What is Capitalism ???

[CommunismRATM]

Capitalism to me is just a legitimate way of saying "Exploitation of human beings by corporate companies".

[Vladimir]

Okey doke so....

[Miguel]

Hey "CommunismRATM" just recitated Commandante Guevara, cant argue with that...i.e capitalsim is not really an ideology its exactly that "...just a a legitimate way of saying: Explotation of human beings by corporate companies".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's basicaly saying that your allowed to exploit others, which in turn promotes the exploitation, though it's certainaly not their fault, we're all "free" to do whatever we want. Wonderful, wonderful freedom!!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

A nice way to say that you are greedy.;)

[Larissa]

a few unscrupulous individuals living on other people's efforts.

[chamo]

a euthanism for the rich get richer and the poor get poorer

[Sirion]

The past

[Iepilei]

I couldn't agree with Sirion more...

capitalism is the way of the old world. it's the belief that mankind is incapable of controlling himself both politically and economically, democratically. it's to place heirarchies to act in our benefit - heirarchies which have, since the civil war, overstepped their boundaries.

[queen of diamonds]

Capitalism is based on choice. In theory, everyone should begin with the same opportunities and be rewarded based on their talent and effort. The exploitation that you're talking about happens when capitalism gets screwed over by that overriding factor in all systems run by people; greed and self-interest.

Economically, capitalism is based on the system of a body of consumers determining the production of materials in search for a solution to the economic problem. Of course, many essential items would be far too expensive for widespread consumption, and many services would be neglected altogether, hence government intervention.

Politically, capitalism is based on self-determination and responsible government.

So no, capitalism is not just another way to exploit people, any more than communism is.

[Politix]

its another way of sayin...
Fuck the little guy

[Iepilei]

Quote: from queen of diamonds on 1:49 am on Dec. 30, 2002
Capitalism is based on choice. In theory, everyone should begin with the same opportunities and be rewarded based on their talent and effort. The exploitation that you're talking about happens when capitalism gets screwed over by that overriding factor in all systems run by people; greed and self-interest.

Economically, capitalism is based on the system of a body of consumers determining the production of materials in search for a solution to the economic problem. Of course, many essential items would be far too expensive for widespread consumption, and many services would be neglected altogether, hence government intervention.

Politically, capitalism is based on self-determination and responsible government.

So no, capitalism is not just another way to exploit people, any more than communism is.

You're thinking of the perfect world, however.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Thats the theory part but the Western world learns us something different.

[Man of the Cause]

Capitalism is legalized robbery

[queen of diamonds]

Quote: from CCCP on 5:27 pm on Feb. 10, 2003
Thats the theory part but the Western world learns us something different.


So what do Russia, China, Choson, teach us?
I'm not saying that capitalism as it's put into practice is a fair system. I'm saying it's intended to be. But then again, communism - or socialism - has never worked in practice either. By that token, socialism is just another way to say "right, let's control everybody now".

[Larissa]

Quote: from queen of diamonds on 10:49 pm on Dec. 29, 2002

Politically, capitalism is based on self-determination and responsible government.

So no, capitalism is not just another way to exploit people, any more than communism is.


Communism is not a way to exploit people. It is a matter of generosity, of not wanting to live in a world where more than half the population is starving, of wanting to have full command of your own life on one side, and of wanting to have full command on everybody's life and not caring if half the world is starving provided that profits are up on the other (Capit).

[Corvus Corax]

Capitalism is a way for 'parasites' to make money (moreso than the labourer) by leeching their labour and in general being a useless 3rd party placed to bump up the price of products.

[I Bow 4 Che]

Idealists...lol

[IHP]

I'm not sure if you're wanting an actual definition, or what exactly. Everyone has gone for the commie point of view (which I agree with) but are you wanting the meaning of capitalism, or just our leftist perception?

Anyway, a first look at capitalism would have to be in the three worlds typology. which is:

A capitalist 'first world'
A communist 'second world'
A developing 'third world'

To fit into a 'capitalist' country, the state must enjoy high levels of mass affluence. ie. western nations.

Basically capitalism is a system of generalized commodity production. Wealth is Owned privately and life revolves around market principles.

Of course there are different types of capitalism as well. You then go onto Social Capitalism, Enterprise Capitalism, and Collective Capitalism. I can't be bothered going into those now though. Does that answer your question?

--IHP

[I Bow 4 Che]

I think it was rehtorical questioning

[Umoja]

I agree with Queen of Diamonds, you guys are blinded by hatred of Capitalism, and think Communism is perfect. Neither of them have ever worked, and if you refuse to see the advantages of both systems then you are already blind.

[queen of diamonds]

Quote: from Larissa on 2:37 am on Feb. 17, 2003

Quote: from queen of diamonds on 10:49 pm on Dec. 29, 2002

Politically, capitalism is based on self-determination and responsible government.

So no, capitalism is not just another way to exploit people, any more than communism is.


Communism is not a way to exploit people. It is a matter of generosity, of not wanting to live in a world where more than half the population is starving, of wanting to have full command of your own life on one side, and of wanting to have full command on everybody's life and not caring if half the world is starving provided that profits are up on the other (Capit).



I think there's a fundamental truth you need to learn. People are inherently selfish. It's all about their priorities. Those people that we call selfless are just those whose list of priorities is not topped by themselves, but even their lives are ruled by what fulfils them.
And most people are not selfless. Which means that in any communist state, it is neccessary to have a dictatorship in order to stamp out dissent and to be able to create that Utopian state. And I think history has proved more than conclusively that most dictators are not selfless.

Onto capitalism, in an ideal world, everyone would be willing to present everyone else with equal opportunities, to work within the system with some ethics.

Both those ideals sound pretty good to me. But they all seem to fail when put into practice. Why? Since the only middle step between theory and reality is implementation, responsibility for which rests on the people who implement it. Therefore, we can only conlude that the missing link is the exploitation of the system.

Now, let's look at the results of this exploitation.
In capitalism, I'm sure you'll agree, the major pitfalls are the power given to the elite minority over the majority and the exploitation of weakness and abuse of power, resulting in widespread misery.

The major pitfalls of communism....let's take a look. The power given to elite, revolutionary minority (i.e. the dictatorship) over the majority, and the exploitation of the weakness (not only in getting into power, but also in holding power by force, etc.) and the abuse of power, resulting in widespread misery (The Great Leap, Cultural Revolution, the famine in Soviet Russia.....need I go on)

Like I've said, both systems are equally open to exploitation and equally easy to use to exploit people.

[Iepilei]

no system is one hundred percent, but socialism is a system which places the majority over the minority - an oppresive minority at that. The dictatorship does not merely entail the "revolutionary" minority, but the proletariat as a whole. Voices of all sides must be heard, but the majority shall always reign supreme in a educated society - which is why democracy is a must, and socialism is the easiest way for democracy to work.

[Larissa]

Basically, the main problem is most people believe, or think that capitalism equals freedom and democracy, and that socialism equals slavery.

Furthermore, in order to defend the so called freedom and democracy, Capitalism supports situations like the one that is going on in Venezuela.

Also, read George Owell's books and you'll get a picture of what reality is. As he grew older, Orwell became ever more convinced the rightness of socialism and democracy,and the injustice of capitalism and totalitarianism.

[redstar2000]

"People are inherently selfish."

If that were REALLY true, then we'd have NO words like generosity or solidarity...you don't invent words for things that you can't even IMAGINE.

No one would ever GIVE anybody ANYTHING.

To carry that absurd notion to its ultimate logical conclusion, YOU'D EAT YOUR KIDS!

It's just the same old tired notion about "human nature" is shit so capitalism is the "best" we can hope for. The scientific evidence for that crap is nonexistent...despite a century of efforts of "hired guns" to "prove" it.

It boils down to some very weary rhetoric: the master says to the slave "if you had your way, you'd be master and I'd be the slave...therefore it's ok for me to be master."

No, it's not "ok!" :cool:

[Fires of History]

Quote: from queen of diamonds on 2:02 am on Jan. 7, 2003


The major pitfalls of communism....let's take a look. The power given to elite, revolutionary minority (i.e. the dictatorship) over the majority, and the exploitation of the weakness (not only in getting into power, but also in holding power by force, etc.) and the abuse of power, resulting in widespread misery (The Great Leap, Cultural Revolution, the famine in Soviet Russia.....need I go on)


I would simply like to point out that whatever Queen of Diamonds is talking about is not Communism.

Thank you.

Rule by the elite does not exist in Communism. Perhaps you mean some transitional bunk mistaken as Communism?

[Fires of History]

I'm going to add to Redstar's great point.

Perhaps the reason why most assume that people are selfish is that for the past 5-10,000 years we've been playing the Dog Eat Dog game, whereby you kill me or I kill you- and the winner gets to make the rules and write the history and be king.

In such an environment, especially one compounded by the disgusting interests of organized monotheism, the scarcity of resources, and the ruthless and relentless needs of the state (or king) over the people, the nature of society will get twisted. We will fear before we love. Can you imagine a society NOT becoming selfish under such circumstances?

I simply think we are the product of thousands of years of killing each other for king or god. Humanity's soul has been destroyed, mangled, twisted, changed through countless thousands of years of patriarchy, monarchy, and now the newest form of slavery, capitalism. I mean, why do the Israelis and Palestinians fight? Because that's all they know. And this is true of all of us. Our history, our very society, teaches us to eat first and then share. YOU first. If anything, I truly believe that selfishness is learned...nurtured, but NOT our nature.

Just as those I know who have been brought up nurished and loved are the first to share before they eat.

After all, any brief study of anthropology shows that prehistoric societies and tribes valued each member. Each life was valued, sacred in fact. They fought, but did not wage war. They lived, even with such scarce resources, in harmony with the Earth. They even worshipped Goddesses. This we did for hundreds of thousands of years.

And here we are, only a few thousand years into patriarchy, hierarchy, monarchy, and now capitalism, and- !!!SHOCKER!!!- on the brink of total destruction.

If you want to study "HUMAN NATURE" don't forget the 99.999999% of human history well before kings and war and capitalism. Things were very different back then.

And if it is our nature to be selfish, why am I, why are you, tyring to change things? If we cannot envision a better world, then why are you here? Why do you care about Che? If you think humans are selfish, and will always be selfish, you nullify everything Che ever did. And Marx too.

War, death, misery...this is our reality. If human nature is constant then the future will be the same and we should all do ourselves a favor and jump right now.

But I don't believe it. WE CAN CHOOSE OUR FUTURE.

WE HAVE the resources to end hunger.
WE HAVE the resources for everyone to see a doctor.
WE HAVE the resources to see that everyone has clothes and housing.
WE HAVE the capacity to do all these things right now.

After all, what's the factoid I read that says Americans spend 12 times as much on Christmans shopping than it would take to end world hunger. Or is it even more than that? 20 times? Either way, sheesh....

But there's no money to be made in peace. When you understand this, you understand why things are the way they are. And who is making it that way.

Money, of course, being the lifeblood of capitalism, which purposely reduces access to resources, limits supply, and makes you work so hard your whole life not to actually live- just not to die.

And, of course, there is always the other interesting point about Communism:

LET'S FINALLY TRY IT AND SEE!

We know this capitalism shit doesn't work.

[queen of diamonds]

Redstar,
Ever heard of the word "infinity"? I've yet to meet a person who can fully wrap their minds around that notion, yet we have a word for it.
You're using a very narrow definition of selfish, one that involves making as much wealth as possible or something else stupid like the word's come to mean. The macquarie dictionary defines selfish as: "Devoted to or caring for oneself, one's welfare, one's interest, etc". What I was saying was not that everyone would want to keep everything to themselves, but that when they give it's because it makes them feel better about themselves. When people are generous, it's because they're doing what is, in the end, going to let them feel better about themselves. When people give in to their consciences and do the right thing, it's about not having to suffer the guilt.
If people are inherently unselfish, it begs the question as to why we developed from a relatively more communist-like society in prehistoric times to a capitalist-like society in more modern times? Forget modern, the ancient Greeks and Romans were more capitalist than communist.
Fires of History,
No, you're right. I wasn't talking about communism, which I realise is anarchy, I was talking about socialism. I've yet to meet a communist who tries to deny that the proletarian dictatorship is an unnecessary and dispensible step on the way to communism. And yes, I know, it's an essential step to a better society, and so on and so forth, but the point I was trying to make was that the dictatorships that people identify communism with are what communist governments have through history, ended up becoming. I'm not dealing in ideals here, I'm dealing in reality. And while I'm not trying to defend the undesirable side of the capitalist system, I think it shows a complete lack of understanding to assert that capitalism is the only system which is capable of being exploited.
And I guess what I'm really wondering, reading your next post, is that if everything was so great before capitalism and kings and war were here, what brought them here?
I think you're here trying to change things because you think it's the right thing to do. I admire that. But I think that at the end of the day, you're doing it because you want to be able to look in the mirror and not flinch at what you see. So did Che. I hope so, anyway, 'cause nothing else can excuse that idealism.
As for Marx, apart from critising capitalism, what has he really done? Reading the communist manifesto, it occured to me that the document is more a criticism of the capitalist system than any suggestions for a more constructive idea. Marx writes what he thinks we will do, not what he thinks we should do.
And the truth is, no matter how much you will try to deny it, that money is no more the lifeblood of capitalism than the abuse of power is the lifeblood of communism. It's just what happens to the system when people get through with it. You want to try communism? Be my guest. Try it, and see if you can get through without creating another Russia, another China, another Korea.
And lastly, because I realise you're impatient to get to the end of this so that you can tell me why I'm so wrong, in response to your question of why I'm here?
I was here because I used to be a leftist. Now, I'm here to give you some variety. If your arguments and evidence are strong, they'll hold. If they're not, they don't deserve to. But from what I see here, especially in reponse to the original post, you people badly need to look outside the square you've boxed yourself into, and take a look at how the other half thinks. I tried it your way. Now it's your turn.

[Fires of History]

I started this post by tracing the evolution of land ownership to ancient monarchy, and I had a lot to say about the shift from matriarchy to patriarchy, and all the less than desirable things that brought all that about.

I was going to take my time to explain to you why it changed, but I see no point. You're a burn out who has lost hope and has accepted the "real" world, as dictated by material-loving "realists" such as yourself.

And, to put in mildly, I have little respect for someone who is of the left one day and decides to change the next. Or vice versa for that matter. It's obvious you never had your heart in change, in hope, and in a future for ALL humanity away from endless gold and gadgets.

I'm laughing my ass off right now that you think you understood Marx. Wow, you read all the way through the Manifesto...wow, a whole drop in the ocean of Socialist and Communist writing, yeah, you really got into the left. Fucking hardcore. And if you saw no plans for the worker in Manifesto...I don't know what to say but to get the English translation.

You belittle idealism. But it was this same idealism that turned slave to peasant, and peasant finally to citizen, overturned monarchies, and allows you- I'm assuming a woman because of the 'Queen' in your name- to even fucking vote. Idealism is all we have, for it sees the future differently than "realists" like you would assume it could be.

So, think whatever you want about Communism. About Socialism. About the left. You're the one mistaken if you think the right has anything new to offer, anything that hasn't been done over and over and over ad nauseum. It is the right that you claim to currently be a part of that has brought this world to the brink so many times. And is doing so now.

I really do wonder about your trip to the mirror.

For now though, fuck off to Soc v Cap, you have nothing worth saying here if you think Che's actions were all based in some idealistic need to love himself in the mirror the next day. THE FUCK if you get Che, Marx, or the left if your going to say shit like that. You sound like every other stone in the tyrant's throne.

Resist change. Question the proletariat. Belittle idealism. It's all been done before a zillion times by worn out hacks like you for thousands of years. We'll get by without your help.

Enjoy your days without that nasty burden of idealism for something more, hope for change, or envisioning something better for *all* of us because, after all, it's important to live in the "real" world. It's really what Dubya would want.

[queen of diamonds]

Quote: from Fires of History on 1:14 am on Feb. 21, 2003
I started this post by tracing the evolution of land ownership to ancient monarchy, and I had a lot to say about the shift from matriarchy to patriarchy, and all the less than desirable things that brought all that about.

I was going to take my time to explain to you why it changed, but I see no point. You're a burn out who has lost hope and has accepted the "real" world, as dictated by material-loving "realists" such as yourself.

So, basically, you're too lazy to back up what you're saying. Or you have nothing to back it up with. Take your pick.

And, to put in mildly, I have little respect for someone who is of the left one day and decides to change the next. Or vice versa for that matter. It's obvious you never had your heart in change, in hope, and in a future for ALL humanity away from endless gold and gadgets.

To each his (or her) own. I have little respect for someone who persists in an idea contrary to all available evidence.

laughing my ass off right now that you think you understood Marx. Wow, you read all the way through the Manifesto...wow, a whole drop in the ocean of Socialist and Communist writing, yeah, you really got into the left. Fucking hardcore. And if you saw no plans for the worker in Manifesto...I don't know what to say but to get the English translation.

Actually, I'm not alone in this view. Numerous historians have made this criticism. And the truth is, the communist manifesto was always supposed to be the emobodiement of communist ideas.

You bellittle idealism. But it was this same idealism that turned slave to peasant, and peasant finally to citizen, overturned monarchies, and allows you- I'm assuming a woman because of the 'Queen' in your name- to even fucking vote. Idealism is all we have, for it sees the future differently than "realists" like you would assume it could be.

You're twisting my words. I didn't belittle idealism. What I did say was that when idealism turns bad, communism (or socialism) can be as easily stuffed up as captalism can.

So, think whatever you want about Communism. About Socialism. About the left. You're the one mistaken if you think the right has anything new to offer, anything that hasn't been done over and over and over ad nauseum. It is the right that you claim to currently be a part of that has brought this world to the brink so many times. And is doing so now.

What does the left have to offer us? And which experimental country has demonstrated any of what the left has to offer us?

I really do wonder about your trip to the mirror.

I'm so glad for your consideration, but I really wish you'd let me handle my own self-esteem issues.

For now though, fuck off to Soc v Cap, you have nothing worth saying here if you think Che's actions were all based in some idealistic need to love himself in the mirror the next day. THE FUCK if you get Che, Marx, or the left if your going to say shit like that. You sound like every other stone in the tyrant's throne.

First of all, please don't swear. The english language is diverse enough without adding new words to it. Secondly, I'm not saying it's not admirable that their satisfaction comes from helping others. But if I'm wrong, then what's the right version of the story?

Resist change. Question the proletariat. Belittle idealism. It's all been done before a zillion times by worn out hacks like you for thousands of years. We'll get by without your help.

I know you've hit the the bottom of the barrel when you start attacking me personally. And wasn't it Marx who said we should question everything?

Enjoy your days without that nasty burden of idealism for something more, hope for change, or envisioning something better for *all* of us because, after all, it's important to live in the "real" world. It's really what Dubya would want.


Idealism was not about living in another world, though that's what it's become. It was about changing the real world. And in a world such as ours, where communication is so much easier than it was a hundred years ago, it should be easier to change the world on a larger scale when it was back then, when people were having socialist revolutions. So tell me, on a larger sclae than the people around you, what are you doing to change the world ?

(Edited by queen of diamonds at 8:12 pm on Feb. 21, 2003)

[Fires of History]

John Lennon once said, "Possession is 9/10 of the problem." And he didn't know how right he was.

The flaw of our civilization came about when humans got this crazy idea that we can own things. Ownership being the idea that came about just before recorded history, and the same concept that has filled our recorded history with nothing but misery, war and death.

Virtually every Native or First Nations culture thinks it's a ridiculous notion to 'own,' especially land. In fact, they had a very difficult time even understanding what these crazy white folks meant by that.

Ownership. Something our entire culture takes for granted. But a very new idea...very new indeed.

Ownership being at the root of virtually every evil on this planet. In ancient times, as this new idea of ownership of land spread (which coincided with the advent of agriculture by the way), it soon became obvious that if you own something, you have to protect it. Thus came the military, whose only function really is to protect what is owned- that or go kill others to own more. And monarchy came about too, for who is going to make all the important decisions about what is owned? The king of course.

And it wasn't too long, relatively speaking, before anything could be owned. Even other humans. Women. Slaves.

And it is ownership that is the great foundation of capitalism. Or, more precisely, private ownership. And also because it is through ownership that anything can be for sale.

But this notion of ownership is an illusion. Society as it stands now could never survive the unraveling of this most precious tenent, perhaps the number one most precious idea that this tragic experiment is based on.

Which is also why collective ownership is such a threatening idea. It's actually one of the oldest ideas, but it seems so new and scary. It seems like it could never work, because for as long as written history has been, everything has been owned by someone, not by everyone. But there was a time when all that was extended to all who were.

As for Russia and China, Communism was never achieved because both Russia and China went from literal medieval cultures to Communism, and this was never intended- Marx himself knew the unfolding process that was needed. You simply cannot go from monarchy to Communism and expect it to work.

You might say that all available evidence says it will never work. But I would have to ask, what evidence? Since the Renaissance has the West been bound to market capitalism. And, as I just covered, Russia and China were hopeless cases, they weren't ready at all.

And I think it's strange that you don't see that capitalism IS abuse of power. Surely you can see that? That's all capitalism is, arranging a set of circumstances whereby the least get the most and the most get the least. Once again all determined by who 'owns' something- an arbitrary arrangement to say the least.

But the world isn't ready for Communism right now. But it is time for Socialism. Quite past due.

As for Che, his inspiration came when he was traveling through South and Central America. Everywhere he went, he saw how the US was undermining the will of the people and enslaving the inhabitants in factories, farms, or mines with little in return. And he saw that as wrong, simple as that. So when he met Fidel Castro, and heard of the American puppet Batista pulling the same stunts, he knew he needed to help. He knew that a line needed to be drawn somewhere against the US- a lesson the rest of the world still needs to learn.

Che had an incredible sense of justice, and yes I'm sure he personally felt good about what he was doing. But the trump factor in his decision making was his desire for justice. Something both the US and capitalism care nothing about, unless it serves their ends to pretend they do.

As for me, I'm sorry for my anger. I had just returned from a political meeting, and, well long story. I'm simply tired of seeing people losing hope, which I thought you were communicating. I wasn't angry at you, simply the idea of how this perverse and twisted system prevents people from believing in a better tomorrow- and fighting for it. People give up, and apathy reigns.

And the owners laugh. But if we could work together, we could stop that forever. One day.

Who owns you?

[queen of diamonds]

Fair enough (about the ownership issue). I think that's something that needs to be stipulated at the outset, though, because in almost all socialist revolutions, people win the support of the peasants by promising them their own land. Then the peasants just get pissed off that all they meant was that it wouldn't belong to anyone else, not that it wouldn't belong to them.

But capitalism is not supposed to be about the abuse of power. I think that it's one thing to be against capitalism seeing what it's turned out as, but you need to go back to the original principles, just as people need to look past the dictatorships and corruption in communist systems and look at what it was originally about. And capitalism was meant to be about the rights of the individual and giving everyone the opportunity to achieve what they want to achieve, then rewarding them for what they do achieve.

What evidence? The world around me. The fatal flaw of humanity as a whole (going back to our studies of tragey in english...) is ignorance and apathy. I see far too much of it around me, and sometimes it becomes overwhelmingly clear that there is a complete lack of desire for knowledge, which prevents anyone but a very select few (selected by what, I don't know) from learning anything. And as unfortunate as it is, I don't think that can be changed by revolutions, or by educating en masse (which no-one could be bothered to do anyway). And seeing as there are so few people with a proper education around, there's no-one to teach at the teacher:student ratio (and I use those terms very loosely) that we need. I'm more than willing to get up and do what I have to do, to change what I can. But I can't change humanity. Nor can you. And until someone does, communism will fail, because it's a case of "if it ain't broke, why fix it?".

That said, that's not the reason I turned from being a leftist, but that's irrelevant.

I agree, the rest of the world does need to learn that the word of the US is not a commandment from God, but you've got to wonder what made Che think he knew what was best for the countries he tried to incite revolution in, Cuba aside. I mean, having experienced first-hand the problems of ruling a country, having almost single-handedly plunged Cuba into a depression, what made him think he had the answers? I mean, sure, he saw suffering. But he executed people. His idea of industrialising Cuba caused many Cubans to starve. What made him decide that the cruelty inflicted by the governments he was trying to overthrow was any less neccessary or warranted than his own?

As for your being angry, that's okay. I went a little overboard as well :)

But while I'm not belittling idealism, I'm no idealist. Mainly because too many of the idealists I know sit around being idealistic, and do absolutely nothing. Maybe you're different. I don't know. And yeah, the system is unfair. But I'm for changing what I can change, not dreaming about something I can't. Maybe when we're done with the little things we can move on.

Who owns me? I'd like to think myself. But I'd be lying. I guess a better question to ask would be what owns me. I hope it's the truth.

[Fires of History]

Queen of Diamonds said, "Fair enough (about the ownership issue)."

Yeah, the best way to destroy this entire society would be to make ownership impossible. That would be my first of three wishes for sure. I mean imagine the ability to privately own gone right now. Some would call it chaos. Others anarchy. I would simply call it NATURE.

Ancient pre-history is my favorite time period to study for this reason. Somewhere along the line we went from nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers to stationary cities of farmers. It sounds like an innocent and harmless shift-one we're taught to see as essential to this so-called "civilization"- but we're still feeling the effects this change had on the human psyche and, to me, our soul.

Because of my personal beliefs, which are as Green as Red, I think humanity is suffering because we rejected the Earth. At some point, we stopped believing that the Earth would provide. So we started farming. Which is so strange because the Earth had provided so well for hundreds of thousands of years (can any of us really conceive of how long that is?)...and I cannot tell you how fascinated I am about what brought this change about.

Humanity's problems are far higher than Communism, Capitalism, or any ism. And any solution will be higher than any ism. I just embrace Communism because it at least gets that ownership is the root of all evil, whereas Capitalism supports, justifies and promotes it- just perpetuating the same problems we've had since day one from this 'ownership' experiment. Capitalism will never offer solutions because of this, no matter how noble the owner or fair the wage.

We think new ideas will save us, when really we need to return to the ideas that 99.99% of humans lived by.

I personally think fear of death is at the root of all this. Some of us feared death so much that they wanted to ensure our survival by creating farms and ensure our everlasting life by creating gods to give it to us. And, as such, the ENTIRETY of human "achievement" since has been those things which prevent us from facing death. Any facet of modern religion or science has one thing in common: immortality. To live longer and hopefully forever, and to continue the experiment started by whatever idiot decided to leave the Garden of Eden (we are told we were kicked out, but we actually left). We are simply trying to live OUTSIDE of Nature, an impossible feat which is the root of our problems (back to the chaos=anarchy=nature thing).

And in a sick and twisted irony, it was our fear of death that brought a plague of misery, war and death to us since.

NOTHING will change until ownership ends.

NOTHING.

The more the better, and the sooner the better.

And if there is any reason why I have little hope it's that ownership goes so deep and is so entrenched in our culture that people can barely bend their minds around even the notion of it ending. But NOTHING will change until it does.

Ok, got through your first line. Need a break, more later.