Taking Action

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritely No one is addressing the vital questions I listed in the first post. If you can't go down that list and provide answers then what are you doing? You might as well collect baseball cards and chew bubble gum because if you think what you're doing is going to lead in any way to a revolution when you can't even figure out how then you're just kidding yourself.

Mike Morin responds:

You listed too many questions in your first post. You need to deal with each question or maybe two or three at the same time. Other than that, it just becomes too much of a burden on potential responders and those responses you will and did get were just too confusing, like one person trying to cook thirty meals at the same time.

More importantly, I'd like to address your presupposition that we want a revolution. What do you mean by revolution? Do you mean violent or non-violent overthrows of all Capitalist State Governments? All at once, or as theorized by what became to be known as the "domino theory".There's a reason that Abbey Hoffman entitled his book "Revolution for the HELL of it". War is hell. I've never been to war, but I did break my leg when I was 14 years old (1968). IT HURT LIKE HELL!!!!

I've said for almost forty years, that I would never advocate anything that I was not willing to do myself.

I'm curious, let's say we had a successful peaceful revolution. Then what? Socialism/Communism to me is economic democracy. Without some alternative plan and/or progress with respect to economic reorganization, we would have economic anarchy (which Capitalism is approaching) and the suffering would be immense (as it is for some, if not many under State Capitalism, and will become increasingly, so.)

Please answer this message, Spritely, then we can go back to your original post one or two or three questions at a time.

More on Equity Union(s)

In a not-for profit Equity Union financial services system based on principles of mutuality working in concert with ethical, wise, knowledgeable, and intelligent community, inter-community, inter-regional, and worldwide planning would serve the needs of the people.

In local and inter-community equity unions, equity sharing would be the modus operandi. People with funds being held in credit unions would have the option of investing in primarily worker owned community betterment projects based on the principles of quality of life, equity (which means ownership, and also means equality), humanity, and sustainability (which means there will be an economy and natural resources for the youth and the children, and for generations to come).

If the inflation spiral can be removed (and the cost of real and capital assets brought back to earth), then indigent and poor workers could hope to increase their equity holdings and quality of life assets and equity investors could hope to get their money back. Some endeavors, beyond poor workers enrichment, would be not-for-profit. That is, profits made beyond a pre-determined return to the poor workers, would be re-invested in more such worker/community betterment hybrid businesses (preferably cooperatives).

Equity investments in community businesses could not be sold to others, but could be bought back at par value (the price of the share of the stock when it was invested). Such would be discouraged, and disallowed if it was a qualified low-income/low wealth equity investor who may or may not (what do the soviets think?) if they were allowed to collect (limited) personal dividends.

Equity Union branches in low income/low wealth neighborhoods would be allowed to set up a (501)(c)(3) to receive donations to an equity fund for their neighborhoods, to be kept in a local Community Development Credit Union and the funds allocated (equity grants) by a Board committed to community betterment and the likely success of the endeavor(s).

Response to Obama's Video to Iran

Quote:

Originally Posted by brigadista
the smiling face of imperialism/capitalism - what do they want to buy[steal] from Iran?


OIL, silly, and they want to build a pipeline across and they want to convert Iran into an "emerging market". They want to extend credit (usury), they want Iran to be under the heels of the IMF and associates.

Although a great improvement in STYLE relative to Private George War Bushitler, and offering conciliation IF the Iranians accede to the Capitalist and US dominance, it seems disingenuous rather than blatant like O'bomber's predecessor.

It is a smooth talking continuation of American World Manifest Destiny (WMD) policy since the Capitalist/American overthrow of Moresaddiq. The Iranian Americans that he touts are most likely predominantly of the Capitalist class associated and sympathetic to the Shah and what he bent over for.

There was no apology by O'bombers for those past transgressions against the Iranian people and continued WMD policies. No cooperative overture to have different policy and actions based on changed intentions and principles.

He wants Iranians to mark their holidays, "gift giving", by maximizing shopping, spending, and borrowing, to "stimulate" dysfunctional and exploitative Capitalism.

Obama is patronizing and hypocritical when he speaks of Iranian leaders' lack of responsibility relative to "terror" and the allocation of armaments. Such should be obvious relative to Capitalist/American aggression in Palestine/Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

He's a great speaker, but does he have a mind of his own? Is his Imperialist complicity a function of his lack of courage or his lack of principles or his gullibility and lack of knowledge and understanding, or some combination of all those (and others)?

On Leadership

Sedrox wrote:

"as you said, some individuals are genuinely more drawn to leadership roles and creativity. as long as their authority is proven to be legitimate (in the sense that it is in the interests of everyone) we should not fight against its existence."

Mike Morin replies:

That isn't exactly what I "said", but close enough.

Still. we must be ever vigilant, about our own intentions, and the intentions of leaders. There are many instances where the "legitimized" leadership must be "fought". Hitler is probably the most universally accepted example, but in a species that has shown such a plethora of dominance based on brute force and manipulation, one wonders if we should not "fight" every leader. By "fight", I really mean challenge, when appropriate.

In my first book, I wrote a Chapter entitled "Gandhi vs. Hitler: Can non-violence Work"? In interest of time, I'm not going to summarize the chapter. I only want to present it as food for thought.

We must also keep in mind that where I have lived, and probably no doubt to a more or less similar manner in all human environments, the ones that are chosen and steered to leadership roles is not an equal opportunity culture. People born into priviledge have a strong tendency to have had parents who had better educational opportunities and taught well from an early age.

Whether people are born with superior innate intelligence is debatable, and one that could never be proven, one way or the other.

But leadership takes more than intelligence, and knowledge based on educational opportunities (including having the good fortune to pursue self-study with excellent library facilities), there are environmental and natural social, psychological factors that form personalities into ones that tend to assume leadership. There is wisdom and point of view passed down from preceeding generations, and there is hard learned wisdom from life experience. There is common sense.

But you and I agree that intentions are the most important factor to determine leadership.

Another important point about "legitimized" authority is that it needs to be based on "expert" authority, that is, the authority needs to be recognized and appreciated by those that are subject to it.

Therefore, it is necessary to cultivate the best of intentions, a solid work ethic, knowledge, and eventually wisdom in everyone. All who strive thus, should be guided by their own innate desire to lead or not. It is not a bi-polar characteristic, everyone has varying amounts of leadership drive, therfore particpatory management should be optimized, if not maximized.

What's Going On? Bring Some Understanding...

You may be surprised at how many, who are Capitalists, or concur with the apparent success of Capitalism, especially in the USA (I argue that it had more to do with technological "Western Civilization" raping a virgin landscape), would identify with the heritage and tenets of the "Labor Movement" and those of socialism, if the argument is presented to the audience correctly.

There is a phrase that I made up, it's "the Capitalistization of the Working Class". For example, a propertyless worker works hard and smart and saves enough to start his/her own business. It is more myth than reality, but it has happened, and can still happen (although I would submit to you that in today's USA, it is approaching impossibility). It is also the investment of pension funds.

With regards to my reference to "materialism heaven", what I was referring was the destructive Capitalist statistic "standard of living" which drives people to define happiness by how much they consume, how many things they own, and the ostensible status of those things. I suggest that we educate folks towards a "quality of life" for all, based on cooperation, rather than "standard of living" based on cut-throat competition.

"Quality of life" includes personal happiness for self, family, friends, neighbors, and all others. It includes ownership opportunities for all and everybuddy having the things they need, including health, healthy and loving relations with family, friends, neighbors, and all the people of the world. It includes peace on earth, and it includes a future for all the children of the world.

The Moslem concept of heaven was material wealth. Not opulence and ostentation, but because Mohammed was a leader of the poor and the oppressed, material wealth meant having the things a family and community needs to be happy. Marx's "dialectical materialism" is a similar concept, I think.

And I'm not suggesting transforming the status quo into a "utopian Capitalism". I differentiate socialism from Capitalism thus:

The difference between socialism and Capitalism is that in Socialism resources are allocated for the social/economic betterment of all people, in Capitalism money is invested for the profit (the financial betterment) of the individual or a relative few (or many, but still relatively few, when United Capitalist States dominate the politics of life and death).

It is not baseless flaming to see and tell of the disgusting opulence and ostentation of the citizens of the United States (Capitalists) ignoring and/or throwing crumbs to the poor amongst them and abroad.

World Unity!

What's in a Name? Commonwealth vs. Equity Union

Think of transitioning towards equality of "ownership" as a transition strategy and a compromise strategy, an olive branch held to those who consider themselves workers who have earned their property from hard, dangerous, smart, and/or risky WORK (I do not include investment risk as work).

Eventually, they/we may accept the concept of "usership" (i.e. the completely unselfish, unqualified, sharing of everything by everybuddy). That's the goal, right. If and when we get there, we will get to the moneyless economy, as well. No?

We're not writing about "soup kitchen" and OxFam type handouts, we are talking about genuine equality with respect to quality of life considerations.


With respect to the term common wealth, I'd like to point out that it has been reported to me that the great majority of the people on the planet live in poverty and the current prognosis is not promising.

We need an equity union before we can reach common wealth.

How do those terms and concepts translate into other languages?


World Unity!

With Regards to Capitalists, An Open Letter to the World from a US Worker

To the People and the Government(s):


Save, Save, Save...not spend, spend, spend

Save that 1.2 trillion, we're going to need it to start over to participate in a world economy that is based on inclusion, quality of life, humanity, equity, sustainability, and peace.

All the U.S. Government should do regarding the banking and investment situation is honor their deposit insurance "obligations", pay unemployment insurance to displaced workers, and let them and others affected apply for food stamps and SSI.

This dysfunctional Capitalist system needs to be fundamentally rearranged. The suicidal, ecocidal, genocidal, opulent, ostentatious "standard of living" supply side machine based on unabashed greed is failing, and throwing more money at a dysfunctional and inequitable economic system is not only outrageous but is destined to fail.

Let the greedy Capitalist class who thought that they could invest their way to materialism heaven, learn their lesson the hard way and join us that have learned and want to teach a quality of life based on a modest earned income and shared wealth. Let them join the working class and let them mingle.

Let them join us in a unified world socialism. We will welcome them, if they are honest hard-working brothers and sisters with good intentions and love for humankind, all youth and children of the world, and future generations.

Status quo or Revolution or Reform or?

Quote:

Originally Posted by "This Charming Man"

A "proper" reformist demand would be to demand a true public bank. But social-democracy does not do this. Therefore, all illusions about the social-democrats constituting "workers' parties" or even "reformists" are proven to be just that.


Am I, Mike Morin:

A. A Reformer
B. A Revolutionary
C. Both
D. Something Else, please categorize me

If I am a "reformer" then I am an "improper" reformer by Charming Man's definition. Let me tell you why:

A "bank" by definition is owned by investors, who attract depositors, and make money by lending to anyone with collateral and by making investments of any sort that the bankers think will be profitable. All Bankers' decisions are motivated by the objective to maximize profits for the investors. The Board of Directors and any referenda are controlled by a one dollar/one vote of the investors (as differentiated from depositors) scheme.

A savings bank is owned by the depositors. They make money by making loans, I'm not sure (I don't think so) if they are allowed to make investments. IN THEORY, the depositors govern the operations of the savings bank, but whatever "democracy" or pretense to democracy that they have is predicated on a one dollar/one vote arrangement.A credit union is owned by the depositors. They make money by making loans.

In theory, they are a one person/one vote economic democracy. I am considering, and am eligible to run for the Board of Directors of my credit union.

The dominant paradigm in Capitalist financial business operations uses something called the discount rate which assumes that money will be worth less (eventually worthless) in the future, thus creating a necessity to extract profits exceeding a "hurdle" rate leading to unfair and unwise exploitation of workers, borrowers, and natural resources, and to rampant inflation.

The use of credit is not a good business or personal practice.

In business, it should be discouraged because creditors have first claims on net revenues and hold liens on real property and capital assets. It causes inflation and cut-throat behavior because businesses often "leverage" their businesses. Leveraging a business is the process of taking a loan with the expectation that the business can get a return on the borrowed funds that exceeds the interest rate of the loan. The US Federal Government (and maybe States too, I don't remember) subsidizes the lending institutions by allowing businesses, for tax purposes, to write off interest payments as expenses. Leveraging, by raising the "hurdle rate", the desired return on investment, makes it necessary for businesses to exploit labor and natural resources by minimizing pay and maximizing volume of use and throughput. That is, exploiting people and resources even more than they do when the raison d'etre of the Capitalist business is to maximize profits and standard of living for their owners/investors, not optimize quality of life, equity, humanity, and sustainability for all people.

For "consumers", the use of credit is unwise because the system is set up to extract profits from interest thus assuring that when consumers use credit that they are losing money relative to inflation. Certainly the current foreclosure crisis in the USA is ample evidence of the inflation and the unfairness and unhealthiness of the mortgage lien process.

There are at least two lessons to be learned for the crisis in the mortgaged housing sector.

Again, the Federal Government subsidizes the lenders by allowing the borrower to write off interest payments as a personal expense.

Secondly, the UNREPORTED inflation that has been so outrageous in the housing sector in the last generation is because of the widening wealth and income gap between owners and workers.

Ideally, credit should only be used as a last resort, much more preferably not at all. We should replace all aspects of the extant financial system with an Equity Union. In some ways, a mutual insurance company is similar to an equity union. However, because such companies are required to realize profits in order to compete for "policy holders" (really investors), the companies that comprise the portfolios of the mutual insurance firms cannot be not-for-profit, can not be mutual organizations themselves.

In a not-for profit Equity Union financial services system based on principles of mutuality working in concert with ethical, wise, knowledgeable, and intelligent community, inter-community, inter-regional, and worldwide planning would serve the needs of the people.

In local and inter-community equity unions, equity sharing would be the modus operandi. People with funds being held in credit unions would have the option of investing in primarily worker owned community betterment projects based on the principles of quality of life, equity (which means ownership, and also means equality), humanity, and sustainability (which means there will be an economy and natural resources for the youth and the children, and for generations to come). If the inflation spiral can be removed (and the cost of real and capital assets brought back to earth), then indigent and poor workers could hope to increase their equity holdings and quality of life assets and equity investors could hope to get their money back.

Some endeavors, beyond poor workers enrichment, would be not-for-profit. That is, profits made beyond a pre-determined return to the poor workers, would be re-invested in more such worker/community betterment hybrid businesses (preferably cooperatives). Equity investments in community businesses could not be sold to others, but could be bought back at par value (the price of the share of the stock when it was invested). Such would be discouraged, and disallowed if it was a low-income/low wealth equity investor who may or may not (what do the soviets think?) if they were allowed to collect (limited) personal dividends.

Other endeavors, such as most, if not all, health care entities would be non-profit.

Poor communities, perhaps, could set up (501)(c)(3) community equity funds to which more wealthy individuals could give a tax deductible contribution.

That's assuming you all want to keep any government, at all...

I am not a Capitalist. I am a worker.

Nationalize Failing US Banks?

Nationalizing the banks is rubbish.

How can we nationalize things that are internationally owned? We need a world economy based on relocalization and inter-community, inter-regional, and world-wide cooperation.

The proposal to put the failing ("lemon socialism") banks into Government Receivership, "clean out toxic assets" (whatever that means - have the government buy the bad investments (i.e. take the loss)), then sell the banks to "a new round of investors". Does the government pay the old investors for the failing or failed bank?

What the U.S. Government should do is honor the obligations of FDIC, FSLIC, etc., pay unemployment insurance, and allow those affected to apply for SSI and food stamps.

We don't need banks. We don't need investors in financial institutions, only depositors. Money can be held in credit unions, and since credit is an overly risky (to the borrower, and lender it turns out eventually) and inflationary business strategy, and similarly dangerous personal strategy, credit unions should evolve into equity unions.

Localizing real assets (nationalizing is a subset of such in a faulty planetary organization of people) makes more sense. It would favor comparative advantage over competitive advantage in an eco-syndicalist re-organization based on the principles of peace, equity, humanity, quality of life, and sustainability.

Role of Government, Role of Money

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbo203

Quite true. It seems to me to be an oxymoron to talk of a "workers state". The only reasonable thing to do upon capturing the state is to get rid of it, to prevent it from being used by the capitalists to hinder the establishment of socialism. The removal of the state and elimination of class society are, in my book, two aspects of the same thing and for that reason are simultaneous events. You cannot keep one without the other.

I agree, in theory that the major reason for capturing the state is to get rid of it, to prevent it from being used to hinder the establishment of socialism.

But consider, in practice, the role of a greatly reduced state (i.e. temporarily keeping the treasury and temporary keeping of safety-net/social welfare programs) in transitioning to a socialist economy with an ad hoc concomitant development of local/inter-community/inter-regional worldwide planning, policy, implementation, and dispute resolution functions involved with the implementation of an economic democracy. Such would comprise a minimalized "government of sorts".

In the ideal, we would need to temporarily keep national treasuries to evolve to a world currency, to eventually evolve to a moneyless socialist economic democracy.

Other than the reality check of ever getting there (moneyless economy), I question the assumption that it presupposes that all work is equal. For example, should someone WHO TAKES GREAT RISK and has busied him/herself in becoming eminently proficient in their work, such as the people who put up downed power lines be considered to have access to the same amount of scarce natural and economic resources as someone like me who does knowledge and communications work? No, I think that utility (wo)man should be compensated more than me.

As long as there are differences in the quality of environments (housing, neighborhoods, and the like) there will be a need to have a method to allocate who gets what. Of course, one of our major goals needs to bring approximate parity/equity to all environments. However, I wonder that even in the ideal world where everybuddy's environment was of approximate parity/equity in quality, would we need some (much reduced) remunerative reward for risky, good, and hard work? What would be the motivation to take the risk, to hone one's skills, and to work hard? True, the latter two, especially, could be motivated by love for others and self if one knew that they would have access to all their needs and some wants in an egalitarian environment. But we don't have that, now. Not even close.

Also, there will be work that no one really wants to do, but needs to be done, at least until we can transition to a humane world economy. What will motivate people to do that work?

Will it be necessary and sufficient, while we are evolving towards parity/equity in environments to allocate the differential based solely on need especially considering that we have so much in the way of opulence and ostentatiousness in environments and property holdings in the status quo (which nobuddy needs)? Shouldn't re-allocation of real and personal property be re-allocated based on an individual or families need and their contribution to the good of the (World &) community while socially re-allocating resources to a quality of life, parity/equity/humanity paradigm in lieu of a standard of living lifestyle based on exploitative relationships?

If not money, how will such reallocations be managed?

Seems to me, the only alternative would be class warfare and/or a ridiculously over-bearing State.

How will division of labor be managed? There has to be a fit between what people want to do and what needs to be done? An economic democracy is the ideal, but hierarchies (not monetary) will need to evolve or the satisfying and effective educational and placement activities will not occur.

We need to identify and try to get consensus on the ideal, for sure. That's called defining our mission. We need to come up with something succinct and believable, something that the majority of the world will understand and will work towards.

But we need to give even much more thought and reach consensus about how we get from Globe C to World S.

I will be criticized for being a Vanguardist, for sure. But who are we participating in these discussions? Are we the totality of workers on the planet?

Economic and Political Reorganization

As Socialism/Communism and Capitalism are terms that address the the way that economies are organized, I believe that too much emphasis is placed on political organization and not anywhere near enough on economic reorganization.

As an anarcho-syndacalist of sorts, I believe, in theory, that we should focus primarily on economic restructuring and let the political organization evolve concomitantly on an ad hoc basis. The basic problem related to the necessary reallocation of resources for acheiving socialism is that Capitalists hold a oligopolistic virtual monopoly with respect to the ownership of assets, and are not very likely to do an about face and decide to share ownership with workers, the indigent, and the oppressed.

Whereas, current Capitalist dominated States stand as major obstacles to forming a socialist economy in that the States have Capitalist supporting financial resources whose representative democracies and executive administrations are bought by Capitalist interests. States control military resources (or does the Military/Police/Prison/Security Industrial Complexes control the States?). Capitalists control the press, the media, educational institutions both private and "public" both directly and through the effectiveness of their generations of propaganda. The only positive development relative to the past is that States have very little prestige left, though "socially liberal" Capitalists and, in America the Democratic Capitalist Statists work diligently to recapture that prestige at least with a ruling plurality.

So, socialist economic reform, restructuring, will not occur without a concomitant change in the political composition of the states. It has been pointed out that the objective of Socialists (I guess of the anarcho-syndicalist sort) is to gain control of the States "in order to dismantle them". I would modify this statement to read "in order to minimize them". I believe that States can play a minimal role of government to help foster and facilitate the evolution to a socialist economy, BUT in the meantime we need to have a well developed plan as to how that economic democracy is going to evolve. We need guiding values, principles, a mission, a methodology for formulating, inculcating, and assuring policy. We need strategies and tactics for implementing the planned economy of a local/inter-community/inter-regional/worldwide organized economic democracy. We need to change the way in which resources are allocated to and within communities and we need to change the way that resources are allocated among and within economic sectors.

But if that seems impossible, think about the concomitant need to change the leviathan corrupt Capitalist states, through the "democratic" political process.

As a lover of life, and a believer that modus operandi persists, I do not advocate violent revolution. Besides, even if worldwide violent revolution could work politically, it would not change the economic system, at least in a manner that would be consistent with a smoothly functioning economic democracy. It would be economic anarchy also.

Mass strikes are not likely at this time in the United States. Safety net programs, desperate stimulus programs and their accompanying promises of recovery, and deeply ingrained propagandized and misinformationed mentalities all are working sufficiently to provide a situation for which there is not even a spark of such.

In the longer run, education about economic democracy and its potential for a better life and the role of the States in inhibiting such progress is the first order of business. Maybe somewhere down the road, mass strikes, and bloodless coups (or a peaceful cooperative transition) of both the means of allocation, production, and distribution and the obstructionist states could occur.

Keep hope alive!


Mike Morin

Organization

The question, "Is the Party still a viable method of political organisation? " gets to the heart of some very fundamental dilemmas.

I'm probably different than most socialists, most anarcho-syndicalists, most communists, in that along the way while resigning myself to making a living within the Capitalist system, I picked up a MBA degree.

In "Organizational Behavior" class, I did my paper on "Participatory Management". I learned a few useful lessons, thus.

At an earlier period in my life, while participating in group self-study seminars with the Society of Friends, we operated on the principle of consensus in decision making. That is, we did not proceed until everyone concurred. Suffice to say, sometimes, if not often, the group progressed very slowly. On the other hand, we learned everybuddy's perspective and in a SMALL GROUP (a soviet) we eventually began to reach consensus faster, as we learned the perspectives and increased our own knowledge bases with respect to the questions at hand, and learned to respect and defer to others who either knew more or seemed to know more and/or had the respect and following of others in the group. Sometimes, if not often, participants would accede to the majority for the sake of expediency, having to weigh the importance of their disagreement, and/or having to weigh the confidence in one's knowledge and opinion with respect to the issue at hand.

In the "discipline" of Organizational Behavior, there are certain types of recognized authority.

One, which I know we all are familiar with, is called "legitimate" authority. I think a better term for it is "legitimized" authority. This is the authority delegated to an individual by the organization (e.g. a CEO, a Manager, a Foreman).

Another type of authority is called "expert" authority. Such occurs in a group when the members of a group either correctly or incorrectly identify an individual or individuals who have more knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom with respect to the matters at hand and defer to that authority.

If there is a need for "legitimized" authority then certainly it should come from one's "expert" authority (i.e. from the "bottom, up"). I know that some will object to the term, "bottom, up" because it implies a hierarchy. But the study of animal and human behavior teaches us that hierarchies are natural and will always occur. Would it not be optimal to assure that those hierarchies are based on the correct criteria, such as intentions, experience with respect to the matters at hand, wisdom, education and knowledge of the matters at hand, compassion, empathy, and intelligence? Is there always adequate time for a group to correctly discern the correct "expert" authority when someone who has "public relations" skills can outshine someone with the more noble attributes of "public service"?

Given that we all have limited combinations of knowledge, education (and of the kind that is oriented towards the best of intentions), experience, direct and indirect wisdom, empathy, compassion, tolerance, pride, etc., don't we all run the risk of falling into dogmatic thinking, thus following authoritarian (especially if talented orators and "target marketers" (e.g. Obama))?

I submit to you that such concerns are fundamental to the original question about whether a Party is a viable method of political organization. Being an anarcho-syndicalist of sorts, I transfer the question to one that precedes political organization with one that is concerned with ecological economic organization (ecology means the study of the home, economics means the management of the home).

Still, can we preclude the need for organization?

Anarcho-Syndicalism?

Capitalism is defeating itself as Marx said it would by over-production. It is defeating itself in that it does not recognize a finite world, and it made impossible assumptions about effective demand for its revenue maximization schemes which reached its zenith (our nadir) in the supply-side economics fiasco of the last generation.

All the Obama/Geithner grand larceny will not save the dying, almost dead Capitalist system.

Will there be any pieces left for us to pick up after Capitalism deteriorates to nothing but barbarian piracy?

I lean toward anarcho-syndicalism because I view the objective of the working people and the indigent and the infirm as forming an economic democracy that adheres to the old adage, "by those according to their abilities, for those according to their needs".

But I have serious doubts that we have and will have the skills and abilities and the access to resources to succeed. A big part of the problem is that the Capitalist modes of production are not sustainable, either economically or with respect to natural resources. Therefore, simply taking over the means of production will not nearly be good enough. We must also radically change the way resources are allocated to and within communities, and among and within the various economic sectors.

Mondragon and Sunkist and others are mutualists trapped within the Capitalist hegemony. Others such as New Harmony (there were others but I can't think of the names specifically), often referred to as utopian experiments, tried to form self-sufficient cooperative communitarian enclaves, but found themselves trapped by Capitalism in a different way; they found that in the evolution of human "civilization" and because of the demands of the dominant "culture" that most people can no longer exist in isolated communities (possible exceptions being encroached upon in the Amazon Rain Forest, perhaps).

Impossible Consensus

Robin,

A World Equity Union would join all the peoples of the world holding equity and assets into a common unity group, one with a mission of peace, equity, humanity, quality of life and sustainability, and committed to concomitant community/inter- community/ inter-regional and worldwide planning and redevelopment, and would be fundamentally associated with Socialist elected community and regional planning boards and a world Policy and Planning Committee.

An equity union would remove the usurious interest arrangements, and exploitative equity trading institutions. The modus operandi would be equity sharing.

Neighborhood Equity Union branches would allocate funds to worker and worker/community hybrid cooperatives. A basic policy of the Union of Neighborhood Equity Unions would be to target poorer neighborhoods for "investment" , thus redistributing wealth in a manner that is consistent with the tenets of Socialism.

A Peoples Equity Union may not be Socialism, by your definition, but it is not Capitalism. The goal of funded cooperatives would be not-for-profit and sometimes non-profit community improvement enterprises. They would not be for-profit individual enriching entitities as under a Capitalist system.

If we could get that far, whether or not it would be "textbook" socialism or not would be irrelevant. It would be a great improvement relative to the status quo. You and others could try to envisage how to work within such a reformed financial system to reach your goals of Socialism.

What is the alternative? Continue with the current banking, insurance, and equity trading financial relationships?


Peace,

Mike Morin

Communication on World Socialist Movenment (WSM) Discussion Group

Jeez Louise,

Robert Howes is an intelligent and wise man.

Yeah, I want to be part of the process, as well (more at water than oil).

Oil's well that ends.

Ronald Rayguns: Well?

Yup?

WSM writes (according to Robert Howes): "No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room is developed. New, higher relations of production never appear before the material forces have matured in the womb of the old society".

Mike Morin responds: Rubbish, what about the instance where a band of agriculturalists raid a hunter-gatherer tribe who does not know how to use the land for crops and/or livestock. Are you going to tell us that the diffusion of agriculture was solely a peaceful process and that as long as there has been land suitable for agriculture, there has been agriculture?

Are you going to contend that the earliest and early agriculturalists (or any agricultural "civilization" for that matter) were expert stewards of their land and didn't despoil it prematurely before moving on to other fields and pastures?

***********************
Capitalism will persist, not because there is room for further productive developments. If that were the reason, then Capitalism would be dead. Capitalism will persist as barbarism as long as there is competitive advantage for the Capitalists and resources and people to exploit, kill, and degrade.

The material conditions of the planet have matured way past peak and are in some phase of decline, the particular situation for any watershed being unique. Slash and burn the Amazon? Irrigate the deserts? Yeah, right...

Alan, don't you wish that you had the attention of the whole world? I feel frustrated that my efforts are going unheard and unheeded? Do you?

Puppetry (disingenuous manipulation) has existed, even before the advent of man. Look at the venus-fly-trap as an example of life that probably predates human life (by about 3 days, if I trust Phil Collins ;-) ). That should be no big revelation. Capitalists manipulate the media, the militaries, the magistrates, the legislators, the educational systems. Big deal, that's no revelation. Anti-Capitalists (is that the same as Socialist?) do the same to whatever extent they can, given the fact that Capitalists have more of a history of controlling the resources and to date in the USA still do...

One thing I do believe is that Robert, Alan, and I are honest people. (Omitting the mention of others should not be interpreted as me casting doubt on their honesty).

Robert, certainly you are being facetious about making history? Whose history book do you want to be included in? Are they writing history as we write? Who is doing that? If so, how many different people are doing that? Are they writing about Obama signing stem-cell research legislation, "Chinese" vessels "harassing" the United States Navy, Obama proclaiming that he will negotiate with "moderate" leaders of the Taliban, or that some people still judge others by the color of their hair? Whose versions will gain dominant publication and circulation and where? Will any of that matter? Why or why not?

Personally, I don't give a hoot about history, all I care about is the future and what I can do to influence it towards an equitable, humane, peaceful, sustainable one, particularly for the youth and children.

Robert, again you are being sarcastic when you speak confidently about "developing an enclave of moneyless production, distribution, and consumption (and waste recycling)."?

If you are being serious, and honestly believe that you can do that, then the conditions in Wales must be so radically different than they are anywhere in the USA, that I can't even imagine it.

But, your point is, I surmise, that such a condition will magically coalesce all over the planet once we have reached some critical juncture in history, when. 51% of the world votes for WSM Socialism.

Is the knowledge, and willing and able workforce, really there in India, in Wales, or anywhere for us all to just pick ourselves up from our bootstraps, locally, and worldwide to realize this magic transition to food relocalization, and all these other groovy things?

Correction Robert, the logical extension of barter is robbery, then money and slavery, then money and feudalism, then money and Mercantilism, then money and Capitalism. Socialism is as much an extension of the heart as it of the mind. Certainly, if we ever do reach a peaceful, socialist world, it will be money and socialism before it has any chance of ever evolving to a moneyless socialism.

That business of socialism and a dual system happening that you discuss, you are really mistaking for Welfare-state Capitalism. And the BS about eco-friendly products is mostly myth brought to you by slick target marketers.

How about starting with an "anti-war mobilization"?

Peace,

Mike

Demand Side Management, Supply Side Reallocation, Neighborhood Redevelopment, and Transportation Planning

Demand Side Management, Neighborhood Redevelopment, and Transportation Planning

I would like to address the supply side scenario for energy production based on assumptions of economic growth requiring an increase in the use of energy.The trouble with focusing on supply side economics and energy is that they both ignore demand. In relation to economics, the lack of effective demand for the plethora of consumer products will prove to be the downfall of this past generation’s experiment with supply side economics. With respect to energy, we must recognize that demand side management is critical to any possibility of a sustainable future.

Liberal economics (laissez faire, the so-called free market) cannot deal with the problem(s). We need a planned economy to effectively retrofit the infrastructure and to rebuild our communities to be walkable, therefore eliminating the terrible daily waste of oil/energy resources for transportation purposes.

I have to differ with rosy scenarios regarding the contribution that photovoltaics can make. I’m not an electrical engineer or an electrician, but it is my understanding that PVs don’t have the oomph (be it voltage, amperage, and/or wattage) to contribute very significantly to the current and recommended increased usage of electricity. Sure, PVs and wind might be able to contribute to lighting applications and a few very high efficiency appliances, but they can not power our transportation, industrial, business, and home heating and air conditioning, hot water, agricultural inputs, refrigeration, drying, and cooking needs.

We could go full throttle to the building of nuclear power plants, but I am highly leery of their toxicity and safety issues. Even if we pursued the path of electrification with the maximization of nuclear power, it will require a tremendous overhaul of our transportation infrastructure, and other applications currently met by oil products, coal, and natural gas.

First of all, nuclear is not a “free market” technology. Government programs paid for most of the resources for development of such. Then, there is the waste issue. Is it not the Federal Government who is going to or proposing to pay for the waste depository at Yucca Mountain (Nevada)? Also, there is the issue of bringing back the so-called Price-Anderson legislation. This was legislation in which the Federal Government provided insurance for nuclear power plants and related operations. No private insurer would underwrite the risks, thus the Feds had to step in.

Perhaps a better scenario could be realized if we started very soon with a planned economy that focused first on economic and energy demand side management and also retrofitted infrastructures with respect to very scarce and relatively clean (I view carbon resources, if appropriately used, to be cleaner than nuclear) energy applications.

The potential for solar thermal hot water is immense. Imagine all hot water demanding properties on the planet equipped with such devices. Imagine all the (community/worker owned) jobs involved with the production, installation, and distribution of these units. I list distribution last, because all efforts need to be made to maximize the localization of such production and installation, as well as any other products for which going towards relocalization may be possible (e.g. food).

Passive solar design combined with electronic environmental sensors and controls (also relevant to solar water heating and weatherization projects).

However, priority to upgrading housing and housing ownership conditions for the poor should take precedence over these type of projects.

Relocalization is part of the plan (and not just for food). Instead of reversalism, the term that the author Staniford has coined as being emblematic of the relocalization paradigm, let me offer the following "re" words that imply a gradual evolution to a future which incorporates the best of the past, for your consideration, response, and action.


Reformation

Little to no beneficial change will occur without an almost religious change from the paradigm of economic growth and standard of living to one that emphasizes community redevelopment and quality of life. This is an important educational component of an alternative ecological economic plan.


Reorganization

If we can be successful and realize the educational/reform component, the next (concurrent) step is to reorganize to one of cooperative (or at least partially so – we will probably need to compromise on the divide between one dollar/one vote and one person/one vote as the dominant paradigm of economic organization) communitarian local and regional economic entities, at least until the day that we are all nearly equal in terms of ownership of the means and goods of production and distribution. How to assure the transition from inequality is problematic. However, as the entire economic system begins and proceeds to fail, those wealthy seeking to avoid total financial ruin will welcome the opportunity to accept the quality of life paradigm, foregoing their opulent, ostentatious, enslaving, ecocidal, genocidal, and suicidal "standard of living" modus operandi.


Reallocation

We need coordinated regional planning agencies that agree on the fundamental mission of a global ecological economy that have the three basic pillars of equity, humanity, and sustainability. These “planning” agencies would work together and with the local/regional economic entities to determine how resources are allocated to and within communities based on the relocalization paradigm and other governing principles. The vehicle, that I envision here is a Peoples’ Equity Union with “branches” in all communities/neighborhoods.


Restructuring

Many communities will need to be physically rebuilt to make them liveable and walkable (i.e. new urbanism, retrofitting residential communities built in the oil/automobile age by renovating, building or otherwise appropriately employing community economic and cultural centers making necessities and other important quality of life amenities, available to all within walking distance of their homes Also such a plan should include housing and other built environment improvement and ownership opportunities for all. Included in such a plan would be neighborhood work stations which would aid in the ability of office workers to telecommute in their occupations as we transition from a supply-side nightmare to a sustainable, equitable, and quality of life economy.

Imagine all the jobs!

But jobs are not enough, restructuring equity arrangements and reallocating resources in an equitable, humane, and ecological manner need to be a fundamental part of the plan.


Reduce

Reuse

Recycle.

***********************

With respect to electric vehicles, my thoughts are that they may be a small part of a longer term solution and probably restricted to rebuilt/walkable urban and suburban neighborhoods for the use of the elderly and/or infirm. The top priority with respect to fossil fuels and other energy resources is demand side management. The chief priority in planning the role of the automobile is to reduce automobile use by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years. We are currently burdened by a terrible oversupply (including owned and overstocked inventories at factories and dealerships) of fuel inefficient and poorly designed internal combustion vehicles. If these vehicles weren't so poorly designed, there could be a significant opportunity to convert a minority of them to hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles. But they are very poorly designed. Perhaps the current population of vehicles should be deconstructed and parts reused or recycled. New vehicles should be exclusively, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric, except maybe for long-term transport and work vehicles.

There could be tremendous amounts of work generated by the reconstruction of neighborhoods and the rearrangement (read reallocation) of production, distribution, and communication systems to make them neighborhood friendly. In addition, a great potential for work lies in the field of deconstruction of transportation and related infrastructure adaptation. Parking lots could be torn up and converted to community gardens. Streets (and rail systems) could be torn up and converted to walking and bike paths and others altered to be less wide, restoring the liveability of housing located on these very noisy busy passageways. Parking garages could be torn down and replaced by mixed use developments. Highways could be dedicated mostly to bus travel, long distance transport, and perhaps some, if not many, of them torn down and reclaimed as natural and agricultural land. For automobile usage, it would be optimal to encourage the development of car-sharing cooperatives. All vehicles left in use must be quiet, and all vehicles slower (with the exception of busses, trains, and long range transport).

With respect to transport and distribution systems (and production systems) relocalization and neighborhood telecommunications (including teleconferencing facilities) should be the major goal, greatly reducing the need for long-range transport.

*****************************************

Another Iteration of “the Plan”
There is No Alternative to Socialism

We need some perspective.

Fossil fuel use is about 150 years old and automotive use about 100 years old. Look how absurdly, the personal automobile dominates our life and is destroying any hope for a future.

We need to deal with more than incremental adjustments from the modern automotive age. If we want to continue the many benefits of precious fossil fuels, the many opportunity costs of those fuels, to personal automobile usage, then we need to set as a goal (here in the USA) and realize it, to reduce the use of the personal automobile by 80% in the next 20 to 40 years.

It is not encouraging, because Obama explicitly stated the other day that the automobile is such an important part of American history and culture and needs to remain so. This is a statement of a myopic politician beholden to special interests.

If you've never lived in the Northeast (USA) where much of the city, town, and village centers were built before the automobile, it may be hard to imagine a future with the greatly reduced automobile use, but it is very possible and absolutely desirable.

The key is the walkable neighborhood. That is, neighborhoods for everybuddy where everyone can get what they need within walking distance of their residence. This will take a major shift in the way that resources are allocated and products distributed to communities. The major over-supply side mall outlets (for those products and services that have utility) could become regional warehouses and older town and village centers, where they exist could be explicitly brought back as outlets for these products. Where the town and village centers do not exist, such as here out West (I'm in Eugene, Oregon), where the mindless assumption of the automobile has led to the mindless, endless residential districts with their equally alienating and squandering strip malls and malls, communities could be rebuilt (think of all the jobs) to provide community centers and outlets.

Of course, this will not happen in the absence of a complete commitment to neighborhood/inter-community/inter-regional/worldwide ecological economic resource planning and allocation and redevelopment.

This Plan is too bold for American Politicians. This Plan is Socialism. With advances in communications technology, much progress, in the development of community centers, could help greatly increase the amount of tele-commuting that could help people work from and/or near their homes.The resource allocation issue could be handled with a reformed economic system, an equity union, with a "plan and implement" modus operandi for economic operations. Reforming the financial system to take the fundamentally inflationary Capitalist aspect of "discounting the future" (i.e. assuming that money in the future will be worth less) could lead to a system of ecological economical redevelopment where only true growth in wealth would occur and be shared and could occur under the aegis of a mission emphasizing peace, equity, humanity, quality of life, and sustainability.

Removing the gluttonous oil resource use by the USA and Capitalist automotive oriented allies would slowly rescind the need for the hegemonic occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world acting in concert would stand much better prospects for peace.

****************************************

The Ecology of Redevelopment

A big part of my redevelopment plan (aside from the financial systems reform) is the REBUILDING of neighborhoods to make them liveable, and walkable for the necessities of life (that is, assuming a goal of a much less harried pace than today, but also assuming that people will have responsibilities, obligations, and desires). Such a plan would include a massive education program in retraining workers and training in youth in the building trades. Human resource management would be utilized to try to maximize the match between where the primary contractors/instructors and student/workers lived and the neighborhood building projects.

Communities would be rebuilt to emulate mature ecological systems, in that they maximize the efficiency of energy and resource input into the community so that once resources enter a community, they stay in the community for the maximum amount of time possible. Once all communities are sufficiently rebuilt (a timeline of 20 to 40 years?) under such guidelines, they would evolve to ongoing day-to-day and maintenance communities and the amount of heavy labor required would decrease and the amount of leisure time increase greatly. Again, (day-to-day and maintenance) workers would be employed in, surrounding, and/or as close to their residency as possible and it would be a priority for real and capital assets to be owned by the workers and the community patrons who ideally would be one and the same. The Neighborhood Equity Union would replace credit unions and of course, other forms of financial institutions. Parks and gymnasiums would be an important part of the plan as leisure time increased and the healthy aspects of physical labor decreased.

Concurrent with rebuilding, and the reallocation of production and distribution resources, would be efforts to make office, communications, knowledge and intelligence based labor into primarily home and/or neighborhood based vocations. Occasional travel would be necessary and desirable, but quiet bus and train travel and car-sharing cooperatives could be employed to fill this need along with family visit and recreational needs and desires. With respect to the former, extended families would be encouraged to reunite geographically.

Left vs. Right?

I question the importance and accuracy of the the left/right dichotomy. It is nothing more than divisional semantics. After all, almost all of us have nearly perfectly symmetrical bodies, and all geographical spaces, much more often than not, allow us and even require us to move in all directions. Team sports have symmetrical field alignments, and if we were standing face to face your left would be my right.

The English language is biased in that the word right also means correct and that the word sinister means pertaining to the left but it also means evil. On the other hand, in Christian mythology, when Jesus died and arose to heaven, he went to sit at the right hand of the Father, thus implying that the higher power, the more knowledgeable and wise, sits to the left.

Thank you for giving a brief overview concerning Proudhons thought and works. I tried reading some of his works a few years ago, but was unsuccessful at gleaning much because of the nature of the writing, being translations, and being from a much earlier period. (The latter being a large part, perhaps, of why I don't enjoy reading Shakespeare).

Mutualism was not "created" by Proudhon, but he did refine the concept. It would be interesting to know the exceptions that Marx took to Proudhon and why, and vice-versa (if such is the case), but I fear that for the same reasons that I did not understand Proudhon's writings, I would not understand Marx's "Treatise on the Works of Proudhon". Probably, at least part of the reason for the disagreement was that Marx advocated State Communism.

Some have pointed out that there are some similarities (and although I hate labels) between "Right Wing Libertarians" and "Left Wing Anarchists". Both detest the absurdity and abuses of the State(s), for example

To get to consensus among the anti-statists, we must understand that some Libertarians are small property-holders and some are very large property-holders. I believe the former could be brought into the fold if they understood and accepted and we understood and accepted the inclusion of such in a Socialist economy (as Proudhon advocated).

The large property holders will resist, obfuscate, divide and conquer, etc. The "left wing" that favors big government will do the same.

With Respect to "Transition United States" Website Initiative and "Movement"

Until we all recognize that none of this will succeed unless we explicitly call for the rapid mobiilization to a Socialist economy, the Transition United States website will probably remain little more than self-congratulory phony Liberal chit-chat and diversion.

We were hip and advocating all the "technical" aspects, being discussed now over thirty years ago (some of them like PVs, windpower, hydrogen, collectively known as "appropriate technology" are in reality a lot of false hope).

A lot of us knew, at the time, that it wouldn't happen under the oppressive ignorance of the Capitalist system, but some (I was young and naive), if not many, thought that we were heading calmly and slowly towards Socialism and peace and conservation and demand-side management and solar water heating and passive solar design and towards self-sufficiency in food, popular gardening, and REAL organic agriculture (not the lies in labeling Marketing ploys of unscrupulous Capitalists), and we thought we had a future.

Then came "the Reagan Revolution" and "supply-side economics". Reagan unleashed greed. It will probably prove to be the beginning of the final end to the Capitalist absurdity based on the total denial of a finite real planet of resources and the notion that it's OK to cut your brother's throat, if there's money in it. Many good lives were ruined both domestically and abroad, and Kissinger's "detente" turned out to be Reagan stabbing Gorbachev in the back.

US and associated Capitalists had a great transient boom. Now, here's the bust.

But, we remember.

I'd like to see a peaceful transition to an equitable, humane, sustainable planet with a quality of life for everyone, especially the progeny, but the gluttons of the USA, with their ignorant, individualistic (read selfishness), nationalist ("the remaining "Superpower" :-P) notion of Global Manifest Destiny raised hell and we are now going to pay for it. In their typical style they will try to damn everyone else, first.

Thanks USAers! Thanks Capitalists! Can anyone cue up George Harrison's song "Piggies"?

A Response to Richard

Richard,

Thank you for your intelligent response.

I concur 100% with the aim of "Socialists" for taking over the Government is to dismantle it. I also agree with the IDEAL of a moneyless society where the means of production and distribution are held by the workers, but in transitioning to this eutopia (good place) we will need to have some direction over the various national treasuries until we can evolve to a world currency before we can evolve to a moneyless economy. "Safety-net" programs are usually a function of the Treasuries.

With respect to the idea of Socialists winning control of the the US Government via the ballot box seems like an impossibility, so we are left with the options of revolution or the rational convincing of the current branches of government that the aims of "Socialists" stated previously (dissolution with exceptions noted).

I favor an economic democracy where local/inter-community/inter-regional worldwide solidarity based on a socialist vision, planning process, and policy guidelines. All across the spectrum (from workplace to local to global) there will be need for dispute resolution, but the political aspects of the "political economy" need to be explicitly kept to a minimum and that concept inculcated in all worker/citizens, and those necessary decision makers that realistically there will have to be. Structural hierarchies, (although particularly odious in Capitalist organizations, governments, and organizations like the Catholic Church) are not unique to Capitalism, it is basic to animal and human behavior and necessary when there is disagreement about how best to accomplish a task, establish a process, and develop and interpret policies, in a timely fashion. It is a trade-off between such and true consensus on every minor point. But I also contend, that every effort to involve all in the democratic process is fundamental. This is why education is so basic to the success of a working ecological economic system.

I have not once stated, nor would I, that I propose to maintain the economic relations of Capitalism. My goals are quite to the contrary. My approach is to reconcile in practical terms, Marx's Labor Theory of Value, with a quite common Capitalist held belief, Locke's Labor Theory of Property, which contends that property, real and capital accumulation, arose due to the fruits of labor. I ascribe completely to the former (Marx) and view the latter (Locke) as bunk, propaganda, with the exceptional realism (perhaps you've heard of "the American dream").

But even in the rare cases where Locke's Theory of Property is true, it needs to be discouraged as appealing to the more base instincts of human nature (domination versus cooperation, equity, and camaradarie) and as a false promise to all those shackled by the current economic system.

The point is that I am trying to propose practical solutions. Hegel wrote that we can spend our whole lives just trying to figure it all out. Marx argued that we needed to do more, we needed to do something about it. I don't mind taking the time to explain, but eventually we need to apply our ideas to the real world.

I'm a Work kin for peace and cooperation.

Best regards,

Mike Morin

Revolution versus Reform

If "we" were to have a (violent or relatively non-violent) revolution, and win, it would most certainly be a pyrrhic victory, just as Capitalism's ongoing oppression, recalcitrance to the needs of the majority, active aggression, ignorance, and its downright irrationality, inhumanity, inequity, and its propensity to horribly squander resources, including people, will prove to be the end for them, sooner than they may think.

If we were to have a takeover of, let's say, the United States Government, would "we" (and who the hell would we be, and how would it be determined who "we" are, and even if it could be, what would be the hierarchy within our decision-making apparatus?) have an effective program to rearrange the economy to a socialist one of our ideals?

Socialism is an economic system first. It is the control of governments by Capitalists, and problems associated with nationalism, that make it a political struggle. The political system in the USA has reached the point of total absurdity.

My suggestion is that we make cooperation, humanity, equity, quality of life, peace, and sustainability as the underlying values and principles of our mission. I further suggest that our strategy be one of local/inter-community/inter-regional worldwide solidarity and cooperation.

If we could educate and organize worldwide as to a workable transition from the Capitalist status quo to a realistic socialist alternative, we may have some chance at success.

We (everyone) have nothing to lose, except the hopelessness with respect to our future.


Mike Morin

Status Report with Respect to "Transition US" Efforts

Les,

I don't want to disparage the great work that you and others have done at supplying us with this great set of tools. While the server hardware and software and the user software has been exceptional, the content of the transition movement has been terribly disappointing.

Though it ain't over 'til it's over, I draw the very real parallel to the super-nova ascendancy of what I always suspected and have been getting continuous evidence of what I call Barack Obama's Presidency, "the Great False Hope" and the disappointments met with this effort.

True, we have rid ourselves of one of the most despotic tyrants of all time, but the euphoria and popular activity that surrounded such replacement was bound to be a let down to those of us that are certain that the Democratic Party is nothing more than the socially Liberal Wing of the Capitalist Party.

The issue is that Capitalism is dying and soon to be dead. Will we be able to transition to an equitable, humane, sustainable, peaceful world socialism before the Capitalists destroy the future for everyone?

Until Barack Obama, and the rest of us, accepts and promotes the principles and the strategies necessary to realize such a true TRANSITION, the Capitaliists and their thugs, the United States of America, will drag the world down and fast, and we just don't have the time.

We need to unite behind a leader, and Barack Obama is the legitimized leader of over 300 million people, who mostly take much too much of their share of the worlds' resources, play cut-throat economic games, and are represented by a Government that is so seriously out-of-touch with the reality of their people and why that reality exists, and have the extreme audacity to think and propagandize that they control some "God" given right to impose Global Manifest Destiny for a Capitalist elite.

I am frustrated that I don't have Obama's confidence (because he is a superb spokesman, and seems like a very decent kid who would understand if he had the proper advisors) and I am frustrated by the lack of understanding, the trivia that supercedes that understanding, and the lack of popular support that I get both on-line and off.

But thanks for the great work that you are attempting.

Let's keep trying!

As Jesse Jackson used to chant, "Keep hope alive"!

Mike Morin
Jefferson Westside Neighborhood
Eugene, OR, USA
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area
Willamette Valley WatershedPacific NW (Cascadia)
Planet Earth
mlarosamorin@earthlink.net
(541) 343-3808

Religion In Perspective

Religion is the opium of the masses.

Religion is ridiculous, if people fight based on their "faith", but understanding the Moslem faith provides great insight into this, as does knowing and understanding the Old Testament.

Understanding religion is largely the acknowledgement of a terrible headache.

Valuable idealism can be gleaned from the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther Kin, George Fox, Hindu, Islam, Judaism, and other faiths, but faith based militarism is a bane of our existence. I suppose it can be said that Bolshevik Marxism is a faith based militarism.

There is nothing in the New Testament, Buddhism, or to my knowledge Hindu scriptures, that justifies war. The Old Testament and the Koran are rife with holy war. They are more realistic portrayals of the history of the species.

I think the teachings of Marx and Mohammed, and maybe David of Old Testament fame have similarities.

To say that there will always be war is a self-fulfilling prophecy. At this day and age where we can communicate better than ever before, it is incumbent upon us that love life to reject that prophecy. Yet, we must fully understand the historical context which makes it so compelling, if we want to work for peace with the slightest sliver of hope.

The Ecology of Redevelopment

A big part of my redevelopment plan (aside from the financial systems reform) is the REBUILDING of neighborhoods to make them walkable for the necessities of life (that is, assuming a goal of a much less harried pace than today, but also assuming that people will have responsibilities, obligations, and desires). Such a plan would include a massive education program in retraining workers and training in youth in the building trades. Human resource management would be utilized to try to maximize the match between where the primary contractors/instructors and student/workers lived and the neighborhood building projects.

Communities would be rebuilt to emulate mature ecological systems, in that they maximize the efficiency of energy and resource input into the community so that once resources enter a community, they stay in the community for the maximum amount of time possible. Once all communities are sufficiently rebuilt (a timeline of 20 to 40 years?) under such guidelines, they would evolve to ongoing day-to-day and maintenence communities and the amount of heavy labor required would decrease and the amount of leisure time increase greatly. Again, (day-to-day and maintenence) workers would be employed in, surrounding, and/or as close to their residency as possible and it would be a priority for real and capital assets to be owned by the workers and the community patrons who ideally would be one and the same. The Neighborhood Equity Union would replace credit unions and of course, other forms of financial institutions. Parks and gymnasiums would be an important part of the plan as leisure time increased and the healthy aspects of physical labor decreased.

Concurrent with rebuilding, and the reallocation of production and distribution resources would be efforts to make office, communications, knowledge and intelligence based labor into primarily home and/or neighborhood based vocations. Occasional travel would be necessary and desirable, but quiet bus and train travel and car-sharing cooperatives could be employed to fill this need along with family visit and recreational needs and desires. With respect to the former, extended families would be encouraged to reunite geographically.

In My View (Micro-economics)

A question was posited to me whether or not direct payments to citizens would be better than Obama's "stimulus" package?


I'd say, that if we did such a thing, the amount of money to be dispersed to each individual should be related to each individual's need. But, that would be impossible to determine and administer.

I favor a small guaranteed income for all individuals (Social Security for everybuddy), increasing with age. Such would help us transition to an economic system that would provide more of a "living wage" for everyone.W

hich brings me back to financial systems reform. Think about the unfair racket that the current Federal Reserve System embodies. The Treasury makes loans through a huge bureaucracy to investor-owned banks who then loan money to others on usurious terms. Wouldn't it be better to have the Treasury make direct payments to workers who are planning and implementing an economic system of neighborhood/inter-community/inter-regional (and worldwide) ecological economic redevelopment with the mission of peace, equity, humanity, sustainability, and quality of life. (Eventually, I envision one world currency).

On the local level, distressed communities would be favored to not only help individuals with the guaranteed income, but additionally, instead of a "sou-sou" payment matching savings with government funding to an individual, an equity fund payment to a community trust fund, a neighborhood equity union fund payment based on criteria to be determined, probably most effectively the community need for such balanced with the various individuals' successes at saving in lieu of wasteful spending.

Such an effort would be concurrent with assistance for the disadvantaged at establishing businesses which benefit the community. I emphasize inter-community cooperation because small businesses and start-ups are at such fundamental disadvantage relative to Corporate Capitalist Conglomerates and individuals with generations of equity, and diversity of holdings. Community service businesses are also at a huge disadvantage to Capitalist enterprises that eschew social/environmental goals.

This is part of the reason why I make the argument for fundamental financial systems reform, because I don't believe that Capitalist and Socialist business can co-exist. Because of their lack of ethics and/or pre-existing portfolios of skills and/or holdings, Capitalists will always prevail over socialist endeavors created to assist the poor.

The horrendous inflation relative to the bidding up costs of real and capital assets that have sky-rocketed with the onset and recent history of supply-side economics further aggravates the situation relative to start-up business opportunities for the poor.

It comes down to EVERYBUDDY working together in a common mission of peace, equity, humanity, quality of life, and sustainability.


Mike Morin

In My View (Macro-economics)

Marx thought that it would be a process of overthrowing the government(s) and setting up a State controlled economic system that would modify Capitalism according to the labor theory of value, workers' councils, etc. and educate the masses, some if not many, who were already hip to the oppression of the Feudal/Mercantile/Capitalist domination and the cooperative communitarian/socialist/Communist desirable alternative, but at significant disadvantage relative to the opportunity costs of an arms race, and disadvantage relative to the superior resource base held by the USA and his allies (not because of the superiority of Capitalism, but because of the unique opportunity of an advanced Western Industrial "civilization" to rape a virgin landscape (the Americas)).

Class struggle in the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic was necessary, because as Marx identified, it has always been an issue of "class" struggle (i.e. aristocratic and bourgeois oppression and uprisings against such). It was necessary to fight fire with fire and the Capitalists never forgave the Communists for beating them at their own game. But violence begets violence and becomes a modus operandi of the violent, thus the accusations of oppression of personal liberties within the Communist systems.

The Capitalists have always been in control and along with over-reactionary and under-reported slaughter and imprisonment techniques, use more subtle techniques of violence such as propaganda (i.e. the freedom of the press belongs to those that own one). When the Soviet system relapsed, the American led Capitalists claimed permanent victory and incorporated such into their educational and media systems.

Now, we find an over-confident dying Capitalist war, and economic machine, making a last stand in Iraq and Afghanistan, and worldwide, respectively. We see a terrible over-supply with diminishing to no effective demand in the USA for their "free-traded" products and services and a gluttonous surge to strip the planet and all its inhabitants of the dwindling fossil fuel (and other) resources. That is, American Capitalism has a terrible over-demand problem with a finite worldwide diminishing supply.

Tensions are mounting, although the Capitalist ruling class wants thee all to think that there is little to no organized resistance. And they may be right. They are willing to commit multiple genocides, ecocide, and suicide to feed the gluttonous beast that they have created.

I don't think that we can defeat the USA Military/Police/Prison/Propaganda Complex, at least not stateside (I am writing from Eugene, Oregon, USA). We can cheer for the hastening of the downfall of Capitalism and their Fascist allies, but I don't cherish the thought of what it will be like when the system implodes to the point of no return, or we can speak and write as if some rational Chief Capitalist (Obama?) was listening and appeal to "them" to recognize that Capitalism is dead and we need to begin right away to build a better system from within.

I have a rather comprehensive socialist plan with a mission based on peace, equity, humanity, quality of life, and sustainability based on strategies of neighborhood/inter-community/inter-regional/worldwide ecological economic planning, reallocation and redevelopment. Fundamental to such is the reforming of financial systems.

You can view my work at www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com and/or we can discuss the various aspects and strategies for making it real in this discussion group.

I'm a Work kin for peace and cooperation.


With much love and care,

Mike Morin