>Robin wrote:
The idea that you can challenge capitalism by starting up businesses oneself is about as plausible as wanting to strike a blow for pacifism by joining the army.
Mike Morin replies:
This leaves us between a rock and a hard place.
The only ones who can start businesses in today's Capitalist environments are well endowed individuals and/or Corporate Capitalists who are diversified and can afford to take a loss in the new sector in the short run with the (illusory) hopes that the economic system will "recover". It won't. So what we have is a lot of irrational dysfunctional Capitalist businesses running their course and withering away. It is our remote hope that we can transition to something better before the world is totally destitute.
It is my pipe dream that we can enlist the holders of equity and assets to reallocate their holdings not to businesses but to community betterment organizations and or workers' cooperative (or as in rare cases functioning within the Capitalist systems community/worker hybrids). But we must do more than that we must organize the workers in socialist solidarity within and among communities, regions, and world wide. We must organize workers within and among economic sectors.
There needs to be democratic ecological economic planning to radically alter the way in which resources are allocated to and within communities and within and among economic sectors.My dream seems to be consistent with the orientation, plans and programs of the Latin American leaders of ALBA (Latin American Bolivarian Alliance). Hugo Chavez and associates have been using oil wealth and other equity and assets to finance such programs and there appears to have been some hopeful success thus far.
Where we are at significant disadvantage in the English speaking world is that our resource holders, Capitalists and Capitalist lackey Governments are not hip to this plan.
>Robin wrote:
It is only by engaging in and helping to expand activities that transcend commodity-productio n and by pushing forward with a clear vision of a future ouside capitalism that you stand any chance of actually realising that future.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Letter to Fred Goldstein (author of "Low Wage Capitalism")
Fred,
Wondering how you are, because I got an invitation to join a subscription group called "My Life" in your name. I didn't join because, they tried to trick me into paying a subscription fee (they were not upfront, portraying it as a free service).
I was excited about the possibility of making the connection with you and extending the socialist network. I understand the dilemma about being a socialist writer who has to function within the dictates of the Capitalist system.
I bought your book (Low-Wage Capitalism) and started reading it. I read the first 30 pages or so... I was very much impressed with your ability to write and think logically and present real world examples and apply Marxist and other socialist thought.
Your book reminded me very much of David Korten's book When Corporations Rule the World which I read about ten years ago. Your book is quite similar, but from a socialist perspective (which I prefer). I have read all of David Korten's sequels, but they are very weak attempts to propose an alternative to the Capitalist (he vilifies Corporations, quite rightly, but not the Capitalist system) system, simply because David is either not a socialist and/or was told that a socialist prescription/alternative would not be acceptable in the Capitalist Press and/or marketplace.
My work since reading all of Kortens' and many many other of the treatises that sneak out of the Capitalist Press under the target market that I would describe as "the disenchanted" or "the "protest segment", has been to try to develop that practical socialist alternative to the genocidal, ecocidal, suicidal Capitalist economic system.
I wrote and self-published a book called Who is George Fox and Why Should I Care? finishing it about twelve years ago (before I read Korten). I was very happy with the end product, but could not get a Capitalist Publisher to put it "on the market". I self-published 250 copies and either sold or gave away all but one, expressly telling all to share my work as widely as possible. I wrote a second book, The Balderloki Shamanism, but admittedly it was a relatively weak follow-up to the first book which I wrote primarily in case the "George Fox" book got published and became popular. The "Balderloki" has been lost to blank empty space and lost diskettes (I've had to move many times), except for that which remains in my brain.
Anyway, that Socialist alternative can be found, in a somewhat yet to be organized layout at my web log http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com/ . My organizing work, however that manifests itself, is waiting to find a market (and an underwriter if it were to become a book). But publishing a book is not my primary goal. My intention in life is to affect positive socialist change particularly as it concerns equity, inclusion, quality of life, peace, and sustainability in a world that is well past its midnight hour.
How did your book tour go? Whereas, I would hope for a warm reception and a maximum of sales for your work, I sense an increasing irrational madness and a fierce sense of hopelessness about and among the people (and for good reason). I don't sense that socialism has recovered much since the fall of the Soviet Union and the propaganda? of the backsliding of the Peoples' Republic into State Capitalism. I hope that I am wrong and that Fidel, Hugo, WSM, Workers' World Party, and ISO and others that I contact, are not as obscure and perceived as irrelevant and uninterested, as I am afrayed that they are...
I have no illusions that my work to advance a socialist alternative is eutopian (Lewis Mumford explains that such a spelling from the Greek actually means "good place") in a Capitalist world that is approaching outopian ("no place") especially for the progeny.
Anyway, I hope that you are well and that your work is being successful.
Please write when you get the chance.
Wondering how you are, because I got an invitation to join a subscription group called "My Life" in your name. I didn't join because, they tried to trick me into paying a subscription fee (they were not upfront, portraying it as a free service).
I was excited about the possibility of making the connection with you and extending the socialist network. I understand the dilemma about being a socialist writer who has to function within the dictates of the Capitalist system.
I bought your book (Low-Wage Capitalism) and started reading it. I read the first 30 pages or so... I was very much impressed with your ability to write and think logically and present real world examples and apply Marxist and other socialist thought.
Your book reminded me very much of David Korten's book When Corporations Rule the World which I read about ten years ago. Your book is quite similar, but from a socialist perspective (which I prefer). I have read all of David Korten's sequels, but they are very weak attempts to propose an alternative to the Capitalist (he vilifies Corporations, quite rightly, but not the Capitalist system) system, simply because David is either not a socialist and/or was told that a socialist prescription/alternative would not be acceptable in the Capitalist Press and/or marketplace.
My work since reading all of Kortens' and many many other of the treatises that sneak out of the Capitalist Press under the target market that I would describe as "the disenchanted" or "the "protest segment", has been to try to develop that practical socialist alternative to the genocidal, ecocidal, suicidal Capitalist economic system.
I wrote and self-published a book called Who is George Fox and Why Should I Care? finishing it about twelve years ago (before I read Korten). I was very happy with the end product, but could not get a Capitalist Publisher to put it "on the market". I self-published 250 copies and either sold or gave away all but one, expressly telling all to share my work as widely as possible. I wrote a second book, The Balderloki Shamanism, but admittedly it was a relatively weak follow-up to the first book which I wrote primarily in case the "George Fox" book got published and became popular. The "Balderloki" has been lost to blank empty space and lost diskettes (I've had to move many times), except for that which remains in my brain.
Anyway, that Socialist alternative can be found, in a somewhat yet to be organized layout at my web log http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com/ . My organizing work, however that manifests itself, is waiting to find a market (and an underwriter if it were to become a book). But publishing a book is not my primary goal. My intention in life is to affect positive socialist change particularly as it concerns equity, inclusion, quality of life, peace, and sustainability in a world that is well past its midnight hour.
How did your book tour go? Whereas, I would hope for a warm reception and a maximum of sales for your work, I sense an increasing irrational madness and a fierce sense of hopelessness about and among the people (and for good reason). I don't sense that socialism has recovered much since the fall of the Soviet Union and the propaganda? of the backsliding of the Peoples' Republic into State Capitalism. I hope that I am wrong and that Fidel, Hugo, WSM, Workers' World Party, and ISO and others that I contact, are not as obscure and perceived as irrelevant and uninterested, as I am afrayed that they are...
I have no illusions that my work to advance a socialist alternative is eutopian (Lewis Mumford explains that such a spelling from the Greek actually means "good place") in a Capitalist world that is approaching outopian ("no place") especially for the progeny.
Anyway, I hope that you are well and that your work is being successful.
Please write when you get the chance.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
With Respect to May Day
We've got much more to protest than for a thirty hour week. Many would like to have the opportunity to work thirty hours or maybe even more (especially if the work was interesting and productive for community betterment).
If we are going to discuss the more trivial pursuits of the historical Labor Movement, then I believe that we should be working for guranteed income and living wages for the folks that are trapped as wage earners in the Capitalist system.
Those are short term needs and they are important. However, our organizings must not preclude the larger issues such as financial systems restructuring, demand side management and supply side reallocation, neighborhood redevelopment, inclusion, humanity, equity, jobs... and, oh yeah, sustainability. In other words, an evolution to a socialist economy and concurrent political realignment.
If we are going to discuss the more trivial pursuits of the historical Labor Movement, then I believe that we should be working for guranteed income and living wages for the folks that are trapped as wage earners in the Capitalist system.
Those are short term needs and they are important. However, our organizings must not preclude the larger issues such as financial systems restructuring, demand side management and supply side reallocation, neighborhood redevelopment, inclusion, humanity, equity, jobs... and, oh yeah, sustainability. In other words, an evolution to a socialist economy and concurrent political realignment.
Monday, March 23, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
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?
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).
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).
Monday, March 16, 2009
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
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
Monday, March 9, 2009
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
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
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.
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.
Friday, March 6, 2009
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
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
Saturday, February 28, 2009
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, 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 a world acting in concert would stand much better prospects for peace.
I'm a Work kin for peace and cooperation.
With much love and care,
Mike Morin
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, 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 a world acting in concert would stand much better prospects for peace.
I'm a Work kin for peace and cooperation.
With much love and care,
Mike Morin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
