Democracy is broken and capitalism doesn't work. Fact. Plain and simple fact. Capitalism thrives on disaster. It is a system of profiteering that pits man against man – for one to succeed another must fail – or more precisely millions of others must fail. For the more that suffer, the greater the wealth accumulated by the one. The many support the weight of the one, with a booted heel in the face.
Democracy, by definition is government by the people, for the people. When looked at closely it resembles communism and socialism in many ways. The underlying principle of all these forms is that the people – all the people – get an equal share, whether that be in bread or dollars. Governments – all governments – especially democracies – are entrusted to provide for the well being of all and not just the few.
The infusion of capitalism into our society has destroyed the very fabric of our democracy. The two are incompatible and need with urgency, like a cancer, to be separated.
To quote Abraham Lincoln, who said just before his assassination, “I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned. An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”
What he foresaw was the America of today, where the corporations control and decide the direction and fate of the entire world – for the benefit of a handful of businessmen, who know nothing about sociology or ecology, never mind ethics, who see global warming – the melting of the ice caps – as the new frontier – the next business venture – their opportunity to turn a buck, while the rest of us are ground up and spit out by the machine. It is on our backs and with our blood that they propel themselves to the status of kings and gods.
That is the sad reality of the situation. That is why we have no health care – that is why our homes are being stolen from us – that is why there are food riots around the world and no jobs at home – but to do all this they need a tool and that tool is war.
War is the excuse and the means that enable the richest of the rich to horde the entire wealth of the planet, while billions suffer and die.
It is a crime against humanity what has been done. If ever in the history of mankind there was the need and justification for revolution that time is now.
Corruption has run rampant for too long, unchecked and unbalanced and it is high time that it be driven out – from the chambers and the ministries, from their boardrooms and penthouses – out and for good.
It is time for the people to take back their country – to take responsibility for it, to help lift each other up and turn this world around.
The problem we now face is one of evolution. We must look the facts square in the face and decide how and where we are going to advance from here, for we cannot go backwards.
Capitalism is in the midst of collapse and implosion and in its collapse the owners of the capital, the Rockefellers et al. are taking the rest of the world down with them.
Point in fact, the World Bank and IMF – run by the very same band of stockholders – admits that it is the fault of the policies that they set in place that has exasperated and in many cases created the famine and poverty that we see today, not only in third world countries, but in places like India, where local agriculture was destroyed to make way for American food conglomerates and profiteers, like Monsanto, throwing a self sustaining sub-continent onto the brink of starvation. And now they’re going after Greece, with Portugal and Spain next on the chopping block.
NAFTA is another such policy that is crippling the entire North American continent with unemployment, while stripping farmers in Mexico of their lands to make way for imports.
The system must change. That is evident. However, bringing us back to fact, the capitalists control the military, the police and all private mercenary/security firms and are not about to let go of their power – the bottom line is that.
The only way to overturn capitalism is by taking away their toy. Their primary tool, their weapon of control is the money. We must release ourselves from their debt and abolish the banking system.
The resources we need today are all right here. We have so much work that needs to be done, all the tools are at our disposal and an unemployed workforce starves to death. Seriously, what’s wrong with us?
A few very rich bankers and corporate executives horde all the money and say we cannot have what is right in front of our noses and squeeze us until we have nothing and poison our air and food and water and right when we have nothing left, they criminalize our poverty.
No matter how much the bankers say we owe, they cannot stop the sun from rising the next day. The moment we reject their monetary system we win.
The government may say there is no money, but that does not deny the fact that the very real resources that we need to improve our lives exist in plenty. Resources abound. It is just a matter of making proper use of them.
You want a solution to the economic crisis – it is simple and can be done in one day. It’s called Total Debt Forgiveness. You just push the reset button to zero and wipe out all debt in one fell swoop – Global Economic Amnesty. I don’t owe you, you don’t owe me and no one owes anyone a thing – your house, your apartment, wherever you live – it’s yours and if you don’t have a place to live then you move into whatever house is boarded up – and there’s a lot of them around – and that’s that. Zero homelessness in one day.
How do we do that? Where is the legal basis? The answer can be found right in the U. S. Constitution. Without even going to Congress, the President may use the Power of Pardon to forgive our entire debt with one stroke of the pen.
Screw the banks. Why not? They’ve done everything they can to screw us, so screw them. Screw the banks and the screw bankers to hell.
It’s that easy.
Then we can look seriously at what physical resources we have and start repairing our communities, our country and our planet – not in 2020, not in 2050, but right now, today.
Take away their money and you take away their power.
Total Debt Forgiveness.
Global Economic Amnesty.
Now.
- Mark Lipman
9 Comments
A rigged system is not democracy nor capitalism
Submitted by Fex on
Many argue that a rigged system where corporations and government are tied together is neither democratic nor capitalist, so saying that democracy fails and/or capitalism fails is a misnomer. That is to say right now we do not live in a democracy nor in a capitalist society.
In capitalism the private sector is not meant to own and control the government in order to write policy for themselves. Why this is not capitalist is because it is against the very idea of a free market. This creates a rigged system in the economy where-by a select few businesses get to advise, edit, or outright create political legislation that supports their business interests and thus are similar to a black whole in the market place that has nothing to do with free market competition- indeed it kills the very idea of competition - but those who hop on board stand to gain greatly in the short term. This also creates a rigged system in the government whereby the same select few business interests have sway if not out right control of political elections and policies- once gaining control it extends far further than simply financial legislation it can affect all legislation. Some argue this is a form of Facism, where-in normally the State could take absolute control of the financial sector as it rules the rest of the people in a top-down manner instead the reverse has happened with the same affects: the financial sector has taken control of the State and rules the people in a top down manner. The merger of the two, regarding which comes first, leads to a corrupt system in which the people are shafted.
Beware of insisting on the reverse. That is: government control of the financial sector, which *is* Facism as described by Mussolini. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Capitalism :"Mussolini argued that dynamic or heroic capitalism and the bourgeoisie could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism if the concept of economic individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced.Private enterprise would control production but it would be supervised by the state.Mussolini claimed that in supercapitalism, "[it] is then that a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously."Due to the inability of businesses to operate properly when facing economic difficulties, Mussolini claimed that this proved that state intervention into the economy was necessary to stabilize the economy."
If the government controls business, there's nothing to stop government once again becoming corrupt through money, writing policy specifically for profit, etc. Basically, once you let the two get too intertwined the influence of both legislative and economic power is IMMENSE.
Both methods end in the same result and both screw the people AND screw business, except for those at the top receiving end of profit and delegation of power.
On topic of clearing out the system all together:
I definitely agree there should be separation of banks/corporation/big business and government.
"move into whatever house is boarded up – and there’s a lot of them around – and that’s that. Zero homelessness in one day." Would need to be a bit more organized than that or people will violently fight over property.
Global Economic amnesty sounds all well and good, however what to replace the system with afterward? Alright no more money, so what type of government and what type of economy (if any) comes after? Will people work? If so what are they working for and how will they be supplied with food, water, power, transportation, health, etc and by who or what will provide these things?
"Without even going to Congress, the President may use the Power of Pardon to forgive our entire debt with one stroke of the pen."
Ok say the President does that. That is not "Global Economic Amnesty" that is national amnesty. The rest of the world would still have their debts, and their banks, and we'd have to find a way to interact (ie: trade) with them. I am also not sure that debt would fall under a power of pardon, afterall debt is not a crime.
Edit:
So it seems the idea is to have an entirely new government and financial system. Ok convince me what to replace them with (which is not provided in the article). And do so in such a way as to convince the entire nation, as well as the whole world (since this is meant to be global). And btw if the idea is a centralized government that is a global government I will most likely fight it to the death. If the world is under a global central government and it goes bad (they often do) everyone is majorly f*cked.
Edit edit: Would it be enforced that someone could NOT do the following should they so wish: Person 'A' carves sea shells to barter/trade with person 'B' for a painting B created. Person B shows off the sea shells made by person A, and many people become interested and want A to make carved seashells for them too. Person A begins making them, but it's a lot of work and so they trade with persons C, D, E, and F who all want the carved seashells and they offer their own crafted works in exchange or services such as helping 'A' paint their home, etc. Person A realizes a lot of people like his/her carved shells, so produces a lot of them even when he/she doesn't need them to barter with simply because when the time comes it's easier to have them on hand. Other people also realize that person A makes really good carved pieces and that other people will probably want them too. So person 'F' (let's say 'F' is really good at making chocolate and 'A' loves it) offers to person 'A' "Hey, I'm travelling up to San Francisco, I don't have much chocolate to offer you right now, but may I have some of your carved shells to show people up there and trade with them for neat things they make? I'll share whatever I get with you.. Also, if I don't end up getting anything good, I'll make it up to you on my own it'll just take me some time to make the chocolates you're so fond of. I also have a couple of B's paintings you can hold onto while I'm away, but I'd like to be able to get them back after I make good on my promises. If no one likes your shells at all then I'll return them to you." Person 'A' trusts person 'F' since 'F' has done work/bartered for A's shells before and never did 'A' any wrong or ever lied- so 'A' says, "Sure sounds like a great plan, can't wait to see what you come back with! Enjoy your trip and thanks!" Bam you have a form of banking with person 'A' as a bank, carved shells as a form of currency and a loan made out to person 'F' with paintings that 'F' owns (originally traded from B) as collateral. Would that be forced to be illegal? If so, why?
Also, there's other ways to separate government and business that don't involve disposing of all banks and money.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Free market? Pffffft!!!
Submitted by LovingFighter on
Your first few sentences imply that a free market is possible under capitalism.
Are you aware that the very capitalists that believe in the free market prefer State protection??? The free market was tried a long time ago. Capitalists then sought State intervention because they realized that without regulation they were destroying the very earth they were exploiting. And really, who wants to kill the cow the provides the milk?
But let's say that for some reason what you say is true. What about monopolies??? Businesses fail and they get bought out. Eventually industries get concentrated more and more and kill competition. Don't you see that a free market is contrary to capitalism???
You have a point
Submitted by Fex on
Hrm I'll admit that perhaps bringing that up derailed the topic and is an entirely separate argument.
Note I did not say I was against regulation- I'm for regulation let me make that clear. When I mentioned government control of business I meant fully control. If government officials are running business for profit while writing legislation . . . well there's the same problem of government and business being inseparable we have now, and I the will of the people would be ignored as representatives run business and gov for money and power. I literally meant control: in every way shape and form.
Let me repeat that: I am for regulation. I am not for total government control of all businesses. Regulating and having laws to protect both people and the environment I am all for, I've no wish to live in a nightmare dystopian corporate run world (even as cool a movie as Blade Runner is).
I concede your point that a free market also leads to a non-capitalist system.
I fully admit to venturing too far off at the start of my first comment, really it was all a lead in to a warning about full control leading to an exact same or similar situation of gov and business being too intertwined. My apologies.
On topic of the post that was written... how about the rest disregarding the intro/first half?
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
To clarify
Submitted by Fex on
What I also mean by "I definitely agree there should be separation of banks/corporation/big business and government" is getting money from big business the hell out of politics.
Which is regulation on both. Regulation/laws on our three branches of government to keep monetary influence out, and regulation on business to keep people and the world safe. When those two systems fully merge into one though, ugh, they just try to support themselves and screw everybody else.
Hope I didn't derail this too much. Yeah I could've worded it better it's way late and time to sleep.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
I get ya
Submitted by LovingFighter on
Thanks for clarifying, Fex. However, I still think that what you're asking for is utopian. Utopian not as in too optimistic or idealistic (which implies possibility), but utopian as in impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you still believe that capitalism is the best economic system for us, correct? Well, this system is centered on exploitation, private profit, and the growth of personal wealth. Because of this, either the State needs to tax corporations A LOT in order to protect people and the environment, or the capitalists destroy themselves, us, and the planet in the process, no matter how they are regulated, because they NEED-they are FORCED-to grow and eat each other because their goal is profit, and they profit more by taking out their rivals; and if they don't do this they know that one day it may be they themselves who get eaten. My point is that capitalism requires capitalists to grow and grow and grow in order to remain alive and keep the system going. But are we not living in a finite planet with limited resources? How are we to evade the ultimate reckoning with the environment? Unless we develop a time machine or colonize other planets we'll have to deal with the consequences of environmental destruction for centuries and, perhaps, millenia to come. And to think that green capitalism can solve this is, in my view, quite mistaken. There are already laws on the books that penalize corporations for polluting the environment, but they continue to get away with it. Why? Because they have resources to defend themselves in the eyes of the law. So let's say "green" capitalism emerges, this will not do away with pollution. Not to mention the fact that in order to produce green technology you also pollute the environment a lot. Basically, what I'm saying is that to expect rich people not to get involved in politics in order to seek what's best for themselves is kinda like giving a gun to everyone on the planet and hoping no one gets shot. Could happen. It doesn't NEED to happen. But what do you really think is going to happen? Look at the repeal of Glass-Steagal under Clinton, which opened up the door for this crisis (though had it not occured, we would've still been hit by a crisis of some other sort due to the logic of our economic system). The corporations needed to do away with legistation that regulates economic activity in order to make money. They NEED to meddle in politics.
I will, however, make one clarification. I believe that technology and industry don't have to be destructive. But for this to happen we as a society (internationally!) have to control the means of production. We can't just let the fate of the products we produce rest in the hands of private individuals who don't know how to get rid of them (we have crises of overproduction under capitalism. How ridiculous is that???!) So if you wanna say that we as a species CAN produce in a non-destructive way, then I agree with you. BUT, this will only happen to the degree that we move beyond capitalism and into a more advanced form of organization which, oddly enough, is known as socialism/communism. Ironically, this is what you advocate against when you say you don't want full government control of things. I understand your point and your fear in "the red menace," but 20th Century socialism wasn't really socialism. Practice deviated from theory (and I bet Marx was rolling in his grave.) The sooner we come to terms with this the better. This is why today theory is more important than ever.
I disagree
Submitted by Fex on
It's not that I view it as the "red menace" I simply don't see socialism as going to fly with the entire world, nor the entire US.
"Unless we develop a time machine or colonize other planets we'll have to deal with the consequences of environmental destruction for centuries and, perhaps, millenia to come."
- Indeed getting into space, not necessarily colonizing right away, could open up vast resources. Do it smartly (in a green manner one would say) to not destroy the solar system, but there are vast amounts of raw materials out there. We have the tech that in a few generations many raw materials could be gotten from space and even move processing and manufacture of those raw materials to be in space. This, I am aware, sounds like fantasy. We have the most of the know-how and science to implement it. I wouldn't want business/corps to control all of that however: at that time I would mix in some socialism I suppose, in that raw materials from the solar system were shared among the world as a whole. I do think whoever gets a strong foothold in space will have much power- aside from raw materials they would have a very real physical power over many (simply drop heat shielded boulders the size of buses onto the planet- sounds ridiculous but it would be very cheap effective weapon. International missles launched form space would be much cheaper as well as they would not require the size and fuel capacity that current orbital missles currently require for exit velocity). Controlling the oceans once gave immense power, now it's the air, space is the next logical step in empire. I for one do not want to see more empire.
"There are already laws on the books that penalize corporations for polluting the environment, but they continue to get away with it. Why? Because they have resources to defend themselves in the eyes of the law."
- Agreed. Let's start by getting money out of politics as much as we can and stop the "revolving doors" that exist between government and the private sector. When big business influences or outright writes legislation this lets them create loopholes or avoid laws the people want.
"Not to mention the fact that in order to produce green technology you also pollute the environment a lot."
"I believe that technology and industry don't have to be destructive."
- Do not these two statement contradict each other? If producing green technology will still pollute the environment, that's true under socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, etc.
"The corporations needed to do away with legistation that regulates economic activity in order to make money. They NEED to meddle in politics."
- Disagree. They were already making money. They did not NEED to meddle in politics. They WANTED to, sure. And under any system, if people can meddle to gain more (whether that's more power, more goods, more land) someone's going to do so, regardless of the gov or economic system in place.
"Practice deviated from theory (and I bet Marx was rolling in his grave.)"
- No kidding. Similar occurred with Capitalism. And why would someone think practice would not deviate from theory again if the world became Socialist? It's wishful thinking to me. Right now, we have some fairly good ideas of the problems, and there's a lot of good ideas for solutions without wiping the whole system clean simply to use other methods that were derailed from original intentions and failed, and failed much worse I think than our current system. I did not lay out a utopia, I did not try to offer a method where everything is perfect for everyone. It seems however that you are saying Socialism is utopian or am I wrong?
"So if you wanna say that we as a species CAN produce in a non-destructive way, then I agree with you. BUT, this will only happen to the degree that we move beyond capitalism and into a more advanced form of organization which, oddly enough, is known as socialism/communism."
- Take a look at the People's Republic of China. I'll agree it's socialism that went awry. China also produces in a destructively, endagering the health of it's people (and others through exports of products lacking in health regulation) and the health of it's environment in a huge way- I prefer our dysfuctional capitalism over China's dysfunctional socialism any day. I'll stick with making our system less dysfunctional, and now's the time to do so while so many are aware and are becomming aware of our internal issues.
You make the claim that the answer is socialism/communism is what's beyond and imply it's better, without any proof or how it addresses the majority of societal, evironmental, and political ills. I see a lot of pillow talk without substance.
This movement is not intended to overthrow our government. It's intended to fix it. That's why I am here, that's why many others are.
For all it's faults, Capitalism has proven over time that it is dynamic and can change, and for any structure in a complex environment of many entities being dynamic is a must or else that structure will fail/die/disappear. Take a look at the advances of "being green" since the industrial revolution, heck since the 60's and 70's. I do believe getting big business out of politics will help immensely towards environmental pollution among many things. As people become more informed we do NOT WANT a poisoned environment nor a poisoned food supply and if representation was no longer bought out we'd get that. Corps would change to being green as that is where the money making will be. Where I do agree with you is that I do not think Capitalism is the end-all be-all. A great thing about our democracy as well is that it's also a dynamic system- get it working relatively properly once again and the people can even vote democracy out and pick something else if wanted.
This movement is not about overthrowing the government, I for one have no wish to do so. There's absolutely no need while we can fix our system legally and peacefully.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
possible vs impossible
Submitted by LovingFighter on
It would take forever to address every point I disagree with so I'll just pick the main one. You seem to think that capitalism has gone awry. When??? The way I understand it is that the worker will always produce more than what he/she gets paid for. That's the logic of capitalism. If this weren't the case, then no capitalist would want to hire any worker. Now answer me this: if all the workers of the world collectively can't buy everything they produce.........what happens to the leftovers? Why is it that during a crisis the factories close down? Is it not because they are overstocked with products that they can't find buyers for? Is it not because the capitalist would lose money if he/she continues to produce to a public that can't buy those products? If you're ok with this logic then there's no sense in having this discussion. If you don't agree with it, then explain to me what happens with the leftover products on the market (and I hope you don't say that "the capitalists buy them all"!). And if you agree with the logic of capitalism--a logic of exploitation--then drop the "fixing the system" nonsense because you can't fix a system that was meant to pay the worker less than the value he/she produces.
What I say about the future may be "pillow talk." It's never been a reality, it's true. But at least I know this: it's a possibility. Thinking that the capitalist system can be "fixed," however, is an impossibility. I'd take a 1% chance at a better future over a definite impossibility. How about you?
I simply flat out disagree
Submitted by Fex on
I simply flat out disagree with nearly everything said in this.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Wish to keep this alive, please discuss
Submitted by Fex on
I see a lot of similar threads on here. Instead of discarding them and new posts along similar lines being created, please by all means, discuss. And do not only pick one argument a couple "trees" down the argument branch along the road, address many at a time.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Pages