i cannot say it often enough- capitalism is a religion- not a science. and like a religion it only works if you believe it works. so much surprise these days that despite rising productivity and lowering unemployment rates- wages have been stagnant at best and adjusted for inflation lower for all but the professional classes and the elite. economists are surprised! why? because economic theory says it shouldn't be so. . .the state religion of the us and most of the world is capitalism and we are all forced to worship at its altar. there is no other way. and forced we are. so you think the bloated militaries and police forces of democratic states are for our safety? try being a non believer and see where it gets you. ridicule, jail, shot? democracy and capitalism cannot be made to work together- they are inimical. see what happens when the people threaten the corporate and elite empires- nothing democratic there.

Mark says, "American capitalism is potentially capable, despite its dark core of profit, despite its frequently poisoned heart, of tremendous creative opportunity and ingenuity."

Good column, Mark, but you're buying into the capitalist myth about "innovation" and creativity and such.

There is more potential for "creative opportunity and ingenuity" in a more mixed economic model - and especially in a socialist democracy - than in capitalism. People are creative and innovative and able to play, invent, teach and learn when they are freed up to do so.

When the goal of one's economy is short-term profit for the few (which can not be "tweaked" out of capitalism), then the many are left to spend much time and resources just getting by, at best. And that leaves not much for innovation or creation.

Also, capitalism discourages people working together to innovate and create and does so through profit-protecting devices like patents and copywrites. When people share their research and don't compete to maximize profit from their ideas and work, then the best ideas and work comes forth.

Capitalism can not be tweaked - it needs to be abandoned and replaced.

Behind any conspiracy theory, I beleive there is always some element of truth. I believe this is no different. Whether it is Clinton or Obama, I don't believe that there will really be any major change. At the end of the day, the same powers that be own this world and would fight to protect and keep it.

Edwards & Gravel were the only real candidates for change. The greatest problem of our time and this world is not terrorism. It is economic and miliary hegemony in he hands of a few oligarchic family. They are the players in this chest game, and we are the puns, jesters, knights, priest, Kings and Queen (depending on your societal status).

I wonder how people always vote against their economic interests.

simon, I like your comments about buying into the capitalistic myth, but I'd like to elaborate further. A capitalistic system that isn't being robbed blind is important for innovation and progress. Think of computers, networks, and wireless as one glaring example - these existed in 1970. Yes they did. They were developed by a capitalistic system that was just on the verge of being sacrificed on the alter of inflation to pay for the Vietnam war. And it's been all downhill ever since. No innovation. Just marketing, outsourcing, and devaluation of the currency to pay for foolish wars that protect no-one.

It's not the tool that's the problem, it's the jackasses who stole it and are using it for global vandalism that're the problem.

"There is no eliminating the dark side of capitalism, the gluttony and the greed and the violent underbelly. "

Sure there is! It's called a steeply progressive tax system. When the incentive to greed is removed pigs squeal but everyone else cheers.

It's the awkward truism that American capitalism is potentially capable, despite its dark core of profit, despite its frequently poisoned heart, of tremendous creative opportunity and ingenuity.

Capitalism does create opportunities. This is clear to all. But the question for today is whether those opportunities result in net benefts to the society or not, and this depends on whether the capitalism is healthy or rotten. It's clear that today US capitalism is rotten, especially at the top. It's not so rotten at the bottom.

Capitalism provides opportunities for people to employ their ingenuity for net benefit to the society. But this also depends on whether the capitalism is healthy or rotten. The news today is that the rot of US capitalism has accelerated so much over the past seven years that the society would benefit greatly if 90% of the economic activity were halted. It's simply counterproductive, highly destructive.

I agree with Big_Money. Capitalism is not the problem as much as unchecked capitalism is. No other industrial nation on earth allows their corporations to run roughshod over the public interest as much as this country does. Through a combination of enforced regulations, a progressive tax system, a curbing of special interest groups on K Street, unbiased news and a change in national direction from a military based economy to a socially progressive economy, there is hope for the future.

Having said that, I see no indication of corporate America offering us anyone except jackasses to run the country. Any legitimate populist candidate (one who represents the average American) will be quickly removed from the public eye via the MSM through marginalization, smear campaigns, legal teams with deep pockets and failing all that... a bullet in the back of the head. It's not the publics fault (completely anyway) because only corporate sycophants are permitted to appear on the ballot.

LIFEOFQUEST -- Yeesh, DENNIS KUCINICH was also someone who would have brought major change. Don't forget him. I worked tirelessly for him. He's a true American who loves his country and I get so tried of him being omitted. DENNIS J. KUCINICH.

One other thing...
Mark Morfords' article is one of the best I've read on CD!

What would capitalism be without rackets, monopolies, caste, wealth by birthright, poverty by birthright, communist/developing world labor, IP and patent law, politicians and warfare?

trying to take what is, at its very heart, a flawed and self-destructive system, and making it into something proud and interesting and vibrant, something actually worth defending.

Can it be done? Is it still possible?

Capitalism is like a spice. In just the right amount it enhances things and in too great an amount it ruins things. This should come as no surprise.

Let's take one example, and remember to expand the idea afterwards. If you own a rental property that will probably cover the one person who just doesn't want to own property. This person wants the freedom to bounce around from place to place forever. This person needs the capitalist. But most people really want to own their own home and be done with house payments ASAP.

So, when you fall into greed and go buy up two, three, fifteen rental properties, catastrophe!!! You're competing with others who just want to own their home. You're inflating the price, you're stealing from them, it's theft, pure and simple. The culture does not allow Americans to draw the line with reason. It's a truly sick culture. Yeah just dump two, three cups of black pepper into the soup. That'll do it!!

Paul - "What would capitalism be without rackets, monopolies, caste, wealth by birthright, poverty by birthright, communist/developing world labor, IP and patent law, politicians and warfare?"

Dare I say it - it would be unamerican.

That's intended as a joke by the way. I like Americans far to much to tar them with that brush, unjokingly.

"fire and pitchfork revolution" looks pretty good to me, at least in the symolic sense. With two democratic candidates that continue to embrace and be funded by the U.S. corportate-imperial fascist regime, we must build our anti-imperial and anti-capitalist institutions at the local level and continue to jab our pitchforks of social justice, environmental and human rights into the rear ends of the asses and elephants at the federal level every time they turn to take a bow to their corporate masters.

It's no surprise neither party wants to allow third parties to participate or even allow reasonable and progressive voices in either party to discuss their views in public without scorn or dismissal.

We must continue to hold these quasi-leaders in contempt and keep up the pressure for election reforms such as Instant Run-Off voting, election spending caps and time limits for campaigns. We must force the FCC to make private broadcasters responsible for funding public service programming (including news programming not tied to profit or advertising revenue) and increased local access in exchange for the use of public airwaves.

Blah, Blah, Blah.... The ideas go on. But it is absolutely necessary we begin to prepare the groundwork for a new society by working within our own communities to develop the leaders, have the discussions, build the networks, policies and institutions to support a nation that respects its own citizens as well our world neighbors and dismisses the corporate structures that have developed a mindset of profits over people and continue to support, war, exploitation and misery throughout the world.

Sometimes I have really dark ideas, maybe best forgotten.

One little act of symbolism that I've thought of would be to make up a phony thank you card from say Exxon (or Haliburton). It would be made up as if being sent to the home of the family of a dead soldier. And it would be thanking the family for the contributions that the soldier's death has made to the corporate profits.

The catch is, I'd never want to use a real soldier's name, or send it to a real soldier's family. That would just be too cruel. But it always seemed to be a way to create a short bit of symbolism to make the point as to why exactly Americans are dying in Iraq.

I guess I've always wanted "capitalism with limits".

In some ways, capitalism and the market are useful tools and useful ways of organizing. But the problems seem to occur when there's no limits on how far the extremes can go.

One limit would be on how far someone can fall. To me its fundamentally immoral for a society to say that if a person is not economically useful that they are discarded and condemned to starve to death without shelter. And the problems we seem to see with too much money and power are because there's no limit on that end either.

For instance, I have no problem with telling someone, "hey, you've got enough money for yourself and your descendents to live in luxury for at least a couple of generations. Its time for you to retire to a beach some place. If you don't and keep making more money, we are going to tax it at such levels that its not really worth your effort. You've been successful and you've got yours. Now, get out of the game and let others have a try at it."

This discussion about capitalism seems to miss the point entirely that capitalism is not a closed national system at all. So let's not talk about the supposed good points of it when internationally it is a total freaking disaster.

Is it possible that we can make "it into something proud and interesting and vibrant"? Probably in flashes and for a few. Oh. We already have that. So, no, I do not think that it is worth defending: to defend it is to be consumed by it. It is unthinking. It only consumes.

Can it be done? Is it possible? The answer, unfortunately for humankind is a big NO. When you have a cancerous disease with generalized metastatic dissemination the patient is lost regardless of your best endeavors to save his life. Unbriddled cancerous malignancy of capitalism can only be cured through the death of the patient,which means life on earth. This is the destination we are heading for. Don't expect the miserable puppet poising to be the next president to be capable of doing anything of consequence in restraining the avalanche of disasters looming ominously in the horizon targetting the house of greed.
Pleasure reading you Maestro Morford

Quasar - "So, no, I do not think that it is worth defending: to defend it is to be consumed by it. It is unthinking. It only consumes."

I would argue that it is by not defending it that it has wound up this way. It may be unthinking, but it consumes nothing. The best societies humans have come up with have capitalism and socialism as key ingredients. If you blame one or the other or both for the crimes perpetrated by those who hijack it, you let those criminals off the hook - you throw out the baby and are stuck with the bathwater.

It's worth discriminating between personal capitalism and financial capitalism.

A farmer owns some land upon which he grows crops. That's capitalism. He saves up a little money, and buys a plow to make his production more efficient. That's capitalism.

However, when land prices are going up so fast that farmer mortgages his land and invests it in the stock market, assuming he'll make money on both the stock market and on the never-ending increase in value of his property, that's financial capitalism, and that's where the problems begin.

"Capital" has been defined since Adam Smith as "the means of production." Capital used to be something you saved for, not borrowed for. If capital were strictly personal, the means for individuals to produce goods and service, there would be a lot less trouble.

Financial capitalism goes hand-in-hand with the notion of never-ending growth. What if, as in the teaching of major religions, interest on borrowing were illegal? Well, first off, the number of people willing to lend would go way down. Secondly, the concept of "investment" would be purified, as people would be saving to buy means of improving their personal productivity.

Capitalism, as practised today, has some major flaws. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I am a capitalist. I have invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars into making a biodiesel processor, with which I supply the local community with locally-produced fuel from waste cooking oil. I didn't borrow money to do this; I only invest what I've saved up for the purpose. How would I have done this under some other system? Please don't start your argument with, "The government would..."

"limited capitalism" is, then: socialism -- the half-empty, half-full, half-loaf compromise between capitalism and the one antithetical limit on it, the only opposite of capitalism, and that is communism.

Socialism: half-capitalism, half-communism.

Chop capitalism in half, baby. Do the dream common to all of us.

As for where are the barricades to storm carrying torches with our pitchforks, recall that the guilt-soaked conscience duly confessed: en.WikiQuote.ORG/wiki/George_H._W._Bush , "If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." -- To journalist Sarah McClendon (December 1992), in response to the question, "What will the people do if they ever find out the truth ...?"

Although, only quick action can take redress in Kennebunkport. After retrenchment barricades get built, and surrounded by three US taxpayer-funded military bases, then the torches and pitchforks are going to need to make the long walk to Paraguay -- Extra! Extra! Read all about it: DailyKOS.COM/story/2007/4/28/2544/07385

193 million dollar golden parachute for the last ceo of Exxon last year.

Let the soldiers loose their limbs.
The ex-CEO loves his double chin.

Jan Steinman is right. Capitalism works, and when you start trying to champion pure socialism or communism, you're out on a discredited limb that will soon break and leave you politically dumped on a heap.

Doom n Gloom is also right. A steeply progressive tax system is the correct modifier of capitalism. We had it in the post WWII era. Reagan reversed it (with more damage from others since). And IF it is ever reinstated, it will only be done by a full slate of Democrats. What are you waiting for? Mike Huckabee to come along and repeal the entire constitutionality of income tax (as he promotes with his most unfair of all
"FairTax")? Wake up. Going back toward the '50s-'70s model of taxation is both possible and a good idea.

safiyyah,

Modern capitalism is predicated on asymmetric freedoms. Nation-states are economic cartels; the ueber-capitalists can play differentials in currency and labor costs that laborers are expressly forbidden from doing.

Note that the redneck is encouraged to be far angrier about the "illegal workers" coming to the US -- this is never presented in the same context as the US company offshoring itself to foreign countries. All blame is placed on the worker who is trying to escape his pen, not the corporation which enjoys free movement.

It's globalized serfdom.

private ownership of the means of production is an insanity which, like slavery, the human race must outgrow. true enough, our first attempts to do so have been heavily flawed, but this is no reason to give up on the effort.

Even a belief in a fair, progressive tax presumes that we, at some level, agree that *we are all in this together.* I'm not sure the owners of Exxon, or the political class represented by most of the presidential candidates, are in agreement.

Yes, capitalism can work when it is bound by legislated *and enforced* restrictions designed by a society with a basically socialist philosophy -- every citizen deserves to be supported by this great experiment of working together that we call government. There will still be tension between the owners of the means of production, and the workers, and that tension will require constant negotiation in every social arena.

Providing every citizen with a basic starting-point of prosperity, health, and education -- what we would call an egalitarian society -- would go a long way towards putting more power into the hands of the workers. That kind of egalitarianism would require an equal commitment from each citizen to contribute to the infrastructure that makes equal opportunities a reality -- even the rich, owner citizens. Right now, it sure seems that those rich, owner citizens have commitments only to themselves and their short-term profit, and are incapable of thinking beyond that even for the sake of their own children, let alone some poor worker.

When we lose that agreement, that we're all in this together, then we do become predator and prey, and the rule of the strongest and most ruthless ensues at the cost of everyone else--but I believe that we must continue to believe that true cooperation is possible, because the alternative is brutality and destruction.

Daniel David, reading your comments is often confusing. It's like reading a nutritionist who reasonably spells out the need for vitamins and minerals and the dangers of too much refined white sugar - and then implores people to switch to Pepsi lest the Coke do any more damage.

?

BM,

It's like he wants us to keep eating those vitamins simply because the bottle is labelled as such, regardless of whether someone slipped in placebos. Or worse.

kloro,

I basically agree with you. I think of the analogy of building heavier-than-air aircraft (htaa) vs. lighter-than-air aircraft (ltaa). Many attempts to create htaa failed miserably, just as attempts to create working socialist systems failed, as many technical difficulties had to be overcome. The ltaa, much simpler but much more difficult to control, like capitalist systems, were much easier to develop, but had severe limitations in usefulness and safety.

There were those a little over a century ago who were convinced that htaa could never work and ridiculed the pioneers in aviation who were determined to overcome the technical problems. Today, there are those heavily invested in capitalist systems who do not want to see socialist pioneers succeed, and they constantly pressure the US government to extinguish any attempts that might be made, such as those in South America and particularly Venezuela.

sorefeets, I gotta ask about this: "democracy and capitalism cannot be made to work together"

Umm... can you provide any examples of the alternative? I can't seem to think of any democracies that weren't capitalist, to some degree...

Paul - are those the blue pills?

Alledgedly FDR went to the CEO of Standard Oil sometime in the 30's and asked or told him to stop doing business with Nazi Germany.

And, as the story goes, the CEO of Standard Oil replied, "You don't want us to stop selling oil to the US now do you?"

Global domination by the oil companies didn't start yesterday and it's not gonna stop tomorrow.

WE must find a new way.

Capitalism as originally designed is not necessarily bad.

What we have is NOT that. The original was NOT conceived to be viewed as a legal individual with no consequences for individuals running a corporation.

The greed that has crept into the mix is inescapable. Mark's column only hits the high points but is completely accurate in his portrayal of the consequences of a government coopted by corporate fat cats who make obscene profits from the sufferings of others.

We have no-one to blame but ourselves. An early warning was Eisenhower's unheeded warnings about the military-industrial complex. Another was the greed that enabled the formation of FOR-PROFIT health organizations. and so on.....

Mark and Naomi Wolf have it absolutely right. Those of us who did nothing to oppose this "I-Me-My" culture of greed and instead tried to get "ours" should be ashamed.

One wonders why a candidate would loan themselves obscene ($6 million) amounts to their campaigns for offices that pay relative peanuts. Somehow, I don't think that these acts are altruistic in nature. One really wonders at the expected ROI of the donations.

Too bad the ROI is at the expense of us poor folks and our ilk. We really are fodder for the excessive greed of the rich.

Isn't a discussion on modifying capitalism either here or anywhere in the world a little like the old saying of "shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic"? I mean can a capitalistic system that is based on exponential growth that is competely reliant on fossil fuels (and now mostly foreign fuels when it comes to America) at this late date in fossil fuel extraction last much longer anyway? How? Someone please defend the position that capitalism in any form that relies on these diminishing resources and exponential growth has a future beyond the next two decades (and that timeframe is being generous I'd argue). What logical path allows for its survival now? I'm desperate to understand how? I look around me and I see nothing but an incredibly complicated, interrelated system in super, duper hyper-drive that is begging to crash. Tell me I'm wrong, I want to sleep through the night again. Seriously.

Irony: The bigger the profits, the greater the inflation, and the less the value of the dollars gained.

With the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, all the politicians populating congress...from the most conservative republican to the most liberal democrat are equal parts of the problem...fish swimming in a river of free market capitalism and deregulation...a river flowing into a cold, bloody ocean of corporatism, militarism, and economic slavery. All are equally dedicated to disaster capitalism...but perhaps the democrats...Clinton & Obama are more dangerous than their conservative counterparts. Liberals in office perpetuate the myth that there are only two choices. Maybe we'd be better off with a couple more decades of republicans to throw our country into a tailspin that will open everyone's eyes. I still believe that capitalism can work, but only a socially responsible capitalism...tempered by extensive social programs. I think Hugo Chavez had it right when he nationalized the oil industry and gave the proceeds of Venezuela's natural resources back to the people...in the form of FREE healthcare, public education, subsidized housing & food, and basically made the decision to take care of his people. What a concept! Screw Exxon and all those who subscribe to the Washington Concensus.

Gorsegrower - or - The greater the inflation, the bigger the profits, and the less the value of everyone else's dollars.

rtdrury said "But the question for today is whether those opportunities result in net benefts to the society or not, and this depends on whether the capitalism is healthy or rotten"

That's a good point too... It is possible to have ethical capitalism. It's good to work hard and be compensated accordingly... what's bad is the unfettered greed that puts profits before people that we see these days. That's the problem though, you can start off being ethical and running a good, responsible business... but then you start falling short of cash, so you get investors... and those investors demand profit... so you cut corners, slash wages, outsource production... and next thing you know, it's profit over people. Small Business == Good Capitalism (generally)... Big Business == Bad Capitalism. I will always try to do business with small businesses, even if that means I have to pay a little more. Example: Buying a DVD of a movie... big box store has it for $19.99... Mom & Pop video store is selling it for $26.99... I'll cough up the extra $7 to support the small business...

To quote John Trudell,

"While you seek material Advantage,
The sound of flowers dying,
Carry messages through the wind,
Trying to tell you about Balance,
And your safety."

Relevant videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vya5aFki_xk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHS6392MzEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKoZqB2nM4

Listen to the voice of 10,000 years and learn wisdom.

Regulated capitalism with a dash of socialism is what made our country great, once upon a time.

Today we have unregulated capitalism (Banking, Insurance, Oil, Agribusiness, Pharmaceutical are all cartels that fix pricing and evade taxes) with a heavy dose of socialism (military, security, intelligence, police, fire, health care for the poor and old that the insurance companies want no part of it, welfare, education, prison complex - 2 million incarcerated, subsidies for rich farmers including Rockefeller and Gates, corporate welfare - bailing out banks too big to fail, welfare for Israel - 3 billion per year).

We then provided tax incentives that allowed our manufacturing base to export our means of production and capital built up from our labour to leave for countries with cheap labour w/o any penalty or reimbursement.

When the capitalists control government you have Fascism, or as Mussolini said, Corporatism, and thats exactly what we have. We only socialize that which capitalists see as being unprofitable, and what is profitable is privatized. The military is paid for by the people, at great cost, but it is used to mainly to benefit the capitalists to secure resources, and enforce free trade and investment in other countries.

The only solution is to nationalize the Food, Energy, Banking and Health Sectors and scale down our military to use it only for national defense.

John R., if these were much earlier times I might be inclined to agree with your call for a socially responsible capitalism, if our imperfect, unconscious, and essentially selfish tendencies could somehow be tempered with foresight and compassion. (I do agree with your assessment of the situation, however.)

Unfortunately, today we are faced with the twin cataclysms of global warming and peak oil, which the system we have created, so cemented into place and based on the profit motive, cannot and will not address in the extremely short time we have left to address them.

Although suppressed, the technology does exist today to ameliorate their most immediate effects. However, we must dedicate ourselves to our doing so, such as using our remaining resources judiciously and cooperatively to prepare the entire globe (not just our small portion of it) to move beyond our suicidal reliance on fossil fuels, including solar, wind, and hydro. (Sorry folks, but these false panaceas won't come anywhere close to meeting our energy needs at ANYTIME in the future. Neither will carbon tax credits, or much of anything else being put on the table by the corporate capitalists, including the completely false and managed presidential elections we're currently subjected to. Along with a litany of other distractions too numerous to mention here, they are but the tactics of those who cling to the dying paradigm, and are being used by them as smokescreens in order to divert our attention from what we could be doing, by those whose interests are in things remaining relatively the same.)

So what will save us (if we even deserve to be saved)? I believe only love, understanding, and cooperation, STARTING AS CLOSE TO YESTERDAY AS POSSIBLE, and a willingness to IMMEDIATELY begin living with as much integrity as we are aware of possessing, as a culture, yes, but more importantly, as individuals. In every moment. Only you know the form it will take for you. But, YOU DO KNOW. And you must start living it NOW.

Some of you will chide this as being pie-in-the-sky and insult me for what you feel are my naive and even "unpatriotic" attitudes. And then, if you think about it, you'll realize that there really IS no other way.

Blessings, all.

Beyond Empire: You got it! I would add that decentralization is critical, particularly for basic services and needs like food and power. Further, because access to and the content of information needed to be informed citizens is critical to sustaining democracy. I thing that the Public Broadcasting System is totally broken. They are just like the regular MSM when it comes to the news these days.

COMarc: Just send those thank your cards to the congress critter of your choice. cc the administration.

Jan Steinman: Excellent, as always. You will also note that your definition of capitalism is local and community based by nature. I like it. Thanks!

Captn 72: Your question certainly deserves an answer. But I don't have one. And I don't think it really relates so much to capitalism as it does to economics. Capitalism doesn't rely on growth as a driver. Greed does.

Go to the link below> It is from the Summer '07 issue of Yes! Magazine and is devoted to how South American countries are dealing with a post-capitalist world. What all the different countries are doing is really inspirational and informative about what could be done in the U.S. I just can't decide which country I want to immigrate too.

http://www.yesmagazine.com/default.asp?ID=222

Hey Rebel, may I suggest Ecuador?

www.montesuenos.org

www.brianoleary.com

No, capitalism can't work. It does depend on growth and there are limits to growth. As many people have pointed out, cancer eventually kills its host. American capitalism is killing our planet and millions of the humans on it. It is, I agree, quite adaptable. I can't believe it's lasted this long. Endless war, exploitation of poor people in other countries and borrowing insane amounts of money seems to have worked so far.

But, think about a sustainable economy. Say you work in a washing machine factory. After a while, everyone has washing machines. What do you do? In capitalism, you must continually find new markets, or make machines that break down quickly.

In a sustainable economy, you quit making machines for a while. Does that sound weird to Americans? It does, because we are dependent on wage labor to provide for our needs. If our factory shuts down, we are screwed.

But think about simpler times. When the horses were all shod, did the blacksmith keep pounding out more shoes? When the fields were harvested, did people keep walking the rows? When everyone in the family was clothed, did the mother keep sewing? Say you lived in Tahiti. When you caught enough fish for dinner, did you keep fishing?

People can get together and provide for everyone's needs, and then take a break! Why not? That's why capitalism was so resisted at the beginning. Our forefathers and mothers had way more time to party than we have. They had festivals all year.

We can get together, cooperate to provide neccessities of life for everyone and then call it a day, until more needs come up.

That's not capitalism, but it's a better life.

Thanks ricshev for the info. I'm really interested how the native peoples are taking back their democracy. Since it probably isn't going to happen here in my lifetime, I really want to get down and dirty with people who have governments that are actually operating for people NOW. Thant's why I'm having such a hard time figuring out which country to go to in South America. So many are doing such great things. All different but interconnected. One problem, though, is that I am "language impaired". My Spanish pronouncisation is great, but my understanding is ziltch even after 2 years in high school (many long years ago).

sorefeets, I gotta ask about this: "democracy and capitalism cannot be made to work together"

Umm… can you provide any examples of the alternative? I can't seem to think of any democracies that weren't capitalist, to some degree…

Big_Money, the problem today is not capitalism, per se, but CORPORATE capitalism. Capitalism by it's nature is ultimately unsustainable, as we live on a planet whose resources are finite. It would be impossible to use them indiscriminately and forever without us running out eventually.

I am of the opinion that despite the obvious problems we now face, our evolution as a species has proceeded at the pace it has BECAUSE of our adoption of capitalism. (Obviously not everyone has to the degree that we need right now, but there is no denying that at least some of us have, and we are the torchbearers.) What we need to do is to take what we've learned and not be afraid to live it. Things WILL change, for the better, if we do.

Where we went astray was is 1886, with the decision by the Supreme Court giving corporations the same rights as individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment. Little known, Fun Fact: much like The Chimp's "signing statements" and executive orders that have essentially created the laws- independent from their original intent as passed by Congress- the "law" that created "corporate personhood" was actually a note by a court clerk who transcribed the justices' decision. In actually, their decision was that corporations did NOT deserve the same rights as individuals, but by the time it was discovered- no internet in those days- the system favoring corporations over just plain folks was firmly in place.

Same with the "laws", in 1913, creating the Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank supported by and for the benefit of the multi-nationals. For those who have not yet seen it, I highly recommend the documentary film, "America: From Freedom to Fascism". (It's available on Google Video.)
These two actions have probably done more to corrupt what could have been a useful system, if we had been able to hold our more base instincts in check and were willing to transcend it in the end when we outgrew it. (One country which has done this to a large degree is Norway, which Michael Moore profiled in the outtakes to "Sicko" on DVD.)

Well, because of these actions by a very fucked-up group of individuals with an agenda, we've arrived at the point where we need to evolve immediately, much sooner than we would have otherwise. But evolve we must. Our only other choice is to perish.

It appears to me that there a number of very intelligent people making this problem more complicated than it needs to be.

Most will agree that pure socialism will not work as there is no motivation to do any more than absolutely necessary as all share alike.

On the other hand, pure capitalism wich we are seeing now is not working either, as the greed will not permit Reagans "trickle down" propaganda to work, and we are soon going to have a nation of a few rich and a lot of hungry slaves.

The only method that will work is for our government to regulate basic services just enough to provide a decent living for all the people, and return to a reasonably progressive income tax so that the rich and large corporations get to help out with the general welfare instead of only making their stockholders wealthy.

Now, we could vote for a Repug warmonger like McCain or a fair taxer like Huckleberry, who wants to throw out the income tax and put on a sales tax on everyone that would finish the average person off in a hurry. Of course he wants to rewrite the Constitution using the Bible for a guide, so that would keep our mind off starvation.

Or, we could support either Democratic candidate and back up Bush`s tax cuts for the wealthy as they intend to do and look after our own people for a change. Then we might just eventually have a mixture of socialism and capitalism that would keep our country operating with some chance of a decent life for everyone.

Jan Steinman; Have you read anything by William H. Kotke ?

Go to www.gardenplanetbook.com if you are interested. I read another one of his articles a few days ago called...'Russia To Become An Ecovillage Nation ? Interesting idea.

All Morford writes so well of is in the box. To find a light to the path out - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html