What I've found, quite by accident, is The Institute for Economic Democracy and a book, available from Amazon, et al., By J.W. Smith called “Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle of the 21st Century.” The book appears to be published in its entirety on the Web site I've linked.

The book is a fascinating analysis of the causes of many of the problems being discussed here and seems not to demand a particular political point of view to appreciate its thesis.

If you're of a sociological/economic/political/historical bent, have a look and share your thoughts here.

      - Mark

Then harnessing people's life energies toward MUCH more productive endeavours than the further lopsided hoarding of money and possessions which characterises the present dominant civilizations here on Earth.

Then extend it further, beyond economic democracy to Economic Sanity...by including the world of Nature in all economic calculations and indicators. That is to say, if Nature is becoming impoverished and depleted through the economic activities of mankind, then we are destroying the very basis upon which the entire system depends...and bankrupting ourselves.

Every species that goes extinct, every air or water system that is fouled, every patch of fertile land which is lost, every hectare of forest destroyed is a LOSS on the world's profit and loss statement for each fiscal year.

Until that is taken into account and taken seriously, we will continue to practice a money-obsessed policy that leads nowhere but to war, social breakdown, and eventual failure of the entire system.

I have a suggested reading of my own to add to the original post: "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann.

Go to www.wisdomschool.com/ for further info on that. Read about how a whole series of aggressive civilizations first cut down virtually all their trees and depleted their good soil, then having ruined their own lands invaded their neighbours and conquered them, and finally having wasted every natural resource that they could practically reach...collapsed. *(Trees, always the first thing to go, were in more recent times superceded by such things as coal, oil, and natural gas...plus the always needed fertile topsoil.)

The saving grace of all these civilization was: they were localized to only one part of the world, and were not capable of consuming all of Nature.

Our civilization is the first which is capable of consuming it all...and is heading that way at an ever-increasing rate. When a species overconsumes, Nature destroys that species without mercy, and this time there is no undiscovered continent left to migrate to and plunder.

It is time for a complete change in priorities.

- LH

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

Or...if that's too serious and meaningful for you, go to the thread about Bush and the pretzel... :-)

- LH

You make some very good points. I remember a book by R. Buckminster Fuller called “Utopia or Oblivion” in which he made the argument that the world actually has the space and resources to provide for everyone on the planet in fine style. We simply haven't chosen to go that way.

      - Mark

Ummm... I know I'm picking nits here, and kinda off topic, but I'm pretty sure not... Extinction is part of the natural order of the biosphere... without regular extinctions, there can be no evolution...

And besides, didn't Mother Nature START the fight for survival?? And now she's ticked 'cause she's losing??

TOUGH!

LOL!!!!!

.-)

Mark, I had a look at the website you posted. While the book does well in pointing out the historical misdeeds of the West, I think it does a whitewash job on the Eastern bloc. Joe Stalin was not a nice guy. However, it looks to be an interesting book.

I think both the capitalists and the communists erred in their most basic assumption...that the whole world exists for the sole benefit of human beings. It doesn't. By acting like it does for the past several thousand years, humanity has just about sawn off the limb they are collectively sitting on. When they complete the job, it's freefall.

I do agree that socialism is more inherently democratic than capitalism...I've seen it and it is. However, the North American Indians had a better combination...simple tribal socialism, combined with a profound respect for Nature, and a lifestyle which sought to harmonize with the natural world rather than to subdue it.

There are any number of good books on that subject these days.

Democracy is actually very hard to achieve in a large society with centralized power structures...whether or not that society is capitalist or socialist. Real democracy requires a great deal of local autonomy and local decision-making...and also requires a highly informed and highly motivated public...difficult to achieve when people are brainwashed daily by a few big media conglomerates, all for the sake of selling more consumer goods...or in the former Soviet Union, all for the sake of keeping the Party and the military in power. Nasty situation, either way.

- LH

The other corruption that enters in is the flexing of interest-group muscle, when large aculations of wealth have occurred that are not in fact reflections of proportional value delivered. This puts the communication and control lines directly into the hands of banditi in some instances. Accumuate enough of those instances and you get an extremely burdensome situation. Adds up to onerous tax systems being used to support a lot of superfluous and mindless activity with too little real value produced.

A

- LH

Hmmmmm...

Abolish money.

Do away with it altogether, and run a society not on the basis of competition, but on the basis of meeting actual needs of the whole public on an unprejudiced and equal basis...such as...

1. Food, water, a place to live, clothing, and the other physical necessities of life.

2. Art, entertainment, and other cultural forms of expression that please the heart and soul.

3. Political and organizational structures of a democratic sort, as complex as would be necessary to run things, and no more than that.

4. Equal rights and protections for all, an equal share in the material benefits for all.

5. And...protection of the natural environment as a vital concern.

It's already been done, folks...by the North American Indians. For at least 15,000 years. And it worked.

Of course, I know there ain't a dog's chance in hell that those running the present system would ever countenance doing this...since money in huge amounts is what gives them their special powers and privileges...to the detriment of billions of poor people all over the world.

So just forget I even suggested it. The present system would have to be utterly destroyed by world war or by an immense natural disaster before people would turn to something this radical...or this sane.

Or is there hope of change? We'll see.

- LH

The only losers seem to be the citizens of the world who thought democracy meant government in the public's interest.

Secret public policy meetings, anyone?

DougR

I know you are implying that the Eastern Bloc tried it. Yes...and NO. They did NOT try a democratic form of government, which is part of the whole idea. I am not in favour of authoritarianism, whether it's capitalist or socialist authoritarianism.

Read up on Native American tribal life for a very interesting example of democracy in action at the grassroots level. The American revolutionaries adopted many of their egalitarian social ideas and governmental forms directly from the Iroquois Six Nations.

GUEST - I stopped being a Wannabee at least 15 years ago, when it became abundantly clear to me (from hanging around a lot with Native Americans) that they were just as fallible as anyone else, and that most of them have fallen for this society's BS hook, line, and sinker, which is why so many of them have a penchant for building casinos and watching TV every night of their lives.

I could underline that and print it in red, if you like. It doesn't change the fact that their pre-conquest tribal societies had many very good ideas, and I admire those ideas. Whites have had many good ideas too, and so have other groups of people from every part of the world. I don't care where a good idea comes from, as long as it's a good idea.

- LH

One can guess though, I agree.

DougR

The second is much futher away. Socialist thinkers have yet to descibe an economic model for generating and sharing material wealth that looks like it might work. Most so called socialist societies seem to have failed both economically and politically. This maybe because of outside forces but I wouldn't want to defend that line for too long.

1. Hunters & gathers had primitive communism because it was the most effective thing to do and , as others have pointed out they used it all over the planet.

2. Farmers produced more wealth than they could often use, the excesses were traded, and a new kind of economic and political economy was created.

3. The Industrial Revoltion and capitalism go hand in hand just as the previous 2 systems did. Capitalism moves the great quantities if wealth about and uses it to create more things.

4. In each of these systems justice is never automatic. Working people had to fight for everything and the owners kept a lot.

5. But before this degenerates into a typical Marxist rant I return to the point I started with. If we recognise the injustices and environmental problems generated by capitalism, what economic model could take its place?

6. The way wealth is owned, created and moved about is central. The old Soviet Union clearly failed at making and sharing anything much. Most (all?) post colonial attempts seem to end in economic failure and political corruption.

7. It's essentail to organise and vote in elections but when people ask for more money or improved environmetal standards trans-national companies go elswhere and undermine and sometimes destroy democracy if they have to.

8. This is why we need to find and an economic model to replace capitalism

9. Perhaps this is like the workers wanting to take over the Jam factory only to find it has been closed and Jam is imported.

but, regarding "It's already been done, folks...by the North American Indians. For at least 15,000 years. And it worked.".....

sure, but for most of those 15,000 years, almost every member of the society was doing approximately the same things and was subject to the same rules and weather and pressures. Today, there is such a wide disparity between the lives of, say, a farmer in Kansas, a stockbroker in NYC, and a trapper in Montana, that there is simple NO way to emulate that relationship with Nature and economic sanity the Native Americans 'enjoyed'.

Money and it's related institutions were invented to deal with the situation where not everyone 'produced' and consumed at the same rate...or even in the same country! A barter economy, or any of the related economies, can only work if most people need the same narrow range of goods & services. Milk and meat and weapons are very different than trying to equate the exchange rates for TV sets and massages and.... ummmm...clay possums.

You need to convince me in detail of what you might substitute for $$$$$ before I can even discuss it further...

We use them to manage human affairs all the time. The issue is justice. How can it be fair that third world children are paid almost nothing so that we can pay the owners of the factories £100 for a pair of trainers?

It's worth remembering that children are the largest group to suffer prejudice, discrimination and economic exploitation

Perhaps trans-national capitalist exploitation will remain the norm. Perhaps not. Systems that are fundemental unjustice tend to come to an end. See Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union et al, though not withouy pain and struggle often paid for with the lives of working people.

So, can we start to descibe an economic model to replace capitalism with something economically effective but just?

If the anser is no, then look out for the revenge of the trainer makers, they know we are rich and they know where we live.

You can make a marvelously convincing argument for either extreme as being the essential truth of the matter, and clever people have been making such arguments since time immemorial...but which extreme would be more USEFUL?

If given a choice between aspiring higher or lower, why would one consciously assert that the lower is the whole truth of the matter? Sounds like a pretty self-defeating attitude to me...

Therefore, I choose to look with utter skepticism on such statements as: "people are no damn good!" These are statements which are in no way useful.

What must a person who makes such a statement feel at heart about herself? Or himself? It's a rather sad attitude to have to live with.

It is just as true and FAR MORE USEFUL to say "How noble a being is a human! How like a god in potential and expression. How extraordinary is a human being's ability to imagine, to reach beyond past accomplishments, to create beautiful expressions from his imagination, to produce with her hands or her voice that which has never been done before."

People are more than good. People are utterly magnificent.

We are magnificent enough to change ANYTHING. We can transform and do away with the destructive systems that are still oppressing societies and damaging the Earth. The very fact that we are capable of perceiving the damage means that we have the awareness to repair it also, and to learn from our errors and go on to greater accomplishments.

Life is about much more important things than money and material goods, and money is ultimately completely unnecessary...as is war.

I don't expect any of these things to be changed overnight, but I know they can be changed a little at a time. I don't mind if it takes longer than this one lifetime I am in right now to do it. I will be around later anyway, with a different face and different outer identity than now, and you won't know it, but I will be. Same with you.

Every human being has the capability to rise to the highest level he is capable and willing to aspire to. If all you can aspire to is that "people are no damn good", well, then you will not rise very high...but who would you have to blame for that? Only yourself.

This is not to unduly criticize your mother, on the basis of one isolated remark. I don't know in what context she made it. So I don't take it that way...I'm just using the example of such a statement to make a general philosophical point.

Actually, your mama was obviously keenly aware of what "good" is, and valued it, otherwise she would not have made a point of observing that people in general weren't good...maybe she was just feeling a little cynical or fed up when she said that. Anyway, it's just as easy to look around and see the good in people as it is to see the bad in them...just depends what mood you're in at the time.

A cynic's only cold comfort in life is that he is (so he thinks) smarter than those who are not cynical. Like Eeyore in the Winnie-the-Pooh books... That's why they say that a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything...and the value of nothing.

Bill D - Fair enough. I understand what you're saying, and I will PM you some info as a follow-up, and you can take it from there, and we'll see what you think about it.

- LH

DougR

They acted as if man does live by bread alone, which is NOT so, and as if the planet exists solely to be exploited by humans, which again is NOT so.

So, although they made some significant efforts in the direction of economic democracy...they fell WAY short of achieving an enlightened society, which is among the main reasons why they failed. This society we live in is also failing, for rather similar reasons, plus a few evils all its own.

- LH

DougR

Ebbie

DougR

How can it be fair that third world children are paid almost nothing so that we can pay the owners of the factories £100 for a pair of trainers?

It's worth remembering that children are the largest group to suffer prejudice, discrimination and economic exploitation

Perhaps trans-national capitalist exploitation will remain the norm. Perhaps not. Systems that are fundemental unjustice tend to come to an end. See Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union et al, though not withouy pain and struggle often paid for with the lives of working people.

So, can we start to descibe an economic model to replace capitalism with something economically effective but just?

If the anser is no, then look out for the revenge of the trainer makers, they know we are rich and they know where we live.

Do you have a description of an economic model that you feel would be better than capitalism? I certainly know of none.

DougR

So the excuse that there is no such system already in existance is a poor one to use to suggest that it can't be done.

But I agree with Little Hawk when he says that it will probably take generations to change to a system that will be fair and sustainable. I think such a system will evolve rather than be imposed by an individual or a group.

DougR

These are huge distinctions.

By the time Cosmo turned 30, he had saved up enough money from his paper route to buy a McDonald's franchise. Now, the McDonalds corporation are pretty picky about how people run their franchises. So Cosmo had to agree to comply with all of the standards set forth by McDonald's before they would even consider selling him the franchise.

Cosmo's McDonald's franchise, while owned by him, was a carbon copy of thousands of other McDonald's franchises. No innovation was required, or even allowed in the way this franchise was put together or run. But Cosmo provided the start up capital, and he is a part of the private sector, and he is using his McDonald's franchise as a source of income. Therefore, Cosmo is a capitalist, even though he is not an innovator (at least not in this context).

Christopher Columbus, it could be argued, used innovation when he decided to look for a western route to Asia (assuming, of course, that he didn't steal the idea from someone else... but for the sake of this example, we will assume that he did not).

However, Columbus' venture was funded by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. They, being representitives of a government, cannot be considered capitalists because capitalists operate in the private sector. Columbus was an innovator, but he could not be considered a capitalist because he operated under the patronage of a government body.

Jonas Salk was an innovater who, as you probably know, developed the polio vaccine. However, he had no desire to profit financially from his immense contribution to humankind, so he refused to patent his vaccine. Because there was no profit motive for the development of his innovation, he was an innovator, but not a capitalist.

Norma Jean developed a brand new idea for an automatic toilet seat lowerer. An infrared sensor would detect when the person using the toilet had left the vicinity of the toilet, and after waiting ten seconds, would automatically lower the toilet seat. Norma Jean had inherited $12,567 from he favorite uncle, Moe.

She invested the $12,567 on making a prototype of her invention, and on the production and marketing costs for 5,000 units of her invention which she took to a bathroom fixture convention and sold for a profit of $21,789. This, she promptly invested back into her growing toilet seat business. Norma Jean is an innovator, and a capitalist.

A capitalist is someone in the private sector who uses "capital" (money or other accumulated goods) in order to create an income.

Tell me, teacher, is one likely to find more capitalists and innovators in countries where there is a capitalists economic system or socialist? Communist? Other?

DougR

However capitalism does work, it enables working people to make lots of things.

My question is not to supporters if capitalism but to those of us who call ourselves socialists. We recognise injustice but seem so far to have failed to describe an economic system which might be more justice, more democratic and more sustainable than having children and their mothers in third world countries grow our fruit& veg and make our trainers, T-shirts and basketballs.

Let us not forget, they know we are rich and they know where we live!

Ah ha! I thought as much. <g>

      - Mark

You may have been a capitalist, but you still didn't know the definition of the word. If you did, you would never have said this...

But what you are describing in your first paragraph, Carol, are capitalists.

In response to this...

Prior to someone coming up with the idea of a flying machine, people did not consider flying a possibility for humans. Fortunately, there are people in the world who are innovators, and these are the people who create the possibility of change. Without innovators, humankind would still be in the stone age.

It is possible, after all, to have cancer without being an oncologist. (No sarcasm here, but perhaps a rather heavy-handed sort of irony.)

This question doesn't make any sense the way it's worded...

Tell me, teacher, is one likely to find more capitalists and innovators in countries where there is a capitalists economic system or socialist? Communist? Other?

It doesn't make any sense because it appears to assume that capitalists and innovators are necessarily going to be found in the same numbers in whichever system they're found. Clearly, one will find more capitalists in a capitalist economic system. But it isn't necessarily true that one will find more innovators in a capitalist economic system, or fewer innovators in a non-capitalist economic system.

Do some reading up on the Renaissance period of Europe's history, and you'll understand what I'm saying. ( ...possibly, although you might have some difficulty understanding the distinction between the economic system in place in Renaissance Europe and a capitalist one.)

Anyone living in North America is practicing a mixture of capitalism and socialism, and would NOT want it otherwise, if they had a chance to try that out. We've been through over this ground before. Both capitalism and socialism have much to offer, and at the same time either one of them can get WAY out of hand if allowed to.

Here are some more interesting examples of successful innovations accomplished under socialism:

1. The first modern, cantilever, monoplane fighter aircraft with retractable landing gear in the history of the world...the most modern concept fighter of its day, and the forerunner of all World War II single-engine fighters... the Polikarpov I-16 (known as "Mosca" to its friends and "Rata" to its opponents). The I-16 was designed and produced in Soviet Russia, served in Spain, the Far East, and later in World War II, by which time it was definitely obsolete, but still dangerous.

2. The finest medium and heavy tanks in the world in their day...the T-34 and the KV-1...again produced in Soviet Russian...to the utter shock of the German Wermacht in 1941. The Germans had no tank capable of matching them at that time, and defeated them on the battlefield by superior experience and skillful combined arms tactics. The Germans adapted fast, and by late 1942 had an even deadlier tank (the Tiger I), but the Russians had given them a real shock a year earlier.

3. Universal literacy-training and a country-wide educational system...introduced for the first time ever in Cuba by Fidel Castro...where previously, most people were illiterate.

4. Universal good health care...again in Cuba...again for the first time ever...again by Castro.

Capitalists had been in Cuba for generations, and had not seen fit to do these things, because it was deemed unprofitable and unnecessary. All they wanted from Cuba was cheap labour for big American companies, and an ignorant and compliant population of peasants.

Now these are just isolated examples. What capitalism is superbly good at is not necessarily innovation...but producing consumer goods and marketing them, and producing military hardware and marketing it.

Capitalists and socialist, if one examines history carefully have been about equally good at innovation...but not necessarily with the same final objectives in mind.

I don't wash the dishes because it's profitable, I do it because it's desirable. A good mother takes proper care of her children for precisely the same reason.

The only reason I have to spend my time worrying about money is that I happen to live in a society that simply GIVES ME NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. So I take care of the money end as best I can, as is the case with most of the people I know. Some don't manage, and they fall through the cracks.

Money is not what I live for, and it's not what supplies me with a purpose for living. In fact, it frequently gets in the way of my real purposes for living. Most of the things I deeply care about have made me little or no money in this life.

As long as circumstances require me to earn it, however, I will if I can...

- LH

DougR

- LH

DougR

Well, shoot, DougR. It's never too late to learn ;-

;-)

(there... that's better)

Wow! Gotta love the fruits of freedom and profit-seeking, eh?

It's really encouraging to see the scum rising to the top with such unrestrained ambition and enthusiasm, having no loyalty to anything...except the dollar. Now, where can I find a well-armed bodyguard whom I can actually afford?

- LH

I'll take cronyism over communism every time, thank you very much. I can complain about cronyism and not be shot or imprisoned.
I can pray to any of a thousand gods that cronyism will end, and again, not be shot or imprisoned.

Ever wonder why communist countries have to build walls to keep people in, and America has to build walls to keep people out? Hmmmm...

Examples of political systems would include such things as Democracy, Totalitarianism, Fascism, and Monarchism.

The Soviet Union was an example of a Totalitarian political system that used a Socialist economic system. Sweden is an example of a Democratic political system that has a fairly high degree of Socialism mixed in with their Capitalism.

Although I would suggest that we are moving toward being a Totalitarian political system with corporate industry being the oligarch that pulls the strings.

DougR

But, as I'm sure you know, and are probably pretending not to, when I use a term such as "corporate industry", I am talking about large corporations rather than small ones. With a term as descriptive as that, it could hardly mean anything else, could it?

And, yes, every day I am mistreated by large corporations. I don't live a single day without quite a lot of physical pain, caused in large part by the poisons that are being pumped into the environment by corporate industry. And, no, I do not reap the benefits of very many of the things (products) of which these toxins are a by-product. Because I am too ill from the toxins to be able to work in order to afford them.

And I am not alone having this type of problem to contend with. The numbers of people who have these kinds of problems grows every day. If you don't currently know someone or have a loved one who suffers from what I do, you will soon enough.

I am sorry that you live in pain. If large corporations are responsible for the cause of your pain, I regret that too. What could be done to prevent your enduring the pain short of all of the large corporations going out of business? I'm not being argumentive. I'd really like to know.

DougR

There are a million ways that they can start doing this right now. It isn't currently being done because there are people whose need to accumulate wealth is more important to them than the lives of other people.

Keep in mind that when I say I've been ill for over 30 years, I'm saying that I've been ill since I was fifteen years old. That's most of my life. These greedy people have robbed me of a large portion of my life. And they're doing it to others, too. Every single day. And they're not going to stop because they own the machinery of our government, a government that is bending over backward to help them do it. Do I sound pissed? Well, I guess I am. Maybe you would be too.

DougR

But it's not just the outside environment that's making me sick. It's the environment in my own apartment that's making me sick as well. The carpeting in my apartment is outgassing substances that are bad for me. And the water here is full of toxins. And I have two filters on my shower, but the water still makes me sick. But I can't move because there's nowhere else I can afford to live. And I can't afford a car, so my choices are limited even more because of that. Currently, I am able to use my neighbor's car for going to the grocery store and the doctor's office. If I moved away from here, I wouldn't even have that.

It's easy for people whose lives haven't been touched as drastically as mine has by this to not care or even think about this sort of thing, or to think there's an easy way for us to fix it for ourselves. But what I've been trying to tell people for a long time, is that the numbers of people like me are increasing. And pretty rapidly, too. Sooner or later, everyone is going to be touched by this in some way. Everyone is going to know someone or have a loved one who is like me. That's a lot of people. And most of them probably won't be any more able to move somewhere that won't make them sick than I am.

It is not necessary for these things to contain so many toxins. It is merely expedient. There are alternatives, but they aren't put into use because there are a lot of businesses, such as chemical companies that make a lot of money producing these toxic substances so that they can be put into the products that we buy.

And if your wife's arthritis was rheumatoid, it's entirely possible that it was triggered or exacerbated by toxins in the environment. Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease. Some people are looking into the possibility that some autoimmune deseases could be triggered or aggravated by toxins in the environment, or in the body.

DougR

That does not mean that I am not sympathetic to your personal situation, however. I assure you, I am.

DougR

My one wish is for a party to be strong but fair with regard to the environment, somewhat socially liberal, and fiscally conservative with regard to individual rights (do what you want to, just don't tax other people to subsidize it). The libertarians have some good ideas, but are too laid back in several areas. The Green party makes some sense on the surface, but advocates virtually pure socialism, when you look closer at their party platform. The Democrats, well, we know what I think about them. And the Republicans are just a milder version of the Democrats.

All three nations that are current signatories have suffered outrageous abuse at the hands of the multi-national corporations. The chief targets seem to be laws that protect the environment and the health of citizens.

Here is a piece by William Greider from last October that goes into more detail about one of the cases.

It looks as though NAFTA not on prevents economic democracy, it prevents democracy!

      - Mark

      - Mark

I like the following: democracy, small-scale capitalism (local businesses and local iniatives of goods and serices, under LOCAL control), socialism (in terms of providing education, transportation facilities, medical care, police, armed forces, govermental and legal structures, courts...and jobs for the unemployed...and help in time of disaster and genuine need of the public...and equality of opportunity...and equal rights and freedoms for all).

Ultimately, I would like a society without money, which would be very different from today's society. It could be done. Whether it will, I don't know, but it could. The present people in charge, who are very wealthy, have no intention of doing it. Neither did the communist bosses have any intention of doing it. They enjoyed their powers and privileges too much for that, just like their capitalist counterparts do.

It is generally a mistake to assume that any society is all good or all bad. Every society is good at some things and has certain blind spots, and they can all learn from each other.

And...it was Mussolini who "made the trains run on time"...not Stalin. Mussolini was a pretentious despot. Stalin was worse than that...he was a monster.

Even societies run by despots and monsters have frequently achieved remarkable things in specific areas of endeavour...which doesn't mean I support the despot at the top or the system he foists on his people...but I recognize a notable human accomplishment when I see it. So, the fact that Russia built the most modern fighter plane in the world in 1933, and the fact that I pointed it out, does not in any way mean that I support Joe Stalin or revere his vicious governmental policies.

It simply shows that socialists as well as capitalists are capable of brilliant innovation. Always have been, always will be.

The important thing at the end of the day is not whether a person is socialist or capitalist...but whether he is honest, responsible, and good-hearted in his application of whatever he is...and whether he is inclined to help or hurt the other people around him.

- LH

Having a few thousand bucks invested in your own business doesn't make you a capitalist either. It makes you a member of what Marx styled the "petty bourgeoisie".

Further enlightenment at Socialist Worker Website

Murray (not a capitalist but once, long ago, a socialist)

      - Mark

DougR

I think the reason socialists and capitalists are always picking on each other is that they instinctively react to their own faults in the other guy! Either that, or they're mutual victims of divisive propaganda...hmmmmmmm.

- LH

It seems as though any time a person really believes that he alone understands what is best for us all and can translate that belief into specific actions, he runs for President. People of more modest means who demonstrate this attitude are often hospitalized. I favor the later course for the powerful among these people as well.

Unfortunately, to move beyond simplistic philosophical models requires a lot more effort and understanding, something relatively few leaders seem willing to embrace these days.

      - Mark

At the same time, attempts by a central government to plan, control and regulate ALL social and economic relationships lead to a draconian, top-heavy system which is out of touch with the aspirations of its citizens, and an alienated and discouraged public who are little better than prisoners of the system that pretends to serve them.

- LH

You could call your country ...heck, you could call it anything you please!

DougR

Or he could get hold of some of the land just to the north of him and call it "None-of-it"

A good name for my country, however, would be "Ardentia". Sounds nice, eh? Got the idea one day while listening to Jann Ardenn.

Actually, I lack the kind of "boss" instinct that leads to founding empires, large or small. I prefer being a member of something I believe in, rather than the supreme commander, so to speak. Commanders don't get much time to themselves, and the price just ain't worth it, as far as I'm concerned. Ever noticed how a President ages in 4 years?

It is actually impossible for anyone except a quite small local community of people to do many of the things I have suggested in these economic threads, because the overall marketing system in the world simply will not allow it.

If Canada, for example, were to adopt policies to genuinely protect its ennvironmental resources and secure them for the future of all Canadians....to employ all presently unemployed Canadians (who want a job) by supplying government work (such as cleaning up environmental damage and building more low-rent housing for the pooor...for 2 examples of that)...yes, a GENUINE War on Poverty....

If that were to be done (which it won't), the USA would immediately retaliate by making various economic moves against Canada which would bankrupt this country in a year. The USA wants business as usual. So do the coterie of politicians, bankers, and CEO's who run Canada, most of whom receive their marching orders and their lucrative contracts from the USA.

It's a closed shop out there.

Only a little local community too small to concern the powers that be can go its own way...and only to a certain extent. (Utica, New York has done a neat thing with "Utica Dollars", which is one step in the right direction...it's a work exchange system.)

What causes the present multinational systems to change, finally, will be not so much their willingness to, but the stark necessity to as their social house of cards begins to fall down for lack of land, water, clean air, food, and other basic resources.

They have wasted posterity, and presently they will either do something creative about it or go down to collapse, warfare and dissolution. My hope is for the former, not the latter course. We are heading either for a social transformation to a vastly more just, equal, and democratic system...or to a new Dark Age where he with the biggest bombs rules over the wretched survivors. Cross your fingers and hope for the best.

- LH

DougR

I find that Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists tend to be more open-minded than many other religious groups. Some Christians are too, but a lot of them are NOT. American Indian groups can be interesting, depending on which one you hook up with. Then there are a whole host of other possibilities, including ecologically-minded communities.

All are worth checking out...there's usually something there worth experiencing.

- LH

I just found out the other day that there is a spiritual community in India that is trying (among other things), the innovation of creating for the common good and then each individual taking what they each need from that common store. That community has existed for over 4 decades - though I do not know when exactly they started using that economic system.

It works better in a spiritual community because then people actually do the work to the best of their ability, as they feel they are doing the work for the Divine. Which avoids the problem that the Pilgrims had of people not being motivated because it did not directly benefit them.

There are so many ways to be motivated that do not involve money... if you didn't have to work, what would you do just for the love of it?

The USA wants business as usual. So do the coterie of politicians, bankers, and CEO's who run Canada, most of whom receive their marching orders and their lucrative contracts from the USA.

If by “USA” one means the average U.S. citizen, then I'd say L.H. is wrong. The problem with the USA is it's also run by a “coterie of politicians, bankers and CEOs.” One shouldn't assume that all the actions of the U.S. and it's multi-national corporations represent the intent or desires of U.S. citizens.

      - Mark

The average US citizen is among the victims of the above coterie, and the multi-national corporations, whether he knows it or not. Those at the top pacify the average US citizen with consumer goods, TV, and many addictive substances and habits...while robbing him/her and the rest of the world blind and living high on the proceeds.

I've got plenty of friends who are average US citizens, and they are good people, whom I respect..."brothers in arms", to quote Dire Straits.

- LH

This description could just as easily apply to the Shakers as well. Although their numbers have grown very small because of the fact that they do not procreate at all, and as far as I know, they don't recruit, either.

But their work lives on in the furniture and other things they made, which are world renowned for their beauty and quality, as well as the labor saving devices they invented. Quite a testimonial to the amazing things that can be accomplished when money is not the motive for the work that one does.