Human nature has the capacity to correct course. The course premised on a balance. Within that balance are infinite possibilities to create. If we are locked into human systems such as our economic and culture theologies they/we will take us straight off the cliff – crash and burn.

Human’s naturally consume more that any other species, but we have the capacity to husband much of what we consume and to intentially care and be stewards of scarcity. For example, a compelling argument can be made that humans are not naturally warring creatures. That war is an anomoly or exploitation of our nature to be secure. That people can be “driven” to war is a fact; but it is an intentional act of domination and power; not a natural inclination.

As this consumptive/economy unravels, there is no certainty that we will not fragment into authoritarian fiefdoms; but there is choice and it is collectively and individually ours.

bozhidar bob balkas: Well said! The theoretical fundamentals of most ideologies are rarely implemented completely in the real world, and those that are often mutate rapidly in response to circumstance. As a result, espoused ideologies are almost never implemented. (One exception might be Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime, and we all know how well that worked.) So, “is” and “does” ARE often significantly different. “Never the twain shall meet.”

And kudos to you! I agree, the standard “boxes” are typically far too limiting. Many years ago, I was introduced to an article on “adaptive muddling”, the normal process by which constructive consensus is usually achieved — i.e., adapting to real-world circumstances and muddling collectively towards a mutually acceptible solution. I was incredibly impressed at the time with the idea that, as haphazard as the process sometimes appears to be, it usually works out far better than attempts to pursue any rigidly dogmatic agenda, which may not address the full scope of the problems and may even fail to recognize them, due to inherent limitations in such models.

Sadly, profoundly democratic approaches like that are no longer much in evidence here in the Fourth Reich — at least within our “government”.

“What Rough Beast…”
by William Norman Grigg
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w52.html
__________

I have to admit, I’ve long had a profound admiration for Libertarian sentiments (as well as Socialist notions), with notable exceptions — primarily the unequivocal deference usually afforded to “free enterprise”. People, I believe, should be free; capitalism, I think, should be WELL-regulated.

Alas, there’s no truly fitting label for my erstwhile ideology, since “Libertarian Socialism” is essentially considered a variant of Anarchism. (Lucky for me that I’m not much of an ideologue, or I’d be chronically confused.) ;-)

Before Reagan, we had a fairly intact sytem of regulation in this country that served the common good relatively well. We also had much stronger organized labor movements, that helped to balance the human needs of the workers with the corporate greed of the owners. Then came the maverick trend toward “free market” deregulation, privatization, globalization, and union busting. All of those reverse innovations have proven disastrous and are massively contributory to the current financial crisis, in my mind. The “market” is obviously incapable of any self-regulation. So even a solid restoration of the prior, relatvely effective controls over the business sector would go far in eradicating the US economy’s newfound propensity for self-destruction. (Of course, revoking the lingering, historically erroneous notion of “corporate personhood”, in deference to GENUINE personhood, would be a very good idea.)

Alas, I’m not at all convinced that there’s enough “integrity” extant in the Congress for it to even attempt sincerely to reverse this conspicuously Fascistic trend that’s been enthusiastically pursued for the past few decades. That being the case, the only likely motivator for legislative reform would be the one that’s been used against the people throughout the Bush Regime’s tenure — fear. Only the threat of massive civil unrest and upheaval, I think, is likely to upset this particular “apple cart”, since we seem to have already reached the state of “Mafia capitalism-and a Mafia political system” envisioned by Polanyi (above).

A “consensus of Universal Human Needs”? Sounds pretty optimal to me! Plus we do have some foundation for that in established UN philosophy. The problem, of course, is ever getting it into the “gut” of the US, which MAY just require a little Gitmo-style force-feeding.

May we [the People] prevail, Max! Otherwise, I see this country quite possibly heading down the same long, dark tunnel that was entered by Germany in the mid-1930’s.

What I have found particularly encouraging about this discussion is that people seem to be looking for solutions. We seem to be moving on from endlessly proving the system is broken, which we all know, and considering what to DO about it.

Also most of this discussion has taken a polite and civilised form. I always think its a shame when we sneer at each other. Change is only going to come from us; we could really do with not falling out with each other. Whilst ideas must be challenged and tested and argued against it’s so important to do it in a civilised fashion.

The reason – compounded growth is in the process of hitting a finite planet. The US (and Western) economies are based on a growth pattern which is in the process of hitting its outlimits.

So, when we talk about Capitalism and Socialism we need to keep in mind that what we’ve known will be utterly changed because of what is happening. This is a course we are on. How we intentionally adapt to this trajectory is the unknown – it will take a political will which has yet to materialize.

The established system of government (and these establishment candidates) will continue to lean on the past – what was, when that is clearly unusable.

Your clarification and mention of the Great Transformation is useful.

While I appreciate your use of the term “sensible” regarding the blending of Socialism and Capitalism, I would prefer a template void of either term. Not to abandon the best of both but to start with a fresh consensus of Universal Human Needs.

If we start there we’ll create an economy which is suited for a healthier existence on the planet.

Again, that doesn’t mean we won’t end up with a sensible combination of Capitalism and Socialism, but we’ll avoid trying to make those work in some kind of homogenized fashion.

Cheers
Max

I take your meaning clearly now — thanks for the clarification.

While I nevertheless hold firm to the conviction that capitalism IS an inherently evil system, I profess that belief only insofar as the raw essence of capitalism is concerned. (Of course, according to the prevailing “free market” capitalism mindset, anything else is simply NOT “capitalism.)

I would agree that someone who genuinely works harder should be rewarded appropriately for that greater effort — noting, too, that such can also be the case in Socialistic sytems. But under the woefully unregulated Capitalism of this country nowadays, such “proportional remuneration” is more hypothetical than real. Those few who control the vast majority of wealth in this country cannot be considered to be “working harder” in any sense proportional to their frequently massive compensation. To the contrary, a great many of the most obscenely wealthy in the US hardly work at all!

Still, when I speak of “the inherent evil of Capitalism”, I am referring to its absolute form — unfettered by government restrictions intended to protect the common welfare — where it operates parasitically on society as a whole. I doubt that I would propose either polar extreme (Capitalism or Communism) as an “ideal”, favoring instead a sensible middle ground that blends elements of both economic systems to serve the greater good. (However, to any hardcore “Capitalist”, that brands me a Socialist.)

The following excerpt probably illustrates my thoughts on this issue far better than I can:

“America’s Political Cannibalism”
by Chris Hedges
http://www.commondreams.org/print/33357

‘… Karl Polanyi [1] in his book “The Great Transformation,” written in 1944, laid out the devastating consequences-the depressions, wars and totalitarianism-that grow out of a so-called self-regulated free market. He grasped that “fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function.” He warned that a financial system always devolved, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism-and a Mafia political system-which is a good description of the American government under George W. Bush. Polanyi wrote that a self-regulating market, the kind bequeathed to us since Ronald Reagan, turned human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. He decried the free market’s belief that nature and human beings are objects whose worth is determined by the market. He reminded us that a society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic worth beyond monetary value, ultimately commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves until they die. Speculative excesses and growing inequality, he wrote, always destroy the foundation for a continued prosperity. …’

“We need a sustainable economy, sensitive to the cultures and human relationships its helps to foster. A pertnership society, rather than a hierarchical empire society – as we now have.”

There’s only one serious objection to this model – the colonization of outer space. If outer space becomes able to be colonized and lived on by capitalists and their slaves, capitalism will have an almost infinite resource to exploit, rather than the current meager single planet.

When one examines the motivations for “environmentalists” one finds that it is not so much “love of the environment” that fuels them, but fear of death (animal, plant, and human). That’s why it’s only in recent decades (when that fear has increased greatly) that environmentalism has become powerful.

The single way for capitalism to continue it’s reign of terror is to expand to the stars. Other planets will become colonies, the “motherland” where those resources flow will be the Earth, and “environmentalists” and their “love of the environment” will fade into oblivion, since they can just live on Earth, which can be maintained as a lush paradise, as much of the rest of the universe is exterminated.

This expansion to outer space can only be fueled by high technology, therefore Noam Chomsky is wrong when he speaks of the “neutrality of technology”. Given that the ONLY thing that can sustain capitalism is technology itself, the only way to assure the prevention of a future for capitalism (or hierarchical socialism, bear in mind that many high-tech futurists are top-down socialists, as all that socialism does is redistribute wealth obtained through violence) is to take down technology, so that an expansion to outer space becomes impossible.

The left virtually ignores this issue, and fortunately capitalists are so short-sighted that their ability to plan for *their* long-term future is meager. I wouldn’t rule it out, however, as the modern left has done.

ALL powerful states, from those of the United States to the Soviet Union to China, whether Communist or Capitalist, support an expansion to the stars and the perpetual project of capitalist exploitation.

Where was the American Left during the Space Race of the 1960s? Cheering it on?

I think that you have made a wise observation: that there are times when unbiased evaluations of economic (and other) systems are impossible. I can only hope that you are correct that now is such a time for evaluating capitalism since we are rapidly running out of time to avoid a fait accompli requiring the general suppression of populations. These current financial system machinations (and the oil wars) are the most obvious expressions of the process.

If wealth were irrelevant to these matters of social justice, then it would be irrelevant (except for the ecological consequences of excess in what ever form it takes). You seem to be asking to maintain the most abstract notions of wealth while hoping to be able to remove from it many of the primary reasons for attaining it. I believe that you are making a distinction between having wealth and using wealth; a very rare condition for a real human being.

I didn’t phrase the opening words of my last comment very well.

Apologies.

Of course the left are not responsible for the creation of capitalism – I meant to say that the left regard capitalism as too large an evil. By focusing too much on individual wealth they lose sight of the bigger problem, which is the inhumane government provided by our leaders.

The fact that our government is inhumane is not because our society tolerates wealth, it’s because our society DEMANDS wealth by persecuting the poor.

Providing you have a society where everyone has a reasonable standard of life and need never fear their own society, what difference does it make if a few sad work obsessives want to surround themselves with more money than the next person? Who cares?