Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Livingontheland Digest, Vol 427, Issue 7

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dan Conine <dconine@bertramwireless.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Livingontheland Digest, Vol 427, Issue 7
  • Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:49:17 -0600

John D'hondt wrote:

Now take a situation that you see a small child fall in one meter deep water
where it is drowning.
Are you a capitalist who does not want to make his pants wet when there is no
profit in it for you?
Or are you a communist who has the ability to save that child (in need of
help) and you do so without a second thought?

I think it is high time that we define these loaded words, anarchy, communism
and capitalism from time to time so that we keep understanding one another.
Maybe the NSA can learn something from it.
John
I could go on this topic all day, John.
My latest concern is that what is being promoted as "capitalism" (using money to determine demand/value) is really not. What we have for the most part is something else; the basis of Imperialism, which is Consumerism. Consumerism is a belief that the act of consumption is regulated by the Invisible Hand (capitalism at least gives a nod to the production of the money by government as a regulating mechanism), but even that belief is flawed, and we end up with unfettered rapacity because the Invisible Hand is only a myth.

I think that what you defined as communism is really socialism (the good of the society over the individual), where communism "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is a flawed idea that doesn't consider the needs of our future selves, only the present. Socialism is Humanism writ large, and as such, is also flawed (the belief that the needs of people overrides everything else). Humanism is flawed because people are dependent on their environment, and cannot survive for long if humans are allowed to consume the resources that their future selves will need (unmoderated activities). A true capitalist would save the drowning child because the child is a future resource to be exploited economically (an investment), whereas a socialist might think the child is one more mouth for the community to feed. I guess it depends on my attitude today, because I can argue the opposite, too.
A true environmentalist would rescue the child as another servant of the environment (assuming it is a community of real environmentalists, not the capitalist-parasite kind we usually see).

In the long run, it is our generosity toward the environment which will determine if we persist or go extinct. We can even apply capitalism toward that goal, but the bullies who own the means of production will not go quietly. The opposite of capitalism isn't communism or socialism, though. The opposite of capitalism is a a sales tax. In the U.S., the majority of campaign and lobby levers have set their fulcrum upon the income tax code. The FairTax proposal attempts to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a 23% sales tax, and a "prebate" that pays everyone for the tax cost of basic living expenses. This is not to be confused with the Flat Tax plan, that is just another income tax break for the rich.
The sensible thing for socialists and communists to do is to adopt the FairTax plan and raise the rate until the air and water are clean (reduce consumerism) and raise the prebate until everyone has enough for basic living expenses.
As long as we are living in a capitalized democracy (one dollar, one vote), then the voters should be paid ALL of their dollars and given the real costs of the goods they buy. The main alternative to sales taxes is the black market, which is a more localized economic model than the corporate/military market we have now.
When the sales tax on things is 50% or so, then people will think a little more about whether to buy those "safe" foods from a corporation or to grow their own (or barter with a neighbor).
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich have the tools to convince the poor to work for them and buy their stuff. The government follows the money, which is telling the economists that people WANT to be poorer and work for the rich.
It really is pretty bizarre, especially when all of the pro-economic systems we use are designed to destroy our own future. Debt is a promise to consume future resources. Income tax breaks encourage more debt. The vicious circle is accelerating as government uses debt to increase resource consumption ("grow the economy").
Meanwhile, the climate seems to be telling us to become nomads and give up on fixed farming except maybe in the tropics. We've already consumed a critical resource that was taken for granted: stability.

Dan C.
Belgium, WI





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page