.

Dear David G., Shadow Minister and Tony Lavis,

.

Apparently I inadvertently opened the lid of Pandora's box.

All the demons of the underworld seem to have surfaced on this forum.

Of course all nations have an attractive front window display and a gruesome torture chamber hidden in the basement. I must confess, however, that I had not imagined the extent and gravity of the covert international criminal activity of some of the world's most powerful nations in their attempt to determine the internal politics of other, less powerful, independent, sovereign nations.

The fact that some of these powerful nations are genuine democracies domestically is particularly disturbing. Their use of double standards, democracy at home and terrorism abroad, is totally inacceptable. Those responsible should be made accountable for their actions.

While I imagine that most of this underground geo-political criminal activity is ignored by the general public, it must obviously be considered an acceptable strategy by the political leaders of the countries which practice it. And that must be true throughout the full political spectrum, from left to right, capitalist to communist, democrat to totalitarian and so forth. It is obviously not limited to ideologists or fanatics. Even the silence of so-called moderates can only signify approval.

It seems that the psyche of nations duplicates that of individuals. The "ego" struggles to strike a balance between the lust for power of the "id" and the lofty moral standards of the "super-ego", but with only as much success as its collective sense of humanity will allow.

Thank you all for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate it.

.

Banjo, it was my pleasure to provide you with some evidence for my concerns. However my major concern is that these nations, led by the U.S., the ones that hide behind the mask of 'Democracies', are leading the world towards a nuclear holocaust.

The U.S. is attempting to gain domination of the world for its own selfish benefit and has pulled Australia into its imperial plans. Russia and China will not allow themselves to be 'contained' by the Yanks (and neither should they) so the scene is set for global confrontation and nukes will be used.

The U.S. is world enemy No 1! It is run by greedy psychopaths who are backed up by powerful corporations who only care about profits. Like Lance Armstrong, the U.S. will use any means to dominate the world, means like torture, rendition, shock and awe, bribery, threats, assassination squads, drones, depleted uranium and napalm, etc, etc.

The U.S. is already infesting Australia and will use us to achieve its goals even if that means losing our friendship with China and alienates us from our near neighbours.

If Australia doesn't assert its sovereignty and neutrality, it will become isolated and disliked!

Terrific that this review has generated so much discussion.

The 'communism' (i.e. Stalinism and Maoism) vs 'capitalism' debate is by its nature very polarising. It is possible - though rather macabre, to say the least - to compile 'death tolls' and crimes of the respective system, and indeed that has been done in the case of both systems (see this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism#Estimated_number_of_victims_2 - for 20th century communism, and this link - http://amodernmanifesto.tumblr.com/thecrimesofcapitalism - for capitalism + colonialism + imperialism from 1500 to the present day).

Whatever one thinks of those respective lists, it is worth bearing in mind that while 20th century communism is, a few die-hard pockets aside (i.e. North Korea) is no longer with us, capitalism very much is. While we can debate over how causes are to be apportioned, it is reasonably well-established that, in addition to episodes of direct and intentional large-scale violence (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan), capitalism produces considerable indirect (i.e. economic) excess mortality. For example, the large numbers of children dying daily due to malnutrition have much to do with the use of land and food for profit (e.g. growing palm oil for biofuelsrather than prioritising those resources to meet basic human needs. If large swathes of land in Africa etc can be more profitably used to grow fuel for cars, and malnutrition results as a consequence, then that is merely the 'collateral damage' of contemporary capitalism.

Eisenstein is no advocate of 20th century communism or socialism, and neither am I. The record speaks for itself. That said, the notion that contemporary capitalism, with its callous and ruthless disregard for human well-being, dignity and ecosystem integrity, and its constant tendency towards systemic breakdown and ever-more lethal warfare, is the best that we as humanity are capable of, is frankly depressing to say the least. The role of utopian thinkers such as Eisenstein is to demonstrate that we are capable, not only of imagining a better system, but of taking concrete steps to live it. In my view this is a valuable and necessary role, and always has been throughout human history.

Sadly, that's where it all fell apart.

>>The role of utopian thinkers such as Eisenstein is to demonstrate that we are capable, not only of imagining a better system, but of taking concrete steps to live it.<<

Imagining a "better system" is one thing. Although even there, Mr Eisenstein clearly has more than a few detractors.

But there is absolutely no vestige of credibility in any of the "concrete steps" that are outlined for us here.

Of course, it is also entirely possible that Mr Rose has done an appalling job in conveying the essence of Mr Eisenstein's work. Which would be a shame for Mr Eisenstein, but would also explain great deal.

.

Dear David G. and Nick Rose,

.

David -

Tony Lavis indicated some figures on Russia and China's death toll in his last post. These related to "domestic" terrorism (if we accept that Russian "domesticity" extended throughout the whole of the Soviet Union at the time).

In your last post you indicate: " The U.S. is attempting to gain domination of the world ... Russia and China will not allow themselves to be 'contained' by the Yanks ..." Are you implying that neither Russia nor China indulges in the same underground geo-political criminal activity as the U.S.?

It is possible that Russia and China practice domestic terrorism and respect democracy internationally - i.e., exactly the inverse of the U.S. double standards. But it is also possible that strict censorship controls at all levels of the administration and lack of freedom of the press ("domestic" terrorism) in those countries prevents information on any covert activities leaking out.

Nick -

Thank you for your additional statistics from "The Black Book of Communism" and the "Twentieth Century Atlas on Death Tolls".

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for the life and works of Karl Marx, I must say I do not nurture the same sentiments as regards Charles Eisenstein. Perhaps the two are not comparable.

But don't get me wrong, to be quite honest, I would never live permanently in either Russia or China, preferring my Australian homeland or my adopted country of residence, France.

I see from Eisenstein's web site that he is 46 yrs old, divorced and remarried and has three boys, two of whom are now teenagers. He indicates he " will probably write another book soon on gift". So it seems his theory on world economics is still "work in progress".

I only have two daughters but they are now nearly as old as me and that's pretty old.

Judging from my personal experience of bringing up children, I bet Eisenstein will seriously revise his theory on gift and, subsequently, world eonomics, before the final chapter.

.

"You seem to take a Wildean approach to things and I can certainly relate to that." I think that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me to Squeers… as it does reflect my increasing observation that just about everything is epigrammatically reducible. (Unlike nihilists who have got nothing!)

You must have noticed that every issue presented on OLO, including how economies should be shaped, is reducible to, "The problem is what other people do."

Likewise, you must have noticed that the solution for everything is reducible to, "Other people should do what I say."

So I'm absolutely sincere in the credo I offered (with ascription) as the 'solution to everything'. But in the spirit of compromise I'm prepared to forget about the partying bit, as long as everyone adheres to "Be excellent to each other…"

But Eisenstein, Nick Rose and you and me don't know how to make this happen.

I wish I did.

[I'd make a fortune!]