Forum Post: Life Beyond Capitalism
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 26, 2011, 10:22 a.m. EST by Evolution001
(100)
from Vancouver, BC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many are realizing that a whole range of crises that we face which threatens our lives on this planet as individuals, species, and the related biosphere, from the financial crises to political corruption and totalitarianism to moral and spiritual desolation from jingoistic hypocritical religiosity to morbid nihilism, are all symptoms of the deeper economic systemic now facing rapid global collapse. As all forms of political reforms are being contemplated and rapidly assessed as impractical and / or ineffective considering the enormous historical experience locally, nationally, and internationally and the enormity of the problems we face in all sectors of life on the planet an increasing number of the global population is being forced, often by necessity of survival not just limited to unemployment, to contemplate an existence outside the increasingly self-destructive capitalism.
It is high time to look at the options especially with a historical and scientific approach looking at the success and failures of previous historical attempts as well as the current material conditions that would provide clues for near future attempts as the global movement enters a more serious phase trying to establish real and sustainable alternative materially improving survival and livelihoods on this planet among the growing desperate and destitute.
The following are two videos by Noam Chomsky on alternatives to Capitalism. The two basically make a case for "libertarian socialism" which is distinct from the more commonly known "state socialism or communism" and "state capitalism including state libertarian capitalism". At first glance for the novice in economic history one may be alarmed by the lack of "choices" presented. However, with deeper knowledge and insight through historical research one would find that the choices are always limited and dependent on the level of development in the production - i.e., the material conditions, i.e., an evolutionary process and therefore limited possibilities. Yet ultimately such process moves forward by socio-economic experimental process of history as the "best" or most adaptive option is not made effective by force or will, rather chosen by the greater nature of evolving ground conditions as the more sustainable economic system (i.e., evolution by "natural selection").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJnX96id-xI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y
Please offer comments especially with regards to the immediate practical steps that can be taken tactically and strategically to prepare for such a socioeconomic global transformation especially in relation to the global OWS movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
Economy is said to be the base (infrastructure). Art (part of culture) is related to the superstructure (among which are politics, and spirituality or formalized spirituality as religion). George was a master of "revolutionary" / evolutionary art true to the spirit of the quotes mentioned at the beginning of the first video. If we understand art as politics (actually one level above politics - i.e., overcharged politics, which can be more effective than pure political assertions because it works without more stealthily on more subconscious level affecting emotions and value systems) we should recognize the importance of cultural work and people like him. He is sorely missed by the movement and his greater value is only being recently discovered.
Great videos. I respect the work of Peter in TZM and his valuable contributions to the movement. Nonetheless, I see TZM as a cross between "state socialism / communism" and "libertarian socialism" due to its hierarchical tendencies both in theory and practice as evidenced by the central role Peter himself plays in the organization / autonomy of individual members / etc.
The current political structure of OWS is fundamentally based on "libertarian socialism" i.e., direct democracy and direct action. This is not a surprise not just considering the founders of the movement (anarchists) but more importantly the movement chose them or rather their politics because it resonated with their views and approach having exhausted the more hierarchical and authoritarian politics. Nonetheless, I believe that this politics is still poorly developed especially when one contemplates the needs of a growing movement and more importantly and specifically has not developed a corresponding economic model (i.e., direct collective / communal economics autonomous or independent of capitalism) that I believe it needs affecting and improving the lives of its strategic members (the unemployed and dispossessed - i.e., mid to lower working class) as it struggles to stay and become more relevant.
Great Post!
Noam Nails It Again!
Here are some good ideas:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/approaching-a-metapolitical-discourse/
http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse
Rasta know the way. Check out The Repatriaiton Papers at www.zionearth.net
Right on!
G Edward Griffin
If you don't want a capitalistic global economy then what do you replace it with that works on a global scale for survival for everyone?
I am not sure if you viewed the above videos by Noam Chomsky about "libertarian socialism" because they serve as a good start as to what I am proposing. Such an alternative (i.e., autonomous "workers' councils" where the working people work cooperatively in production and own the means of production commonly exchanging and distributing goods based on need and ability to produce without the use of money) has already happened in history but has not yet taken hold. With capitalism in a rapid self-destructive phase and significant improvements in productivity through advances in science and technology I believe time is ripe for establishment of the new economic system. The task starts with people owning goods and resources jointly without use of money and cooperating in their daily lives in all matters related to their survival - with inclusion of science and technology as the tools to minimize bias, analyze the environment and problems, and improve productivity.
The question of whether human nature is basically altruistic or basically selfish is fundamental to our conceptions about the most favorable social organization. It seems to me that Anarcho-Syndicalism or Libertarian-Socialism relies on an altruistic bias, while Feudalism, Statism, and Democracy, representative or direct, rely on a selfish bias. So, what is the reality of human nature? Is it what we would like it to be, or is it what our neural networks make us? I suspect that no matter how nobly we start out on a social reorganization, if we do not understand basic human nature, our efforts will end in disaster relative to our expectations, and then resolve to a form that best balances the variety of human natural tendencies.
If you have been paying attention to discussions in the various spiritual (enlightenment) communities, you will have seen a great deal about the shift from separateness to unity. Separateness has been promoted so long and so hard by so many that I don't think we can be sure it is truly our nature. More and more people are recognizing that more is done for the benefit of all through cooperation, not competition. Since Capitalism is the supreme example of competition, perhaps that is what is failing, making the world ready to try cooperation.
Cooperation is indeed useful. When two young men need to move a heavy load, cooperation can make it possible. There are times however when competition is necessary. When two young men fall in love with the same young woman, there is bound to be competition, and this is to the young woman's advantage. On a grander scale, both cooperation and competition are effective in producing ideas, goods, and services for the benefit of many. Please see my note below for more on human nature.
Part of my point is that we don't actually, empirically know what human nature is ... we have studied animal nature, of which we share some instincts, but it seems to me that we compete for far more than is natural. We only know what we have been taught and what we have been taught is not necessarily accurate. What the spiritual communities are all discussing is a genuine shift from ego to spirit; ego is the separate, competitive part of us while spirit is the kinder, gentler side, so to speak. Perhaps the entire species is tiring of the consequences our collective egos have created, so the shift will basically put our gentler side in charge, so to speak. For instance, we currently have the ability to feed the entire globe through all those great ideas that have been developed, but competition keeps us from sharing. I, for one, could use a kinder, gentler world. I hope they are right.
I cannot nor do I wish to argue with your desire to have a “kinder, gentler world”. The question, and the thread above, is “Life beyond capitalism” which I interpreted to be “what form of economic society is better, and how do we achieve it?”. Human nature is complex, and all humans do not have exactly the same nature. The variety of comment styles on these many FORUM postings is certainly good evidence for this fact. Our society, though, will eventually reflect the dominant and most common elements of human nature, those propensities that we all share, though some may be able to express them or overcome them more easily than can others. As social planners, such as were our Founding Fathers, and are all other Founding Parents, we try to set up an economic and political system that favors and encourages the better, more survivable aspects of human nature, and discourages or makes it harder to express the more conflicting and destructive elements of human nature. That is, we want to vector human behavior. The idea is a simple one I admit, but human nature has always prevailed over our ignorant attempts to channel human behavior. So, how can we set up a system that permits selfish tendencies to result in broad social benefits, and what kind of system should that be?
Hmm; perhaps we can promote broad social benefits as a desirable aspect of action, the "win-win" concept. Advertising created a society of consumers; perhaps it can also create a society of "sharers".
Very good. Please expand on these directions. And perhaps your ideas then can be amplified by others. For example, what should we encourage a selfish person to do that would profit him/herself and also likely benefit many others in the process? Could we build an economic/political system out of similar encouragements?
Unfortunately, I am limited by my own perspective and having lived in this culture for 67 years; that's a lot of indoctrination! However, I would like for people to imagine (and write about) what the world will look like when all their wishes come true, so to speak. Not personal wishes; wishes for political and economical change. If we cannot imagine the world we want, we certainly cannot create it. Teaching the children practical knowledge with minimal opinion, encouraging cooperative games to achieve a given goal by shared, analytical thinking rather than competing with one another. There are some really good innovative ideas on www.Ted.com. Along the lines of imagining the world, I would love to write a screenplay showing such a world, but the creation of it is where I get stuck. In case you aren't a TV watcher, I have noticed a subtle change: Leverage and Burn Notice about groups helping people in trouble for no fee; Royal Pains about an altruistic doctor (granted, he's in the Hamptons in a luxurious guest house, but he's still altruistic). There may be others. I remain hopeful for humankind. These discussions are a great place to be exposed to different ideas, perspectives, attitudes, etc. from the ones my generation bought into.
Thank you. will bookmark www.ted.com
The only constant in nature is change - human nature is no exception.
Agreed that even human nature can be changed, though by definition human nature is not significantly dependent upon education or experience. Thus, to change human nature we must either be able to control the genome or genetic expression, or modify the organism once it has developed (for example, lesion the brain’s amygdala complex). And this would have to be done for a very large number of individuals, otherwise the dominant nature of the population would prevail in its social systems. But these are not practical suggestions and I do not advocate them. Changing human behavior is also difficult, just like it is difficult to train a dog unless the dog already has the machinery and motivation to perform the critical parts of the task in question. This is why advertising is so effective - the advertising encourages people to do something by indirectly promising that they will achieve a satisfaction of a more basic need. Human behavior is not changed as much as it is redirected. We will have to work with human nature if we intend to modify human behavior, and to work with it we must understand it.
"We will have to work with human nature if we intend to modify human behavior, and to work with it we must understand it."
I agree zymergy. That requires experimentation, but not the kind of experiments that are funded by a profit-minded company / government / economic system (i.e., capitalism) which often distorts "science" and often practices "pseudo-science" wanting us to only believe what would be basically good for profit / status-quo. So we should be careful in our conclusions if our sources are potentially biased to begin with. That includes "genetics" and the role of genes in disease. I think you will find this video that another poster posted above very useful as it covers such issues as "human behavior', "genetics and disease", "health" and "science" in general. It is only a starting point but sets a larger context which I cannot communicate in a few words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Yes, the TZM group produced a very dramatic video, well worth watching. All science should be challenged, and challenged repeatedly. Noel Chomsky, who has earned some respect among readers here, notes that questioning is part of the scientific method. And of course, despite the flaws in the funding and peer pressures on science, the proof of the scientific pudding comes in the resultant technologies that work. The confidence warranted by results from the scientific method are quite high. And just as a side note, I would rather have life-preserving medicines that may sustain the profits of big drug companies, if I cannot have disease curing medical procedures that profit few other than the diseased. It is not the best solution, but it sure is an improvement over what we had two hundred years earlier.
I don't deny that there has been improvements, some very significant. But we must look at the issues in the larger perspective through their interrelationships to see whether we are getting a good deal. If for example, the disease that "life-preserving medicines that may sustain the profits of big drug companies" was treating was itself preventable or caused by another profitable company (even another drug company whose medication for example caused the disease to begin with) what is the real price we are paying? Isn't that how business is these days anyway? Each business ends up hurting you directly (e.g., through their defective / toxic or otherwise harmful product) or indirectly (e.g., through the externalized cost of the production they did not paid for such as pollution and environmental degradation, poor labor pay and practices, even wars for market control) creating "business" for another business who does the same - with the overall short-term and long-term cost often much higher than the benefit. Not to mention that many of the benefits of the "scientific and technological advances" are denied to those who cannot afford to pay causing many in the world to suffer or die even from some of the most basic easily curable or preventable diseases. If a sizeable portion of the global population sees absolutely no benefit from this system with all its "scientific and technological advances" and rather sees unprecedented costs from it (e.g., wars, global warming and adverse weather events related to pollution, new epidemics of globalization of capital, environmental degradation, etc.) how beneficial are really these improvements?
As the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the system go up and its benefits dwindle (becoming almost exclusively for the shrinking 1%) we need to question its legitimacy and look for an alternative sustainable economic system.
A resource-based economy makes a lot of sense. Attention to the environmental, social, and physiological impacts of contemporary industries also should be good policy and practice. We cannot pretend to live and work in our ecology without having an impact upon it. What we face today, and increasingly in the future, are the impacts of billions of people living and working on a planet with finite resources, and with limited ability to recover from the accumulated damage that we do. I doubt though that humanity will ever be able to get it together to adequately minimize our footprints. Rather, I believe, we will have to reverse our population growth so that fewer people are making the small messes of their neighborhoods individually, and manageable messes of the planet collectively. To reverse population growth we do not need to kill anybody’s children, as one woman anxiously asked during a talk by Jacque Fresco, but we do need to restrain our conceptions of new children to slightly below the replacement rate. Nature will take care of the reductions for us. Then, even the present economic system would be sustainable.
Remember a rich man or a rich baby's foot print is much much heavier than a poor man or poor baby's. So unless we get rid of capitalism, I hope most have good plans for "restraining" the life and conceptions of the rich.
You are correct that rich nations have bigger impacts on the environment than poor nations. Interestingly, wealthy nations have lower birth rates, so your suggestion of restraint of the conceptions among the wealthy is already in place, and seems self imposed.
Not anything close to the proportion we need to see. Only when the <1% stopped having babies or adopting ones (who would continue their severe parasitical lifestyles) could we even consider the cause of sustainability within capitalism. That means sterilizing the rich, removing their rights or powers of inheritance / estate rights and powers, or better yet eliminating them. All these are reformist measures which I don't advocate - not on moral ground, not even because they require an enormous amount of power which the rich are not going to hand over, but because such measures do not work anyway as one group will be replaced by another group of the rich doing the same thing under a different guise (maybe under the name of "communism" or "green movement" if that is what the sheeple likes).
The problem is structural / i.e., systemic. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Capitalism has run out of room to grow on this finite planet - high time to experiment with new ways of living (outside of private ownership / profit motive) and help to establish a sustainable economic system.
Socialized Capitalism is where its at. Global labor market system that is "fair" economically, with a non-profit volunteer labor system, and a subsidy system - this was written up on other forums...
When people have no work they go:
Here is a good start: http://guardloan.com/content/Appendix-iii.pdf
We have "socialized capitalism" now, in the form of the "world government" i.e., state capitalism gone global. Although the project is still not entirely done it is at an advanced stage with the various "extra-governmental" global capitalist institutions (e.g., WTO, The World Bank, IMF, International Bank of Settlements, Council of Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, UN, EU, etc.) well established.
How could renting your labor to an employer / master be "fair". I am sure the master would think it is "fair" but the very distinction of two people with such unequal power over their lives undermines this. Just as having slaves and moving them around and treating them "better" could be considered "fair", or tolerating women more and giving them more say in doing the house chores and nursing babies could be considered "fair", etc. Economic apartheid is the most pervasive and essential form of exploitation. Babies are equal (in their helplessness) and so are the dead. All the illusion of inequality in between is the creation of the class system - capitalism. No one should be held responsible for a condition they were born into and for what they were not responsible - i.e., color of skin, sex, and most importantly their economic class.
Capitalism is a ponzi scheme which is unsustainable and depends on the faith of the participants to stay relevant while exposing them to increased risk and higher cost of loss as it grows. We need to cut our losses in make the great transition to a more sustainable economic system.
It seems you suggest that no one should EVER do ANY labor FOR ANYONE???? In this world, according to psychology studies, people are happiest when they are surrounded by people who "love" them and when people "help others" The act of helping others is one the most fulfilling things a person can do. It is often said "If you think about yourself all day you are sure to get depressed. But if you spend your day helping others, you will be much happier."
Your answer is "no labor"? No one should work? And if they work, they shouldn't get paid? And if a person works, they are a "slave". What are you talking about here?
And "No one should be held responsible for a condition they were born into"? Where did you get this? This is EVERYONE's struggle. Everyone is responsible to deal with their situation, with their parents, how they were born. So good parents should not be able to help their children? And bad parents should get the benefits of the work by the good parents?
The socialized capitalism we have now is from welfare, and unemployment insurance. The IMF, world bank, etc., you mentioned do VERY LITTLE for the social capitalism we have today.
You misunderstand the word "fair" in economics. Fair means a fair fight. It doesn't the losers get their "fair" share of the money. Anytime govt gives money to someone, it must take money from someone else.
We are all the product of the work of our parents and grandparents and great grandparents, etc.It may not "fair" according to your definition of "fair", but according to nature, to Gd, and most people, it is "fair".
If you think " No one should be held responsible for a condition they were born into and for what they were not responsible", go talk to Gd, and change the world, because that's exactly how the world is, and has been, for billions of years.
Children whose parents work hard, and are good people, generally have MUCH better lives than children whose parents don't work hard and are bad people. That's life here on earth. This is generally what happens, but there are lots of times people work themselves out of being born in a bad situation.
Sounds like you are communist and think that everyone should have the same amount of money and same amount of everything. But people are different. Some want to work hard for money, others dont. Some people like money, others dont. Communism breeds much more theft and corruption than capitalism.
Capitalism works fine if its done right. The problem is it ain't being done right in the USA. There is too much theft. If there would not have so much THEFT in the USA for the past 10 years, Occupy would not be here, because people would have enough money.
What communist remark is this? "Capitalism is a ponzi scheme which is unsustainable and depends on the faith of the participants to stay relevant while exposing them to increased risk and higher cost of loss as it grows" What do you mean by "relevant"? Capitalism is obviously sustainable, it's still here.
What is your "more sustainable economic system"?
You have a lot more to read and experience before you have reached the point of understanding our economic plight here on Earth.
Stop being rude and condescending; you may learn something new that you never considered. "It seems you suggest that no one should EVER do ANY labor FOR ANYONE????" where did you get that idea. I said no one should rent their labor - i.e., work for wages - because that is a form of slavery, it leaves you open to profit by your master / employer who could then underpay you and live of your life energy. Can you think of an alternative way of working without getting "paid" by wages? I'd like you to think about it and find the answer (rather me just telling you).
"And "No one should be held responsible for a condition they were born into"? Where did you get this? This is EVERYONE's struggle. Everyone is responsible to deal with their situation, with their parents, how they were born." That is the dominant way of thinking, but is that right or "fair"? So if you were born black you should just deal with it even if that meant you were being discriminated based on your skin color? Or if you were born a handicapped should you just be told to deal with it? How about if you were born very poor and your parents could not take care of you or abused you one way or another should you be told to deal with it, including if you still had consequences related to your messed up life as you grew into an "adult"?
What you consider "fair" and "That's life here on earth", is not true. How much stealing would be fair? If you understand that the rich man can get rich only by stealing someone else's labor. How else would they get rich? If they get to get lucky either borne in a rich family or get an opportunity that others didn't have and then take advantage of it (by variety of means including education, opening a business, or an overt con game, etc.) to profit from your lack of knowledge / experience / connections / opportunities? And then tell you that is "fair", that is "life on earth". But that measure we just need to become even more tolerant of the 1% as they become the 0.1%, and then 0.001%, etc. as they accumulate and win on the backs of you and I and many much more miserable. How do you think they got to be the 1%? Where did they start from? If that is life on earth then I guess we should still praise Gd in all his wisdom even as he has definately taken sides for the rich and against the poor. Shouldn't we question what role religion has played in all this?
Capitalism works fine for the rich people but when has it worked fine for the poor people? Since when is it fine to be unequal and have a master or masters who steal from you and then stay as a master because you keep working for them without them paying you the real value of your labor? That is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Isn't that oppression? Is it ok to be oppressed? Has the earth always been like this? If not what happened and when and why? Is it possible to change and if so why, how and when?
"And "No one should be held responsible for a condition they were born into"? Where did you get this? This is EVERYONE's struggle. Everyone is responsible to deal with their situation, with their parents, how they were born." That is the dominant way of thinking, but is that right or "fair"? So if you were born black you should just deal with it even if that meant you were being discriminated based on your skin color? Or if you were born a handicapped should you just be told to deal with it? How about if you were born very poor and your parents could not take care of you or abused you one way or another should you be told to deal with it, including if you still had consequences related to your messed up life as you grew into an "adult"?
WHAT ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO DO? Get new parents? Change your skin color? Pretend you are not handicapped? None of us have a choice.... What world do you think you can create that's REAL?
What you consider "fair" and "That's life here on earth", is not true. How much stealing would be fair? NO STEALING is fair.
If you understand that the rich man can get rich only by stealing someone else's labor. How else would they get rich? Singing rap songs works pretty well. Artists are rich. Let's see, small mom and pop stores who save their money and invest well - these people get rich. I know a guy who got rich doing catering for people. There are lots of ways. If you want, if you work hard, get a team of people, and start a business. A cookie business? People get rich off of cookies! There are thousands of examples of nice people, just like you, getting "rich". Occupy is NOT about preventing people from getting rich. Occupy is about stopping THE THEFT by corporations. If the corporations made their money fair and square, that would be different - but they have not done so.
If they get to get lucky either borne in a rich family or get an opportunity that others didn't have and then take advantage of it (by variety of means including education, opening a business, or an overt con game, etc.) to profit from your lack of knowledge / experience / connections / opportunities? Ever hear of Mike Tyson? The Internet is FILLED with THOUSANDS and maybe MILLIONS of stories of people without anything, no family, no money, and they made it RICH in America. And these people, who were from other countries, say they NEVER could have been successful in their prior country, because the governments stole everything. Now our good old USA govt is helping corporations steal.
And then tell you that is "fair", that is "life on earth". THIS COMMENT means YOU don't understand what life on earth is like and the reality of it. Below, which is what you wrote, is not what I said or meant. There are REASONS why the wealth accumulated the way it has. Some of it, is due to technology and the changes we are all going through. And a lot of it, is the power of the markets was controlled by a few, and they stole from the rest of us. It doesn't mean "nobody should be allowed to be rich". It means "stop the theft".
"Since when is it fine to be unequal and have a master or masters who steal from you and then stay as a master because you keep working for them without them paying you the real value of your labor? " When I get my billions, I will hire you, or FUND you, and you won't have to feel like a slave anymore. Just give me a few months. And promise me you will well and honest. And you will have plenty of vacation time, no more than 30 hrs a week... or less, and you will never get fired. That's what people like me are about.....
That is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Isn't that oppression? Is it ok to be oppressed? On earth, MANY people ARE oppressed. I AM oppressed. I am going to fight out of it, and when I do, I will help you too. But that is life here on Earth, fighting oppression is what we do.
Has the earth always been like this? Yes. Since the dinosaurs and before... just look at nature.
"Is it possible to change and if so why, how and when?" You have to adapt to your environment, love your enemies, they only make you stronger, especially when you win, and get a new career! STOP that slave labor you are tolerating! Tell them to go to hell! And pray you find something else.....
It seems your experience with labor may have been that of a "salaried" worker. I worked successfully for 20 years, but only 2 years as a salaried worker. The other 18 years I was happily working as a contractor. Your position and personality and risk tolerance may not lend itself to contracting, so you were stuck with salaried positioning where your bosses treated you in a way that is "a form of slavery", and they probably "underpaid" you, and "lived off your life energy."
The only reason you tolerated not being treated well and not being paid well, was because you had no other opportunity.
My work experience was MUCH different. I was not underpaid, I was paid rather well. Most of my contracts were 3, 6, and 9 month contracts. None of my "clients" or "employers" could treat me in a way like your bosses did. If they treated me similar to a "form of slavery", I could make a new contract with a new client quickly. I was getting three (3) calls a day for work, for years. My skills were in high demand, for a while.
My solution? For people like you, develop skills in a few areas. For example, one person I know teaches violin, delivers packages, does accounting, and raises money for an environmental non-profit - they earn a little on the donations they attract. In the future you will go to the new future global labor system, which has a different environment, wherein if an employer treats you badly and underpays you, you never go to them or others like them. You will be able to find new clients.
In the solution we built 10 years ago, which you will probably ALREADY use, when formal labor markets are buil with it, you will never have that slave mentality feeling again. And if you don't like labor, at least we all should be able to grow our own food.
Your question of: Can you think of an alternative way of working without getting "paid" by wages? I'd like you to think about it and find the answer (rather me just telling you). doesn't interest me. Sounds like some utopia. I have a college degree in Economics, and I understand that when markets are not theft ridden, and prices reflect real values, that money is an amazing tool for humans to use to understand each other's needs. I don't think your alternative is something is real.
It is true that my work experience has been MUCH different than yours but you are incorrect about my background. I worked over 25 years as a professional - mostly service sector and mostly as an "independent" contractor but also as a salaried employee for both the "private" and "government" sectors. I found out that on the whole being an "independent" contractor was no better than a salaried employee because in both cases I was ultimately serving a big boss (or the big bosses) who controlled the tap. I did not have much difficulty finding a job because I worked in a high demand area of service sector but as the economy gradually declined my work load (and risks) got more while my net pay actually declined. All this while the big bosses up on top who did no more work or took no more risk got rich filthier and filthier. II found the resources I needed to continue my job shrinking to a point where I could hardly even do my job effectively. I complained several times on behalf of "my" clients and was lambasted and disciplined. With no possibility of an effective "union" and due to increased competition in the market my colleagues were similarly isolated / demoralized / intimidated and so resisted organizing with everyone basically divided and conquered. It got to the point that they came after me to make an "example" and discipline me. My health suffered greatly and I am now partly disabled and unable to work. I have developed many skills (manual and intellectual) and have several high education degrees which do not reflect half what I have learned.
But the issue is not just about me or you. Even if I had lived comfortably or much more miserably the issue is about survival on this planet as a species. You are right that if I just was somehow unlucky or maladjusted I should try something else or find a way to deal with it individually. But the issue is much bigger,deeper, and pervasive than that - i.e., it is global and systemic.
There is much back and forth discussion we can do which is fine (considering at least from my point of view that this is not just an individual conversation and we have a wider audience, and I am hoping to learn something new through my experience with you whether directly or indirectly).
But when we talk about the need for a system change we often imply the need for a different way of looking at things - a "paradigm shift" or a "different logic / worldview / ideology" - which is by definition a contextual issue i.e., you need to consider the bigger picture or "think out of the box". In the field of "science" for example it would be like trying to explain "quantum mechanics" to a person for the first time who only knows "classical or Newtonian mechanics", "evolution" for the first time to someone who only knows "natural history" or "creation" explanation of variations in species, "the germ theory of disease" for the first time to someone who only knows the "Aristotelian view of the body". Because context is so important in this and would be hard to communicate over few lines I suggest this video that someone on this thread posted earlier above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
It covers a seemingly wide range of topics but actually is focused on the economic structure / system and its pervasive influence on things like health, environment and weather, politics, culture, etc. Once you view it we could then critic the elements e.g., from validity of the big thesis that the economic system i.e., capitalism is at the root of most other problems to the proposed system change and the specific solution that the author advocates. Please understand that I am not necessarily advocating "the specific solution".
BTW my father used to have a summer apt in Vancouver on Robson Street. Over 10 years he had it, and he invited me up there one time. I saw vancouver and LOVED it!
My vision, was to have a much bigger market of day and week and month labor, reducing salary labor - thereby everyday people would have choices and communicate and be able to form unions because of the site. I had a startup - hired a software team, and led them to build a patented pricing method which is now used throughout the Internet, almost everywhere. Of course instead of using the pricing method to create a formal labor system with unions, Corp Greed used it in other ways, for "ads" and other things. When I get to run the system, people will be in much better position to unionize. But first I have to exclude the others from using it, which is the right granted by the USA patent office.
But I am impressed with your writing! You are intelligent!
If people accept the fact that technology reduces the need for labor, and eventually only 5% of us need to work, and that figure is probably around 50% now. if people accept this, than, use our work from our startup, wherein our vision and technology is set to help people worldwide, and where we invented and created a COMPLETE solution to GLOBAL labor 10 YEARS AGO, things would be better.
It is a tremendous way for humanity to communicate instantly their demand and supply of labor for everyone,
Did the pricing mechanism work? To the tune of $15 billion a year. It now controls over $400 billion of commerce a year, most of it labor or services.
But the corp greed people tweaked the system so NO unions would form, and small business and small labor is left out of markets. The corp greed people "change" people's prices, which is a violation of anti-trust, so them and their partners get most of the money. THEY SHARE NOTHING!
If I re-implement the system, contact all the counties, let them know what's going on, and its accepted to implement it the way I am saying, the global labor problem will be almost 100% solved.
It doesn't mean everyone will have work everyday - but it means that humanity, instantly, for the first time in human history, will know, and be able to respond, to every demand and supply of labor across the planet. The efficiencies are HUGE!
Whether its a child who needs tutoring, or an engineer is needed to fix a bridge, EVERYONE's demand and supply for labor will be able to be quantified, recorded, and communicated to the people who can fill the supply and demand. It's an AMZAZING system! It uses money as a GREAT "invisible hand" to help humans communicate instantly!
So what happens to the people who have no paid work or have non-profit work for the day? Two choices: subsidy or give them land to grow food.
With this labor system govt will be able to give out subsides and know what they are doing, without excessive fraud. What a great system!
So when I tell my story to most Occupy people they have this attitude - "oh, you were supposed to be one of the 1%, you were supposed to be very rich, well I hate you already, and I am glad you got your stuff stolen. I don't believe anyone should have the right to great wealth."
I respond: "Yes I am going to get back what's mine, but my entire focus, for 10 years, is to win back control of the system for two reasons: (i) it's my intellectual property that is patented and copyrighted and I will get my money (ii) my invention is not being used correctly - it can help the 99% in huge ways, and it's not, but it can (iii) I want the credit - I want everyone to know what I invented. It's as if someone painted the mono lisa, and someone else got credit for it. People like getting credit for their work - nothing wrong with that. With the credit I can help people even more.
So here I have this great thing, and I get ZERO support from Occupy, and my ENTIRE direction is helping Occupy and I am probably one of the ten people on earth, best positioned to help the Occupy people, and none of the Occupy people care - it's a bazaar twist. I don't need Occupy to get my money - I will do that with this that I created 5 years ago:
http://www.iaej.org
And I will help others with getting their property back in a sort of robinhood way. i am advocating a specific solution we created 10 years ago, because it works.
PLEASURE blogging with you!
You are most definitely entitled to your invention and the work that went into it. Now, for the rub. I sense that you will like the spoils that go with getting it back. Many people can get rich and say that they are doing whatever it is they are doing for the 99%. But individuals want the credit AND the money. How much will you give to the 99% and how much will you keep for yourself? I say you keep whatever you want and give whatever you want to the 99%. It is YOURS after all.
by the end of my life, I want to have spent it all - either on Occupy or living well. psychologists say that people are happiest when they are surrounded by people that love them, and when people help other people. Helping other people is one of the best feelings in the world.
I figure if I help lots of people I won't even need money, well maybe a little. I want to create Internet wealth distribution systems to enable the 99% to have money. I want to free fathers from prison before their child becomes an adult. I want to get police forces to use exclusively carry non-lethal weapons. I want to put in public transport in all these cities and suburbs that need them. I want to build parks where the land and city developers did not, around the country.
I want to go into war torn places with Sports celebrities and maybe start a soccer game in the middle of a war to try and stop the war. I want to do all that stuff.
Quite frankly, even though I am broke now, like all the 99% people, I was from a wealthy family, and have travelled and lived a fairly luxurious life, though not like big celebrity and private jets or stuff, but I have lived in nice real estate, and flown to to alaska and africa and Europe. I already did the "rich kid stuff". So just using my money to party is NOT the goal. i am too mature for that now. Maybe before, but not now.
I want to live the life I had stolen from me. And I want to see my invention do what it was intended to do, to help the 99%. Its what motivated me to invent it. I created something "fair" economically, thats why it worked. Ironically, all those others who tried to invent the next big thing were just trying to make money for themselves. I was trying to create the next best thing for the WORLD - not me. And that incentive, was why my invention worked, and the others failed. There were not making a fair deal and I was making a fair deal. And that's why consumers keeping coming back, because the pricing reflects the real value.
This is what the attorney told me after they reviewed the invention: "the big Internet companies definitely infringe. But do you want to know what I am most impressed about with this patent?" I said: "What?" She said: "The Date, you were 18 months before anyone else had patent applications similar to this." I said: "Well I really invented it.
Some inventors have hundreds of patents, where they try claim every little improvement is some grand invention. I have one patent, but it's real and its valid.
Thanks for being KIND! I get a lot of abuse! But i can handle it....
By "relevant" I meant that people keep participating in it (i.e., getting a job or looking for one, buying or selling using money, paying taxes - any of these three keeps feeding capitalism along with all its "goods" and "bads"). Ponzi means that it is a system that benefits only a very few at the top because the real costs and risks to the participants is huge. One example would be you get a job that doesn't pay even well but are told you get insurance and retirement benefits. Then after paying into it by your labor find out the insurance has a very high deductible you cannot afford, or you have to go to some assigned doctors that even don't have an office in your town or even state, and that your retirement went bust because they invested your money in some risky bonds or stocks, or simply your company changed its structure and now filed for bankruptcy and can't pay while the managers (masters) cashed out long before with their high salaries / retirement / mansions etc. off your back. All this in the name of business / market / risks and perfectly legal - i.e., even without premeditation / manipulation / conspiracy part and parcel of capitalism. Can you think of a larger scale? Say companies packing up and leaving to go elsewhere where they can find cheaper labor / pollute easier /etc. Or say the state or government with the political class enriching itself directly and indirectly passing laws that would benefit their investments, going in and out of government to business working both ends, going to wars to strengthen their markets, and then putting the tab on the shoulder of the working class enslaving them with more debt and then blaming the "previous" administrations for their "failures" (obviously no failure, rather success in "just business" of "politics").
Communist? What does that word mean? How many definitions? Which definition according to whom and why defined that way or different from any other?
Could we say "Capitalism is obviously sustainable, it's still here." Wouldn't the rich say shut up and take it, it is sustainable because it is here; and then squeeze us more. Isn't that how we got here, by accepting that Capitalism is sustainable? How far could this go before it becomes unsustainable? Should we just sacrifice our lives and others to keep Capitalism sustainable if that is what keeps it sustainable?
Let us analyze before we jump into conclusions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
No need to fight against capitalism! Need fight against of the heresy! And, need proclaim the truth to the world.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism. I don't want anyone telling me that I can't climb as high as I want to.
However, capitalism without a conscience is not good.Our society needs to help one another and know that everyone deserves a basic standard of living. No one should go with out a place to live, food to eat, clean water to drink, fresh air to breath and a doctor if they need one.
We need regulation, so that people who want to prosper, at the expense of their fellowman and planet, will be stopped!
We have wasted many precious lives (oppressed, tortured, killed) and much precious time (at least two centuries) trying to tame the beast / reform capitalism. Now it has grown into a global monster and time has run out with our extinction and that of most our dependent biosphere imminent. Every thing has a beginning and an end, a time and place. Let's be more thoughtful and considerate. I do not know how comfortably you live, or how aware of the fatal consequences of this system you are, but Capitalism ran out of its usefulness long time ago (at least by WW1 which announced its grotesque global dysfunction). The only reason it has been around so long is because it has succeeded in dumbing down the masses but even much more importantly because no new economic alternative has been seriously attempted on a scale and duration long enough to convince the masses to jump off the titanic.
This thread is mostly about discussing the alternatives and how to get there short and long-term.
I'm a Keynesian capitalist myself. A free market with good regulation, government policies that develop human capital and create an educated/high-skill workforce by funding education, boost consumer spending by helping families with the budget, build good public infrastructure to support the economy, and generally give a helping hand to people who want to improve themselves, to help people to help themselves, I think that's the way to go.
To me it isn't even about conscience. Keynesian policies just have a better track record of results, the mixed economy was simply superior in every measurable aspect to this experiment in moving towards unregulated capitalism, which is failing. Pure capitalism is as nonsensical as pure socialism.
legal weed NOW
oh my, another spammer. And you want to help change the world? Good luck to the 99%.
I always thought that there is something wrong with capitalism. And now as I informed myself about debitism I can clearly see the root problem in our system. And I think if the number of people knowing about this new theory of economics reaches a critical mass the changes will come very quick. So please distribute the following link:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/maybe-this-will-get-the-support-of-mainstream-medi/
You are basically correct but have touched on only a small part of the system. Since money especially fiat money (as in US) is essentially an empty promise it is by definition a pyramid scheme. Capitalism is basically a giant pyramid scheme because it is based on the faith of the 99% participants believing not just on the value of its money but its whole hierarchy / authority / structure and institutions. Once the masses wake up from their sheepish slumber on their way to butcher shop and decide they don't need masters and can run their own lives (by principles of direct democracy) based on a viable economic system with sustainable economic principles (principally of common ownership i.e., no commodities / no money) the whole pyramid collapses.
Please can we discuss this under my topic? So the information keeps in one place and doesn't get distributed over the whole forum.
Here you will find my answer: http://occupywallst.org/forum/maybe-this-will-get-the-support-of-mainstream-medi/#comment-434699
Chomsky is so delusional. “In comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.” - Chomsky
The truth- The communists murdered 4 million people in the Ukraine; 753,000 in Poland; 360,000 in Romania; 300,000 in Belarus; 200,000 in Hungary; 100,000 in East Germany; 100,000 in Lithuania; 70,000-100,000 in Yugoslavia; 30,000-40,000 in Bulgaria; 20,000 in Czechoslovakia; and 5,000 in Albania. Other atrocities included the murder of over 500,000 POWs in Soviet captivity and the mass rape of at least 2 million women by the Red Army.
Chomsky: “Western norms require that we compare Eastern and Western Europe to demonstrate our virtue and their vileness, a childish absurdity… Elementary rationality would lead someone interested in alternative social and economic paths to compare societies that were more or less alike before the Cold War began, say Russia or Brazil… Such comparisons, if honestly undertaken, would elicit some self-reflection among decent people…"
The truth - In Russia, Lenin’s food confiscations inflicted famine on over 33 million people, including 7 million children, and left 4-5 million dead; Stalin’s assault on the peasants killed another 8.5 million, half of them children.4 Brazil experienced nothing of the kind.
Chomsky: “There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable… [In China] a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.”
The Truth - The communists reduced 550 million peasants to slavery. They forced at least 90 million to work on furnace-building projects alone. When famine resulted, they cut the food ration and used mass terror to stop the peasants eating their own harvest. Victims, including children, were tortured, buried alive, strangled or mutilated.
Sorry that the truth is not as straight forward as you like it to be. Chomsky is not my Guru (in fact I have none) but he is demonstrating the harsh conditions that the above countries were struggling with with some success and much failure principally because they all had poorly developed economies and moreover were ruled by state capitalists known as "communists". The atrocities you mention are the handiwork of state capitalists (even if they are called themselves the "Red Army"). Do you still believe China is "communist" after all these years? Wasn't Putin and practically all the Russian oligarchs from the inner core of the "communist" Soviet Union?
Who is delusional here? I hope you reconsider your ways for your sake and the movement - cause I know you are part of the 99%.
I'm part of the % that who works hard to provide for his family and fulfill all obligations I have. The percentage that has overcome obstacles and challenges without relying on others or expecting handouts. I am part of the percentage that is willing to shovel crap for three dollars an hour if it were to become one of the options I had to choose from in order to feed my children. I am part of the percentage that is greatful for what opportunities I have had in life even when I had to create some of those opportunities. I am part of the percentage that loves this nation and percieves it as being the best place in the world in terms of diversity, freedom, and standard of living. Even with all imperfections our government is much more trustworthy and open-hearted than any other in the world. I dislike Obama and would never vote for the guy, but I wouldnt let a second pass before I stood up for him against any foreign leader becuase he is our president. China is still very much a communist nation. They have loosened up a bit on some regulations over commerce to allow growth to occur in the private sector but it is in no way a balanced mixed economy, it continues top operate as a very centralized economy.
I am supposed to believe you for that personal stuff, right? Even if true, lucky you; before your luck runs out, then what will you expect.
If you judge every book by its cover then why don't you say I am Jesus, because I just told you so. Or do you believe only those that feed you all that crap from the day you were born?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GseyaEibb_4
I lived in a country that was colonized by both the Soviet Union and United States (as well as Britain before the two). Of all the three capitalists (yes the Soviet Union also had a state capitalist system, if you studied economic history carefully and also actually listened to Chomsky instead of rewinding your prejudiced indoctrinations) the Americans were the most vicious and oppressive - i.e., the worst of the three evils. I will take none of them. No master. No Executioner. Capitalists of all colors and stripes go to hell!
Well, since you are used to moving from country to country and you obviously do not favor the U.S. then maybe you should go try North Korea. They love communism and it works out perfect for them.
Now you show your true colors. I thought so.
Iggy.
The truth about communism , the left doesn't want to hear or read it. They think it didn't work because the wrong people were in charge. Wrongs. it never works because it's a non workable system.
What is "communism"? Based on whose definition? Why did you choose that one and not the others? Who is the left? By whose definition? Why did you choose that and not the others? What does didn't work mean? Didn't work for whom? Who are the wrong people in charge? What does non-workable mean? Seems like you have more questions than answers. Give it a big shake. The masters are enjoying your record player.
Individuals thinking collectively, soon let the hive think for them. Each drone is just a single cell and of no individual consequence to the organism, and by definition expendable. This is the fate of well meaning progressives, utopia-ists, intellectuals, and social engineers as well as to the purely evil. Give in, Drink the Kool-aid, be done with it!
On the contrary, individuals thinking and acting for their own personal interests without social responsibility become isolated and are expendable with no effective defense when the big fish (the 1%) comes for the kill. Drunk with Kool-aid don't get you far!
"Hang together, or hang alone!"
Great post.
Good post. Life beyond capitalism has been decided for us years ago by our global leaders, it's called UN Agenda 21. This new system will destroy consumerism (on a global scale) and is to ensure fossil fuels will not be used up. They believe that global warming (want you to believe it too) is going to destroy us all, so we must drastically change the cause - Man. FEMA, UN Troops and Homeland security will be used to round us up if a disaster ever happens or a global economic collapse ensues..
United Nations Millennium Declaration:
"22. We reaffirm our support for the principles of sustainable development, including those set out in Agenda 21, agreed upon at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development." http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUWByt813fA&feature=related
FEMA webpage on "Planning for a Sustainable Future: the Link Between Hazard Mitigation and Livability" http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1541
Our global elites are using the "good of the environment" slogan instead of "good of society" which communists have used in the past to justify their devious plans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8Yv4YLz9k&feature=related
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,”
Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Capital is defined as theft of labor power on industrial scale. The fact that there already is a world government (that they are planning to expand and entrench ad infinitum) does not contradict the capitalist nature of this slave system. They have their agenda and the 99% must have theirs. You keep playing their game (capitalism) where they set the rules and change it by will and whimm and you expect what?
Help find a real solution (i.e., an alternative economic system). That is what this thread is all about.
I don't see how your response is appropriate for this discussion thread. Please be responsible.
Evo, You missed the train, the decisions for our future has been decided without us. I think you'll be happy to hear, they chose communism, except it won't be governed in Moscow, but rather in New York City (UN). Homeland Security, FEMA, Patriot Act laws and International Laws are set up to change America into a new country once a national disaster such as an economical collapse takes place. Meet the your orchestrator, Stephen Lerner, Former SEIU Exec. Here the plan in his own words in March of theis year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQiFW2YDLM&feature=related According to White House visitor logs, “Stephen Lerner” has visited the White House four times over the past two years.
Now I ask you, why do you think Obama supports the OWS, SEIU, and talks about how he's working so hard to fix our economy?
Why did Obama force all banks to take bailouts, when many did not want the bailouts?
I think it was to hide which banks they favor - corruption.
I'm afraid we might be deemed "useful idiots" by history, if we do not recognize what our leaders have planned. I hope We will have a say, but through chaos comes change, so be careful what you ask for.
Hang on to your beloved capitalism troll. Hang on to your titanic.
Bye Bye.
You're right - I'm trying to hold onto a dream. Capitalism is pretty much dead. We have been living in a socialist state/mixed with corporate fascism for some time now. Where the government picks winners and losers not the free market (it's who you know...), but with all socialist countries they fail because of corruption and public debt.
"It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." Ayn Rand