vanlose kid wrote:^ ^ @ Nordic: not so much philosophical as practical. as far as i'm concerned anyway.
capitalism would be the idea that capital, i.e. money, in and of itself, is productive (that money begets money – interest/usury, fractional reserve banking etc.), and where an economy is defined/determined/ruled by money and those who have/own it (banks who create money out of nothing and charge for its use, financial instruments/products etc.) at the expense of those who do not. (see p. 1)
anyway, seems like i'm killing this thread so i'll back off.
*
Nordic has a very good point, whenever alternate ways of doing things are discussed, the conversation always stays in the abstract and theoretical rather than addressing practical questions like "will I still be able to open my own Taco stand?". And it's questions like these that are the most important, because, as much as fractional reserve banking maybe bad, it's still too abstract for most people. They want to know things like "after the glorious revolution/ collapse, will there still be money?" or "will I still be able to buy stuff?". Maybe we should compile a list of questions and possible answers.
well, does he have a good point? it depends. if you work on the assumption that capitalism and earning a living are identical then he does. if you don't then he doesn't, in my view.
that people conflate capitalism and earning a living only creates confusion and gives rise to the sort of questions Nordic asks. it's as if one were to say, if you abolish capitalism money and work would cease to exist.
here's an analogy: if roads, all roads, were owned by a ruling class and people rose to strip them of their power-monopoly, would roads ceased to be used? similarly, if we eradicated capitalism, would money cease to exist? is capitalism necessary? is a state necessary for the function of society? these are all related questions.
capitalism, especially in its current virulent form, hasn't always existed. nor did societies and social organization not exist before capitalism came into existence. the same goes for the state.
i've cited the Brukman workers in Argentina and other worker cooperative that arose there. look into them. none of these people were philosophers or theoreticians or anarchists of any stripe. but they spontaneously organized in an anarchist manner. indeed, in the documentary "The Take" which i've posted several times, one of the workers at Brukman said (i quote from memory): maybe i'm getting ahead of myself here, but if we can run a factory without bosses maybe we can run the country in the same way". it has been done.
and this is Bakunin's and every anarchist's claim. and this happens organically as is shown in history again and again: the Paris commune; the Kronstadt rebellion; Tahrir square; Argentina; the Native American nations; the Spanish revolution; the Russian revolution...
once you dissociate money and earning a living from capitalism the questions Nordic raises disappear. why should there be no money or no way to earn a living outside of capitalism?
*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
vanlose kid wrote:^ ^ @ Nordic: not so much philosophical as practical. as far as i'm concerned anyway.
capitalism would be the idea that capital, i.e. money, in and of itself, is productive (that money begets money – interest/usury, fractional reserve banking etc.), and where an economy is defined/determined/ruled by money and those who have/own it (banks who create money out of nothing and charge for its use, financial instruments/products etc.) at the expense of those who do not. (see p. 1)
anyway, seems like i'm killing this thread so i'll back off.
*
Nordic has a very good point, whenever alternate ways of doing things are discussed, the conversation always stays in the abstract and theoretical rather than addressing practical questions like "will I still be able to open my own Taco stand?". And it's questions like these that are the most important, because, as much as fractional reserve banking maybe bad, it's still too abstract for most people. They want to know things like "after the glorious revolution/ collapse, will there still be money?" or "will I still be able to buy stuff?". Maybe we should compile a list of questions and possible answers.
well, does he have a good point? it depends. if you work on the assumption that capitalism and earning a living are identical then he does. if you don't then he doesn't, in my view.
that people conflate capitalism and earning a living only creates confusion and gives rise to the sort of questions Nordic asks. it's as if one were to say, if you abolish capitalism money and work would cease to exist.
here's an analogy: if roads, all roads, were owned by a ruling class and people rose to strip them of their power-monopoly, would roads ceased to be used? similarly, if we eradicated capitalism, would money cease to exist? is capitalism necessary? is a state necessary for the function of society? these are all related questions.
capitalism, especially in its current virulent form, hasn't always existed. nor did societies and social organization not exist before capitalism came into existence. the same goes for the state.
i've cited the Brukman workers in Argentina and other worker cooperative that arose there. look into them. none of these people were philosophers or theoreticians or anarchists of any stripe. but they spontaneously organized in an anarchist manner. indeed, in the documentary "The Take" which i've posted several times, one of the workers at Brukman said (i quote from memory): maybe i'm getting ahead of myself here, but if we can run a factory without bosses maybe we can run the country in the same way". it has been done.
and this is Bakunin's and every anarchist's claim. and this happens organically as is shown in history again and again: the Paris commune; the Kronstadt rebellion; Tahrir square; Argentina; the Native American nations; the Spanish revolution; the Russian revolution...
once you dissociate money and earning a living from capitalism the questions Nordic raises disappear. why should there be no money or no way to earn a living outside of capitalism?
*
I think you're not quite getting what I'm getting at.
vanlose kid wrote:and this is Bakunin's and every anarchist's claim. and this happens organically as is shown in history again and again: the Paris commune; the Kronstadt rebellion; Tahrir square; Argentina; the Native American nations; the Spanish revolution; the Russian revolution...
It's just serendipity that two recent threads intersect with this one in quite an interesting way I'm sure...
Adam Curtis wrote:The failiure of the commune movement and the failiure of the revolutions show the limitations of the self-organising model, it cannot deal with the central dynamic forces of human society: politics and power. The hippies took up the idea of the network society because they were disillusioned with politics. They believed that this alternative way of ordering the world was good because it was based on the underlying order of nature. But this was a fantasy. In reality what they adapted was an idea taken from the cold and logical world of the machines.
Now, in our age we are all disillusioned with politics and this machine organising principle has risen up to become the idealology of our age. But what we are discovering is that if we see ourselves as components in a system, it is very difficult to change the world. It is a very good way of organising things, even rebellions, but it offers no ideas about what comes next. And just like in the communes, it leaves us helpless in the face of those already in power in the world.
vanlose kid wrote:once you dissociate money and earning a living from capitalism the questions Nordic raises disappear. why should there be no money or no way to earn a living outside of capitalism?
I don't know, and the reason I don't know is nobody will ever discuss it. Ok, from your answer there is still money, and people can still buy stuff, and, I'm assuming, the workers actually really do own the means of production. And then what? Can Nordic still set up his Taco stand? If he employs someone to help out does that person then have an equal share of his Taco stand?
I'm being slightly facetious but with a serious intent. As I said in this thread:
me ooo ooo ooo aren't I great wrote:for most people it is literally impossible for them to imagine an alternative to hyper-capitalism, and it's not because they're all stupid.
You want an alternative that lasts in the face of a full on assault by "those already in power in the world" then you have to give people the tools to imagine that alternative. And that means answering questions like "can I set up my own Taco stand?". You have to create the imaginative space for people to step into, and they are less likely to do this if what you're saying is framed by the abstract language of high finance, or half revolutions in far away countries. You want total change in your country, then make that change seem possible. And sometimes that means addressing boring practical questions.
Nordic and GH: Exactly.Which is why I always try to at least mention subsistence in my discussions. These urban bred theoretical radical movements always seem to assume that the food comes from some magical place, grown, processed, and transported by elves. Forget the taco stand. Can I plant some corn? What if some other guy wants pasture? Do we fight it out? Do we appoint a judge and agree to live with his decision? Do we give him a funny hat so everyone will remember to listen to him? And what do we do if some thugs show up and take our crop in August? Because the one certainty in all this is that they will.
all these dreams are swept aside By bloody hands of the hypnotized Who carry the cross of homicide And history bears the scars of our civil wars
@ Nordic: not so much philosophical as practical. as far as i'm concerned anyway.
capitalism would be the idea that capital, i.e. money, in and of itself, is productive (that money begets money – interest/usury, fractional reserve banking etc.), and where an economy is defined/determined/ruled by money and those who have/own it (banks who create money out of nothing and charge for its use, financial instruments/products etc.) at the expense of those who do not. (see p. 1)
anyway, seems like i'm killing this thread so i'll back off.
*
you're definitely not killing this thread, probably the opposite!
i don't agree with your definition of capitalism. perhaps you're right, perhaps i'm wrong but it seems narrow and prejudicial.
i think capitalism can work the same way a basketball game can work. with a strong set of rules, strictly enforced, to keep it fair.
when that happens, the efficiencies are maximized. when that doesn't happen, it becomes corrupt immediately.
listen, there has to some kind of a system of trade, otherwise we're all stuck not only growing our own food, but making our own clothes, shoes, plates, eyeglasses, tools, etc. the only way we can have any kind of a civilization is through specialization and trade. trade means you have to have a system of exchange, i.e. money. this needs to be as efficient and streamlined a system as possible.
the trouble arises when the opportunists with no care of the common good figure out how to exploit this system to enrich themselves at the expense of others. this should be defined as theft from "the commons" and treated accordingly.
the current system is so completely over-the-top corrupt in this regard that it needs massive reforms in order to get back to the basics of serving the common good.
my point being that "capitalism" isn't inherently "evil" anymore than my car or a gun is "evil" it's just a system like a machine.
and it seems to me that a really good example of how it can and should work is a farmer's market.
the machine needs to be treated like any potentially dangerous machine, with strict regulation, maintenance, rules, and common sense operating procedures.
we are far far away from that of course.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
@ Nordic: not so much philosophical as practical. as far as i'm concerned anyway.
capitalism would be the idea that capital, i.e. money, in and of itself, is productive (that money begets money – interest/usury, fractional reserve banking etc.), and where an economy is defined/determined/ruled by money and those who have/own it (banks who create money out of nothing and charge for its use, financial instruments/products etc.) at the expense of those who do not. (see p. 1)
anyway, seems like i'm killing this thread so i'll back off.
*
you're definitely not killing this thread, probably the opposite!
i don't agree with your definition of capitalism. perhaps you're right, perhaps i'm wrong but it seems narrow and prejudicial.
i think capitalism can work the same way a basketball game can work. with a strong set of rules, strictly enforced, to keep it fair.
when that happens, the efficiencies are maximized. when that doesn't happen, it becomes corrupt immediately.
listen, there has to some kind of a system of trade, otherwise we're all stuck not only growing our own food, but making our own clothes, shoes, plates, eyeglasses, tools, etc. the only way we can have any kind of a civilization is through specialization and trade. trade means you have to have a system of exchange, i.e. money. this needs to be as efficient and streamlined a system as possible.
the trouble arises when the opportunists with no care of the common good figure out how to exploit this system to enrich themselves at the expense of others. this should be defined as theft from "the commons" and treated accordingly.
the current system is so completely over-the-top corrupt in this regard that it needs massive reforms in order to get back to the basics of serving the common good.
my point being that "capitalism" isn't inherently "evil" anymore than my car or a gun is "evil" it's just a system like a machine.
and it seems to me that a really good example of how it can and should work is a farmer's market.
the machine needs to be treated like any potentially dangerous machine, with strict regulation, maintenance, rules, and common sense operating procedures.
we are far far away from that of course.
let's start off with "capitalism". here's the wiki entry:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.Income in a Capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other. There is also a tradition that treats rent, income from the control of natural resources, as a third phenomenon distinct from either of those. In any case, profit is what is received, by virtue of control of the tools of production, by the capitalists — those who provide the capital. Wages are received by those who sell their labor with those tools, i.e., the workers.
There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as an historical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[2] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[3] Some define capitalism as a system in which all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely as one in which merely "most" are in private hands — while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system in which production is carried out to generate profit and is governed subject to the laws of capital accumulation, regardless of legal ownership titles. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including the determination of how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.[4]
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[5][6] Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor and class.[7] There is general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth.[8] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.[7]
Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe,[9] although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[10][11][12] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[12] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[3] Today the capitalist system is the world's dominant economic model.
so "capitalism", in the sense i'm speaking of it, is an economic system. one among many. not the only one. not a law of nature. there's no reason, other than ideological, to conflate capitalism with trade and earning a living, with society in general, with how we might want things to work.
capitalism as an economic system favors capital: the owners. all rules and regulations are geared toward increasing profit for the owners. and the greater their wealth the greater say they have on their representatives and henchmen: government, law enforcement, courts, etc. e.g. the destruction of public transport in favor of oil and motor interests in x, y, z...
as an economic system it also ensures profit for the capital owning class and protects against loss: e.g. TBTF banks.
the capitalist class is, narrowly and prejudicially, a vampire squid (Matt Taibbi) that sucks the life-blood out of an economy, a society. that's its function. now read this:
Etymology and early usage Other terms sometimes used for capitalism:
Capital evolved from Capitale, a late Latin word based on proto-Indo-European caput, meaning "head" — also the origin of chattel and cattle in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries in the sense of funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money, or money carrying interest.[10][20][21] By 1283 it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm. It was frequently interchanged [or rather confused/conflated] with a number of other words — wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.[10]
The term capitalist refers to an owner of capital rather than an economic system, but shows earlier recorded use than the term capitalism, dating back to the mid-seventeenth century. The Hollandische Mercurius uses it in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.[10] In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788,[22] six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792).[21][23] David Ricardo, in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), referred to "the capitalist" many times.[24]
here's the extended metaphor: the idea is that money, like chattel, grain etc., can be grown. what is meant is that in the same way that one can plant a seed and reap ten or a hundred fold, one can plant a e.g. dollar and reap x-times the amount planted. this is called investment. only all that the capitalist "invests" is dollars. not his time, labor, nothing.
now if you, in your example, invested your own money (say money you earned in a factory) on marketing your own vegetables that you plant in your free time on your own lot (say by building a stall or cart or transporting your goods to the market), you've invested more than just money. the risk taken is yours. same as the profit. does this make you a capitalist? depends on the definition, on how narrow or broad it is.
but if you have no money then you turn to a capitalist. he lends you the money, at cost. money that he made providing the same "service" he's now providing to you. you spend it as above. whatever you make a percentage is marked off for him. and if you fail? same difference. you still owe him the money borrowed plus interest over time. he gets it no matter what. in fact he's made sure the law says he gets it, even if it ruins you. has he invested anything? -- i don't call that an investment. i call it usury. but as you so rightly put it, i'm narrow and prejudiced.
my contention is that money doesn't grow. and that to claim otherwise is to traffic in falsehoods.
basketball is a game. the capitalist isn't playing the game nor abiding by the rules. he's set up a further set of rules and a structure over and above the rules of the game such that whatever the outcome he cashes in on it. he's the bookie vampire squid. i want him outlawed.
capitalism is not a system of trade. as per the wiki, people were trading and engaging in all kinds of stuff before capitalism reared its head. i don't think that all that economic activity will disappear once capitalism is abolished. nor do i think it will disappear once the state is abolished. i don't think any of them, capitalism and the state, are necessary for a functioning society.
and there we disagree. end of.
once again, watch this. it's gives several examples of people who literally cannot imagine an alternative getting up and doing something they never could imagine doing:
*
edit for typos.
*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
gnosticheresy_2 wrote: ... Nordic has a very good point, whenever alternate ways of doing things are discussed, the conversation always stays in the abstract and theoretical rather than addressing practical questions like "will I still be able to open my own Taco stand?". And it's questions like these that are the most important, because, as much as fractional reserve banking maybe bad, it's still too abstract for most people. They want to know things like "after the glorious revolution/ collapse, will there still be money?" or "will I still be able to buy stuff?". Maybe we should compile a list of questions and possible answers.
... I think you're not quite getting what I'm getting at.
... It's just serendipity that two recent threads intersect with this one in quite an interesting way I'm sure...
... I don't know, and the reason I don't know is nobody will ever discuss it. Ok, from your answer there is still money, and people can still buy stuff, and, I'm assuming, the workers actually really do own the means of production. And then what? Can Nordic still set up his Taco stand? If he employs someone to help out does that person then have an equal share of his Taco stand?
I'm being slightly facetious but with a serious intent. As I said in this thread:
me ooo ooo ooo aren't I great wrote:for most people it is literally impossible for them to imagine an alternative to hyper-capitalism, and it's not because they're all stupid.
You want an alternative that lasts in the face of a full on assault by "those already in power in the world" then you have to give people the tools to imagine that alternative. And that means answering questions like "can I set up my own Taco stand?". You have to create the imaginative space for people to step into, and they are less likely to do this if what you're saying is framed by the abstract language of high finance, or half revolutions in far away countries. You want total change in your country, then make that change seem possible. And sometimes that means addressing boring practical questions.
hey, ok, the simple answer to Nordic's question would be yes. my previous answer did address that albeit in terms of "i don't see why not". what i was also trying to do was take up his point which seems to suggest that capitalism is necessary to the functioning of any society. and that without capitalism he would not be able to open a Taco stand. my answer to that was that people were are and will be opening Taco stands, or any equivalent thereof, whether capitalism exists or not.
in fact it might be a bit harder for Nordic to open a Taco stand now and possibly harder in the future once Tacos have become GM-patented and completely owned by Goldman Sachs or a branch thereof.
that is all.
*
edit for typos.
*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
here's another portrait of the capitalist plantation:
Guest Post: Corporate America Really Really Cares About Its Employees (Really) - A Distributed Rant Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/17/2011 12:01 -0400
A twofer from Charles Hugh Smith today, as always from Of Two Minds
Corporate America Really Really Cares About Its Employees (Really)
Scrape away the Human Resource Department rah-rah about "our mission" and how much your loyalty is "valued," and what's left? A paycheck and a sucking sound.
Let's state the heretical obvious: Corporate America, you suck. We could count the ways--subverting democracy via your lobbying and campaign contributions, your sabotage of competition via regulatory capture, and so on--but what really matters is how you treat your employees.
We know: you really really care about your employees. Really. The propaganda would be laughable if it wasn't so bald-faced. Do corporate managers really believe in the Big Lie theory, that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell?
Here is reader C's experience of Corporate America's transition to wonderfulness and caring. An outlier or "what everybody inside knows"?
I occasionally read your postings linked to Jesse's Cafe Americain and I just want to confirm what you posted about corporate bankruptcy. (The Bankruptcy of Corporate America) I was disappointed with the Reagan administration which imo was the beginning of the takeover of our government by corporations and elites. Still, having a new family, I was fortunate to get an union job at the big telco and now work in the belly of the beast.
At first it was a great place to work, proud of our knowledge & expertise helping customers, but after 2-3 mergers, the overlords have increased our workload 100% (shutting down depts. in other parts of the country and giving us their work), reduced benefits, monitor everything and have rolled out methods & procedures that have totally dehumanized the workforce; we're just button pushers. Nearly everyone there is now miserable and it's a soul crushing, mind-numbing existence. Sorry that I have nothing good to say about it all, just hoping & praying for it get swept away and that my preparations to be free of the system work out ok.
Correspondent K.R. recently submitted this account, and some advice for young people:
In March 2000, I was working for a fairly large biotech company in pharmaceutical development, many of my co-workers were PhD's. When I got out of my car in the company parking lot one morning I saw many of my coworkers walking back the their cars. I asked "what's the matter?" What we discovered that morning is that if your swipe card that gave you access to the building did not work you were laid off. If your card worked and the door opened, you still had a job.
Best advice I could give a young smart person? Skip the corporate rat race altogether. Do not get car payments, mortgages and all the other debts that chain you to your debt enslavement. Enrich your life, work for yourself or for an important cause. Nobody should waste their life on corporate Amerika.
The modern global corporation devotes considerable attention to creating a simulacrum of common purpose via human resource department’s empty cheerleading. But participants know it is only a hollow, cynical ritual that everyone shuffles through in order to keep their jobs. The reality in Global Corporate America is that every employee is dispensable, and their position is inherently contingent. The purpose is the deliver profits to shareholders, and the corporation buys a facsimile of loyalty and presents a façade of purpose to keep the work environment from becoming overtly depressing to the human spirit. The reason they must play this game is the profits, of course; dispirited workers aren’t very productive.
Given that 13% of global Corporate America’s revenues are pure profit ($1.67 trillion last year, or about 12% of the nation's GDP) and another significant percentage is overhead to support the grossly overpaid corporate bigwigs, a vast command-and-control structure and a costly Panzer division of crack tax attorneys to keep income taxes paid near-zero, then it’s clear that smaller enterprises could easily beat the Corporate America Plantation Store in price and service because a third of the corporate expenses are overhead needed by a massive, costly hierarchy and 13% net profit margins demanded by Wall Street and the Financial Elite owners.
Since the top 5% of households collect 72% of corporate profits and bond income and the top 10% collect 93% of the nation’s financial income, the immense profits skimmed from local communities do not flow back to the communities. They flow instead into the elite enclaves of those who own the vast majority of the nation’s financial assets.
The vaunted “efficiency” of Corporate America's cartels is largely a myth. The Plantation Store’s “edge” is not efficiency but these four factors:
1. exploitation of global wage arbitrage
2. access to cheap Wall Street financing
3. eliminating taxes and competition via capture of regulatory and legislative governance
4. a reliance on cheap oil to fuel their global strip-mining operations.
Take those away and much of global Corporate America is revealed as high-cost, uncompetitive sitting ducks awaiting slaughter by lower-cost decentralized competitors.
Local residents lose twice when global cartels collect much of the local income and send it to centralized corporate headquarters, as a percentage of the profits are spent subverting democracy with lobbying and millions of dollars in campaign contributions to political factotums. Local residents lose not only control of their income streams but of their political rights as cartels sabotage democracy by capturing regulation and elected officials.
A key feature of local enterprise is that it retains and recycles local income in the community, rather than sending it to some distant and unaccountable corporate headquarters tasked with maximizing profits globally. Thus even if local earnings decline in recessionary times, local enterprises can still thrive simply by taking some of the cartels' vast income stream and returning it to the community.
As investors, we have been brainwashed into seeing ourselves as disembodied zombies who float around the world, seeking higher returns wherever we might find them. We are disconnected from where we live, and are constantly told that our self-interest is only served by investing in fast-growing global corporations making money from goods and services generated elsewhere. Those who eschew investments in evil are mocked and derided; the only god for investors is maximizing profits, and how those profits are reaped and where they are reaped makes absolutely no difference.
This is how we end up with what we have now: a glorified Colonial Plantation Economy.
Ken R. submitted this story from the U.K.'s Independent on the reality behind the "maximizing profits is all that matters" facade: the human cost: Behind corporate walls, the masters of the universe weep:
In a recent blog post on the Harvard Business Review web site – and praise be to them for publishing it – Haque let rip on some of the absurdities of contemporary business and economic life. “Just ask yourself,” he wrote, “if you were to walk into any corporation, would you find faces brimming over with deep fulfillment and authentic delight – or stonily asking themselves, ‘If it wasn’t for the accursed paycheck, would I really imprison myself in this dungeon of the human soul?’”
That's a good question. What do think an honest answer would be for most employees?
well, vk, based on the definition of capitalism you provided of course i woukd have to agree with all that you say. the current system is corrupt to the core.
a lot of people think that "capitalism" means free markets. i guess i'm one of them. at a non corporate level i think this is a natural part of human interaction and you couldn't abolish it if you tried (i.e. anything for which there is a black market).
we don't really disagree except perhaps in one way, which is that i believe the only practical way to have any hope to fix anything is to change the system that's already sort of in place, meaning those institutions that people are already familiar with.
take banks. simply nationalize them and turn them into public utilities. no more profit motive for the banks. their job would be to provide loans in a way that was good for the commons and not just for the people who were already rich.
i suppose what i'm getting at is a type of what many people would call socialism. i don't like labels because they always have connotations. i can't riff too much on any of this because i'm on a job and typing this with my thumbnails.
but in your plan to overthrow and abolish capitalism, what are you hoping to replace it with? you may have written about this before for all i know, but if you have i don't recall it.
i'm curious how you would see the abolishment of capitalism unfold. i'm not being facetious or anything, i really want to know because my regard for you is very high.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
so now you know...