like that.

Are you willing to kill me to prevent me from persuing my desires? Your gonna have to if you want to hold me back buddy!!!

Maybe you'll change my mind... I'll look for a response, and likely respond to your other points as I have more time. Right now, I have more work to get done.

-E

 

[muir]

lol. looks like you answered me as I was responding to you. I'll dig through and give you a more complete response later...but for now, I'll address this last aspect of your post.

Man... you seem to be blind to the fact that there are people in the world who are NOT sociopathic or otherwise crazy...

No.....i am the one here saying that i trust people enough to manage their own affairs and their own communities

However there is a small number of control freaks who basically claw their way to the top and want to constantly increase their wealth and power and if the majority of people are going to have more autonomy in their lives and if they want to have a more balanced society where people can be healthy and happy then they are going to have to find ways to manage the more imbalanced members of humanity who can't see past themselves to realise that their selfish, self obsessed power games are not what the majority of people need

but who want more control over their destiny than that, and want to engage in a more high stakes game than what this last aspect of your post entails. I love "BIG, INTENSE" things. I love music that kicks me in the chest, I love great nights in the bedroom, I love stories that make me laugh OR cry until I can't take any more, and I love the idea that I can attain any level or type of life that I want, if I do what is required to get that. I'm not gonna lie and steal or rob for it...again, i'm not nuts... but I will spend a great deal of time and energy playing above the board, to get that.

You're speaking to an INFJ here...i know all about intensity

What we all need to realise is that our actions have consequences. We might get a rush from driving really fast in a built up area but the downside is that we might run over someone so we have to calm our impulse and balance it with our responsibilites to our fellow man

The people at the top of capitalism for example the bankers who have basically grabbed the levers of power are not acting in a way that is balanced with the needs of the majority of people. They are imbalanced and because there is no effective regulation they are giving in to their impulses to grab more and more wealth and power which is coming at a cost to democracy

Your really talking about a utopia... and I don't see how your society as you quote above would be able to satiate certain desires I have to live my life how I want, as I want.

Adulthood is about learning to be responsible and that means not always acting on impulse but weighing up our actions against the long term affects and on how they might affect others. the bankers have been chasing personal fortunes and short term profits and in so doing they have irresponsibly crashed their banks; we, the public have now been saddled with their debts because our corrupt governments have chosen to take taxpayers money and give it to the bankers ('bank bailouts') so that they can pay their creditors instead of just writing off the debts to the ability to pay

If you want to 'satiate your desires' and that process harms others then expect a reaction

And yes, I value this higher than anything else in this world. And I always will. As I said before, I LOVE capitalism! And I'm not too shabby at it either these days...although that took years to get "down"

Yeah but what you need to realise is that you are sharing the world with other people and that they have needs as well

You have mentioned that you are in a family business....well that's lucky for you that you have had that opportunity to get capitalism 'down'. I made my business with my business partners built on trust, good will and shared values. We now have the work/life balance that we want and enough money, time and energy to do the things we want to do, but this is not an easy thing to do in capitalism and i have had a good start in life

So we need to realise that our backgrounds have an impact on our experience, on our outlook (optomistic or pessimistic) and on our perceptions and that the current system gives some a good start and others a bad start.

A better system would be one that gives everyone a great start....a good education, a balanced culture and a positive outlook....capitalism does not deliver that for the majority of people

I DO value it over someone else's well being, because I see they could choose to do things differently, but choose not to. And that's on them. (I'm NOT talking about the impovershed or malnourished or depraved societies and regions of the world...I have totally different feelings about that... totally different). But, I live with my consequences of choice, both the good and bad, both those that affect me, and others. Some I feel great sorrow over, some I wish I could take back. Some that even could be considered "haunting", But the ability choose and risk making these mistakes again? Ya, i'll die for it. And someone would have to kill me, to prevent me from fighting for it.

Are you saying that you put your own desires over the welfare of everyone else? If that's the case then this may create a tension with any community you want to be a part of and a blance needs to be struck between your personal freedoms and your responsibilities to that community

Not everyone gets the opportunities that you've had

Anyway, good luck with the utopia. If it holds me back from what I would seek out... then I won't be a part of it. If this is a "with us or against us" situation, well, guess u and I are gonna clash. But because my ideology happens to be one that is more pervasive due to it's competitive factor, by it's very nature than yours would be... I would bet on me. Besides, we've seen that show before, the cold battle, cold argument...oh well, anyway, something like that.

Are you willing to kill me to prevent me from persuing my desires? Your gonna have to if you want to hold me back buddy!!!

Maybe you'll change my mind... I'll look for a response, and likely respond to your other points as I have more time. Right now, I have more work to get done.

-E

If by 'utopia' you mean a better society then yes i think that's possible. I love to find creative solutions and my work often requires that. I am always thinking about better ways to do things and i don't agree that capitalism is the pinnacle of human achievement....in fact i think its pretty crude, destructive and backward

I'm not looking to kill or coerce anyone. I believe in people choosing alternatives through choice....but this can only happen if they are aware enough of altenatives and their implications

 

[Apone]

I think crime is rife, war is rife, environmental damage is rife, corruption is rife, exploitation is rife and i would argue that these are all the product of a system that values profit above all else for example it places profit above people, the environment and the truth

No i think that we need to build a system that puts people before profit

Where do you think that the 'profit' comes from, exactly? So let's for a second think about everyone's favorites-- the oil barons. Where do their profits come from? Is it some closed circuit of buying and selling that only exists among the privileged elite? No, it comes primarily from the middle class. I can guarantee that they have absolutely no interest in pricing themselves out of a market. Also, I don't believe in 'truth' because I don't think there is one.

Capitalists have an interest in all people-- if only as potential markets. Even extremely poor people have a degree of spending power, and there are businesses that cater to them as well. If you're saying that we shouldn't be giving people exactly what they want/think they want, then yes, I agree… but in a democracy, or a system with 'fair and equal representation', how are you going to convince people that they don't want what they think they want, or tell them that they should actually want what you personally think they want? Advertising? Propaganda? Mind control?

If you're willing to buy from Wal-Mart over local businesses, then you'll get Wal-Mart products. If you're willing to buy unhealthy food, then you'll get unhealthy food. You can't really blame anyone for trying to make money by giving people what they want. If more people exercised a little more self-control, then maybe we'd have a better world. Of course, nobody really likes to hear about how they're actually to blame… it's so much easier to defer blame to the politicians and the rich, as if a more obvious pair of targets could ever possibly exist.

I also think that there is a lot of validity in the 'decroissance/degrowth' movements arguments that the current obsession with 'growth' is not going to solve our problems as such a system looks only at the commercial value of things and does not take into account 'externalities' such as human exploitation or environmental exploitation.

What about 'growth' in the environmental sectors? You don't think it's possible to make protecting the environment profitable? As for human exploitation-- if consumers were more interested… sincerely more interested in where their products are coming from, then maybe things would improve. Again, I would never try to justify unethical business practices and in many ways some of the things that businesses are allowed to get away with is disgusting, but on the other hand, there are billions of people who have been repeatedly told where their products are coming from and still choose to buy them. That's not capitalism's fault, it's people refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

Forget 'utopianism', we need to have a cold hard look at how we are using the resources of this earth. You weild the word 'utopian' as if it is synonymous with the word 'naive' but 'utopianism' is simply the belief that we can improve the world and every act has to begin with a belief that something is possible

Idealism to a certain extent is not naive-- but when it's combined with narratives involving all kinds of sociopolitical experiments as if they were undeniable truths that couldn't possibly have any drawbacks, and that the only reason that these utopian ideas aren't being put into practice is because they're being suppressed by the evil elites, then yeah… it seems a little naive to me.

At the same time if you really do believe in this as some kind of solution, then there's really nothing stopping you from contacting a bunch of people, pooling your money together, and setting up some sort of commune. I've actually contemplated doing this myself-- there are places where land is still fairly cheap and where you won't attract attention. Lead by example!

It wasn't true 'communism' because it didn't reach a state of communism. Part of the problem was that the method used was to create a vanguard of revolutionaries who aggressively pushed through the revolution dragging everyone else with them. This vanguard then simply formed a new elite that then centrally controlled the means of production and forced changes on the way the rural section of society farmed. Lessons should be learned from this

Lessons other than 'communism doesn't work'? Other than 'a power-hungry elite will always inevitably seize control'?

Aligned against such movements seeking to increase awareness, is the corporate media which will always seek to make people more cynical. Just look at the news; all it talks about is crime, war and peodophilia! When does it ever talk about the good things people do? It doesn't and the reason for that is to crush your hope that humanity can rise above a dog eat dog state of capitalism

Most of my cynicism has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the real-life people that surround me. I don't think that the majority of people enjoy being treated with respect. I don't think that most people enjoy things like self-discipline, or challenging works of art, or subtlety… to be honest, I think that most people find them intimidating, and nine times out of ten the easy way out/most entertaining option is going to win. Is this because people have been manipulated into believing that that's what they want, or because the sellers have learned that that is what they want?

There is truth in the saying that wherever you get centralised power you get corruption and exploitation. Working of that foundation it is then logical to realise that to create a fairer, healthier and happier society we should de-centralise power to the people so that they feel empowered, have more freedoms and more dignity

I'm not taking basic human rights for granted...you're putting words in my mouth again instead of actually listening to what i'm saying

Marx wrote a brilliant diagnosis of the problems with capitalism. But his solution had a large flaw. He argued that we need a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to bridge the gap from a state of capitalism to a state of communism.....to unwind capitalism if you like

This doesn't work as i've said above due to the nature of centralised power

We have to transition directly (i would like to transition to a state of anarchist communism) which can only be done with enough awareness among the populace but eh corporate elite will seek to deny that awareness to people by controlling the output of the media and therefore the flow of information and ideas to people

You seem to be assuming that the reason people aren't embracing communism is because they don't understand it, or because they're not being brainwashed in the right way. And with de-centralized power, how are you going to settle disputes between 'tribes' or 'communities' or whatever it is that people are going to be organized into?

I don't want to see unanimity!

Think about what capitalism is doing right now. What neoliberal capitalism is doing right now is forcing a certain way of doing business on the world. Countries who don't toe the line are forcefully bashed into line or 'structural adjustments' are imposed on them. Neoliberalism is pushing the same clothes, the same music, the same food, the same fashions, the same ways of doing things on the world....the mcdonaldisation of culture. this is a process of homogonisation. So please recognise that what capitalism is imposing on us is unanimity

I think you mean uniformity… unanimity implies free choice, ie: unanimous decisions, those agreed to by everyone of their own free will.

I would agree the the capitalist aesthetic isn't exactly the greatest, but it is improving… and if you've ever been to a Communist country, then you would know that their aesthetic is a hundred times worse. There are a few showpieces, but most countries feature extremely bleak and hideous designs, and that aesthetic permeates the entire country and defines its mood.

Also, giving everyone stake in every single decision will slow things down tremendously. Not that I don't think that we shouldn't all be moving slower, just that with current technology it would be impossible to co-ordinate decentralized communities governed by endless amounts of wholly democratic referendums with their suppliers… especially in the absence of a central authority that can mediate the trades/exchanges to ensure that it's always 'fair'.

How will you co-ordinate manufacturing with farming? Or prevent overfarming? Or co-ordinate suppliers and refiners and manufacturers in order to meet demands? How will you control the distribution of raw materials? Or prevent wastage? How will you decide which 'community' gets what amount of which other community's crop? Or are you going to farm absolutely everything in small amounts in every part of every country? Oh, but wait… how are you going to get everyone in one community to agree on how much they need before another community gets an amount that renders their request infeasible? Or are we just not going to manufacture anything? How are you going to prevent the creation of a black market with rogues from each community or tribe or whatever don't just steal commodities in order to provide other communities with what they need? Oh yeah, and speaking of the Soviet Union again, you do know that the Russian mafia grew so powerful from their black market operations (which inevitable extended to such wonderful things as human trafficking, child porn (basically legal in Russia), drugs, etc) that they basically seized control of the country after the collapse? The centralized economy did play a role in this but with your model I really can't see it going down any differently… the competition between communities for resources will inevitably lead to another black market, and things will be less stable/people will be less secure to boot.

Anarchist communism would allow for regional variation and cultural and individual diversity. It would allow the individual greater freedom to try different things and find what they like doing, whereas capitalism can often be restrictive and due to specialisation people often become just cogs in the machine

You seem to be talking about tribes. Regional variation is actually one of the main reasons why the US is so unstable… people may become 'cogs in the machine', but there's also nothing stopping you from quitting your job and starting up your own thing. You really don't have to depend on the big players in order to make a living… unfortunately, you do have to know what you're doing and be smart and also lucky in order to succeed. The only real problem that I see is that a lot of people want a sure thing without any risks, and they want it to be provided to them by the big players, mostly because they're the most stable. There really is no reason why the big companies couldn't take a more active interest in their employees over the profits… but if you look hard enough, you'll find that there are companies who are like that, and who are willing to pay/take an active interest in people who can provide them with what they need. Not everyone can be the best website designer in the world… and if you think that that's what you are and you want to go out on your own, then go ahead and do it. But don't be surprised if you make the unpleasant discovery that you're actually not the master craftsman/genius that you thought you were… but hey, don't let that stop you from trying to improve your craft, or if you so desire, at least try to make it more profitable. That's capitalism.

Concerning billions of people adapting their ways from capitalism...i think the underlying cooperation required for anarchist communism still shines through in peoples behavior despite the best attempts of capitalsim to set us all to competing with each other

The more people who adapt to a less coercive way of doing things the more of an example is set for others to see and thereby recognise an alternative. they will however all have to overcome elites who will want to maintain a status quo under which they are empowered above all others

It's not co-ersion at all… from a very young age most kids are told that the world is theirs and they can do anything that they want to do. There's nothing stopping anyone from coming up with a better solution to life than 'get a job, get married, buy a house and car, have babies'-- a lot of people fall for that sure but there are also plenty of people who do realize that they are free and can come up with their own solution. Capitalism does involve competition but it also involves a great deal of co-operation between businesses.

No capitalism is not the only system i know....you really need to stop imposing your perception of reality onto me and instead listen to what i'm saying. this is something you have done again and again in discussions with me. Instead of saying that i am saying something i'm not could you not instead style it as a question to me?

I guess so since I can remember you got upset in a different discussion because you didn't seem to get my meaning, and then I was too exhausted by it all to correct you. So here's a question for you:

Where did you grow up?

If your answer is a capitalist country, then no, I don't think that you really 'know' anything other than capitalism. I don't really either, but I have met people who grew up in communist Russia, as well as people from Nepal (in the aftermath of a war where a left-wing insurgency has recently toppled the government), and I can guarantee that stable capitalism is about 1000000000X better than anarchy or any kind of revolution… I visited there right after the Civil War (which would probably be the result of trying to impose this form of government on the US) and I can tell you that while it was a lot of relief, it was also a lot of simmering anger… I met kids of about 16 or 17 who were talking about picking up guns and fighting the Maoists, there were soldiers with automatic weapons on every streetcorner, usually standing amongst piles of rubble. This is about the only way to achieve the kind of radical changes that you seem to be supporting, and it's really not worth it.

About the only way to move forward is to stop buying products that you know are contributing to the kinds of unethical business practices that you're so angry about… use your spending power against the 'ruling elite'. Become self-sufficient. It is possible.

Concerning what you've said about people being in the best place to make decisions.....the people best placed to make decisions are the people on the spot....the people at the coal face. The further power goes from the situation the less quickly and efficiently it can act and the more likely that there will be break downs in communications and crossed purposes due to the vested interests of those in power

I think that it depends on the decision… I would agree that including more people in certain decisions is probably a good idea, but believe it or not a lot of the most effective managers do precisely that. A lot of the most effective companies aren't overseen by tyrannical micro-managers who try to control every aspect of their employee's behavior.

Well a person on the left could easily chuck insults right back at you and say that you are 'naive' and 'clueless' to think that capitalism is sustainable. You might be interested in the ATTAC movment (Association for the taxation of financial transactions and for aid of citizens) which aims to protect democracy in the face of rising corporate power

The things you have mentioned above are achievable but the reason they are not being achieved is because there is an elite who don't want to see those things acheived

I don't know if it's sustainable, but I definitely don't think that it's time to panic or make assumptions about 'elites' or demand drastic changes to the entire sociopolitical landscape. I do think we need to keep tweaking things however and I wish that more people would learn to recognize the value of their own spending power.

 

[muir]

It's a nice thought muir...it really really is. I like it on the whole.

But either human nature will have to change, or you'll have to exterminate a large percentage of the population.

No neither of these things need to happen and alternatives are not just 'thoughts' they are being implemented everywhere

People have been acting in cooperative communities networked together for most of their 200,000 year history so really that best reflects 'human nature'. Capitalism is relatively new on the scene and through it we have seen slavery and war carried out on an industrial scale as well as the break up of communities and the dehumanising effect of the capitalist workplace

Really alternatives to capitalism offer an opportunity to move closer to our real nature

Maybe if we did that then society wouldn't need to be propped up on medication, alcohol, caffeine and nicotine?

GlaxoSmithKlein is currently being sued for over $3 billion dollars for bribing health professionals to get them to medicate people in ways that were incorrect or uncalled for....this is capitalism in action!

Because frankly, on a core level... I do not, and will not, ever trust others to take care of my needs. This is why I've always worked for myself (well, since I was 19 anyway)... I've had bad times... thrice I lost a business, a two of those three I was sleeping on couches and sometimes even hungry, literally. I traded what possessions I had in order to compensate friends for "couch rent". At this time many years ago, my family was not willing to help much due to my choice to start my own business, rather than attend college. I had made my bed, so to speak, and I was sleeping in it (or wasn't as the case sometimes was...)

I've slept in my van, in tents and on friends couches as well.....capitalism is not always very good at providing the bare essentials for people

You say you don't trust other people, but how many things can you acheive without any input from other people? Everything requires cooperation even in capitalism people cooperate

What capitalism does do is try to make people cynical. The corporate news is full of horrible stories and never good ones.....this is designed to make us see humanity in a bad light so that we never develop the consciousness of hope required to seek change. It also drives wedges between people by creating suspicion and hate and it denies people self esteem in the sense that they lose their belief in themselves and everyone else....its a method of control....its like beating someone with a whip except it beats them emotionally

But in the end, I worked it out. And in the meantime, the general family business that another member started long ago has done very well over the last decade. And as I mentioned in a post earlier, I've made it a point to make sure that I have the most influential role in that as well...

You know why? really...really why? I'll tell you. Because as I said, on a core level, I don't trust anyone, or any man made construct, other than myself, and my wits, to provide and protect what I value, including my comfort, my family, my friends...etc.

Well that's cynicism and the harsh reality is that if you allow yourself to become cynical to a great degree then you will never be able to develop the trust to hold deep and meanignful relationships with people and you will deny yourself the warmth of human contact

To trust doesn't mean to never expect anyone to ever do anything wrong or hurtful, it just means to recognise that as much as people can be selfish, they can also be kind and compassionate as well.

In a capitalist society we are all constantly having to deal with our own wounded egos and the wounded egos of others because we are denied the supportive nature of a community and told that we must compete with each other or as an ardent capitalist and ex prime minister of Britain Magaret Thatcher once put it: 'there is no such thing as society!'

Well of course she didn't want a society because a society is difficult for her industrialist paymasters to dominate because a society has pride and dignity and stands together to help each other out

She and the capitalist class didn't want that. they wanted obediant workers who would work for little pay in crap conditions focussed on owning a shiny new car and a mortgage rather on building a sustainable and supportive community.....hence the divided, indebted and dispondant society that we have today

The Adam Curtis documnetary 'The Trap' which is available online talks about how the paranoid cold war theory called game theory was used to shape our society, driving people apart to create a very uneasy balance that has come at the cost of people happiness. It talks a lot about Britain but because Britain and the US were in lock step it is all relevant to the US as well.

I do trust people pretty easily, and I have a great deal of practice at knowing who and what I can trust... but I trust nothing and no one other than myself, to best take care of myself. There is a distinct difference, one I have no problem with, the other I will never be able to accept.

Well then you could set up your own enterprise within an anarchist communist system and decide to what extent you interact with other communities but there is no denying that many hands make light work

If this was a socialist structure, I would make absolutely sure that I had a controlling interest in it. If you tell me that isn't possible, then I will venture out into the wild on my own... and carve my own world out however I need to. And if you have a problem with this, then we will toe off. I'm a very reasonable guy. I believe and support both in practice and in theory a lot of socilistic and more leftist ideals and social constructs. And I have no desire to get in your way... as long as you don't get in mine.

In an anarchist communist society you could choose what activites you wanted to engage in and you would not be bound by contracts to stay in one thing. People would recognise your right to do what you wanted to do as long as it wasn't harming others because that's the spirit of the thing!

But, should an organization or other entity come around to try to take from me what I don't want to give, I will die for that.

Well how do you feel about the capitalist governments tax systems? I mean you have to pay for everything in capitalism: shelter, food, electricity, water, fuel, council tax etc. Just existing costs money in capitalism! You can't get off the treadmill unless you own enough wealth to not work and even then it can be lost in economic uphevals

I'm not saying I don't believe a more liberal world isn't possible, and i daresay it might be better over all. REALLY better! At least I'd be open to the possibility. But a completely liberal world? one where I wasn't able to choose for gain for myself on my own merits what I felt I would need in order to better protect myself from being a victim of injustice? Not unless I could rise and control what I felt I needed to in order to protect MY interests. I'm a loner by nature, and I would prefer to run my life as I want to..but if this was quite difficult to do for whatever reason, I would then find a way to have a great deal of influence in your society, to make sure that I could better defend myself from any potential injustice. If such power was unable to be gained, I would risk the hardships, and I would go out on my own (i've done it before in other ways, and I'd do it again, no matter the price to my own personal being)

I feel that kind of 'taking on the world' sort of feeling is really the product of a capitalist system that makes you feel unsafe and unsecure. you're not alone in this....the elite want everyone divided and suspicious of each other because they know that if people get together and organise then they become a threat (divide and conquer)

So the aim of the elite is to make you feel unsafe, insecure, isolated, cynical and competitive.....like a wild animal in winter time! But this mental state that is required by the capitalist, profit orientated system and consumer culture.....well is it a mindest that makes people happy and healthy?

I would argue not

And if for some reason I wasn't allowed to do this. Well, then I guess this planet isn't big enough for the both of us.

This planet is plenty big for all of us, but not if we keep consuming at the rate that capitalism requires us to consume at

I remember a very good movie by a brilliant film maker... Stanley Kubrick.... and his move "A Clockwork Orange". The movie was what I believe is a brilliant response to the age old question "what right do we have as a society to restrict freedom of choice" Kubrick and I agree on this... the answer: NONE. EVER. AT ANY COST. Yes, this includes great atrocities, murder, theft, sexual violence, the whole lot of it. I hate it all, and I would like to see it end... but NOT at the expense of free will. I know, this is not very "nice" or "compassionate" of me. You'd be right...it's not. but it IS what is most important to me. It's as important to me as your desire for a more fair and equal world. See, fair and equal are SECOND on my list. My freedom of choice over my destiny... that's number ONE on my list. And it always will be.

I think your perceptions of 'socialism' are maybe gained from a capitalist viewpoint in the sense that the coporate media has associated socialism with the USSR and other centrally controlled systems where individual freedom is severly curtailed?

I believe strongly in individual freedom which is why i am talking about certain kinds of socialism such as libertarian socialism/anarchist communism where people strongly reject authority as they eblieve in their personal freedoms. capitalism on the other is very authoritarian and we are very strictly controlled (increasingly to counter a largely fabricated threat of 'terroism'.

Kubrick painted a dystopian view of the future where crime has spiralled to epic proportions. In the current capitalist society we have crime from the top down (politicans expense scandals, police corruption, bankers rigging LIBOR, ENRON and other corporate crimes, MadHoff and other investor scandals right down to the crime on the street which will only increase as the economic situation worsens)....that's state capitalism in action....systemic corruption permitted for those at the top but not those at the bottom

I like and support many liberal ideas. But if something ever came up that wouldn't let me dictate my own way... well, It wouldn't work for me. ever under any circumstances.

And here's the thing. I'm not the only person that feels this way. Not by a long shot. And here the OTHER thing... I'm not even who you'd have to worry about! LOL! I'm just a guy who has a few wins and losses to his name in the capitalistic game. I currently have my own company (with me as the only employee), and I help out with another family business. I'm not even a multi millionaire at this point. My home is NOT paid for free and clear. I just want to be able to live my life as I choose. But that's not so much a desire, as it is a fundamental way of life for me... and I'd die to keep that particular liberty. And really, I think such a revolution is so far away it's the 2nd coming will occur sooner. But if it does, I'm not under any illusion that it would be built on the influence and direction of a few "powerful" individuals. You show me an socio-political-economic entity, and I'll show you someone who had a great deal of power and influence in it. Whether it's Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, George Washinton, Benjamin Franklin, Ghandi, MLK Jr, Buddha, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Joan of Arc, Barak Obama, Vladimir Putin... etc.

Every great cause, both evil and saintly and somewhere in between, has a few who "lead" it. Well, I'd figure a way out to be closer to that leadership hub than the average joe. If this wasn't possible, I wouldn't be a part of it, and you'd have to kill me to prevent me from building a world that I want, as I best saw fit.

I'm not a sociopath, I can be very generous, and even extremely affectionate. My love and concern for others and my community is significant. But all of them come after one core fundamental value in my life: That I be able to be my own master as I exist on this planet.

Capitalism gives me this freedom. Would your ideals of socialism or a more liberal society? If so... please explain how.... maybe i'll become even MORE open minded to it.

Movments are not one man bands, they are created by movements of people. Sometimes they galvanise around a charismatic leader but the occupy movment has learned that this is not a good idea as the elite will just assassinate them

Yes anarchist communism would provide you with freedoms and i would argue more freedoms than capitalism. The issue as always is to what extent you can be or want to be totally self sufficient and to what extent you want to engage with and share with a community. The more you engage with a community the more you may have to work with it....so the big question is:

HOW DO WE BEST GET A BALANCE BETWEEN OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS? because that is what anarchists (who are fiercely independant!) are concerned with

But if not, it's not gonna work. Cuz I'm not gonna give in, and I've spent my entire life learning how best plan, organize, marshal resources, follow my vision, convince others of the same (if need be), and finally, get what it is I'm going for. And... as part of my nature... I actually LIKE a good fight! I respect it, and I enjoy the intensity of it. And whats more...this is part of who I am. It's as much me as your desire for world equality. And if someone threatened that, I'd be somewhat well prepared to stop them, and nothing short of my death would prevent me from fighting for that liberty.

Then you should really give some thought to what the bankers and global creditors are upto at the moment because they are looking to centralise their power even more and that will come at a cost to your freedom

There'a good documentary online called 'the money masters' which was made in 1996 and predicted the current economic crisis....it could make this prediction because its makers understand how the economy really works and the role of the bankers in that. Its a bit grainy but its what is being said that is important not the quality of the filming!

I just don't see how your gonna get the people like me to be a part of what you propose. You would need to have some sort of positive outlet for this...and I don't think the theoretical model of what you envision would ever be able to accomodate this aspect of my being.

Again... clockwork orange... one of the greatest movies of all time. To this day, I can't sit through every scene...they are just too disturbing, I feel filthy, as if i've sold a part of myself, if I were to ever watch some of the scenes that I saw the first time. But the point is not lost on me, and there is nothing I wouldn't do to defend this degree of freedom of choice, and freedom to decide my own path and destiny.

Tell me where someone like me would fit in. I am open to hearing it, and actually kinda hoping you can challenge my current point of view (again, I like and respect a good fight!) I just, at this point, see that your most basic, fundamental value could be in opposition to a degree to MY basic, most fundamental value. But... i'm open to you proving me wrong.

I'll await your response...

-E

Please read into libertarian socialism and anarchist communism and you will find that personal freedoms are central to these ideas....as opposed to state socialism where elites centrally control things

 

[muir]

Where do you think that the 'profit' comes from, exactly? So let's for a second think about everyone's favorites-- the oil barons. Where do their profits come from? Is it some closed circuit of buying and selling that only exists among the privileged elite? No, it comes primarily from the middle class. I can guarantee that they have absolutely no interest in pricing themselves out of a market.

In the UK the government closed down all the branch lines of the railways and privatised them. This process then drove people onto the roads and the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said things like 'if a person is still using public transport in their thrities then they are a loser'

She did this because she is working for the corporations. She was helping the car industry and the oil industry which was also privatised (sold off to private control under global investors who can then dictate prices)

Also, I don't believe in 'truth' because I don't think there is one.

There are certain things that can be agreed upon.....for example if i take a gun and walk upto you and blow your head off without any provocation then this will widely be perceived as a bad thing to do.....do you recognise the 'truth' of that or do you think it would be ok for me to do that?

Capitalists have an interest in all people-- if only as potential markets. Even extremely poor people have a degree of spending power, and there are businesses that cater to them as well. If you're saying that we shouldn't be giving people exactly what they want/think they want, then yes, I agree… but in a democracy, or a system with 'fair and equal representation', how are you going to convince people that they don't want what they think they want, or tell them that they should actually want what you personally think they want? Advertising? Propaganda? Mind control?

Advertising, propoganda and mind control is exactly what capitalism uses to convince people that they need things that they don't....it confuses wants with needs (see 'Affluenza' -Oliver for more on this perspective

Adam Curtis made a good documentary which is available online called 'The Century of the Self' which explains how corporations worked with the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays who used the ideas of his uncle to emotionally manipulate people into buying products they didn't need (eg he made smoking fashionable for women by associating them with womens liberation!). he was also hired by the US government to help manufacture the consent of the US public in the various imperialist activities of the government in central america ie protecting the interests of the United Fruit Company against the interests of the people of Guatamala

If you're willing to buy from Wal-Mart over local businesses, then you'll get Wal-Mart products. If you're willing to buy unhealthy food, then you'll get unhealthy food. You can't really blame anyone for trying to make money by giving people what they want.

I'm not willing to buy from them and don't. I buy from local growers but due to the monopoly of the corporations this is not economically viable for a lot of people

See documentary 'Food Inc' to see how monsanto has bribed successive governments into legislating a monopoly for them over agricultural seed

A lot of peoples behaviour stems from their level of awareness and this can be suppressed by a missleading educational system and media which denies people healthy perceptions on things

If more people exercised a little more self-control, then maybe we'd have a better world. Of course, nobody really likes to hear about how they're actually to blame… it's so much easier to defer blame to the politicians and the rich, as if a more obvious pair of targets could ever possibly exist.

Well lets talk about 'blame'......the corporate press will tell yuo that the people to blame are benfit cheats and immigrants.....but who are the biggest recipiants if taxpayer money? The bankers of course! They have received vast 'bank bailouts' which have driven the real economy into a depression

The cost of benefit cheats are a drop in the ocean and they are simply following the example set by the elites. Even the British politicians have been shown to be exploiting the expenses system and everyone knows that US politicians are bought and sold by lobbyists and special interest groups

So if you want to talk blame then get lets get things into perspective

What about 'growth' in the environmental sectors? You don't think it's possible to make protecting the environment profitable?

I think a lot of the problem comes from the idea that we need constant 'growth'. Even if we all turn into obsessive recyclers and we make systems more efficient all that will happen is that we will consume ata greater rate. We really need to change the culture and what we prioritse.

Priorities are largely determined by corporations which despite large protests by the public (whether anti-war, anti-cuts or anti-corruption etc) basiclaly dictate policy and the direction of our economy

As for human exploitation-- if consumers were more interested… sincerely more interested in where their products are coming from, then maybe things would improve. Again, I would never try to justify unethical business practices and in many ways some of the things that businesses are allowed to get away with is disgusting, but on the other hand, there are billions of people who have been repeatedly told where their products are coming from and still choose to buy them. That's not capitalism's fault, it's people refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

There is still alot of ignorance about the impact of various things but as awareness has grown we have seen chnages in behaviour. For example boycotts of nestle, or dolphin unfriendly tuna or increases in recycling or people moving their money out of banks and putting them in credit unions but the agenda is largely dictated by the elites who create the consumer culture through the media

....so yes awareness needs to increase so that people can see the value of alternatives, trust that they will work and embrace them with a view to changing patterns

Idealism to a certain extent is not naive-- but when it's combined with narratives involving all kinds of sociopolitical experiments as if they were undeniable truths that couldn't possibly have any drawbacks, and that the only reason that these utopian ideas aren't being put into practice is because they're being suppressed by the evil elites, then yeah… it seems a little naive to me.

I haven't claimed these are 'undeniable truths'....once again you are trying to put words into my mouth instead of listening to what i am saying. These things aren't exact sciences and i am aware of the dangers of sweeping changes for example sweeping agricultural shifts by Stalin or Mao

What i am saying is that there are alternatives to the current systema nd that these can be phased in if people adopt them but in order to adopt them people must look outside the perception bubble created by a pervasive corporate media and that perhaps they must lose faith in that perception bubble by acknowledging how it is failing

Please read history to see how countless examples of popular dissent are violently suppressed by elites. I haven't used the word 'evil' that was you using that and trying to put it into my mouth

At the same time if you really do believe in this as some kind of solution, then there's really nothing stopping you from contacting a bunch of people, pooling your money together, and setting up some sort of commune. I've actually contemplated doing this myself-- there are places where land is still fairly cheap and where you won't attract attention. Lead by example!

This is already underway and i have also co-created a voluntary association of workers that will be the engine room of this project

Lessons other than 'communism doesn't work'? Other than 'a power-hungry elite will always inevitably seize control'?

Most of my cynicism has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the real-life people that surround me. I don't think that the majority of people enjoy being treated with respect. I don't think that most people enjoy things like self-discipline, or challenging works of art, or subtlety… to be honest, I think that most people find them intimidating, and nine times out of ten the easy way out/most entertaining option is going to win. Is this because people have been manipulated into believing that that's what they want, or because the sellers have learned that that is what they want?

Bare in mind that these people are the product of a cynical capitalist culture....there is a better world and a better life out there for people

You seem to be assuming that the reason people aren't embracing communism is because they don't understand it, or because they're not being brainwashed in the right way. And with de-centralized power, how are you going to settle disputes between 'tribes' or 'communities' or whatever it is that people are going to be organized into?

I'm not talking about brainwashing, i'm talking about considering alternatives in the same way that you might pick up a different tool when doing a job because you know that the tool you have just picked up will be more effective than the last one

Delegates can be voted in by consensus democracy who are instantly revocable if they do not carry out the mandate given to them by their group/community

These delegates in turn can vote regional delegates from their number to represent them at a higher level. Disputes are less likely to occur in a non profit orientated system.

I can't impose my view of exactly how disputes would be resolved as these matters would need to be decided by the community when the system arises

I think you mean uniformity… unanimity implies free choice, ie: unanimous decisions, those agreed to by everyone of their own free will.

The unanimty created by neoliberalism is created at the point of a gun.....its like in the godfather films: ''i made them an offer they couldn't refuse''

See 'confessions of an economic hitman' to see how the US coerces political opponents into doing what the US wants them to do

I would agree the the capitalist aesthetic isn't exactly the greatest, but it is improving… and if you've ever been to a Communist country, then you would know that their aesthetic is a hundred times worse. There are a few showpieces, but most countries feature extremely bleak and hideous designs, and that aesthetic permeates the entire country and defines its mood.

No these are not 'communist' countries they are state capitalist, centrally controlled systems where the means of production are not controlled by the workers but rather by elites

Also, giving everyone stake in every single decision will slow things down tremendously. Not that I don't think that we shouldn't all be moving slower, just that with current technology it would be impossible to co-ordinate decentralized communities governed by endless amounts of wholly democratic referendums with their suppliers… especially in the absence of a central authority that can mediate the trades/exchanges to ensure that it's always 'fair'.

Whats the rush? See the 'degrowth' movement for arguments against the obsession for 'growth'

Technology such as the internet allows us the perfect means to coordinate things

How will you co-ordinate manufacturing with farming? Or prevent overfarming? Or co-ordinate suppliers and refiners and manufacturers in order to meet demands? How will you control the distribution of raw materials? Or prevent wastage? How will you decide which 'community' gets what amount of which other community's crop? Or are you going to farm absolutely everything in small amounts in every part of every country? Oh, but wait… how are you going to get everyone in one community to agree on how much they need before another community gets an amount that renders their request infeasible? Or are we just not going to manufacture anything? How are you going to prevent the creation of a black market with rogues from each community or tribe or whatever don't just steal commodities in order to provide other communities with what they need? Oh yeah, and speaking of the Soviet Union again, you do know that the Russian mafia grew so powerful from their black market operations (which inevitable extended to such wonderful things as human trafficking, child porn (basically legal in Russia), drugs, etc) that they basically seized control of the country after the collapse? The centralized economy did play a role in this but with your model I really can't see it going down any differently… the competition between communities for resources will inevitably lead to another black market, and things will be less stable/people will be less secure to boot.

I think its important that you recognise that all these ills are the product of capitalism....they're what we need to move away from

Humans are incredibly creative and great at finding solutions. Yes communities will face challenges perhaps you could look into permaculture and community-supported agriculture and LET'S (Local Exchange and Trading Schemes) and the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) (http://gen.ecovillage.org/) as well as the World Social Forum for more inspiration?

I will try and discuss more alternatives in this thread

You seem to be talking about tribes. Regional variation is actually one of the main reasons why the US is so unstable… people may become 'cogs in the machine', but there's also nothing stopping you from quitting your job and starting up your own thing. You really don't have to depend on the big players in order to make a living…

What i am concerned about is a process that happened in Europe and followed the pioneers out to the wild west which is the usurption of control by corporations....hence the song 'Don't fence me in!'

The corporations are seeking to control more and more aspects of our lives

unfortunately, you do have to know what you're doing and be smart and also lucky in order to succeed. The only real problem that I see is that a lot of people want a sure thing without any risks, and they want it to be provided to them by the big players, mostly because they're the most stable.

Another way to put that is that most people want to get a fair reward for a fair days work. They aren't asking for much

The big players are not stable and bring constant boom and bust cycles and wars that suck people into them often by conscription....they are anything but 'stable'

There really is no reason why the big companies couldn't take a more active interest in their employees over the profits… but if you look hard enough, you'll find that there are companies who are like that, and who are willing to pay/take an active interest in people who can provide them with what they need.

Yes there is a reason why companies don't take more of an active interest in employee welfare and that is because capitalism is a profit orientated system

As a general rule the boss will pay the worker enough that the worker won't quit and the worker will do just enough work that they don't get fired. This is because the boss wants to increase profit margins and one way to do that is to squeeze worker pay

Not everyone can be the best website designer in the world… and if you think that that's what you are and you want to go out on your own, then go ahead and do it. But don't be surprised if you make the unpleasant discovery that you're actually not the master craftsman/genius that you thought you were… but hey, don't let that stop you from trying to improve your craft, or if you so desire, at least try to make it more profitable. That's capitalism.

I don't want to be the best at anything in the world, i am not putting any pressure on myself to be a 'master craftsman' or a 'genius'. I value experiences and i want an interesting and varied life and i've had one. Capitalism usually places barriers to that that can be surmounted but not everyone is in a position to do so

Capitalism is not usually interested in good craftsmnaship as it provides minimum build quality to increase profit margins and in order to ensure future sales it puts 'manufactured obsolescance' into its production

It also likes specialism rather than generalism as it likes to treat people like machines. It likes us stopping ands starting, go/stop, clock in/clock out, green/red... the whole time to break our flow....like binary....but we're flowing creatures that have always flowed with the seasons, we're not machines

It's not co-ersion at all… from a very young age most kids are told that the world is theirs and they can do anything that they want to do. There's nothing stopping anyone from coming up with a better solution to life than 'get a job, get married, buy a house and car, have babies'-- a lot of people fall for that sure but there are also plenty of people who do realize that they are free and can come up with their own solution. Capitalism does involve competition but it also involves a great deal of co-operation between businesses.

Cooperation is our natural state and it shines through even the harshness of capitalism

The world is not really those kids to grasp and the few examples of self made people are rare and also there is a question over whether that kind of attainment is even beneficial to the individual or to society in general

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate what the nature of success is?

For me success is leading an interesting and varied life, gaining wisdom and understanding, gaining autonomy and freedom and improving the quality of life for those around me.....capitalism can keep the titles or material trinkets

Its like colonel cathcart in catch 22....everything for him is either a 'feather in his cap' or a 'black eye' and i think that is quite a sad and lonely way to pass through life

I guess so since I can remember you got upset in a different discussion because you didn't seem to get my meaning, and then I was too exhausted by it all to correct you. So here's a question for you:

Where did you grow up?

Scotland

If your answer is a capitalist country, then no, I don't think that you really 'know' anything other than capitalism. I don't really either, but I have met people who grew up in communist Russia, as well as people from Nepal (in the aftermath of a war where a left-wing insurgency has recently toppled the government), and I can guarantee that stable capitalism is about 1000000000X better than anarchy or any kind of revolution… I visited there right after the Civil War (which would probably be the result of trying to impose this form of government on the US) and I can tell you that while it was a lot of relief, it was also a lot of simmering anger… I met kids of about 16 or 17 who were talking about picking up guns and fighting the Maoists, there were soldiers with automatic weapons on every streetcorner, usually standing amongst piles of rubble. This is about the only way to achieve the kind of radical changes that you seem to be supporting, and it's really not worth it.

No i don't agree that violence is the only way to achieve change

Look we are the workers. We are the dooers. We make things happen....not the capitalist class (those that live off their investments)

If the workers organise and coordinate their efforts and decide to down tools (peaceful non cooperation) then whose gonna cook for the fat cat? Whose gonna treat their ulcers, educate their kids, drive their cars, mow their lawns, fly their jets, function their businesses, do their books, fight their legal battles, make their clothes, grow their food or distill their scotch?

We hold the power....its just empowering people to realise that so that we can organise a better deal for everyone instead of one that impoverishes many and enriches a few

About the only way to move forward is to stop buying products that you know are contributing to the kinds of unethical business practices that you're so angry about… use your spending power against the 'ruling elite'. Become self-sufficient. It is possible.

Now you're talking! lol

Yeah boycotts, self sufficency all things i definately approve off! One of the best votes we can cast is with our money, but once again this needs people to be aware enough of the issues and of their options and of the implications of these and many peoples perceptions are currently moulded by the mainstream media which builds a bubble....a perception of reality that is corporate-centric...around peoples minds

I think that it depends on the decision… I would agree that including more people in certain decisions is probably a good idea, but believe it or not a lot of the most effective managers do precisely that. A lot of the most effective companies aren't overseen by tyrannical micro-managers who try to control every aspect of their employee's behavior.

This is called 'empowerment' in management speak. It is a ploy by management to give workers a sense of autonomy but really what the managers are doing is giving a little bit of rein out at certain points so that they can keep the mule pulling the cart and not shaking itself free or grinding to a halt

It is what Chomsky would call an 'abuse of language' because real empowerment would be for people to develop enough self esteem that that they understand that they can play a part in the decision making process and that they have value outside of a belittling corporate system

I don't know if it's sustainable, but I definitely don't think that it's time to panic or make assumptions about 'elites' or demand drastic changes to the entire sociopolitical landscape. I do think we need to keep tweaking things however and I wish that more people would learn to recognize the value of their own spending power.

Ok it sounds like you are a 'reformer' in that you believe in trying to bring about change by gradual stages...is that fair to say?

I think the problem with reformism is that it allows the elites time to adapt their strategies and to coopt dissenting groups. It also allows them to keep flogging the dead horse that is capitalism instead of allowing us all to try different things

Victories have been scored against the corporatocracy such as workers rights, holiday entitlements, 8 hour working days, free education for boys and girls and more rights for minorities.....but these have all had to have been campaigned for....they were not brought about by capitalism but rather brought about by the people despite capitalism

 

[ENT8]

No.....i am the one here saying that i trust people enough to manage their own affairs and their own communities

However there is a small number of control freaks who basically claw their way to the top and want to constantly increase their wealth and power and if the majority of people are going to have more autonomy in their lives and if they want to have a more balanced society where people can be healthy and happy then they are going to have to find ways to manage the more imbalanced members of humanity who can't see past themselves to realise that their selfish, self obsessed power games are not what the majority of people need



You're speaking to an INFJ here...i know all about intensity

What we all need to realise is that our actions have consequences. We might get a rush from driving really fast in a built up area but the downside is that we might run over someone so we have to calm our impulse and balance it with our responsibilites to our fellow man

The people at the top of capitalism for example the bankers who have basically grabbed the levers of power are not acting in a way that is balanced with the needs of the majority of people. They are imbalanced and because there is no effective regulation they are giving in to their impulses to grab more and more wealth and power which is coming at a cost to democracy



Adulthood is about learning to be responsible and that means not always acting on impulse but weighing up our actions against the long term affects and on how they might affect others. the bankers have been chasing personal fortunes and short term profits and in so doing they have irresponsibly crashed their banks; we, the public have now been saddled with their debts because our corrupt governments have chosen to take taxpayers money and give it to the bankers ('bank bailouts') so that they can pay their creditors instead of just writing off the debts to the ability to pay

If you want to 'satiate your desires' and that process harms others then expect a reaction



Yeah but what you need to realise is that you are sharing the world with other people and that they have needs as well

You have mentioned that you are in a family business....well that's lucky for you that you have had that opportunity to get capitalism 'down'. I made my business with my business partners built on trust, good will and shared values. We now have the work/life balance that we want and enough money, time and energy to do the things we want to do, but this is not an easy thing to do in capitalism and i have had a good start in life

So we need to realise that our backgrounds have an impact on our experience, on our outlook (optomistic or pessimistic) and on our perceptions and that the current system gives some a good start and others a bad start.

A better system would be one that gives everyone a great start....a good education, a balanced culture and a positive outlook....capitalism does not deliver that for the majority of people




Are you saying that you put your own desires over the welfare of everyone else? If that's the case then this may create a tension with any community you want to be a part of and a blance needs to be struck between your personal freedoms and your responsibilities to that community

Not everyone gets the opportunities that you've had




If by 'utopia' you mean a better society then yes i think that's possible. I love to find creative solutions and my work often requires that. I am always thinking about better ways to do things and i don't agree that capitalism is the pinnacle of human achievement....in fact i think its pretty crude, destructive and backward

I'm not looking to kill or coerce anyone. I believe in people choosing alternatives through choice....but this can only happen if they are aware enough of altenatives and their implications

Well Muir, we're gonna have to just agree to disagree on this one. First off, I don't believe half of your causality connections... there is no way to empirically prove many of them. It's like listening to republicans tell democrats that it's their fault it's all this bad, and democrats saying back to republicans that if it wasn't for what they did, it would be that much worse. These sound plausable from both ends...but there's no way to directly link causality, so without reason, I (and MANY others) tend to ignore this stuff.

And you know what? Your right... I DON'T care like you do. And I am more selfish than you, no doubt. I'm not an NF...though I love some of them dearly, and I think your way too in your head about this stuff. We're not going to agree any more on this than we already do...which is to some degree, but you want to associate an idology with evil. Well, I think ideas are ideas, and how they are used determines good or evil. Your gonna say that this is inherently evil, and i'm going to say it's not. You see exploitation, I see opportunity to better oneself. You see equal distribution, peace, and equality... and I see something that only works if you exterminate the TJ's, and many of the TP's of the MBTI... in other words, I see elements that are diametrically opposed to some of the attributes that, for better or worse, define mankind as is. You see it as selfish, I see it as natural. You see community, I see prison. You see greed, I see the ability to provide for who I want, as I want, as I see fit, to the degree I want. I see a thrilling challenge of strategy and tactics.... you see strategy and tactics having no place in our world.

You see "fundamental truths"... and quite frankly... I see "fundamental nonsense".

So, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue obvoiusly. But, I do have news for you. I'm not alone. There are many like me, and we are not going away. And see, for your concepts that your presenting here to be successful, we'd all have to jump on board....or at least a good deal more than currently are. And if your not able to win hearts and minds...it ain't ever going to happen. Cuz so far... I'm only leaving this conversation with a more entrenched, adversarial view of some of the larger issues you've been discussing (the small stuff i think we generally agree...) but when it comes to vision, I don't think we could be any more different.

And whereas before, I was happy to entertain what you and anyone else had to say about the evils of capitalism. But i'm not sold. In fact, I'm turned off.

Point is... if your vision is ever going to become a reality, your gonna need to find a way to communicate this so that I WANT to do it. Your morals and ethics are fine, but they arn't mine, and they aren't the neighbors, or the MAJORITY of the population. I'm not saying everyone wants to see their fellow man be crushed underfoot. We all want peace on earth and good will towards men... but we also want whats ours... and we want it in a way that we feel good about (the peace, and whats ours), and that's actually NOT universal, but unique to each person! your own quote for your signature is in part "only if he can use his freedom to create something meaninful is it relevant that he should be free". Well buddy, I DO feel that I HAVE done this in many ways to some extent... I've built a little engine around myself and my family that makes our lives better, and because what we do we are competitive at, it helps others use our services for a lower rate than many alternatives. I know the "flaws" here of course, but i prefer THOSE flaws, to the flaws I see in what you've presented. I've also been able to make a distinct difference in the lives of some extended family and close friends. I'm not bragging here, I'm just saying these are things that I am extremely proud of, because they improved those peoples lives in that way, and I made me feel wonderful to do that for them. As for my inner meaning... it would be something alone the lines of "being a catalyst for progress and improvement within myself, my family, and my community". You don't see it as progress I'm sure... but I DO... and since you need people to believe in what you say... the fact that I DON"T agree should be something you work very, very, very hard on considering how to change. I'm proud of the contribution i've made in the lives of those I care for and the ways i've made it. Good luck in convincing me that it's somehow inherently evil.

Maybe this "liberal cause" is what moves you closer to your inner meaning, I don't know. But it has moved me further from it.

And if your gonna have any chance in making some of these changes a real, significant part of the world structure (more than it is now of course).... your gonna have to find a way to get people like me to LIKE what your saying. And beating folks over the head with your morals and ethics isn't gonna do it.

ANd if you fail to convince a critical mass of guys and gals like me... then I get the system and structure I currently work within and enjoy. And you don't get yours. Now that, right there is the absolute truth.

Welcome to "business 101 - sales". Because no body cares why you think it's good. we all only care about what's in it for us. And it's LITTLE things like this... this type of skillset, that I bet you find offensive for some reason... well... wow. you can inform me and others until the cows come home about all the ideas you have... but it still won't make those OUR ideas.

I'm not sold. But I did get to work on my terms, as I wanted, today... but tomorrow is another day. Maybe if you figure out how to win hearts and minds of your audience, you'll get something closer to what you believe.

Good talking to you though... at least we carried this out as far as I think is reasonable without losing the point. I think we can both pat ourselves on the back for that one...it's more than i've seen some do here. I personally think this all has a very long way to go, on all fronts other than your motivations... I like Apone's post #97... I think he, like myself, represents a good "sample" of how radically different our entire value system is than yours.... and he pokes some holes that although you may feel are not holes...like sure look like that to us. And remember, your opinion doesn't matter. Your already a card carrying memeber of the team. It's OUR opinions that will matter to your goals.

Bottom line, more evidence (EMPIRICAL... not , more empathy for your audience (as opposed to your cause), more tangible examples that bring things out of the abstract and into personal examples (first article link in this post was good for that), and less "conspiracy theory" talk man! i mean..really!!? If you must believe that stuff, do you have ANY idea how many others will NOT take you seriously? I don't care if God himself tattooed that malarky on your forehead... if you start getting all illuminati and "world consolidated powers", I really have absolutlely NOTHING to worry about! you sound a bit schizotypal to be honest. And no one wants buys what the crazy guy is selling...right?

Anyway, nuff said. I'm out of here. good luck to you and yours. I might drop in again, but i might not. I feel it may be time to find a different venue or outlet for my own thoughts... but it's been real anyway.

-E