tao: I've never said that capitalism is a perfect system. It, like all systems, has its flaws, though ultimately you haven't explained how it is that these starving masses in the U.S. are also the fattest people in the U.S. There's a very interesting situation.

I can accept the position of people broadly within the left because they base their beliefs upon reality, but just want to modify the system to reflect their own beliefs. However, talking to someone who believes in Marxist theory is like talking to someone who, despite seeing a whole lot of broken figures at the bottom of a ravine believes that if only he closes his eyes tighly enough and flaps his arms hard enough, this time, he really will be able to fly; or, it's like talking to someone who still really believes that this year, Santa Claus will come down the chimney. It's kind of amusing in a way, but it's mainly just embarrassing.

People do ultimately have responsibility and their woes are their fault. People have free will to realise that their behaviours are counter-productive to their own existences and do something to modify their behaviours, which is what some people choose to do. People are not simply acted upon by external forces. I don't say this from any ethical standpoint any more than I comment on lions vs zebras or lions vs hyenas from an ethical standpoint. If (just hypothetically, because we all know it will never happen) a revolution did happen, well that would be too bad for me for not being smarter or more active in preventing it. It certainly wouldn't be unfair to me. Likewise for those who won't help themselves now.

At the end of the day though, this is all academic because your ideology won't come to pass and will be consigned to the status of historical curiosity. I'll still be doing quite nicely under capitalism. Keep believing though, and one day you might have Heaven/The Revolution. You're right, people like you do keep others wealthy. For that, I must be thankful.

tao- Rather than speaking of harmonious world systems (which most view as impractical) I am speaking of things that can be done. Call them tweaks if you will.
In turn, I ask you to outline a process by which your system will be enacted. Instead of blowing hot air about the evils of capitalism, tell me in practical terms how you would see it fixed, with reference to the current political climate. I'm afraid if you can't do that, all your posts are is hot air and misguided idealism. If you can and your system realistically takes into account man's desire for possessions and willingness to break the rules, then bravo.

In my view, some of the most crucial developments of the next century or so, will be an increased awareness and acceptance of warfare based on trade principles - resources, as opposed to political reasons.
It is interesting that most of our prime trade rivals are our allies. Were this not the case, I suspect we would see more by way of economic warfare.

Consider this - an age old practice in warfare is to sabotage the supplies of your enemy, cutting supply lines and so forth. Attacking the logistical side of things I suppose.

Since WW2, western nations haven't really gone to war with one another, or even against economic rivals. With the rise of india and china, perhaps one day this will change. (Not any time soon).

Now... it's quite fascinating how trade and business operations will continue between enemies even during a time of war. Even if a government attempts to prevent trade occurring with an enemy it won't necessarily take hold.
Economic ties are now global... but as resources get scarce and competition heats up, I envision that governments at war will do more to attempt to cripple the economy of their enemies, whether that is sabotaging their exports or influencing trading partners within their own borders. Where it gets complex, is where the approval of the business community is required, with their own myriad of economic interests.

Ludwig,

““Well-what-a-load-of-twaddle.”

Now-that’s-nice-of-you-tao!-So-just-what-is-it-that-you-object-to-here?-The-very-notion-of-wanting-to-discuss-the-best-system-of-governance-that-will-direct-us-towards-sustainability?-Or-are-you-just-pulling-out-a-small-part-of-shorbe’s-argument-(increased-financial-regulation-of-the-people-by-governments,-and-protectionist-policies)-and-branding-him/her,-TRTL-and-Ludwig-as-twaddlers-because-of-it?

You-have-a-good-knowledge-of-matters-discussed-on-this-thread.-But-this-unfriendly-look-down-your-nose-at-all-others-attitude-is-highly-off-putting.”

If you would care to read the entire thread, you will see that according to Shorbe, I’m a social misfit plagued by megalomania, a fundamentalist with no sense of humour, a zealot, have a dysfunctional personality, cause a lot of suffering, and should mind my “own bloody business” and stop preaching. Once I demonstrated conclusively that Shorbe's arguments were full of holes, he gave up any pretence at reasoned argument, coming to the conclusion that I also “indulge in that most Aussie of pursuits: dropping by the TAB on your way to pick up a pack of Winnie Blues before heading down to your local to piss what remains of this week's pay up against a wall”

I’ve been called “extreme” and “railing” by TRTL, my “philosophy” has been called crap, and my posts have been called a s..tload of drivel.

Who is being unfriendly here?

You don’t seem to take exception to the above personal attacks and unsubstantiated rubbish, yet you apparently take exception to me calling the last few posts in this thread twaddle. Have you not read the whole thread, or do you just have double standards?

I don’t object to discussing the best system of governance, my point is that the massive and myriad problems humanity faces will not be solved within the capitalist framework. Yet none of you actually bother to think outside the box of capitalism. In fact, many of the problems are actually caused by the profit system itself – they are connected by the same thread – the drive for profit.

You asked the very question yourself “How-can-we-possibly-ever-get-away-from-vested-interest-profit-driven-growth-promoting-short-term-decision-making-by-our-federal-and-state-governments?” In an economic system where the driving force is profit, and competition for profit, we can’t. The only solution is to change the economic system to one in which human need is the driving force, not profit.

cont...

You seem to be concerned with environmental-problems - which can only be solved by humans recognising that they need a healthy environment to live in. Most of us do recognise this, but corporations and capitalists only recognise the “need” to make profit, everything else including the environment is a means to that end. They privately control the use of resources and their “right” to make profit on their capital is the predominant “right” in society to which everything else is subordinated – that is why it is called capitalism. The logic of capitalism is to profit from natural resources, whether they are environmental-resources or human-resources, and once depleted, move on to the next resources. As individuals we can “do our bit” but we have no control over the main offenders.

In order to solve environmental problems and be “sustainable”, resources must be brought under the democratic-control of people whose primary goal is not profit – i.e. about 90% of humanity who are not capitalists. Anything else is just a bandaid-solution, a tweak, or in my opinion, twaddle.

You say “We are searching for answers to critically serious issues here.” I agree, but it seems to me you are going around in circles and never dealing with the fundamental-cause of pretty much all of the serious issues, and obstacle to solving them. You describe any “critically serious issue” and I would bet capitalism has played an inextricable role. The capitalist system contains fundamental contradictions which cannot be resolved by capitalist measures – and we need to think outside the box

I am quite happy to elaborate on the implementation of some other system, however presently it seems I have to keep arguing in circles because some people refuse to acknowledge a valid point, and resort to abuse and nonsense. There is a dialectical nature to argument in which we ought to be able to agree on certain points, then move on, and eventually come closer to some truth. But it means that people have to be honest, and essentially, must actually be in it to find truth. Anything else is "twaddle".

TRTL,

“In my view, some of the most crucial developments of the next century or so, will be an increased awareness and acceptance of warfare based on trade principles - resources, as opposed to political reasons.
It is interesting that most of our prime trade rivals are our allies. Were this not the case, I suspect we would see more by way of economic warfare.”

Modern warfare is always “based-on-trade-principles” and for resources. WWI, WWII, and now the Middle-East, to name a few, were all for resources and markets.

The Middle-East has some of the biggest oil fields in the world – why else do you think the US invaded Iraq, and look like invading Iran? They want control of the oil, and they want to keep their rivals (China, India, Russia, Europe etc.) out. The ‘battle of ideologies’ between “democracy” and “Islam” is a cover drummed up to make people believe there is some sort of legitimate reason for what is essentially an illegal aggressive war and occupation.

Your description of the contradiction of economic-competitors being allies is one of the fundamental contradictions of capital. Presently, the US’s competitors are gingerly toeing the line with regard to Iran – they are “allies” within the UN issuing resolutions against Iran, however if the US does invade, those competitors will have a choice to make – whether they try to get in on the act with the US, or against it. And the US, being the most desperate because of its declining economic position, and having done the spadework, is not going to give the spoils of war away cheaply.

What you call and “acceptance-of-warfare-based-on-trade-principles” is really an acceptance of barbarism for profit. When the clay falls from the eyes of ordinary-people as to why their rulers are sending them to war to kill and be killed – i.e. for the profit of the few - the “current-political-climate” will change drastically – that is when the revolutionary-struggle will begin in earnest . “Man’s desire for possessions” will recede into the background before the question of socialism or barbarism.

tao: The reason you have to keep arguing in circles is twofold.

Firstly, you continue to dodge the question that has been put to you time and again.

Secondly, you deny the fundamental of human nature that people are greedy, they are driven by the desire for more things, that they are indeed capitalists. Humans, like other animals, are driven by the status of having access to more resources than others, both because of their own immediate needs (and those of their offspring) and also so they can secure a more (or several more) attractive mates. There is no such thing as exploitation, only degrees of success in the bigger game. The lion isn't stupid -- he gets the lionesses to do the hard work and then he gets dibs on what they catch. That's neither right nor wrong, it simply is.

You're right on your point about Islamaphobia being a smoke screen for a resource grab. Any appeals to abstract nouns are merely a way of disguising the truth. However, the same is true for any who would appeal to higher notions of man in other ways through religion or socialism. The underdog must also argue for abstract nouns so that it can turn the tables on the top dog, and thus gain power.

I'm extremely suspicious of anyone who claims to be "for the average person" because I think such a person is either using that as a smoke screen for a personal power grab, or actually believes it, but will unwittingly do the leg work for someone else's personal power grab because there is always someone else manipulating these idealistic fools.

It's all about power. Anyone who is not after power (whether he or she realises or cares to admit it or not) is biologically unfit and also not to be trusted.