Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Other Economies are Possible!

By Ethan Miller, Dollars and Sense. Posted September 1, 2006.


Is the raw capitalism in American society the best possible outcome for our well being? Surely not: It's time to think about an economic system that makes us happy people.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Ethan Miller

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article is reprinted from the July/August 2006 issue of Dollars & Sense: The Magazine of Economic Justice.

Can thousands of diverse, locally-rooted, grassroots economic projects form the basis for a viable democratic alternative to capitalism? It might seem unlikely that a motley array of initiatives such as worker, consumer, and housing cooperatives, community currencies, urban gardens, fair trade organizations, intentional communities, and neighborhood self-help associations could hold a candle to the pervasive and seemingly all-powerful capitalist economy. These "islands of alternatives in a capitalist sea" are often small in scale, low in resources, and sparsely networked. They are rarely able to connect with each other, much less to link their work with larger, coherent structural visions of an alternative economy.

Indeed, in the search for alternatives to capitalism, existing democratic economic projects are frequently painted as noble but marginal practices, doomed to be crushed or co-opted by the forces of the market. But is this inevitable? Is it possible that courageous and dedicated grassroots economic activists worldwide, forging paths that meet the basic needs of their communities while cultivating democracy and justice, are planting the seeds of another economy in our midst? Could a process of horizontal networking, linking diverse democratic alternatives and social change organizations together in webs of mutual recognition and support, generate a social movement and economic vision capable of challenging the global capitalist order?

To these audacious suggestions, economic activists around the world organizing under the banner of economía solidaria, or "solidarity economy," would answer a resounding "yes!" It is precisely these innovative, bottom-up experiences of production, exchange, and consumption that are building the foundation for what many people are calling "new cultures and economies of solidarity."

Origins of the solidarity economy approach

The idea and practice of "solidarity economics" emerged in Latin America in the mid-1980s and blossomed in the mid to late 90s, as a convergence of at least three social trends. First, the economic exclusion experienced by growing segments of society, generated by deepening debt and the ensuing structural adjustment programs imposed by the International Monetary Fund, forced many communities to develop and strengthen creative, autonomous and locally-rooted ways of meeting basic needs. These included initiatives such as worker and producer cooperatives, neighborhood and community associations, savings and credit associations, collective kitchens, and unemployed or landless worker mutual-aid organizations.

Second, growing dissatisfaction with the culture of the dominant market economy led groups of more economically privileged people to seek new ways of generating livelihoods and providing services. From largely a middle-class "counter-culture" -- similar to that in the Unites States since the 1960's -- emerged projects such as consumer cooperatives, cooperative childcare and health care initiatives, housing cooperatives, intentional communities, and ecovillages.

There were often significant class and cultural differences between these two groups. Nevertheless, the initiatives they generated all shared a common set of operative values: cooperation, autonomy from centralized authorities, and participatory self-management by their members.

A third trend worked to link the two grassroots upsurges of economic solidarity to each other and to the larger socioeconomic con-text: emerging local and regional movements were beginning to forge global connections in opposition to the forces of neoliberal and neocolonial globalization. Seeking a democratic alternative to both capitalist globalization and state socialism, these movements identified community-based economic projects as key elements of alternative social organization.

At the First Latin Encuentro of Solidarity Culture and Socioeconomy, held in 1998 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, participants from Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Colombia, and Spain created the Red latinoamericana de la economía solidaria (Latin American Solidarity Economy Network). In a statement, the Network declared, "We have observed that our experiences have much in common: a thirst for justice, a logic of participation, creativity, and processes of self-management and autonomy." By linking these shared experiences together in mutual support, they proclaimed, it would be possible to work toward "a socioeconomy of solidarity as a way of life that encompasses the totality of the human being."

Since 1998, this solidarity economy approach has developed into a global movement. The first World Social Forum in 2001 marked the creation of the Global Network of the Solidarity Socioeconomy, fostered in large part by an international working group of the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural, and United World. By the time of the 2004 World Social Forum in Mumbai, India, the Global Network had grown to include 47 national and regional solidarity economy networks from nearly every continent, representing tens of thousands of democratic grassroots economic initiatives worldwide. At the most recent World Social Forum in Venezuela, solidarity economy topics comprised an estimated one-third of the entire event's program.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Ethan Miller is a writer, musician, subsistence farmer, and organizer. A member of the GEO Collective and of the musical collective Riotfolk, he lives and works at JED, a land-based mutual-aid cooperative in Greene, Maine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Another alternative.
Posted by: eightbitriot on Sep 1, 2006 11:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Participatory Economics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Riot Folk
Posted by: eightbitriot on Sep 1, 2006 11:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evan Greer from the Riot Folk collective is a total blast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Canada22: Envisioning Post-Neoliberalism...A Way Beyond the Trap of Capitalist Neofeudalism
Posted by: dgiVista.org on Sep 2, 2006 1:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good Points:

"These 'islands of alternatives in a capitalist sea' are often small in scale, low in resources, and sparsely networked. They are rarely able to connect with each other, much less to link their work with larger, coherent structural visions of an alternative economy."

"horizontal networking"

"linking diverse democratic alternatives"

"webs of mutual recognition"


These are some of the core reasons why Canada22: Envisioning Post-Neoliberalism exists as an NGO: to envision alternatives to the "given" economic neofeudalism, to imagine ways of getting from here to there, and to develop a network across Canada and internationally to create a viable model of alternatives.

Inspired by the World Social Forums and the need to develop political and social structures to enact new human-centred [not profit-centred] visions of economy, Canada22 is doing its part to facilitate the birth of a new paradigm for humanity and our symbiotic ecology.

Counter-hegemonic movements must connect with one another. There must be space to dialogue and share visions for reframing economic life.

Canada is if not in the belly, perhaps the intestine of the US capitalist beast. Internally, our economic birthright prohibits us from imagining an alternative economic model [or models] that would better serve the poorest 4 billion people and victimized ecosystem that provides the funds for our unquestioned birthright.

Participatory Economics is a hopeful element of a new vision.

Many others exist. The longer we stay isolated from each other, the more entrenched corporate neofeudalism becomes in the OECD world and in the majority world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, no. THe European Model--a dirigist, centrally controlled Capitalist-Socialist Economy is best
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 2, 2006 2:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all evidence seems to show that the European economic model is best. It allows for much the same innovation and productivity as America and at the same time provides high quality standard of living. How can anyone argue against the idea that the citizens of western european nations have the best lifestyles of anyone EVER on this planet? WTF?! You would compare them to the lifestyles of LATIN AMERICA?? WTF?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: europe can't employ its workers Posted by: ReallyBearish
End monopoly!
Posted by: greentime on Sep 2, 2006 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Capitalism is this:

Monopoly is the opposite of competition. An economic monopoly, a bureaucratic monopoly, a military monopoly, a monoploy of power any place all have the same goal: to control and dominate. Does this feel democratic to you?

Do you have adequate health care? Do you have a chance to retire? Do you have a clear represenataion in your government? Do the people you know and love have this? Do all Americans? If not, then we do not have a healthy society, we have failed.

If you are a "boomer" then lately you have heard that you have been the bad citizen, the greedy one. It is not true, it is the greedy few at the top. They are at the top of government, the top of business, they are the ones who vote themselves raises and do not vote for a living wage for you. They are the ones who have health care and leave you without. They are the ones who care only for themselves.

Capitalism that doesn't serve the needs of society is just unregulated greed. Our founders knew this, anyone who has ever been poor in America knows this, and this is what the few excessively rich who run our country for their own profit know as well.

When will we create a democracy?

A healthy society requires a social democracy that meets the needs of it's people first and foremost. It is NOT socialism, it is humane and balanced democracy.

How we are living today is exaclty the opposite of a democracy. The wages our collective labor produce are collected by the few excessively rich for their own greedy purposes. They seek to control the earth and intend to use us to do this. We are nothing but cannon fodder and wealth producing wage slaves to them.

When will you say you have had enough?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalist Cannot Last Forever So We Better Start Building a Viable Alternative Now
Posted by: felixcommi on Sep 2, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalism is based on several core elements, one of the most central being market competition amongst private capitalists. There is this inherent compulsion felt by capitalists to maximize production and output, while minimizing costs, particularly, labour. To not seek to maximize the exploitation of natural resources and labour would be a fatal detriment to the corporate "person".

Economic viability of capitalist enterpises requires constant growth or else the risk of defeat to competitors who are seeking inexorable growth as well...

Last time I checked our world had relatively finite resources, especially in the context of our ever increasing technological capabilities in extraction and manufacturing of commodities...

infinite growth in a finite world? suicide? ecological destruction? slit all our wrists in decades to come? Maybe!

All i'm touchin on here is sort of the ecological bent of anti-capitalism/pro-democratic economy...

Let's not forget that competition in the market produces pressures on corporations to constantly cuts wages, benefits, and other labour related costs ... this is an inherent and never ending pressure.... not good for humanity...

Capitalist is rotten to its core, it is autocratic and deplorable on every level...

European capitalism cannot be maintained with such strong social welfare schemes...global competition is already eroding its integrity and poverty still exists en masse in much of europe, as well their wealth (france, italy, germany, etc) is the result of imperialism and new manifestations of the old game through TNC's and liberalized trade.... I'm sure Africe has something to say about the virtues of European capitalism....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Illusions of individuality and choice are what sustains captialism
Posted by: brad on Sep 2, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that we can run off to the country and build alternative social communities and that the global capitalist world will suddenly wake up because the see in us the errors of their ways is the same old tired attempt of the late 60's early 70's back to the land/commune. You cannot run away from capitalism or from its social ills. You cannot build an alternative to capitalism within a capitalist social order. The problem of this logic lies in the fact that it is using capitalist notions of individuality and choice to attempt to dismantal capitalism. Making it far too easy for capitalism to co-opt your "islands" into its rising sea.

A good example, and one I have personal experience with is the organic food movement. It too was thought to be able to opperate outside of the corporate matrix of capitalism and offer an alternative based on the individual will of the consumers. As we all can see now it has utterly failed to bring anything except increased profit margins for the multinationals.

Capitalism relies on constant revolutionizing and colonizing of new forms for its very survival. It needs to simultaneously homogenize and seek out heterogeneous social forms to once again incorporate and homogenize. Therefore, it relies on this very kind of thinking and activity for its survival. It requires disperate groups to seekout alternative social forms, social entrepreneurs if you will, to create new space for capitalist colonization.

The flawed logic of horizontal movements is based on the inability to breakout of the capitalist ideological mindset, the individualist and choice based epistimology. It is based on a social habitus that relies on individual and market based social agancy, rather than collective political agency. It is a failure to see beyond the limiting capacity of capitalism itself, and therefore, it is far too easily assimulated by the beast. The answer does not lie in building alternative social forms within capitalism, it requires a complete social revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake up and smell your Utopian delusions
Posted by: tanstaafl28 on Sep 2, 2006 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I define "politics" as: "The show that is produced by economics." In order for a change in the status quo to occur, there must be a strong enough economic incentive to do so.

I see no political or economic expedient for those in power to change anything.

Regardless of party affiliation, our government remains the best government that money can buy. They vote themselves endless "Breads and Circuses," spend our money foolishly, rack up foreign debt, cut taxes, wrecklessly deregulate corporate greed, and don't give a damn about the folks who can't afford to pay them for their attention.

"People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." -V

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Money is the lifeblood of power and the chains and key to human enslavement
Posted by: SevenStarHand on Sep 2, 2006 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people have no idea that the common-denominator math of all the world's currencies forms an endless loop that generates debt faster than we can ever generate the value to pay for it. Those who scoff at this analysis have simply failed to do the math. Consequently, this civilization is verifiably based on purposeful and institutionalized deception, coercion, and exploitation. The time is long overdue to change the human equation and end the root causes of most injustice and suffering.

When reading the various discussions about how to end poverty and solving the world’s money and resource problems, most people focus on how to change the nature of, or the availability of money. Very few ever consider that the problem is not how much money you have or don’t have, nor is it related to the type of money you use. In fact, it is easily demonstrated that one of the root causes of our entire civilization’s never-ending and great struggles is that we are using money at all. Furthermore, if money were simply eliminated and we instead cooperated with each other and turned away from the evil cabals that control all money (read: the Vatican, its cohorts, and their international banking deceptions) then, and only then, will all of this never-ending struggle and blatant evil finally subside.

When the full scope of human civilization is analyzed, it becomes abundantly clear that its pillars are money, religion, and politics. Of the three, money is by far the most important because politics and religion rely on it for existence. All three are great deceptions (strong lies and delusions) secretly managed by the Vatican and its secret society cohorts. This fact has been expertly hidden over the last two centuries. Money, religion and politics are Machiavellian deceptions whose common purpose is mass exploitation. Very few people understand that all three are tightly synchronized and interdependent logic traps. Consequently, to continue trying to win at such long-term and highly developed shell (and shill) games is absolute folly. Until we turn away from such obvious delusions, humanity’s great struggles and suffering will never end.

Want to see the symbol for the tri-part endless loop and logic-trap that such a three-part Machiavellian delusion forms? Ever seen a Triquetra ( and here)? Pay very close attention to its visual relationship to 666, the most famous of all triangular numbers.

Now consider how money, religion, and politics are inseparable because of the inescapable trap (bottomless pit) they form...

We are all trapped in a web of deception woven with money, religion, and politics. The great evils that bedevil us all will never cease until humanity finally awakens, shakes off these strong delusions, and forges a new path to the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My own view ??
Posted by: cmaukonen on Sep 2, 2006 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a socialist libertarian myself and would like to see a cooperative based economy where no one person or group can control all means of production.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"isms" are ideological catchphrases with very little real meaning.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 2, 2006 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I hear the words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' I'm waiting for a discussion of the 'proletariate' and the 'booj-wah-zee" - happily this article doesn't take that path. On the traditional spectrum of "isms" you have : communism-socialism-capitalism-fascism.

Fascism and communism are in practice almost indistinguishable; they formed the ideological basis of various totalitarian states in which the state and the business community were indistinguishable (Nazi Germany, USSR, etc.).

So, do we have 'raw capitalism' in the US? No! The only example of 'raw capitalism' I can think of is the illegal drug trade, and you can even argue that in that case the military and police play a major role in keeping profits artificially high, and the cocaine and heroin drug cartels act to restrict the supply by killing off the competition.

So, do we have socialism? Government services are all paid for by the taxpayers, so we have socialized police and fire departments and a socialized military - however, unlike most other industrialized nations, we don't have socialized health care (but we do have an obscenely profitable pharmaceutical sector!).

Let's take a working example: the famous South Central LA Farm, run by poor immigrants on a mayorally-donated plot of LA land. In this case, poor people were able to pool their resources and were farming produce for 2,000 families; (socialism); they sold the produce at the local farmers market as well (capitalism), but they were hardly 'self-sufficient'; I imagine they used forged steel farm implements, for example, produced by the steel industry (definitely capitalism). The farm also provided a place for kids to play, and a way to keep the elderly active and healthy (more socialism). Let's call this "good ideaism".

What happened to that? Well, the LA City Council cut a deal with developer Ralph Horowitz; he got the property for 8 million below 'street value' at a time when the city had no budget problems, and did everything in his power to evict the tenants so he could double or triple his investment. What do you call that - not capitalism, not socialism- corruptionism? What do you call extensive links between business and the state, secret alliances between city council members and developers, and so on? I can't recall if you call it 'communism' or 'fascism'; I'd call it some f**ked-up BS, personally.

Budding fascism indicates that the upper hand in the alliance is held by business interests; budding communism means the upper hand is help by government agents. In either case, we don't want it!

Let's take another example: Bechtel and Halliburton and no-bid government contracts for Iraqi 'reconstruction' passed out by Bush and Cheney - looks and smells like fascism! If those government contracts were passed out to hundreds of local Iraqi engineers and small American firms, no doubt the fascists would be screaming about socialism, government welfare and the glories of capitalism and the 'free market'. Those are your tax dollars that are falling gently into the pockets of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush & co. through a whole stack of cut-out holding companies and their juicy inflated government contracts

Fact is, a healthy economy has a healthy mix of 'socialism' and 'capitalism'. Health care and fire protection benefits everyone (unless you like epidemics and firestorms); thus everyone pays taxes for those services. Economic competetion between farmers, between manufacturers (even between entertainers!) results in higher quality products, so that the 'capitalist' sector. Can you imagine being forced to watch 'state-run entertainment'?

This government is so top-heavy with crooks it's about to fall flat on it's face. Here's a new word for it: "Criminalism".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CARTEL VAMPIRE STATE
Posted by: Hal on Sep 2, 2006 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This post is stunningly naïve. Ethan Miller knows virtually nothing of the subject he covers whether it be “solidarity economics” or otherwise.

The DC-MSM west and most of the globe is ruled by a de facto cartel state that is anything but free market capitalist or democratic (thru cartel orgs such as a “Federal Reserve” Corporation that was never “federal” and minus any “reserves” but a shakedown sting). The oligarch cartel state in power has reduced both “democracy” and its open market “capitalism” to Orwellian killing masks.

Thus the entire debate is a sham foisted by a parasite crime oligarchy that has remained in power since the Gilded Age.

“Journalists” like E. Miller buy into the bogus nature of the retread psyops spoon-fed to them without question. And they regurgitate it all in kind. Worse still, they don’t even appear to suspect the entire public debate they engage in is framed to deflect real change.

By having an army of E. Millers chasing after red herrings, the cartel ensures its survival.

“Other economies” will only be possible when the good little sheep realize the one we have is a killing joke of what the founders intended and has been so for a hundred years.

“THE END OF DEMOCRACY AND THE DEFEAT OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WILL OCCUR WHEN GOVERNMENT FALLS INTO THE HANDS OF LENDING INSTITUTIONS AND MONEYED INCORPORATIONS.”
PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON (a founder of America in condemnation of present and future cartel money power. 1743-1826)

"THE REAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, AS YOU AND I KNOW, THAT A FINANCIAL ELEMENT IN THE LARGER CENTERS HAS OWNED THE GOVERNMENT EVER SINCE THE DAYS OF ANDREW JACKSON.”
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (describing oligarch rule in a letter to handler “Colonel” Edward M. House, confidence man for the cartel and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations. House also handled President Wilson and the creation of a private “Federal Reserve” Corporation and its IRS in 1913. FDR speaks of monopolists at cartel centers of New York & London that own the U.S. Government. November 21st, l933)

“WE WILL HAVE WORLD GOVERNMENT WHETHER OR NOT WE LIKE IT. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER WORLD GOVERNMENT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY CONQUEST OR CONSENT.”
JAMES PAUL WARBURG (in testimony before the US Senate. Warburg was an agent of the Rockefeller-Rothschild bloc and chief architect of the “Federal Reserve” Corporation, an unconstitutional private bank monopoly set up for cartel hegemony. James Paul Warburg was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of the Rothschild front Kuhn, Loeb & Co that financed and setup Lenin and Trotsky’s “Bolshevik Communist Revolution” thru James' brother Max, banker to the German government. February 17, 1950.)


Griffin on the Federal Reserve Con 1

Griffin on the Federal Reserve Con 2

Federal Reserve by E. Mullins

Freedom to Fascism

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sweet Denial (Bubble) Posted by: Hal
» RE: A Messenger is not the Message Posted by: all hail zoidberg
One World: Government, Economy, Religion!
Posted by: Sleepingcobra1 on Sep 2, 2006 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does this ring a bell with anyone else? Robert

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

strong local economies are the future
Posted by: rtdrury on Sep 3, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, lots of small local economic projects can and must replace the current imperial capitalism. Previously nobody could provide a legitimate argument for limiting the size of business enterprises. But now we have evidence that the most efficient farm is a relatively small 250 acres, and we have mounds of evidence that gigantic corporations have not only wrecked our environment but have done so unnecessarily. Worst still, they did it deceptively. As if that weren't enough, they pushed onto the public the cost of all the unnecessary economic activity and wasted fossil fuel. They also pushed unnecessary consumption of food, especially meat and dairy because it consumes ten times the energy as plant food production. And they pushed unnecessary consumption of everything else too. Besides the environmental damage, they damage public health and our democratic institutions. And they sent our soldiers to die in unnecessary wars. Probably worst of all is that Americans are working in effective slavery, perhaps four times asmany work hours as truly necessary. All the capitalists and militarists enjoy the benefits of all this extra activity. The way for the people to reduce their 60 hour work weeks down to 15 hour weeks, and greatly reduce all the environmental and other destruction, is to build their individual and local self-sufficiency. This gets the brain and body humming, and this is good for our health. Taking on more responsibility for ourselves is good for us too. Everyone can do something - plant heirloom food-bearing trees in the yard, do house and car repairs. Reduce debt and taxes. All this puts economic pressure on the capitalists and militarists, so we're doing ourselves a double favor. Furthermore this self-sufficiency allows us to boycott capital when needed. Local economies imply some chaos in te big view, but with information exchange, and some development, we can increase the efficiencies of the many small local enterprises. Noticne the reliance on networks vulnerable to sabotaged. So the networks have to be loose, informal, and redundant. Government is always vulnerable to sabotage so our reliance on it has to become dynamic like a tide, so when it's corrupted we disengage it and let the corruption dry out. When it's reliable, govenrment amplifies out positive energy. When it's not, we get along without it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You think that would be the ideal economy?
Posted by: Linette on Sep 3, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then you must never have read this incredible article by James Kroeger: Make The American People Richer. He describes the ideal economy that is possible, one that optimizes production and investment and eliminates unemployment. I want it real bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check this Article in the Dollars and Sense link at the top
Posted by: rwa on Sep 3, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A frank and honest analysis of the Bolivarian revolution:
---excerpt---
Displacing Capitalism and Building Socialism
Another reason the architects of the so-called "Bolivarian revolution" are vigorously pushing the co-op model is their belief that co-ops can meet needs better than conventional capitalist firms. Freed of the burdens of supporting costly managers and profit-hungry absentee investors, co-ops have a financial buoyancy that drives labor-saving technological innovation to save labor time. "Cooperatives are the businesses of the future," says former Planning and Development Minister Felipe Pérez-Martí. Not only are they non-exploitative, they outproduce capitalist firms, since, Pérez-Martí holds, worker-owners must seek their firm's efficiency and success. Such a claim raises eyebrows in the United States, but a growing body of research suggests that co-ops can indeed be more productive and profitable than conventional firms.

To test whether co-ops can beat capitalist firms on their own terms, a viable co-op or solidarity sector must be set up parallel to the securely dominant capitalist one. Today Venezuela is preparing this "experiment." More than 5% of the labor force now works in cooperatives, according to MINEP. While this is a much larger percentage of cooperativistas than in most countries, it is still small relative to the size of a co-op sector that would have a shot at out-competing Venezuela's capitalist sector. Chávez's supporters hope that once such a sector is launched, cooperativization will expand in a "virtuous circle" as conventional workforces, observing co-ops, demand similar control of their work. Elias Jaua, the initial Minister of Popular Economy, says, "The private sector can understand the process and incorporate itself into the new dynamic of society, or it will be simply displaced by the new productive forces which have a better quality production, a vision based much more on solidarity than consumption." One could claim that MINEP's credits, trainings, and contracts prejudice the outcome in favor of co-ops. But Vuelvan Caras graduates are free to take jobs in the capitalist sector. And MINEP's policy of favoring employee-owned firms is not that different from U.S. laws, subsidies, and tax benefits that favor investor-owned ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Ecologically Sustainable Economic Model
Posted by: kenadrian on Sep 3, 2006 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is the ONLY way to go. Read Paul Hawkins "The Ecology of Commerce" as this spells out a path to peace, happiness and global responsibility. It demands a new economic model where we no longer think in terms of "limited supply resources". As long as we have the existing model, we have waste and as long as we have waste we have problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Definitions of "free market" and profit isn't necessary and is even counter-productive
Posted by: goleft1955 on Sep 3, 2006 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America has a privately regulated market system. Most people ignorantly confuse the absence of government regulation as "Capitalism."
The fact is that we do not have "free markets" in the correct sense of the phrase. To have a "free market" specific market conditions must be present, generally referred to as (1) "perfect competition" (no buyer or seller can unilaterally influence the price); (2) "perfect knowledge" (all buyers and sellers have the same information); and (3) "perfect mobility" (all buyers and sellers can move to where they have the greatest competitive advantage).

The fact is that "capitalist free markets" are a propaganda and political fiction. They don't exist in real life. Look at agriculture. Producers have products that spoil. Cartelized middlemen can simply wait out the producers and they will have no choice but to unload there products and any price the middlemen want to give. Agricultural producers naturally lack "perfect mobility." The only way to CREATE a free market in agriculture (and we are taking about our food supply here) in the usual public sense of the word is through government regulation. Price regulation/supports with producer cooperatives, or a mix thereof.

The same scenario is correct for virtually every other sector of our economy, and certainly more so of the so-called "global economy" There are actually almost no "free markets" in existence in any nation of the world.

The only way to obtain a stable, predictable "capitalist" economy is through stable predictable government regulation, with the form and type of regulation titrated to the natural conditions and requirements of the products or service being produced.

The financial sector is perhaps the most important and least understood sector of a "capitalist economy" in this context. Because the financial sector is the central "clearing-house" of ALL SECTORS of the economy, to deregulate the financial sector gives it a blank-check to steal the rest of the economy (i.e., the rest of us) blind.

So, the only way to restore some stability is through renewed government regulation of the economy, beginning with the most important financial sector, which must be re-regulated to function as an investment mechanism, and not a speculatory device. The financial sector must be regulated so that profit occurs only through real investment that produces real products; profits and large incomes taken through paper transactions must be taxed away. That means a return to steeply progressive taxation with deductions only for domestic "productive" investment; a return to differential taxation of "earned" (salary and wage) income vs. "unearned" income (other receipts, excluding pensions derivative of earned income).

'Profit" is mistakenly assumed by the public to be the only source of maintenance and reinvestment. This is another propaganda and political fiction. A properly constructed tax system distinguishes between business maintenance and reinvestment, on one hand, and distribution to owners or "shareholders." Such distributions to owners or shareholders, when left to those persons or their designated managers is actually counter-productive to maintenance and reinvestment, and to net private new domestic investment.

"Profit" should be eliminated from the economy completely. People should work for a living. And the tax system should ensure that business receipts go for employee incomes, maintenance and reinvestment. Unearned income should be taxed away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Put Us Here
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 3, 2006 11:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lazy and uneducated electorate paved the way for the moneychangers to take over the temple. A democratic system demands that it's citizens keep abreast with the issues and actions of it's government.

Most well-educated Americans are woefully ignorant of who represents them, what the policies of our government are, and where the money goes. Don't even try to get a reasonably informed take on what is happening outside our borders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What Keeps "Us" Here Posted by: Hal
One Share One Vote
Posted by: DataDoc on Sep 3, 2006 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if every shareholder in a company got exactly one vote, instead of the number of votes being tied to the number of shares. Now give every worker at least one share. This creates a truly democratic company. Not everyone will vote, but every shareholder knows their vote will count, at least as much as Warren Buffett's. This creates a cooperative company, and engenders worker input and participation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kungfublood
Posted by: Kungfublood on Sep 4, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to see a 5 million dollar cap on personal income beyond that all money to be put back into the busness (wages workplace retooling etc.) beyond that all other money to be placed in a world hunger and housing fund.No more than two houses per owner.GREED is the GOD of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Question of Power
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Sep 7, 2006 2:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is, "free-market capitalism" (which is just a new guise to get tyranny to work while people think they live in a democracy) will burn out soon enough. The question is: What sort of world will we be left with? Some form of global tyranny (possibly still called "democratic capitalism")? Or some kind of libertarian or anarchist alternative? It is up to us -- to have democracy we have to create it, no power system will willingly give it to us. In that case we will have to dismantle all illegitimate power (self-appointed government, corporations, etc.) and build an accountable and participatory system of organization. A utopian dream? Actually, it was done in Spain in the 30's, but quickly destroyed with the historic record suppressed -- unlike Marxian socialism, which emphasizes a strong central government, anarchism is a threat to power period (the reason no one respectable will talk about it).

Whatever one thinks of these ideals, the facts are clear: if we don't take responsibility tyranny (under whatever sexy new name) will be the outcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]