posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:49 PM
I guess I am new to ATS. I'm not sure... was the marxist comment aimed at me?
Isn't revolutionary times, times when new forms of system have historically been built on this planet.
My take on Marxism and Capitalism and democracy etc... is that it isn't the "system" that makes the difference. Rather it is the people who make
the difference. People create systems that can be even handed or otherwise. But systems (which are controlled by human beings for human beings) are
not capable of saving people in and of themselves.
If you look at the structure of communistic systems vs. capitalist systems, it is a difference merely in ownership of "system"/privately owned
property. In a communistic system there is a single tree structure which runs/owns the entire system, and in a capitalistic system there are multiple
tree structures that own/operate the entire system.
I am reminded of a principle that I came up with that was later written out by Margaret Heffernan in her book "Willfull Blindness". I will extend
this to include monetary systems. Essentially, the analogy that is the core of this theory is as follows:
If rain were to fall on a desert for a long period of time - while initially, the entire desert is well watered. Eventually, streams form and they
join to form tributaries which join to form rivers, which go to the oceans, as the path of least resistance is taken. So, the well-watered desert
eventually becomes dry because water is well channelled off to the sea.
I believe the same is true of any human created system of "networks", with regards to the flow of money. This is also similar to how the game of
monopoly works. I could go on for pages and pages about how this mimics a monopoly game and what effects you see near the end of a monopoly game (many
of which we are starting to see right now).
My contention that one would have to start a manual labour farm is not that ownership should necessarily be centered in one place. It doesn't matter
how you place the organisational tree structures. Eventually, any system is defined by the people and the way in which they distribute goods and power
and eventually the ability to contribute for the average joe in a meaningful way to society, so that his ability to survive is not destroyed ever.
This is what you are fighting about right now: no jobs - essentially no means to produce a survival. If you can't look to the numerous corporations
on wall street, you end up looking to your government. I would argue that there isn't a "sacred way" - just that there are people who realize that
the monopoly game is detrimental to the continued health of modern existence in general. (at this point in time).
Systems that re-distribute wealth, when the monopoly game gets out of hand is what is really necessary for your continued survival. Large scale
supplants small-scale in a modern world. But it supplants small individual's means of survival too. This reduces the market size continually. Market
size is directly proportional to the monopolization of wealth.