I’m NOT saying there are not systemic problems. In fact, I made it quite clear that a systemic view is essential to help see the problem(s) and rid them of the baggage of ideology. You seem to want to put these problems in the same old tired isms and make racism part of the problem.

But we can’t divorce the system from the players who use it.

Racism is a symptom of the problem of domination. Domination occurs when one entity attemps to conquer (primarily for resources) another. Racism, like Zionism, are labels applied to variations on that symptomatic theme.

Now maybe that’s too much for you. Maybe you would prefer to throw around Marx. The you never deal with what I’ve raised against the extreme weakness of your “argument”. Instead you wait for me to post again responding to someone else so you can “quote” and distort, which is a tactic your regularly use here.

Deadbeat you have NO argument that is defensible. You simply fish around for tidbits and in a very reactionary fashion, use it to try to make a point.

WRONG! The nature of slavery was tremedously altered and in fact DEGRADED by capitalism. The slave trade WAS a feature of Capitalism. I refer you to Lorone Bennett Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America. No Max the Slave Trade was UNIQUELY Capitalist and it created the wealth among capitalist that still exist today.

This is a time where I think many Americans are looks for solutions. I hope they find real solutions and not the obscure ideas you seem to offer up.

Seriously, it’s something I’m considering.

Let’s tread humbly here. Historically, when a collapse occurs, whether a civilization (or empire) or ecologically, there is not always some definitive demarcation. Today we see a significant economic contraction. But this contraction, while real, is based on excessive speculation. The US economy seems to exist as a result of its deep connections with the world’s economy. It’s as if it is being buoyed by these intersections while at the same time there is this tectonic shifting going on. Contraction has the effect of short-term stablization, but when met with a full steam ahead reaction (which is what is taking place now), there is a massive attempt to keep running on empty.

The global economy has created a fragile web of interdependencies which are unstable. The US economy (its engine) has evaporated, replaced by complex financial speculative services and consumption all propagated by debt. Precarious “accident” waiting to happen.

It seems the key is energy. The USA needs fuel as do the advanced developing and industrialized areas. So far, with all the bowing to technology, nothing really replaces what got us here: fossil in the form of oil, coal, and natural gas. Wind and solar cannot replace these fuels given what “we’ve” created. The demand is insatiable, constant and growing, and has grown expotentially since the early 1970s. As this peaks, there will be no comparable replacements; the contraction will be massive because there is NO economy, no civilization without energy. Food is the main energy source for life, but humans are incapable of doing much without magnifying their energy through – FOSSILE conversion.

A steady state economy (the true term for a sustainable economy) would simply replace every barrel of oil (or other energy non- source) with an equivelent renewable energy source. Since, fossile does not have a “one for one” alternative, human civilization will contract significantly until it reaches a stasis. If it occurs in an intentional transformational way, life, though the adjustment will be difficult, will not be intolerable. If we continue to push on the excellerator with “bailouts” and hypergrowth and continued globalization and war, the pain has been predicted to be very sever for most people.

This does not answer the question when do we “know” the collapse has occurred. It’s like a fish at the end of a line – you just know.

But we have choices. Obama has chosen, on a national scale, to keep the “trains” moving, full steam ahead on the empire train, while he plays with “green this and that”. But the solution is much more profound and deeper than political appeasement to a “left” base. This collapse will take us beyond business as usual politics.

I didn’t and don’t think we have national leadership to make this a “soft” landing. Something could change this, but it appears unlikely. Conclusion, prepare, locally, prepare NOW.

I understand and agree with the point you were/are making.

Max went on to write, “The “solution” is recognizing the problem for what it is, and begin to transform and restructure around an economics of steady-state (a balance between inputs/outputs), one that values community and life’s simple pleasures (which are infinite). A collapse, I think, is essential to getting us there, but “we” must be ready with alternatives. A smaller, scaled down, steady state existence aligned with the environment is an alternative not based on ideology or blueprint.”

How will we know when this collapse has taken place? In other words, how would you define “collapse?” Once it occurs, how do “we” establish what you call a ’steady-state’?

For the record, I’m more or less in agreement with you. But I’m left with a lot of questions.

I think we can solve problems once we understand them. I also think that life is not static, nor is the human condition. It emerges. We collectively create our reality through our narratives.

But, to my earlier point, Obama (whether we think he is in a box because of his position or whatever) behaves and acts on the world according to his view of what “must be done” given” the narrative he has embraced. What he may or may not really want to do is irrelevant becauses he is reinforcing the dominant narrative.

If we are on a collision course do to energy and general resource depletion and pollution, and our economics contributes to that demise and creates a world which is less and less inhabitable, and our wars further contribute to this downward spiraling, this irreconcilable limit”, then we are faced with a dilemma.

The human species tends toward unsustainable actions. Other creatures do as well, but humans require much more from the environment than do others. Our economics are a perfect barometer of this behavior. The economy grows through exhausting resources, then it collapses and constricts. Once the contrication is stablized – reduction in population, in general consumption and energy usage – there is a tendency to return, “gradually”, to the prior state. The Great Depression was a collapse that recalibrated the economy, adusting it, but almost as soon as that adjustment was made, the baby boom happened, fossile usage increased geometrically, and then expotentially, and we created a world that was a deadend. It’s been called the long emergency; and we’re heading toward the bottom.

I don’t think a little Marxism is going to cure this. I don’t think more of the same – ala bailouts – will do anything but fastforward the collapse.

The “solution” is recognizing the problem for what it is, and begin to transform and restructure around an economics of steady-state (a balance between inputs/outputs), one that values community and life’s simple pleasures (which are infinite). A collapse, I think, is essential to getting us there, but “we” must be ready with alternatives. A smaller, scaled down, steady state existence aligned with the environment is an alternative not based on ideology or blueprint.

War and conflict is caused primarily through the desire to grow, and consume resources. Empires are born out of expansive energy use (hence our expotential demand for fossile). Knowing this, we can reduce and avoid most conflict.

If human nature or human behavior is the problem, is there a solution/cure?

Well said. I think AIPAC is like any powerful special interest (insurance, pharma, etc) who has tremendous influence through it’s lobbying capacity and capacity to make like “difficult” for elected officials in some areas of the country. As such the problem is not one of AIPAC, but one of how our system has been corrupted by the power of a few, and the money that provides that access and influence.

and please don’t put your word ” complex” in my mouth; in fact, i said that no ism stands in total isolation from any other ism or issue. the idea is simple, and as you have said, it’s been around [ ?for at least 70-80 yrs].
so i do not pretend that i am doscoverer of this notion. in at least one or two posts i have asserted that much of what i know i’ve learned from others.
and i also expect to find out that all ideas i have thus expressed, have been stated for the last few millennia. but thanx for your comment.

I am not arguing a new “concept” but the fundamentals of problem identification premised on a holistic systemic view of the world. This approach separates out ideology and allows for clarity. Human nature, human behavior is at the basis of all of this; as is the nature of life itself.

To isolate everything into a simplistic ideology or ism is to miss the core of the problem and to simply offer a flawed (at best) solution).

I don’t reject “Marx”. How could anyone “reject” his many volumes and millions upon millions of words and thousands of ideas without contradicting oneself. Certainly there are truisms in Marx as there are in Smith or David Ricardo; that does not mean a blind adherence to Marx frequently opaque ideas along with clear brilliant analysis is a path one should follow. Sorry if this is just too complex, DB. I say one should neither accept nor reject Marx or Smith in their entirety.

To your point about capitalism and maldistribution, I can only say, that students of Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, both by Smith, would differ with you regarding Adams’ rather complex views on human nature and morality.

But since you choose to talk about Marx the man, and not Adam Smith the man, it would appear that you think Capitalism is simply an evil devised by the devil, while flesh and blood Marx offers a more pure form of life. This is a specious argument, Deadbeat.

A real argument would address the root causes, regardless of where the chips fall, and attempt to understand how these have been exaserbated with what is clearly the most massive military might of the world has ever witnessed or felt…the USA.

Btw, I suspect after following bozh’s posts for months, that he is in agreement with the above (though he might state it differently).

Capitalism has been a globalized system for CENTURIES. The slave trade was clearly a globalized system and the pillaging of the global south helped to build the wealth of Europe and the United States. “Consumerism” as you phrase it was how the U.S. dealt with the stagnation of worker wages starting from the mid 1970’s and it at the heart of the current financial crisis. Technology advances help the ruling class extract productivity gains from workers and the surplus value (profits) being extracted from workers was lent back — at interest– through the banks.

At the heart of Capitalism is the notion of endless “growth” but most importantly the maldistribution and control of wealth. Or phrased another way increasing exploitation of the working class.

Max Shields and to a lesser extent bozh would have reader believe that what is currently going on is something more “complex” or pretend they have uncovered a new concept. There is nothing new here nor is there a need to redefine the language. Doing such is primarily an agenda to sow confusion and obscurity. This has been one of the main reason why the Left is in such a sorry state. Sowing confusion in the Chomskyesque fashion retards solidarity.

I suggest Max and bozh, since they reject Marx, read the remarks from Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil about the current global crisis.

Here’s an article from CounterPunch that provide some background on the racial divide and how Capitalism help to create this divide. Apparently since Max seems to forget about the global slave trade in the development of GLOBAL Capitalism he should refresh his memory before he submits his “opinion”.

but first we must educate amers and many other folks, that in US governance, vast majority of people have near zero politico-military powers.
and if we wld obtain an understanding of the situation by 90% of powerless people, change is possible.
i think that this analyses show/prove that O’s change is a merciless lie.
i tell you, if i was in his shoes, and i said that, i wld have dozens and dozens anxiety attacks. tnx

Obama and his cabinet/advisors are advocates of the global economy and the consumer-based dimensions that have brought us to this place.

In that sense they are feeding the preditory monster (ala trillion dollar “bailout”). President Obama is part of the problem, not a solution. This is a human problem of power, not of an “ism” per se.

I would like to meet this fellow, Capitalism, I’d give him/her a piece of my mind!

When we’re done we’ll bring the fellow, Zionism to the table and beat the living hell out of that sonofabitch.

I agree, Obama is not the problem. He’ll be ok once we get Capitalism out of the way and it’s twin, Zionism.