Constructs of Capitalism

[Mountain Lion]

The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signaled the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief moments of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre.... If money according to Augier, 'comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek', capital comes dripping from head to foot from every pore with blood and dirt."

-Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1

More on this point of view is available here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Your feedback on these ideas would be welcomed :)

[Mr Galt]

Where does capitalism turn into imperialism? I don't get it...

[Mountain Lion]

I started a thread on that topic earlier: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. You can read this essay (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)for more detailed explanation. Imperialism is an expansion of capitalist interests and its mode of production to societies that rely on other means of social organization. Fostering cultural, political and economic dependance of one society on another through colonialism (through overt violence) and neocolonialism (through economic sanctions and political as well as economic regimes) constitute imperialism.

[Nomad]

Marxism failed. It does not work.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Marxism failed. It does not work.

-Nomad


Very authoritative statement! But I wouldn't suggest trying to prove it, it might loose all its credibility :p ;)

[Nomad]

Please show me a society or economic system that operates within the paramenters of complete Marxist theory. Show me where his ideal society exists.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Perhaps, for the sake of clarity and in order to avoid misunderstanding, you would be willing to define what you think constitutes a complete Marxists theory as well as Marx's ideal society :)

[Nomad]

Read Das Kapitol, find the functional human, economic society he describes, and let me know where it exists. if, as you imply, it does function properly, that is, his theory works in the real world and is repeatable, I will withdraw my statement.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Read Das Kapitol, find the functional human, economic society he describes, and let me know where it exists. if, as you imply, it does function properly, that is, his theory works in the real world and is repeatable, I will withdraw my statement.

-Nomad

Well, since you've actually read Das Kapital, you know that in it Marx offers a political and economic analysis of a capitalist society (the title is kind of a give away). ;) He doesn't introduce a theory of an ideal society in this particular work. As far as i know, capitalism still thrives at the enormous cost to human lives, justice and equality everywhere! Do you disagree? Perhaps, you should seriously consider defining "complete Marx's theory" and "Marx's ideal society" to avoid any further misunderstanding :)

P.S. If you need a refresher on Das Kapital or would like to familiarize yourself with his other interesting works, you can always access them here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):)



I will withdraw my statement.
You don't have to withdraw it to further the credibility of Marx's theories. Your statement lacks intellectual basis and is an empty rhetoric, at best. I would suggest to withdraw it to show that you recognize your mistake of making unfounded allegations :)

[Nomad]

Hmmmmm. Please define Marxism. Marxist's can't agree on what Marxism is. Marx himself looked at what "Marxists" were espousing, and commented that if that was Marxism, he wasn't a Marxist. If you can't even define what something is, how can you espouse it as a valid theory, let alone apply it? I come to this again and again in my life, if it has no useful application, if it can't be made to work, it's merely an intellectual curiosity. I find it interesting that many of those enamored of Marxismare academic theorists. It's a lovely idea, or collection of ideas, which have some value, but which have not been successfully sytemically applied in order to benefit mankind in general.

And Marxist type socialism has been applied at"enormous cost to human lives, justice and equality" in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

What I do know is that there has never been a just society. I do know that economic imperialism has been shown to consistently work to forward so called "progress" The internet being an example.

Do not make the error that I think this is a good thing. I don't. In fact, I think it sucks.I think imperialistic capitalism is doomed to failure, and might even make a significant contribution to our extinction as a species. What I stated, no more and no less, was that Marxism does not work. It has been tried and it has failed. I made no statements about social justice, or right or wrong, or the morality of any given system. I asked you to show me where it has worked. I await your answer.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

[And Marxist type socialism has been applied at"enormous cost to human lives, justice and equality" in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Revolutions in the name of socialism have been applied. Socialism has never existed.


I asked you to show me where it has worked. I await your answer.


Worked what? Marxist theories? They work every day heping people who are familiar with them to understand the world they inhabit by identifying capitalism for what it is beyond its glossy facade - a system of repression. And socialism has never worked because it has never been implemented.

[Nomad]

Ah, there's the rub. It has never been applied. Why not? If it is such a fantastic idea, so practical, so promising of great rewards to humanity, why has the world not embraced it wholeheartedly? As you say, people do understand, they do help, people act, they die in revolutions in order to bring about socialism, why, as you say, is there no socialism?
-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

To achieve socialism would require a substantial change in people's attitudes and the established practices of organizing human societies: chief obstacles would be the establishment of a democratic state, abolishment of national identity, institution of freely accessible quality education for everyone and implementation of a new system of coordinated support for the victims of violence and the systematic hardships imposed by the people in power on their subordinates in order to control them. Socialism can't happen overnight or in a violent revolution, but it does require a revolution in a human conscieousness... as well as patience, effort and determination in systematic and coordinated attempts of people around the globe to create the necessary social conditions that would nullify the power of capitalism and provide fertile ground for socialism. It's not impossible, it's hard.

[Mr Galt]

To achieve socialism would require a substantial change in people's attitudes and the established practices of organizing human societies: chief obstacles would be the establishment of a democratic state, abolishment of national identity, institution of freely accessible quality education for everyone and implementation of a new system of coordinated support for the victims of violence and the systematic hardships imposed by the people in power on their subordinates in order to control them. Socialism can't happen overnight or in a violent revolution, but it does require a revolution in a human conscieousness... as well as patience, effort and determination in systematic and coordinated attempts of people around the globe to create the necessary social conditions that would nullify the power of capitalism and provide fertile ground for socialism. It's not impossible, it's hard.

Here's the kicker.

Who's going to pay for it?

[Nomad]

No argument there, well stated. How 'bout this? Deconstruct modern society, make it more tribal, (Which Marx called "primitive".) less centralized, with fewer outside controls on any given community?

On another, unrelated note, how are you going to curb the natural impulse for a person, or a society, or a community,or whatever, to observe that another entity has "more" and attempt to seize it by force? After all, it is a natural tendency in most species to simply take what they need, with success or failure mostly a matter of luck and pluck. Innate altruism? Not mocking, but we have 6.5 billion people on this planet, with limited resources in a closed system. Does, say America, have a responsibility to feed people who continue to live in areas that are subjected to desertification, and are basically uninhabitable? Can we impose our will if they choose to remain, and we feed them forever? or can we forcibly remove them if they choose to leave? Or can we just leave them to their own devices, to live or die?

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Who's going to pay for it?

If you are asking how would all that effort have to be financed. People who are interested in abolishing capitalism would need to scrap by and use the established system to accumulate what they can.



On another, unrelated note, how are you going to curb the natural impulse for a person, or a society, or a community,or whatever, to observe that another entity has "more" and attempt to seize it by force? After all, it is a natural tendency in most species to simply take what they need, with success or failure mostly a matter of luck and pluck.
-Nomad
What makes you think that people have a natural impulse like that :huh: Even if there is a natural tendency for people take what they need, it doesn't imply taking more than they need if others are suffering.

Luck and pluck? What about personal effort and help from others.

Does, say America, have a responsibility to feed people who continue to live in areas that are subjected to desertification, and are basically uninhabitable? Can we impose our will if they choose to remain, and we feed them forever? or can we forcibly remove them if they choose to leave? Or can we just leave them to their own devices, to live or die?

How about stopping from exploiting people who live in desertification zones and helping them to either stop or reverse desertification ;)

[Nomad]

Natural impulse? Ok, just from personal experience, Somalia, Darfur, Iraq,, Chad, Afghanistan, and now lets look at history, every war that's ever been fought, Viking raids, wars of conquest, wars for oil, wars for resources, territory, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Mongols, Soviet Russia, America, the conquistadors, I could go on and on. Many species of primates have been shown to conduct wars and raids in order to secure better territory and feeding grounds, and engage in cannibalism in the process, a trait known to be practiced in certain societies by archaeological record. Ever hear the term "Fox in the henhouse"? Virtually all predation falls under this category. Lets get back to humans, put some toys in a sandbox and put two toddlers in there. Watch what happens. This is before the personality is fully formed. One kid has a toy, the other wants it, and takes it. One kid concedes, or fights. I am amazed that an educated, aware person can look at human history, human interaction, and natural ecology and say that there is no natural impulse to take what we want. You might not exploit people, and your neighbor might not, but how, exactly, are you going to stop me?Or someone even badder than me?

Nomads living on the east coast of Africa are not being exploited. No one exploits them, they have nothing anyone wants. No one cares about them. How do you balance all these disparate needs?

My apologies, but you have to offer more than high minded ideals and give me something concrete to work with, some system, and not just a theoretical ideal. I would love to live in such a world, Show me how to do it, show me something workable.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Scientific research is yet to define human nature or prove natural instinct to violence (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Your toddler example is flawed as the observed behavior can be interpreted in numerous fashions. At most, the majority of people share the desire to survive and procreate. In theory, everything else is a product of conditioning and no prove to the contrary exists. People can take advantage of others if they choose. In that case, socialize them or create conditions that will prevent them from doing that. Human history is unfortunate not determined. How do I stop someone from exploiting me? I do what I need to survive while undermining their power base and looking for an opportunity to neutralize their ability to exert their control over me.

If you want examples, look at Scandinavian countries and Switzerland then. Far from perfect, they are a leap forward toward the ideal state system in comparison to the rest of the world.

[Nomad]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I don't want a theory. I want a concrete system. Something workable. I want a practical bridge to where you want to be. I'll be the first to build it. I confess, I weary of theories espoused, and when I show examples from the real existent world, facts on the ground, the response is not a practical solution,I'm NOT criticizing, I'm asking for a practical way through. The respose is the comment that "Science has not proved it" tell me how to socialize people into nonviolence. I don't care about a theory. Make it work.

I think it's sad that Scandinavian countries have some of the highest suicide rates in the first world, and both Scandinavian countries and Switzerland produce a disproportionate number of mercenaries. For a species with no scientifically proven propensity for violence, we spends a lot of time killing each other.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I don't want a theory. I want a concrete system. Something workable. I want a practical bridge to where you want to be. I'll be the first to build it. I confess, I weary of theories espoused, and when I show examples from the real existent world, facts on the ground, the response is not a practical solution,I'm NOT criticizing, I'm asking for a practical way through. The respose is the comment that "Science has not proved it" tell me how to socialize people into nonviolence. I don't care about a theory. Make it work.

Want to build a bridge? Make progressive choices and contribute to progressive initiatives. Don't finance commercial enterprises that clutter the market with garbage, pollute environment and exploit people. Consume only as much as necessary to maintain good physical and mental health. Boycott violence in media. Save money to contribute to and vote for a quality education system that would be available to anyone who is willing to learn as well as for quality compulsory education system for children... Plenty of ways :)


I think it's sad that Scandinavian countries have some of the highest suicide rates in the first world, and

High is not highest. Iran has the one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, but I am missing your point, I guess.


For a species with no scientifically proven propensity for violence, we spends a lot of time killing each other.


We also spend a lot of money and time conditioning violence. The question is why, is it necessary and why don't we stop it?

both Scandinavian countries and Switzerland produce a disproportionate number of mercenaries.
What's wrong with mercenaries, and I am missing your point again. I would love to see the statistics too, if possible, comparing number of mercenaries from those countries to the mercenaries of US, UK, Germany, Africa and South East Asia.

[Nomad]

No one keeps statistics on the nationalities of mercenaries. In my experience, just over a half come from Scandinavia and Switzerland. I'm not including the entire Papal Swiss Guard. The remainder tended to be English, French, American (usually with dual citizenship) and Australian.I admit, this is based on my personal experience while in Special Forces. The ratio might have changed by now. I bring up high suicide rates because they occur in countries that you put forward as more advanced kinds of societies. If things are so ideal, while are people offing themselves at a higher rate? Why are supposedly peaceful ,neutral, progressive societies producing more than their share of professional killers whose business is war? Mercenaries are pretty much a philosophical anathema to a progressive society.

While your bridges are good, even necessary things, how will they prevent someone from taking what you have if they get it into their mind to do so? You basic assumption seems to be that we just all get along, and everyone will simply agree. Is violence conditioned? As you say, there is no scientific evidence proving anything either way. In the absence of empirical proof, Would not sense decree that we take a look at what people do, and have done, for all of recorded history, and try to make practical accommodations based human behavior as demonstrated over the last six thousand years or so?

You still have to present an example of where Marxism works, and I'm still waiting for you to explain how we convince 6.5 billion people who all have different interests to all just get along.

BTW, I do all the things you recommend, and in fact i do more. Quite frankly, I'm picking your brain. i want what I do to have more impact. I want concrete things, i have one the largest groups of system builders in the world right here from every place you can imagine. We think were bad, well, lets do something with out brain, all I ask is that it be workable.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Those are reported suicide rates. Perhaps, progressive countries are better at keeping records? Suicide rates can be interpreted in numerous ways. More liberal view on life, perhaps? Self-administered euthanasia. Maybe their education allows them to identify structural inequalities of global regime better than the rest of the population in developed countries and that makes them more susceptible to depression. The natural climate contributes as well. Just compare suicide rates in Alaska to that of California ;)

I did not say that there is no scientific research on violence that indicates that violence has to be conditioned. In fact, I've posted a link to the most comprehensive study of the innate aggressive system in human species available up to date: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mercenaries are soldiers for hire. Soldiers don't have to be professional killers. They are what the governments want them to be. In fact, in most militaries many more soldiers serve in logistical capacity than combat roles. What motivates people who join? Not their propensity for violence, but nationalism and numerous other ideologies that call for their duty to serve their communities, to stand up to injustice and to protect the weak from violence. Yet they are conditioned to exercise violence, broken to overcome socialized barriers that prevent them from killing fellow human beings. Numerous research studies have shown that poorly conditioned soldiers fail to embrace violence, even on battlefield. Here is a link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)to the literature on the subject and the article on Psychological Resistance to Killing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Of course, some people are more susceptible to embracing violence, based on the level of their conditioning against it.

You don't have to convince anyone. Make an effort to build a society that gives people an oportunity to understand the reality for themselves and they will make their own choice like you did. Or educate people yourself, one by one or in groups.

[Lights]

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I don't want a theory. I want a concrete system. Something workable. I want a practical bridge to where you want to be. I'll be the first to build it. I confess, I weary of theories espoused, and when I show examples from the real existent world, facts on the ground, the response is not a practical solution,I'm NOT criticizing, I'm asking for a practical way through. The respose is the comment that "Science has not proved it" tell me how to socialize people into nonviolence. I don't care about a theory. Make it work.

I think it's sad that Scandinavian countries have some of the highest suicide rates in the first world, and both Scandinavian countries and Switzerland produce a disproportionate number of mercenaries. For a species with no scientifically proven propensity for violence, we spends a lot of time killing each other.

-Nomad

From what I have read in this thread, it seems to me you aren't looking for something "workable" but something perfect. There is no way to create a perfect system in an imperfect world. The conception of a utopia, whether objectivistic or socialistic is inherently flawed and wishful thinking. Since we have so many different groups with so many different values, spread so diversely across the world, it is extremely unlikely that what will work well for one group will work just as well for all the others.

There are some people in the world who can immensely profit from socialistic principles. That isn't to say that it would not have it's flaws, as does every system in this world. Some groups would profit more from capitalistic principles. And of course any group is subject to change overtime and thus so is the system they use. In addition to that, entropy inevitably takes place within every system, and it naturally leads toward either oppression or anarchy.

For the above reasons, it's wise to consider the benefits and limitations to every system. Capitalism is a system that embraces freedom, but it tends to create inequalities. Socialism is a system that embraces equality, but it tends to violate people's individual liberties. And of course, both systems are susceptible to entropy.

My point being, if you want something tangible in this world, you can't be thinking along the lines of "perfect" but rather "best-fit". This requires the consideration of many factors. For example, just a few of these consideration would be the cultural group with which you wish to apply the system and all their attitudes, beliefs, and values, the education of the group, and the will of the group to make the system work.

[Nomad]

"The problem of whether there is an instinct for war can be solved. It can be solved through a combination of static analysis which uses scientif'ic experiments, and dynamic analysis which uses historical reconstruction. The static analysis can show how various types of biological motivation are active during warfare, but that none of them are necessary for war, because war is a sociological rather than a biological phenomenon. The dynamic analysis of the history of war can show why war has come to be carried out by men and not by women as a result of sociological rather than biological reasons.

I will present evidence to show that most of the various types of biological motivation are active during war, but that none of them are particularly necessary for war. In other words, there is no instinct for war. I will then consider the question of why there are so few women warriors. This problem can be solved by understanding the contradictions between the social institutions of marriage and warfare. It is not caused by any difference between men and women in their biological instincts."

OK, first page I looked at, first paragraph.Please explain why the vast majority of the Eritrean Army's combatants were female volunteers toward the end of their war for independence, who had a very brutal reputation. The ratio was 1 male, five females ( most of the men had been killed) and it was primarily female soldiers who won the war in the end.
Among the Kirzhigs, you could not marry, male or female, until you had killed an enemy in battle, and their females fought right alongside the men. There is speculation among historians that this society was the inspiration for the Amazon warrior and the Centaur myth.

In the Soviet Union, during WWII, LYUDMILA PAVLICHENKO shot and killed 309 enemy soldiers.

My sniper instructor in Germany was a female career IDF NCO. She had confirmed kills.

In Louisiana, a woman killed two others, then herself a few days ago.

I could go on and on. Interesting study.

While it's true that mercenaries can play support roles, and many do, particularly in training positions. However, I know many mercenaries, and virtually all had killed someone, sometimes fighting on both sides of the same war, and sometimes the people they were hired to train, just to make a point.

People will make their choice. That is my point. many times, they choose power and domination, and undermine your ideal societies. People are not inherently good, or bad, merely self interested. You do have to convince people, because if you don't, it costs less energy to simply take, rather than participate in your society. It's been my experience that socialization tends to build barriers to violence, and when society fails for whatever reason, people default to violence. That is why "Rapine and pillage" are in the vocabulary. Every language on the planet has a word for war and murder.

-Nomad

At lights= You are incorrect, i advocate exactly what you state. I posted above: "No argument there, well stated. How 'bout this? Deconstruct modern society, make it more tribal, (Which Marx called "primitive".) less centralized, with fewer outside controls on any given community?"

My issue with socialism is exactly what you state, that it tramples on a given societies right to choose it's own way.I have trouble with capitalism as well. In my building, I am very fortunate. We live in something like a commune. It's totally informal. We help each other out. A duella presided over the birth of a neighbors baby, we have childcare, yardwork, shared meals, disparate skills and everyone contributes something. I can learn Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Spanish. I can learn to cook several different cuisines. I can teach self defense, diving and permaculture, my roommate can teach biology. No one here pays money for any of these things. We have no central authority, and my original argument stands. Marxism does not work because it relies on a central authority and limits freedom. What i have here works, it's not perfect, but it works. I offered a practical solution, and requested input, and got nothing, not even my original request.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Few women warriors! Significantly less women in human history have been socialized to use violence than men, but they can be and this is your indicator that violence is not an innate instinct.

Some studies have shown that innate instinct is to help, actually! If two unfamiliar people are standing on an edge of a cliff and the larger person of the two will suddenly slip and start falling, the smaller person will instinctively try to hold the falling one even though it is clear that s/he has doomed self as a result. Sorry, no direct sources for this study, but here is an article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)on the subject.

[Lights]

At lights= You are incorrect, i advocate exactly what you state. I posted above: "No argument there, well stated. How 'bout this? Deconstruct modern society, make it more tribal, (Which Marx called "primitive".) less centralized, with fewer outside controls on any given community?"

My issue with socialism is exactly what you state, that it tramples on a given societies right to choose it's own way.I have trouble with capitalism as well. In my building, I am very fortunate. We live in something like a commune. It's totally informal. We help each other out. A duella presided over the birth of a neighbors baby, we have childcare, yardwork, shared meals, disparate skills and everyone contributes something. I can learn Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Spanish. I can learn to cook several different cuisines. I can teach self defense, diving and permaculture, my roommate can teach biology. No one here pays money for any of these things. We have no central authority, and my original argument stands. Marxism does not work because it relies on a central authority and limits freedom. What i have here works, it's not perfect, but it works. I offered a practical solution, and requested input, and got nothing, not even my original request.

-Nomad

I apologize. I would say that your system has some extraordinary benefits as you have stated, and it must be composed of a group that shares a knowledge of the system and a will to keep it going. Of course, such systems have one inherent flaw. They aren't centralized. And once a bigger and more powerful group wants whatever you have, they will take it. Case in point, American colonialism and it's conquest over the natives who inhabited the land first, or American imperialism into Hawaii and the Philippines.

[Nomad]

I'm not saying your ideas and beliefs are wrong. In fact, I share them. i think that Marx's ideas are not workable. Long term, the type of capitalism we have will not work. What i want is something different. Despite our disagreements here, I think we have a remarkable group of minds here. it's probably unprecedented in history. Rick posted earlier about society unraveling.I posted a reply. I suspect that many here here feel like thoroughbred racehorses locked in the starting gate, waiting for the bell and the door to open. Who here wants a cause? I know I do. Who here intuits that the time is near? I do. We have the intellect, the tools, the collaboration to transform everything, and we argue about subjectivity. I have an idea, you have an idea, lets work something practical out. We have computer experts, communications, arts,religious scholars, historians sciences, marketing, soldiers, economists, political science experts, mathematicians, from every generation, every socioeconomic background, most parts of the world. And every one of us, built by inclination to build efficient, workable systems. How do we apply all this collective knowledge. What I propose is what you ask for. A grand goal, something worthwhile. So, any takers? and if so, how do we convince others?

-Nomad





Nomad added to this post, 1 minutes and 20 seconds later...

I apologize. I would say that your system has some extraordinary benefits as you have stated, and it must be composed of a group that shares a knowledge of the system and a will to keep it going. Of course, such systems have one inherent flaw. They aren't centralized. And once a bigger and more powerful group wants whatever you have, they will take it. Case in point, American colonialism and it's conquest over the natives who inhabited the land first, or American imperialism into Hawaii and the Philippines.


Yes! Thank you. You see my point! How do you prevent that? See above post.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Oh, sorry, yeah, your idea has been proposed by academics and political activists before. Look at this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)and this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It's an option :)

Convincing others is a long term project, using and systematically improving the system as it exists right now.

Options: non-for-profit jobs that help people, volunteering, political activism... I don't see what else you could possibly want to do.

[Nomad]

How about non profit corporations? There is an Indian who started the Grameen bank, creating micro loans and he won a Noble. The idea being that investors never make a capital profit, the profit and the investment is in human capital. I don't think most current model non profits help people. I think they are more about feelers feeling useful. If you feed a man a fish, you have our current homeless advocacy system in the US. I want to feed them forever, through their own contribution, and if that is not possible, what do we do. Do the chronically homeless have rights to self determination, or should that be abrogated for their own well being? What works in other countries? ideas?

The world is what we make it, and we are uniquely qualified to make a world. Jezebel took over the whole of Space Bat territory, surely we can fix the world.

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

Ok... LOOK HERE!!! (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) ;) :p

SHARE Microcredit Program

The Self-Help Association for a Regional Economy (SHARE) is a model community-based nonprofit that offers a simple way for citizens to create a sustainable local economy by supporting businesses that provide products or services needed in the region. SHARE makes micro-credit loans available at manageable interest rates to businesses that are often considered "high risk" by traditional lenders—usually because of their credit ratings or the unique nature of their business ideas. Local SHARE members make interest-earning deposits in a local bank, which are used to collateralize loans for local businesses with a positive community impact. SHARE depositors live in the same community as the business owners they support—bringing a human face back to lending decisions.


The documents available below describe SHARE in detail and provide all the forms and agreements needed to start a SHARE program in your region. We also recommend reading the essay, Local Currencies: Catalysts for Sustainable Regional Economies (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), by Robert Swann and Susan Witt, to understand the background of the SHARE program.

[Nomad]

OK, economists. Opinions? Thoughts, feedback, worthy of support? Denied? Suggested improvements? Have not delved into it too much, but there is a region of germany that is using their own bank and currency for local transactions. Germans? Thoughts? Please see: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-Nomad

[Lights]

I'm not saying your ideas and beliefs are wrong. In fact, I share them. i think that Marx's ideas are not workable. Long term, the type of capitalism we have will not work. What i want is something different. Despite our disagreements here, I think we have a remarkable group of minds here. it's probably unprecedented in history. Rick posted earlier about society unraveling.I posted a reply. I suspect that many here here feel like thoroughbred racehorses locked in the starting gate, waiting for the bell and the door to open. Who here wants a cause? I know I do. Who here intuits that the time is near? I do. We have the intellect, the tools, the collaboration to transform everything, and we argue about subjectivity. I have an idea, you have an idea, lets work something practical out. We have computer experts, communications, arts,religious scholars, historians sciences, marketing, soldiers, economists, political science experts, mathematicians, from every generation, every socioeconomic background, most parts of the world. And every one of us, built by inclination to build efficient, workable systems. How do we apply all this collective knowledge. What I propose is what you ask for. A grand goal, something worthwhile. So, any takers? and if so, how do we convince others?

In order to get to the planning stage, you need to get past the assessment stage. That alone takes an incredible amount of time and energy, especially when you have this many different opinions. It usually requires a controlled forum where there is a sharing and voting of ideas. Then of course, you have to convince people that there is something wrong with the system they currently have. Assuming you can accomplish that, you need to get people to fight for the new system. And finally you need to set up the system so that it is adaptable with the times and can withstand entropy.

[Nomad]

In order to get to the planning stage, you need to get past the assessment stage. That alone takes an incredible amount of time and energy, especially when you have this many different opinions. It usually requires a controlled forum where there is a sharing and voting of ideas. Then of course, you have to convince people that there is something wrong with the system they currently have. Assuming you can accomplish that, you need to get people to fight for the new system. And finally you need to set up the system so that it is adaptable with the times and can withstand entropy.
We have excellent mods here, and I'm all for the assessment stage. We have a voting method, the polls. I have energy. As for convincing people, well, who here does not think things can be improved? for the rest of society, let's present with a complete system, logically constructed and with the con arguments fully thought out, and destroy opposition with rational argument.
We can hire feelers and sensors to sell it, but it has to work. Adaptable can be worked out, and if we model on an ecosystem, entropy can't beat it, ( I think) Systems theorists? Thoughts?

-Nomad

[Mountain Lion]

I would suggest to look through all the available written material on that website, join them or sign up for their newsletter and pick their brains using the mailing list. Enthusiasm is great, but the problem is that most people on this forum probably have full time jobs/studies and other responsibilities to juggle. It makes more sense to use the established efforts with an established membership base and leadership. If you have time and desire you will be able to contribute more than other people, will become aware of the system fast and will be able to assume a leadership role.

I wish you well, sir, and good luck :)