How do we end capitalism as we know it, while thinking like capitalists?

[Cerridwen]

Can we end capitalism as we know it, while living within a capitalistic framework?

I've already seen posts in this forum in which posters' words imply that the only reason people produce anything of value is for monetary reward. The inverse thought appears to be that people will NOT produce anything of value if there is no monetary reward for their efforts. Personally, I think the idea implies that people are worthless and lazy unless they produce something of value AND that most people will not bother to produce anything of value if they don't receive a monetary reward. I also think, these ideas are a result of capitalism (as we know it) and its ideology rather than a cause of capitalism.

It gets trickier as we start discussing that which is of value. A typical example is "women's work". That work which takes place in the home rather than in the public sector and so does not contribute to the "Gross National Product" (or whatever it's being called these days). Another "typical" example is the creation of art and literature. Is someone lazy and worthless if all they do is write, sculpt or draw? Unless it is sold on "the market", it contributes nothing to the GDP. Is that of value? Is it only of value if we can "make a living" doing it?

Many of us have jobs which we do for a paycheck. Period. We do our best to enjoy the work and the people but if given a viable option, would leave our work place in a heartbeat. (This reality, gives "truth" to the previously mentioned idea that people will only produce for monetary reward. Nice "catch-22". :( ) It is the reality in which we live that we require some amount of capital in order to survive. Few of us can provide for ourselves the very basics we need; food and water, clothes, health-care and protection from the environment (our ancestors would laugh at how helpless we are; "You call this progress?!"). There are ways to reduce our dependence on our economic system, but are they viable for a large enough portion of the people as we exist within our economic system?

In order to end capitalism as we know it, we need a large enough portion of the people to understand the need to end capitalism and to have the willingness to take the steps in their own lives to escort capitalism out the door. That won't happen as long as there are enough people who think that "others" (it's always "others" never "ourselves") won't produce anything unless they get paid. It won't happen if there are enough people who continue to think that "everyone" (except "me") is lazy and a crook.

As long as there are enough people who cannot seem to think beyond the capitalistic "conventional wisdoms" that "wealth is good" and "people" (except "me") are lazy and unmotivated and therefore need the cattle prod of capital in order to produce, the outlook for ending capitalism as we know it, is dim.

So, to bowdlerize some credit card company's jingoistic ad campaign (I love irony) - "What's in your mind?" Do you think like a capitalist? Does something have value only if it is "marketable"? Are you willing or able to learn new skills to remove yourself from the economy? Hell, are these even valid questions? :D

So, spill, please..."What's in your mind?"

P.S. Speaking of work - I'll be heading out in a while but I'll check back this evening. So, if you get no response, I'm out "making a buck."

[Tyler Durden]

1. Oh Hell no.

"Marketable" is the height of bullshit. I do what I do because I have a family to house and feed WELL if possible.

I'm not doing this to go to Cancun or Aruba. I wouldn't go if you gave me the ticket: I'd cash it in and put it on the fucking mortgage.

What I think you're seeing here is that MOTIVATION still needs MODIFICATION. If we don't have to be a wage-slave to house, feed and maintain ourselves and our families AND keep from living under the freeway when the system discards us, then the motivation to produce becomes non-monetary. This of course assumes that we teach the generations to come that being a rich, capitalist pig is no longer something to be admired.

[Cerridwen]

3. I agree with what you said about marketable. And motivation.

That's part of what I'm questioning and hoping others will think about and question as well. To prompt those who are reading this to begin to think about something other than "having" to have a mortgage and "having" to be a wage slave in order to survive; in the hope that these ideas will prompt us to, as you say "teach the generations to come that being a rich, capitalistic pig is no longer something to be admired."

Many of us are "there" with you, we work at something, not because it's what we do best (I don't question your skills or capabilities, at all, Tyler, I'm talking in generalities :D ) nor even do we work at something we enjoy. We're not, all of us, trying to become members of the "jet set" (is that term anachronistic now?) and travel first class around the world. Many of us just want a safe home, clean and safe food and water, well-made and comfortable clothes, and someone to tend us if we're injured or ill and a way to make that happen without "selling our soul" for a buck; and to make life a little "better" (however we define that) for our children and family members.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps some of us do, as children, dream of the day when we can commute for an hour each way to a job where we have little use for our knowledge or skill; working at a job over which we have no control of our hours, work load, type of work, the way in which our work is performed and judged and valued. Perhaps I'm just the adult version of a weird kid who thought work was something you did because you enjoy it; because it let's you apply skills and knowledge you've acquired through your life and which contributes, in some way, to our family, to the community or to the "common good"; something of which you can be proud at the end of the day. Perhaps I'm wrong and the only problem with being a wage slave is that the wages are too low and the benefits are almost non-existent. Perhaps most of us do dream of being the owned rather than the owner.

But, for those of us who dreamed as children of being a writer, an artist, a dancer, a great physician, the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer, the person who would discover how to end famine and poverty, a great legal mind for the ages, a well-loved teacher, the best gardener in the county, or whatever; at what point did you, do we, "learn" to "grow up", "get real" "be responsible" and go "make a living" and "be grateful for you've got"? At what point, do we begin to adopt, what I'm calling, the capitalistic mindset in which we believe if we work hard we'll "succeed" and that those who don't "succeed" haven't worked hard enough?

When did we "modify" what once was our motivation? When did we "accept" (succumb to) the status quo?

And...who benefits?

[Tyler Durden]

4. I lost my "Profession of Passion" as a child due to an injury.

I was a moderately gifted pianist, but at 11 I got my right hand badly torn up, and that went out the window. Now that's not to say that there aren't things out there that wouldn't give me joy and social satisfaction: I'm a Helluva good amateur framing carpenter, plumber and electrician. If I didn't have to "make a living," Habitat for Humanity could have me full time.

[Cerridwen]

30. Thanks for responding to my question.

You reminded me of another conventional wisdom; if we have a talent or skill but we're not "expert" or "gifted" or in some manner, the "best", we shouldn't then pursue that dream. The idea that one can only "the best" or not attempt it at all. Not that you said that, but your use of the word "moderately" prompted that little train of thought to leave the station in my head. :D

And, then again, as you noted, were it not for the need to "make a living" (however we define that), you'd be working with Habitat full time. Ah, if only we had a world in which we could do both; make a living as we do that which we enjoy. I wonder what that world would "look" like.

BTW, I'm sorry to read about the injury to your hand. My detour from my dreams was more prosaic. My family spent years convincing me those things I valued most were "impractical"; "get a good union job", "why do you need to like your work?" "what does liking your job have to do with working?" "what do you need college for?" "you do what you gotta do" and so on and so forth.

[Cleita]

2. I think the problem is that you are framing this as "ending"

capitalism. What we need to do is regulate capitalism, not end it. Thom Hartmann dedicated his whole show this morning to this very topic. If we bring back the laws, especially anti-trust laws to break up these monolithic corporations, it will go a long way in keeping the smaller companies competing with each other and workers employed.

You can't end capitalism. If you do you end up with Soviet style communism. I lived in an era in this country of regulated capitalism after WWII and up to the Reagan presidency. It worked fine except that we could have added some social laws like universal health care and a bill of human rights as well to address the social problems.

People need to realize that idealism isn't enough and there is plenty of historical evidence out there to test economic theories as to what works and what doesn't. There is plenty of proof out there that eliminating capitalism altogether doesn't work.

[Greyhound]

6. Heavily regulated capitalism is certainly better than unregulated

capitalism, but your assertion that the only result of ending it is the totalitarian system that the Soviets had is a false frame. In the first place, the Soviet Union never had communism, they just replaced an authoritarian monarchy with an authoritarian militaristic bureaucracy.

While our post WWII system of "regulated capitalism" may have worked fine for you, it did not work at all for millions of Americans that were in different circumstances. The millions of widows that the war produced that were literally thrown out of their jobs, with no recourse or alternative, to make room for the boys returning from the war are one group. The blacks returning from the war were another, and the black women were doubly screwed. The native Americans that were subjected to all of the nation's prejudice and forced back to the reservations were yet another. What about the coal miners, the immigrants, the Japanese Americans, and all the rest on this long list?

The fundamental and inescapable truth of capitalism is that what we call profit represents the theft of one person's product by another.

[Tyler Durden]

7. Like lousy water will at least not give you parasites if you add enough chlorine.

Personally, I'd rather drink it pure from the well or from the alpine stream.

[Cleita]

9. Hmmm. My grandmother got Typhoid from well water and

there are very few pure alpine streams anymore. Even the most pristine looking water out in the forest has most likely been polluted by the mining and logging practices of previous centuries. The purest water you can get today is from limestone caves providing there haven't been too many spelunkers going through there causing pollution.

[Tyler Durden]

10. Kind of a "figure of speech" these days.

I can dream, can't I?

But you're right. I had two days of shall we say, "discomfort," after drinking from a beautiful stream in the mountains.

Had to use leaves: ran out of paper.

[Cleita]

12. Giardiasis is the most common parasite from stream water.

http://www.mamashealth.com/infect/giardiasis.asp

There are tablets sold in wilderness stores to purify water, if you have to drink from a stream. I always use leaves out in the woods. It's just seems more ecological than using TP.

[Tyler Durden]

13. I was young and stoned.

The Paper was at the primitive site. Biodegradable septic tank stuff.

[Cleita]

8. What you are saying is minorities weren't included. That

doesn't mean the system is a failure. The Greeks invented democracy, but it was only democratic for the men of certain demes or tribes. Women, slaves and landless peasants were excluded. It doesn't mean that they didn't have the concept right. They needed to extend it to everyone though.

Also, Russia did practice true communism in the sense that the government took over everything to run, farms, factories, stores and property, even the operas and ballets and became the sole employer of everyone. This is a main tenent of communism. As you can see historically, when you have one party running everything, it doesn't work so well.

[Greyhound]

20. That's not what I'm saying at all. You've got two issues going here,

American capitalism and democracy, well actually three if we throw in the Soviet Union's "communism" which I addressed in the post you replied to. There was no communism, they merely replaced an authoritarian Monarchy with an authoritarian bureaucracy headed by a functional dictator.

Communism: An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto

Communism: The socioeconomic system where social relations are based upon the equal distribution of income and wealth and state control of the means of production. Not to be confused with a totalitarian political system.

In the European/American financial system the central bank creates money out of thin air in order to finance developments of economic worth. The problem is that the interest charged (profit) on this loan is not created with the original loan, so the interest charges represent a drain on the product of that development, for which nothing of worth is exchanged. This is why our system requires constant expansion to continue, without expansion the system inevitably collapses. It is, at its heart, a version of the Ponzi scheme, the funds of the new investors (borrowers in this case) are used to pay the older investors (depositors and shareholders), if there are no new investors there are no funds to pay older investors.

To avoid this system of usury is specifically why the founders of the United States created the economic system they did. They were intimately familiar with the European banking system and created Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution, reserving the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" to Congress to keep the European banking families out of our economy.

Democracy was rejected by the founders of this country in favor a Representative Republic for very good reason. A democracy in its pure form is nothing other than mob rule, whatever the majority says goes. A true democracy would never have outlawed slavery or acknowledged a woman's right to vote or any of the progressive steps we have taken in this country.

It is the power of words and understanding of their meaning that is key to this debate. We in America have become very lazy in the use of words and that has allowed their definitions to be manipulated, by those that believe themselves entitled to rule over us, and twist them to their own ends.

[leftofthedial]

32. To be sustainable and compatible with human life,

Capitalism must be "regulated" to the point that it is no longer Capitalism.

This is true by definition. Capitalism is centered on the trancendent and preeminent value of capital. That will never be sustainable. Nor will it ever be compatible with human happiness.

The 1% or so of Earth's population who benefit from Capitalism and some number of the additional 5% or so of the Earth's population who are kept comfortably apathetic by Capitalism will always defend it and extol its supposed virtues. Some of those people post on DU. The real fruits of Capitalism though are planetary destruction and human misery on a vast scale. Regulating it may mean that it takes 250 years instead of 50 to destroy the planet, or that it will impoverish an additional 50 million people per decade instead of 150 million people per decade. This is not a solution.

The other problem with regulation is that it must be rigorously protected FOREVER from the unrelenting attempts of Capitalists and their corporate institutions and all the politicians they can buy to remove, water down or not enforce the regulations. When regulated, Capitalism is corrosive to the regulations and the institutions responsible for that regulation. That's why we effectively have no government in the US today.

I say we act like real-world Capitalists for a decade or so and ruthlessly make all the real Capitalists extinct, take all their wealth and use it for the common good. Living in a Capitalist society as we do, once we are "wealthy" enough, no laws will apply to us, so we can get more and more aggressive about eliminating the Capitalist "competition." We will ruthlessly "un-privatize" all the world's wealth. We really only need to do this for 50.000001% of the wealth. Then we can "buy" the rest and--oops! like good capitalists we lied!--off the sellers and take their stuff.

[Greyhound]

5. Which way do we want to go with this discussion, a theoretical debate

on a long-term goal of changing the national conscience, or a means of achieving practical goals to improve our society for the greater population? Maybe another option entirely?

I believe the goal of truly ending capitalism, while laudable, is something that will take many generations to accomplish as it involves overcoming an entrenched indoctrination process, begun at birth and reinforced throughout our lives. As a person that has chosen not to breed, what happens beyond the next 40 years or so is of no consequence to me, and as a student of human nature I don't hold out much hope for the species in the long term.

[Cleita]

11. IMHO talk of "ending" capitalism is just idealism and not

practical in the real world. All you need to do is look at history. Commerce and trade have been around since the neolithic era. There is evidence of the trade of volcanic rocks, which make the best and sharpest stone tools through the Mediterranean as those tools have shown up in dig sites in places that don't have that kind of rocks. So it's obvious there was trade going on, which is the basis of capitalism. You are never going to stop certain individuals from trying to make money, so instead you have to regulate it so that they don't make money at the expense of everyone else by monopolizing all of the money making assets.

[Tyler Durden]

14. Barter and Trade are SOCIALIST....

...And been around many, many thousands of years longer than Money and Wealth as concepts.

WEALTH and CAPITAL are amassed when "counters" are used to represent labor and goods, then the "counters" take on a value of their own.

I don't want to go back to agricultural/hunter-gatherer society, but it would be nice to see the concept of the Billionaire and even the Multi-Millionaire go the way of all flesh.

[Cleita]

15. I agree one hundred percent.

We do need to rewrite economic theory. I really don't believe in free market as a good thing. The markets have to be tweaked and regulated so that they don't get our of hand like they are now. I just heard that IBM is doing another major reorganization and will be outsourcing the majority of their jobs overseas. Stuff like this has to be stopped.

[Tyler Durden]

16. My Wife's cousin's husband is training his replacement at IBM.

He's worked for them for almost 15 years, and they are outsourcing his entire department to BRAZIL.

[Cleita]

19. That's really too bad. I hate to see this happening.

We need laws that protect jobs. I always thought that companies who want to operate in our country should be forced to keep 60% of their jobs here in our country, or otherwise not be allowed to sell their goods here without hefty excise taxes. I also, think retail outlets like Wal-Mart should be required to stock 60% American made goods in their American stores. This I hope will bring back factories and those union jobs here.

[Greyhound]

22. Man that suck so much, I and almost all of my friends went though

that 6 years ago, it is so demoralizing. IBM is one of the worst, they're one of the reasons I won't support HRC. They laid off 15,000 of their workers, her constituents in upstate NY, and the very same week she's throwing a party for Tata talking about how great they are for opening a sweatshop there after destroying the profession.

Of course it didn't hurt that they made a nice fat contribution to her PAC and campaign.:grr:

[Cleita]

24. This is why I don't care for HRC either. She's been given

a lot of PAC money that none of the other Democratic candidates are getting other than Obama. If she becomes presidemt, there won't be any real reform in social programs because she's already been bought by the industries that need reforming.

[Greyhound]

17. Try to break free of the false conflation of commerce and capitalism,

that seems to be the biggest hurdle.

Commerce was and is necessary. Commerce will happen, it has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism makes it possible for the few to steal from the many and then to forcibly extract a commission for it. It was only made possible because the dictators (Kings, Emperors, etc.) in the middle ages saw this thievery practiced by a few merchants and decided to take the racket over for themselves.

In those historical times you are speaking of there was indeed, and of necessity, trade and commerce, but there was no capitalism. Ug VonNeanderthal needed a good sharp rock to cut up the meat and scrape the skin of the saber toothed cat he killed, so he traded some of his meat to get one from Li Flintstone, who was tired of eating grass soup. Thats trade and both parties got their needs filled and were satisfied with the deal.

Capitalism is Ug and his buddy Og sneaking up on Li and beating him to death to take all of his rocks and his soup and then making his mate Lu their slave.

[Cleita]

18. I guess we were taught different definitions of Capitalism.

My version is it comes from the word capital or money, which we use for trade and commerce. I mean it really became impractical to haul that mammoth roast to get some rocks. Instead, in historical times Li took his rocks, which by this time were copper or tin ingots by ship to Ug, who paid him with gold and silver coins, which Li could use to buy his meat closer to home.

I believe that it's laissez faire or unregulated capitalism that causes those practices you mention usually with war as a method of obtaining resources. I truly would like to see our resources, like minerals, metals, oil and lumber to be operated by the government with all the environmental protections and safety in place that the private extraction industries have to be forced to comply with and often don't. This would also create career jobs with benefits and pensions much like the Post Office had before it became semi-privatized.

Then when the raw materials are sold on the free market I want the proceeds be used to fill our treasury for running the government and our much needed social programs like health care and education. We could probably end taxation in the long run if we did this. I do believe that natural resources belong to the people not private corporations. I spent a good part of my childhood living in an American operated copper mine in Chile, which my father worked in. The mine became nationalized and the Americans kicked out. Today it's operated quite efficiently by the Chilean government. The Chilean engineers were so well thought of that they were used to build an American astronomical observatory in the Andes there. Right now the name escapes me.

However, people also have a need to be entrepreneurs. What about the chef who wants to open his own restaurant. Should he not be allowed to? Should this all be run by the state? Like I said, it didn't work so well in Russia or even Communist China, which is why the Chinese communists have turned to capitalism, however, it's not well regulated and you see the results in human rights abuses and pollution.

[Greyhound]

21. Exactly! Huzzah! We're getting right to the heart of the matter now.

Cleita: "My version is it comes from the word capital or money, which we use for trade and commerce. I mean it really became impractical to haul that mammoth roast to get some rocks. Instead, in historical times Li took his rocks, which by this time were copper or tin ingots by ship to Ug, who paid him with gold and silver coins, which Li could use to buy his meat closer to home."

This is commerce and it has been, I believe purposely, conflated with capitalism by those that try to muddy the waters and make discussion so difficult.

Cleita: ...I do believe that natural resources belong to the people not private corporations. I spent a good part of my childhood living in an American operated copper mine in Chile, which my father worked in. The mine became nationalized and the Americans kicked out. Today it's operated quite efficiently by the Chilean government. The Chilean engineers were so well thought of that they were used to build an American astronomical observatory in the Andes there. Right now the name escapes me.

Could it be Paranal? This is Socialism, though the government running it is not a necessary component of socialism.

Cleita: However, people also have a need to be entrepreneurs. What about the chef who wants to open his own restaurant. Should he not be allowed to?

There is nothing in socialism that prevents entrepreneurship, to the contrary, it encourages it. Only services that are essential to the society as a whole, education, health care, transportation infrastructure, justice, sanitation, defense, disaster relief, etc., are operated or run privately and paid for, by the government, without the profit motive.

You see, when there is no coercion to force people to do that which they would not do voluntarily, they are free to pursue that which fulfills them.

But what about the agricultural workers and the sewer maintenance workers and all the other difficult or disgusting jobs that need to be done but which nobody would do voluntarily, you might ask?

Good question. First, you would probably be surprised at how many people there are that would voluntarily do them in exchange for a comfortable life, and for the rest, we would see a reordering or prioritizing of occupational compensation, but the jobs would get done. Remember McCain's idiotic comment about people wouldn't pick lettuce for $50 an hour? The next day there was a deluge of people that would gladly pick lettuce for half that, but it is only desperate people with no alternatives that will do it for $6.

How many people are there right now wasting their lives in a cubicle that would be much happier as a janitor, or driving a street sweeper, if only they could earn a decent living doing it? How many Motzarts have we lost to the accounting profession because an accountant always has a decent job but the music industry is owned and run by thieves? How many Richard Feynmans have we never benefited from because he didn't have the money to get into a university?

[Cleita]

23. Your thinking is the same as mine.

I believe a quality education should be available to all who want it especially every child all the way through Phds. We had a state college and university system here in California where all residents could attend any of the colleges or universities in the system tuition free as long as they met requirements and had the grades until the Republican leadership much of it under Reagan destroyed it by defunding the system forcing the colleges and universities to charge tuition. It's a shame because as the old TV commercial says, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

[Cerridwen]

26. Why not both?

Geez, I can't get back for a couple of days and my thread prompts a discussion in which Soviet style communism is presented as the "logical" result of ending capitalism? Oy vey. I'll take "false dichotomies" and "successful propaganda" for 5000, Alex.

I believe, as I noted in the OP, that one thread in the web we've weaved around ourselves is a mindset in which we tell ourselves that "it" can't be done because "x"; or "its" evil twin "that's just the way it is, so why bother to fight it". In this instance, capitalism can't be ended because people are inherently lazy and stupid and won't produce or contribute without monetary incentive or the threat of the loss of same. Or, that statement's evil twin; "capitalism is the best economic system because it produces".

Looking at our own attitudes is an extremely simple and amazingly difficult step toward "thinking outside the box." Or as Cleita has labeled it "idealism". We're going to have to embrace some serious "idealism" in order to "think outside the box" in order to imagine any ideas which challenge "the system" as we know it. At the risk of intimidating people, we're going to have to begin thinking in a way which is much the way the "Founders" of this country thought; the U.S. "original" idealists.

They took the "ideals" of the Enlightenment and posited that one could found a country in which a monarchy was not necessary, that individuals had value as something other than serfs to lords of the manor and that those same individuals were competent and intelligent enough to govern themselves with nominal input from a government AND that they could create a "class-less" society. And then, after we begin to posit such "lofty ideals" we need to take it steps farther; we have to address many issues the founders didn't; i.e., treatment of the indigenous people, women, indentured servants (equivalent to today's wage slaves?), the lingering results of slavery and Jim Crow laws, the current lack of an informed electorate (even if we were sure all the votes are counted), and lastly, though not exhaustively, the monopolistic, competition smothering, civil rights destroying and murderous influence of corporations on our commerce systems, on workers' rights, on the environment, and on our government.

If we can get past our capitalistic mindset and prejudices, perhaps then, the steps needed; to move from capitalism with its profit centered exploitive abuses to a form of commerce and trade, and ultimately a form of society, which is people centered and planet centered; will become "obvious".

Though I don't qualify in today's Orwellian doctored language as anything remotely "religious"; I find there are many "truths" to be found in axioms which began their existence in religious thought. For example; "Charity begins at home" can be understood to mean that in order to provide "charity", that is, help others, I must first examine and address my own Self, in this case, my own prejudices about "others" and my motivations for doing so. Another I always think of is "That which you do (not do) to the least of these, you do (not do) to me" (paraphrase Matthew 25:45) can mean that as "we" as a society allow the least of us to be exploited or denied basic human rights, so too are we exploited and denied human rights as part of the "collective" of humankind. Or if that's too "woo woo" for you, how about an interpretation which identifies the dangers to us; If we as a society allow such abuses, we allow the creation of mechanisms needed to treat us in the same manner; for those who need to know "what's in it for me?" or "what's that got to do with me?" before they can be bothered to care.

So, as we begin the generations long process of changing our collective mindset and question our conventional wisdom and common knowledge, we can begin to see how those ideas have permeated the systems we put in place and support; including, as you noted, conflating commerce with capitalism; and begin to take the steps which will allow us to move on from exploitation, abuse and prejudice and create people and planet centered commerce and trade for the benefit of "We, the People."

[Imperialism Inc.]

25. I'm just going to give some links for suggested reading as a source of ideas.

First of all I think the notion, espoused in this thread, that it is either capitalism or Soviet communism is a false dichotomy. Look for my recommended reading thread in this forum and get a book by Robin Hahnel called Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation there is a whole chapter entitled Not Capitalism Not Communism that attempts to break through the dichotomy. I really can't do the whole discussion justice here.

Here's one article on a similar idea: Economic Democracy: A Worthy Socialism That Would Really Work by DAVID SCHWEICKART


Parecon is an idea that Hahnel and Albert worked on for a while:
"A great many activists and concerned people ask, quite rightly, what alternative form of social organization can be imagined that might overcome the grave flaws -- often real crimes -- of contemporary society in more far-reaching ways than short-term reform. Parecon is the most serious effort I know to provide a very detailed possible answer to some of these questions, crucial ones, based on serious thought and careful analysis." --Noam Chomsky

http://www.parecon.org/index.html
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

This is a pretty decent overview: Socialism as it was Always Meant to Be

A "short course" in Global economy: http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/GlobalEcon/index.htm

Economic vision course: http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/EconVision/id1.htm

***Political economy: http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/Economics/id1.htm

And, finally, the wiki entry for Robin Hahnel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hahnel

[Cerridwen]

27. Thank you for the links and the additional information.

I was a bit surprised to see the "debate" head the way it did. Ah, well, it appears to have been addressed.

Now, unfortunately, I don't have the time to read so it'll have to leave it until this evening before I can make any thoughtful response to the information at the links.

Thank you...again.

:D

[Imperialism Inc.]

28. There is probably a bit too much for an evening ;-)

Just some stuff to refer to over time. The article I starred is a good place to start (I probably should have put it first). It talks about expanding the notion of what are the inputs and outputs of production. Notions such as human mental health is actually one output of the production process. If participating in production is dis-empowering and/or depressing then that should count as a negative output of the process.

[Cerridwen]

29. :D Okay, so it won't be a *comprehensive*, thoughtful response.

I like that idea; that human mental health is one output of the production process. Yay! Finally, the results on the human psyche/soul/whatever taken into account. What a novel concept.

I look forward to reading - even if for more than an evening.

:hi:

[Cerridwen]

31. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, it's not a thoughtful response, but it sums up my first thoughts on clicking and scanning the first 5 or so articles.

I have some ready to do so this will be short.

Did I say: Thank you!

:D