What a society ...

we live in, where it is fine and dandy good business practice to say "No, let my people starve, I need my profits; I need my new luxury autmobile; I need to layer the streets with the poor, the hungry, and the homeless because that's what business demands."

And to think the so-called leaders of our country, the bloody-minded politicians actually get away with parroting (in deed if not in word) these sentiments without being chained to the public stocks is just mind boggling.

Way-to-go world. Watchin' it all just die and wither away.

The Question Is...

"...just mind boggling.

Way-to-go world. Watchin' it all just die and wither away." John Greg.

And it's what tells you that this current downward spiral period of capitalism is not going to get better anytime soon... indeed certainly worse. Because precisely what the "capitalist economy" needs right now, from the perspective of their own interests, if each capitalist could see through his/her own individual greed blindness, is working class consumers out there right now with money to be fleeced in their wallets. Without that, or the possibility of that, with working class incomes in a tail spin, all the capitalist can do, without making a larger share available to his workers is, hunker down, hoard, and husband his cash. And try to steal more share through tax shifting schemes to the working class etc, and hope they can ride it out, until the magic dragon puffs onto the scene one more time, hopefully.

The problem with this dynamic, once it gets set into motion is, it leads to war and/or revolution as its near inevitable product. And for example, it does so because without the fortunate outbreak of WW2, capitalism was going down for the count the last time this went around. It took a war and massive Ruling Class State spending to put everybody back to work again, money in working class pockets, and an infallible consumption cycle of production and consumption by the war machine that was revved up, to pull capitalism's chestnuts out of the fire one more time, from the last Great Depression.

After the war, it was unionization and working class militancy and the reconstruction of war destroyed Euroe that prolonged the process right clear throubgh until the 1980s, when it all finally began to come unglued again. (And the signal of this were the Restraint Budgets of the period, remember? Which the working class failed to understand the significance of, and to respond to with the necessary power and speed.)

It is said, with considerable justification, that the working class is its own worst enemy. Yes, but it is also true that capitalism and all the contradictions of its internal greed processes that is its own worst enemy as well.

We are getting well into this new Depressionary period of capitalism. The question is now, how bad does it get before the working class, with or without its unions, with or without a working class partisan party, starts to move again, and make the bourgeois earth tremble again, striking terror into them and their stuff?

And then, as near always historically, it'll be another mad scramble to try to focus and concentrate working class power to a successful conclusion this time... again, for the upteenth assault on the ruling class ramparts. Hopefully for a successful assault, other than by half measure this time. :-)

This is going to be another time to live through brothers, sisters and comrades.

simple logic!

When the government slashed the wages by 15% for the HEU workers, it was a serious blow to their budgets; most have survived, but the result is that business have had fewer sales!
When will the "elite" realize that poor people do spend every penny they earn, and if you pay them nothing then they buy nothing!

coyoteman, said:

The question is now, how bad does it get before the working class, with or without its unions, with or without a working class partisan party, starts to move again, and make the bourgeois earth tremble again, striking terror into them and their stuff?

I suspect that things are going to get massivley worse, and I think Jane Jacobs may be right in saying that we will fall into a new dark age from which it may take several centuries to recover -- if we recover at all, which we may not.

I think one of the reasons for this is simply because in most of the world, even in poor states, simple, facile, and relatively cheap entertainment, techno-tainment really, is king. And cheap techno-tainment is an opiate, a soprofic that has dulled the average citizen's brain to little more than a pulpy mush with little to no understanding of politics, or the desperate need for revolution, and nothing more than a craving for the next mindless piece of techno-tainment to salve their weary, rotting minds, as well as a kind of lemming-like desperation to spend, spend, spend.

The ruling class will do everything in its power to ensure that the average citizen can still find ways to techno-tain themselves far, far past the time the use-by date of civilization has effectively come and gone. And in so doing will help ensure that meaningful and useful revolution does not come about. I mean look at the bloody line-ups for the latest version of something is ultimately pointless (and remarkabley expensive) as an iPhone, for cripe's sake!

At any rate, that's how I see it. I think.

"I suspect that things are

"I suspect that things are going to get massivley worse, and I think Jane Jacobs may be right in saying that we will fall into a new dark age from which it may take several centuries to recover -- if we recover at all, which we may not." John.

And I cannot positively say that you are wrong, John Greg. Wish I could.

There is no guarantee that the human species is destined to be for all time. (I hear on a quick snippet of news the other day, that they have discovered a species of monkey that seems to be on a line of development towards, for want of a better word, "humanhood." If true, and I did not hear wrong, hopefully the really will be able to improve on ourselves.

But then, we humans endured, slinking around in the underbrush, through the time of the dinosaurs. How many (the rat? This monkey?) species are out there in our underbrush, waiting for us to shuffle on as another failed evolutionary experiment as well?

I do continue to hope, however. The fruit of my loins are out there, afterall. 8-)

Maybe those who figure the lowest income workers...

should have no minimum wage while these same forces manipulate the money and business markets from above.

Again, we are looking at this upside-down. What we need are maximum wealth levels, where no single person is allowed to accumulate more than 10 million dollars in wealth. Who can rightfully argue their life demands more?? Who can rightfully argue they deserve more??

Put this together with the legal demise of corporations and make real people responsible for the acts committed, and we will be getting somewhere.

coyoteman, said:

But then, we humans endured, slinking around in the underbrush, through the time of the dinosaurs.

Well, no, not exactly correct. You've got your timelines a bit higgledy-piggledy. There were millions of years between the dinos and the real start of the "reign" of the mammals, and many, many millions of years after that, that we arrived on the scene. Nonetheless, I agree with much of what you say. :)

samuidave said:

What we need are maximum wealth levels....

Christ yes! I've had a few friends over the years proposing to me various schemes and methods of creating such a system. And it is so, so, so true that that is what is needed -- mind you, the Libertarians would scream, squeal, and holler blue bloody murder to the skies if any such thing were even suggested. But they're just a bunch of sociopathic historical revisionists and Ayn Rand wannabees.

Minimum wage is just a way for the pig-fucking ruling class to ensure slavery, obedience, and fear. But if a realistic maximum wealth level could be achieved ... nirvana!

By Way of An "ism" I ...

"Again, we are looking at this upside-down. What we need are maximum wealth levels, where no single person is allowed to accumulate more than 10 million dollars in wealth. Who can rightfully argue their life demands more?? Who can rightfully argue they deserve more??

Put this together with the legal demise of corporations and make real people responsible for the acts committed, and we will be getting somewhere." wrote samuidave.

Yes. At the commanding heights of the economy, which let's face it, is NOT the small business sector but the corporate sector, we need to usurp their power and control right up front. In the case of the small business sector, most are mom and pop shops that never develop into much anyway. No problemo. In the case of those other small businesses that develop beyond this mom and pop stage, finance should be controlled by "public financial institutions", themselves "democratized", NOT "private" banks. And as these businesses evolve, with individual entrepreneurial initiative that should not be discouraged, but as they dip more and more into these "public funds" for capital, it should come with "partnership strings" attached, bringing in and increasing the role of their workers and the community/social interest, and leading in the direction of full "democratic ownership and control", for the duration of the start-up owners life.

No inheritance rights should exist... of capital assets. And their needs to be as samuidave suggest, a limit on total lifetime money wealth accumulation. (Afterall, 99.9% of small business depend upon, and only succeed upon, their workers being paid smaller incomes compared to the "commanding heights" sectors. THEY, workers, deserve over time to be compensated for that, as an investment of labour capital.)

Big Corporate Capital must simply be overwhelmed and democratized by worker and community "co-operative" ownership, management and directorship. Indeed, even at the small business level, laws and State finance policy needs to be put in place that gives priority of place to worker, farmer and consumer owned co-ops, over individualist "private" ventures. But, in my view, which in particular cases should not entirely exclude the latter, subject to what I have indicated, a kind of "limiting agreement" between the individual entrepreneur and "society".

Corporate Capital needs to be immediately "democratized" (NOT nationalized). Likewise "crown corporations".) All other potentially "capitalist" tendencies within the economy need to be "controlled"... and when and as appropriate "democratized" as well. The workers in these enterprises should have strict rights of union membership across small enterprises firmly in place that are strictly protected by the State or/as well as such Labour bodies as may evolve in The New Order. 8-)

Continued next post...

By Way of an "ism" II ...

From previous post...

Democracy and the creation/evolution of a working class power, especially over the economy, as opposed to State ownership and control, in my view, is the key to achieving what the old Soviet and Red China regimes never did and could nor will not in their particular circumstances.

We are NOT them, we are the product of a different history and line of development, and should not seek to be as they, and should develop our own path into a post-capitalism future. And I don't care what you call it, by way of an "ism". :-)

My view.

Ehhh. As time goes on, this is the kind of conversation folks need to have. :-)

simple logic right

alive is right. Ford priced his cars so that his workers could buy them and paid his workers wages so that they could buy his cars. An economy based on purchases made only by a wickedly rich elite is bound to end in revolution of one sort or another.

There is simply nothing right...

with how our society is governed politically or economically. As CARL SAGAN* pointed out thirty years ago, 'we know who speaks for the nations, but who speaks for the human species? ... our global civilization is clearly on the edge of failure'.

I do not believe we are going to act in time to save ourselves, despite having the knowledge and the means at hand to do so. For the knowledge we need to listen to is in the minds of the 'very few'. And by the time we decide collectively to listen to the 'very few' and not the 'self-serving, players of power' it will be too late.

* a classic video from his series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage

What's wrong with equal treatment?

The Premier figured he needed a 54% raise and the MLA's figured they needed a 30% raise but people on minimum wage have not had it raised for more than 8 years. Thy get 0% over 8 years. That's fair to these guys. They really all live on fantasy Island.

Statistics lie

Now they are saying that BC has the largest average salary!
All that proves is the discrepancy between rich and poor, because our poorest paid are also the poorest paid in the country.

Reality Check

The periodically revived debate about the minimum wage is just another instalment of the theatre of the absurd.

How much is MLA Murray Coell being paid per hour? Let's see, first we'll need to figure out how many hours he actually works as an MLA. That would include the time he actually sits in the Legislature - that is, when the Prem deems that the Legislature itself should sit. Should we also count all the time he undoubtedly puts into schmoozing? Nah, let's not.

What about the stipend he receives for being a Minister? How much is that? And how many hours does he spend managing the Ministry of Labour?

Perhaps Murray needs to do some hands-on research. If he's recalled he could try out another career and apply for a job that starts at Premier Campbell's $6 / hr training wage.

Maximum wage.

What we really need is maximum wage (limit) for the fat cat politicians.

Alive is right

Alive is right. If I have five dollars in my pocket, I will spend five dollars. If I have ten dollars in my pocket, I will spend ten dollars. If I have twenty dollars, I will try to save some of that for a "tomorrow".

Unfortunately, big business and their government conies are trying their damndest to keep me at less than five dollars. The sorry part is that they refuse to learn better.

"Useless Murray" opened his

"Useless Murray" opened his mouth and Gordo shut it for him. So Coell takes the heat because Gordo keeps him in the position, just like a good little Campbell Liberal. The option would be to go find a job and think on his own, something that he does not appear able to do. The recall should be interesting

You gave me an inspiration there!

"...where no single person is allowed to accumulate more than 10 million dollars in wealth. Who can rightfully argue their life demands more??"

Hey - you know what? That's a capital idea (pun intended). And what's more: 'we' can do this.This can be accomplished by our end of the market. the consumer side. All we need is an apparatus for monitoring how well corporations do, and when we see one that is over the top, then shift support to a struggling one just in its infancy. This would be REAL competition - competition on whatever is the opposite of greed., success, and wealth. Keep them humble. Now we have a mechanism in place that does price monitoring and tell people where the best deals are. Never used it, I support my neighborhood vendors whoever they are, unless they're known for unethical practices and/or union bashing. This is another thing that the labor movement oversees. We get a list of firms to boycott every so often. So, we must be able somehow to accomplish the establishment of a success-monitoring index, where we can look up who's doing too well, and shift consumption to take them down a few notches. I have said it before and I'll say it again: the greatest power we ever have is in the moment we hold our consumer dollar in our hot little hand and decide where to place it.

So, no more Ipods, they're way too wealthy; no more movies made by people who have raked it in for years and own villas everywhere. Let others get a chance, even Swedes. No more cheap goods from Winners/walmart/IKEA, etc. Find a starving 'artisan' in your own neighborhood and pay him/her for your pillowcase or stoneware bowl!

This could develop into a true mission and a really new direction for us all. We don't have to wait for 'them' or 'those others' to revolutionize or legislate this into being. WE CAN DO IT!

Long live the potlatch!

On my own, out on a limb

I would argue that the forcing of limits on wealth is an ineffective and clumsy approach to change.

We don't really change anything unless we psychologically, philosophically, change what we desire first. Such a massive shift in cultural desire, if it is to be effective, and not mere rhetoric, or more of just a different kind of tyranny, must of necessity involve a personal shift in value and desire as well.

Otherwise, we have just changed bosses....tinkering with different levels of the same old scale.

We must genuinely want/desire something first.... just like someone can't 'logically' make you fall in love with them.

At present our economics, our politics, our science, our religion and our philosophy largely uphold the same status quo, indeed their purpose is to rationalize the exploitation of that status quo in order to entrench the desire for production over 'the vital relationship' between living things.

How will the forcing of limits change our present mass suicidal philosophy when we are still bowing to the "measurement" of the gods of production, just at smaller imposed limits?

If a culture, in the end, still desires things, if that is what they still ultimately value, the forcing of limits, despite what may be good intentions, will be a short term solution only.

We have only changed/limited structure, cultural architecture, we have not changed the desire or expanded the consciousness for 'the new'.

Carl Jung wrote: " All the greatest and most important problems of life are fundamentally insoluble. They can never be solved, but only outgrown. This outgrowing proved on further investigation to require a new level of consciousness. Some higher or wider interest appeared on the patient's horizon, and through this broadening of his or her outlook the insoluble problem lost its urgency. It was not solved logically in its own terms but faded when confronted with a new and stronger life urge."

And we are talking mass addiction here....

Same as we cannot force an addict to give up his addiction....we can impose our will all we like, but if recovery is just an 'outside' job, it will be temporary one...and the addict will eventually revert to his old ways. The addict must see first with new eyes....and more importantly his own 'inner' desire for a new way/life must become the stronger urge.

Many like to minimize the importance of feeling and desire to the development of critical thought - but as evidenced by the world today, if there is no real desire for change, there is no real change.

Not for long anyway.

in evolutionary terms,change without real desire is the rule

You’re not alone. Many folks realize that limitation by force has never made life easier, except for those imposing the limits. But as much as I share your belief that, “We don't really change anything unless we psychologically, philosophically, change what we desire first”; I can’t see that happening by choice.

I’ve repeatedly offered the claim that we must begin to have a closer look at why we think the way we do before we can start to understand our problems and conflicts but few are willing to suffer through the introspection necessary. It is too painful. Since our basic survival mechanisms drive us to avoid pain and seek pleasure, psychological and philosophical change would have to be forced.

Ultimately, the evolutionary factors that will act to change our cultural architecture and our desires are the same factors that change and control our distribution and abundance: our life sustaining resources. As clean air, water, food, habitable environments and energy become increasingly limited and expensive, our desires will change. We won’t like the change but the changes will force us to rethink our behaviour. Whether or not that results in a more harmonious, cooperative society remains to be seen.

lynn ...

what you say about changing the culture from within, rather than simply creating and enforcing new limits may, or may not, have merit. I'm really not sure.

I do somewhat disagree though with your suggestion that the imposition of external constraints would be ultimately futile and short term. I believe it would be more valuable than that, and with the side effect of some fairer form of redistribution of wealth, would provide more options for more people to actually do something about changing the culture from within themselves -- so to speak.

Also, I think quoting Jung is a bit risky. Like Freud, Jung has been pretty thoroughly debunked and shown for what a flake and fan of woowoo he really was.

Idealism and Clear Reality... Conflict has ever been.

"You’re not alone. Many folks realize that limitation by force has never made life easier, except for those imposing the limits. But as much as I share your belief that, “We don't really change anything unless we psychologically, philosophically, change what we desire first”; I can’t see that happening by choice." KWD

And while I understand where Lynn is coming from as well, and agree that in the ideal world, where there was the room, time, and resources, and "the desire" on the part of "some" especially wealthy folks, I agree with KWD. I don't see it happening... ever.

Some change for some people is simply going to have to be forced on them. And I agree that poses problems as well, and some policy choices it would be "nicer" to be able to avoid... but again, don't see any other choice. And I'm sick of waiting forever, being poor and a lifetime wage slave. :-) (Well, not so bad at this late stage of my life, but I've been there and know very well.)

A nice ideal, but not a practical one in the real world taking shape, in my view. Jung considered. (And I know the rising capitalist class resolved that problem by leaving "royalty" with their wealth and lands. And some "negotiation" is going to have to go on in the case of this time, no doubt, to minimize ruling class opposition, but even royalty, in Prince Phillips view, as I recall, is coming to its End Time as well.)

isn't Murray Coell

He's one of the top HST recall mla's on Bill's hit list If I remember correctly. More harm has been done by the hst than could ever be done by a raise in wages. With the HST everyone on low income needs a raise in income. How many more people are going homeless this winter. We desreve a far more humanitarian government. Murray may have done a good thing it will help get rid of him in recall.

More re Lynn's Hypothesis...

I found myself spending much of the time since my last response to Lynn, thinking on what she had to say. And I less quick to write what she has to say off as a result.

I think there is a possibility, which I would want to dwell on more, that if the economy and power relationships especially there are set up "correctly", and that Big "private" business ownership is prevented there... Meaning that when and if a small business grows beyond the mom and pop shop stage, part of the "public financing" and other "assistance" that goes to that stage and beyond involves step by step "democratization" of the enterprise. Also employees rights and "assistance" in unionization must always be there. ...then I think it just MAY BE that restrictions on wealth accumulation become redundant.

The key being that after the "mom and pop" stage of a businesses evolution, and most never get beyond that, then "democratization" with growing worker and social interest rights and power being brought into it, including decisions re profit sharing etc., then it seems to me, to become unnecessary to have other large "repressive" mechanisms there to limit incomes.

Though some individual "entrepreneurs" being really creative, as in scheming, corrupt and corrupting, and even prone to criminality, I would want to see how it actually worked out in practise over time.

In the early going of any social transformation, it is likely to have not many pretty elements in dealing with these folks, and the especially "gangster" element that is the hidden face of capitalism.

Lynn is NOT entirely wrong however, for sure.

Nothings new under the sun!

So, now the talk is about stopping anyone from accumulating more than a certain amount of money in a given year?

Did you ever hear about taxes?

We do not need new laws, only legislators who are ready to increase the percentages demanded from high income earners!

No matter how we try, remember that the very rich also can afford to engage experts to hide their income!

The Social Dem Fatal Flaw...

Keeping in mind, as Alive needs to do, that throughout the entire history of capitalism, the ruling class has "repressed", "passed legislation/laws", crushed unions, imposed economic depressionary cycles... all in an effort to "limit" working class share and in turn, steal share, that would otherwise go to them or the "social interest" purse. No guilt need be felt I think, though "need" might be questioned, in repressing/restricting ruling class incomes in future. It is merely a "political" issue to me, mostly of timing and method.

Which reflects, from such as Alive, in ever effectively rising to ruling class defence in debate with the "Serious Left", over the "social interest", the naiveté and shallowness of social democratic analysis generally.

That said, the key in the future, in my view, and there is going to be no way around it, lies in "changing" the "power balance" in ownership and control of the "commanding heights" of the economy... through its profound "democratization".

Social democrats, with their mugwump view of the world... their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other... ...need to do more in depth thinking frankly, and less instinctive reaction by compromising and conceding to the status quo/ruling class interest. It is what lends them and their view to such quick and easy co-option by "the system", which has plagued them across their entire history, including that of the brief Social Democratic State period... Which was largely a "Liberal Party" implementation in fact, with some even by the then Progressive Conservatives.

It is the Social Dem fatal flaw, destined to be its undoing in the coming Depressionary Period, in my analysis, as the class struggle comes to the boil again across capitalism.

Taxation Policy...

Though yes, I would say Alive is correct in part... taxation rates on "obscene" wealth and profits IS an option under ANY regime. It is simply that every other party to capitalism is AFRAID to take it on, including the NDP, as a consequence of ruling class ownership and control "power" over the economy. Which further proves my argument, that it is this "power relationship" in the economy that needs to primarily change.

Again, social dem ideas and solutions MIGHT benefit from some deeper thinking and analyses.

that's why I think my idea might work...

"In the early going of any social transformation, it is likely to have not many pretty elements in dealing with these folks, and the especially "gangster" element that is the hidden face of capitalism."

So, this is why I think that a combination of solid information and a framework for achievable action on the consumer side might work, since this will circumvent the confrontational aspects of some other approaches. Using the market forces that these people have sailed forth on to turn the tables on them, that would be not only poetic justice, but a very practical thing to do, and impossible to legislate or 'goon' away, since it simply involves giving consumers a more comprehensive basis for making market-related decisions. It goes without saying, that name-calling is not allowed, since this will give 'them' a place to hook into and bring the effort down.

Of course, at the same time, we must work to remake society in such a way that people don't reach adulthood with the stuffing beaten out of them, so they are doomed to spend their life trying to buy it back. Truth to tell, we are buying a heck of a lot of liabilities, white elephants etc, to bolster our sense of consequence. This would not be a problem if the 'free and equal' paradigm was revived. You cannot believe the staggering amount of sycophantic bunkum one hears out in the working life, all related to people feeling like worms crawling on their bellies, afraid of their own shadow. This must change. And, I'm talking deep stuff here. It starts with not putting people in 'daycare' because we can, and goes all the way up to dialogue with young adults instead of 'my house, my rules'. Right then and there, we nail down that worth of people and their right to have input is totally correlated with possession of property. Other people have more respect for those, to whom we hand over the future, while we just make one generation after another of little vindictive despots with a wallet where their soul should be.

New Westminster's livable wage

I recall that earlier this year New Westminster came up with a policy that all contractors providing services to the City must pay a livable wage to their workers. That was determined to be about $17.50 per hour (sorry, I don't recall the exact figure).

Brian Bonney wants NO minimum? What a fascist! Let's see him live on $8.00 an hour!

The economy in the Lower Mainland is divided between those who own property and those who don't. BC has become an over-sized Whistler.

No minimum wage...

On the other side, the likes of Bonney would also argue for no top end limit on ruling class profits as well, and say they were being fair and balanced... no matter how obscene relative to working class incomes.

And then you have NDP social dems advancing the same essential defence of the ruling class controlled system... no limits on "moneyed class wealth" as well. Or at least, they are not noticed applying that taxation policy to claw some of it back into the "social interest" pile.

But then, even more than who has what access to cash, as important as this is, it's a question of the "power share" of Capital property (the means of finance, production, distribution and marketing), ownership and control, from which comes the particular emphasis on who gets what share, that makes obscene wealth in so few hands possible. It's the class "power equation" especially within the economy that needs to change.

For example, consumer information policy is certainly not a threat to anybody, or going to change very damn much. Sorry Dorothy. It changes nothing. Like sex with an open window. But you move on the class "power equation" and try to radically alter that... who owns, controls and gets to make the decisions, suddenly you get that top 1% attention quick enough, and shit starts to happen.

Which does point to a lot that is revealing about social dems, and allow judgement of them based on the ideological company they tend to keep. :-)

Though vikanadian and dave49 deal with Bonney appropriately enough. :-) They do drive that nail home. :-)

what works

Thanks, coyoteman and kwd, for taking the time to both carefully read and consider the individual comments.... we don't have to always agree but we gain much from the to and fro of ideas here.

My argument against wealth limitations is less idealistic than it looks at first glance, and more out of a sense of practicality - I just don't think it will work.

Prohibition, the imposing of more laws, the endless monitoring of people's lives comes from a place of constraint, rather than creation. We risk in the end becoming the very thing we fear....and we also teach people to be sly....which is why we have those sneaky hidden wealth caches in Swiss banks and The Grand Caymans. If we are really interested in changing things our only chance will come out of creating something new, which won't happen if (paraphrasing Einstein ) we continue to use "the same level of consciousness that created those very problems in the first place".

But like KWD, I am not hopeful we will make that leap soon enough...

Increasing the level of taxation at least is a more elegant solution, as alive suggests, as wealth limiting laws are inherent with complications despite the good intentions of the writer- keeping us very busy watching and monitoring rather than living our lives. For example, what if the person who makes twenty-five million dollars funds ambulances, medical supplies, and teddy bears for child victims of war? And another person making only ;-) one million dollars funds Nazis?....And he has ten friends who he is lobbying to do like wise?

So again we come down to psychology and philosophy,...and values... kinda like the saying quoted often here last week by some that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

We are not going to escape ourselves in these controversial issues.

Focusing on limitations on wealth unfortunately keeps us in 'their' same old game, playing by their rules where wealth, excessive wealth in particular, is the Godhead. By doing so, we, ourselves, place value on wealth....and identify with the very interests that are trampling over us. Just as unions have weakened themselves through their acceptance of the business model (as coyoteman often notes) to the detriment of their own interests, rights, and dignity.

So, again this is a reactive rather than creative response, that says "we want to be just like you at least to the limit of 10 million dollars" - after that our principles kick in."

We are still not answering why we continue to let our human lives revolve around an emphasis on'production', production that continues to trump our relationship to living things...to this earth, life itself.

It's really not an aerie-faerie question. We won't survive if we don't answer it. And the odds are already against us.

John Greg

Mr. Greg, I am obviously still being fooled by the work of Carl Jung. The collective unconscious - debunked? If YOU say so. Jung was the foundation of much of Joseph Campbell's work and study. Hey, what does Joseph Campbell know, anyway? The implications of synchronicity to quantum physics - apparently more minor stuff, Mr. Greg?

Sheesh....you're even going to miss out on Tom Robbins novel "Another Roadside Attraction, where ol' debunked Carl is oft' known to swagger and saunter through. Even the always captivating Amanda loves him.....

Yes, Mr. Greg, why even bother to listen to a guy who in a world that continues to slumber at its own risk has the audacity to write this apparently debunked drivel?:

"He who looks outside, dreams. He who looks inside, awakes."

As for Freud, my knowledge of Freud is much more limited....but I know he was pretty smart....and there must be 'something' to learn from him....but if you say he has been thoroughly debunked..... Debunked he is.

'Defunct, Debunked, and Deluded'. Rodgers and Hart?

Sorry.... must be thinking of 'Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered'.

Close enough.

Thinking on a revolution's feet... 8-)

"Focusing on limitations on wealth unfortunately keeps us in 'their' same old game, playing by their rules where wealth, excessive wealth in particular, is the Godhead. By doing so, we, ourselves, place value on wealth....and identify with the very interests that are trampling over us. Just as unions have weakened themselves through their acceptance of the business model (as coyoteman often notes) to the detriment of their own interests, rights, and dignity." Lynn.

I do hear you, woman. And there is something there in your words that is very important. I do get it.

My age and historical experiences with the "Old Left" doubtless continues to shape my thinking some. 8-)

At the same time, time and the natural environment especially are closing in on us. And the living condition of the human mass outside these wealthy fucks.

I mean, they, the moneyed class, cannot continue to have it entirely, even so near much, THEIR WAY.

We really do need to thunk on this one. REALLY.

And I do think that we are about to join in a struggle time again with this friggin' ruling class of capitalism system, for the umpteenth time, and so many mistakes have been made already that have run "the revolution" up blind alleys that lead to nowhere, but back to the past. We do have to get it right.

(Much, much depends on the level of understanding, commitment, and preparedness to ACT, of this citizen/working class mass.)

But I do agree in some important regards. A lot is going to depend on how well we, in this time, "craft" this "new" order of economic and political things... in such a way as "encourages", rather than "force marches" us into the future. Force marching, though violent struggle periods seem near inevitable, in the end, do not by and of themselves seem to secure the entirely desired outcome. (Nor did they for the rising capitalist class, out of its revolutionary period in the 17th Century of establishing itself in Europe. They were forced in the end to make a great compromise with the aristocratic class and its royalty. They are still with us, if failing fast.)

Much depends on what comes over the course of a revolutionary transformation period, and immediately after. Which is why we have to be very smart about how we shape the coming struggle, yet without fear, and preparedness to engage in the most severe conflict.

Lynn, good woman, thank you for the "provocation". :-) And I seriously mean that.

And yet...?

For example, consumer information policy is certainly not a threat to anybody, or going to change very damn much. Sorry Dorothy. It changes nothing.

Would you nevertheless agree that every penny of the 'obscene wealth' accumulations in the world were handed over by some consumer, who didn't know any better, didn't think he had any choice, or didn't have the energy to do real research on his own? So, shy do you think the reverse process is not what is required to see change happen?

"But you move on the class "power equation" and try to radically alter that... who owns, controls and gets to make the decisions, suddenly you get that top 1% attention quick enough, and shit starts to happen."

Oh, sure. What kind of shit? What is it you mean to do? outrun, outgun, out-scream, or out-appeal these people in a direct confrontation? Well, good luck with that. Taking consumer dollars away is the only effective means that they cannot block through power measures neither legal nor any other. It may be a slower way, but it will work, if not overnight, then in the end, and that's what counts. You want to see blood in the arena, 'shit happening'? Go ahead, but bring a big fat roll of toilet paper.

What's now wrong with sex with an open window??

lynn, the mystic ;)

~ "I would argue that the forcing of limits on wealth is an ineffective and clumsy approach to change."

lynn, are you seriously arguing against a collectively imposed limit to any individual's greed? This is, afterall, a behaviour when unchecked few parents anywhere tolerate.

If one's social conscience is lacking, or if the acceptable social behaviour not to take more, or excessively more, than one's share has not been learned, then we change the environment to re-educate and instill acceptable behaviour. A primitive approach, perhaps, but higher thought processes on the issue do not seem to have taken root now, have they?

Waiting for enlightenment or a change in heart is very liberal of you, lynn, but waiting for it to occur in today's world can, and will, lead to self destruction. People in the main are just not that reflective. We are emotional beings and routinely find comfort in self-deception (look no further than religiosity for startling proof). Sometimes we need 'sense' to govern us all.

Do you not wonder why other socially unacceptable qualities in human behaviour are regulated (eg, theft, anger, lying), but the glitzy by-products of greed (wealth and power) are idolized?

Greed is an invisible cornerstone of our laissez-faire economy. Our cultural capacity for insatiable greed was not contemplated in Adam Smith's marketplace, a economic model we continue to champion as though it is without shortcomings.

Unfettered, individual pursuits at any cost will serve us all best, so we have been schooled. And as long as we continue to deceive ourselves, we will go on making excuses for poverty, war and hunger -- the other less commendable by-products of greed.

Yes, living with nearly 7 billion others on a planet of finite resources, there must be some limit on what anyone can claim as their own. In such a global community the individual cannot be paramount forever. No King, no politician, no businessman, no sports star, no celebrity and certainly no sociopathic, corporate entity! is entitled to feast without limit. But this is what we allow; this is what we have learned to believe in our schools and through the relentless advertising and state propaganda designed by and for the gluttons -- the fortunate few worked hard to feast while a billion others starve and we all face ecological destruction.

How can you be sure we do not need to impose a limit on anyone's wealth? How would anyone suffer being held to some acceptable figure?

Waiting for enlightenment sure didn't help the slaves out for thousands of years; and the marketplace was unwilling to correct that problem. Capping Wealth is the sort of issue, like slavery, where a government is needed to act.

We already have the means in place to make this happen. Ideologically, laws are all about imposing limits on individuals for what is called the society. And a limit on how much a single creature can claim in a finite world is just good sense.

lynn, the mystic: continued from above

~ "Such a massive shift in cultural desire, if it is to be effective, and not mere rhetoric, or more of just a different kind of tyranny"

I did not know our 'cultural desire' was to a few at the top own most the planet and its resources. If that is our desire, then we are certainly accomplishing our objective.

As for your remarks about 'science' maintaining the status quo, and this collective limit on greed substituting a different form of 'tyranny', well, you must have a very unique and subjective definition of both 'science' and 'tyranny' to reach these otherwise erroneous conclusions.

~ "Otherwise, we have just changed bosses ..."

Yes, that is, in large part, the theme of my proposal: a changing of bosses from the few to the many; a society where people's behaviour is accountable to community and it is interwoven with our ecology. Nature produces no waste; humanity produces little else. We have to evolve by getting in symbiosis with our planet or we will perish. There is no bargaining with our world despite Pascal's wager.

Now I know the wealth cap proposal will never happen, but not because it isn't a good idea. The demise of corporate capitalism should be paramount to our survival; another good idea which won't happen. Corporations are now the new city-states which govern the planet. Government is just its shadow, and we are all ensnared in this mess and have no desire in the west to get unstuck.

We need contraction of economics, not globalization. We need to become more self-sufficient and accountable to our communities and our evironment. But this won't, possibly cannot, happen until after the destruction of the planet or a collapse of economic paradigm.

That said, lynn, your point is made but I think desperate times call for desperate measures. We do not have time to become completely enslaved to the new city-states running the world; we do not have time to act after our ecological collapse becomes apparent to even the most myopic neocon.

answering the question

Continued survival of today’s globalized economic system demands “production”. Without production economies will collapse. (Think about the justification for multi-billion dollar stimulus packages)

Production is the prime reason why many of the myriad of jobs that exist today are not there to improve the quality of life beyond the realm of the individual, nor to produce goods and services that have lasting value. Many jobs exist (and produce) simply to keep the economy and people out of trouble.

The labour force is nothing more than a commodity. These folks remain happy so long as they believe they are being productive and their labour is earning them a living. And as long as market growth continues, the system will plunder along ... unthreatened.

Unfortunately, as many European economies are finding out, keeping folks employed for the sake of continuing the plunder and keeping faux economies alive results in sovereign debt loads that can not be paid back. When this is coupled with increasing costs of life sustaining commodities and energy, market forces will demand massive, inescapable lifestyle changes.

Perhaps these changes will cause serious examination of capitalism’s raison d’etre, our cultural architectures and our desires.

Lynn, The Mystic... Samuidave

"We need contraction of economics, not globalization. We need to become more self-sufficient and accountable to our communities and our environment. But this won't, possibly cannot, happen until after the destruction of the planet or a collapse of economic paradigm.

That said, lynn, your point is made but I think desperate times call for desperate measures. We do not have time to become completely enslaved to the new city-states running the world; we do not have time to act after our ecological collapse becomes apparent to even the most myopic neocon." samuidave.

For sure, Lynn's "mystic" quality as you describe it, is what brings a special "compassionate" quality to her ideas, if to a more cynical, battle hardened ear, a kind of out of this worldliness. And I say that lovingly. Lynn's ideas have always been some of the most insightful here, in my view.

And I would like to think that the future and coming events would allow us "on the other side" of the Great Class Divide in society, to "craft" the coming struggle and the society that takes shape out of it, which we will certainly not entirely be able to control in any case, in a way that is more encouraging and "leading" in its direction, rather than "impositional". To prefer that it would be otherwise is another kind of madness. (And I've seen this one too.)

But the key is, again in my view, that it MUST be profoundly "democratic"... seen and perceived, to which even THEY, the moneyed ruling class (then past tense, assumedly :-) must in the end be made to "submit", if necessary. In fact, it is only the "democracy" part f the equation that will give "legitimacy" and overwhelming "public support" to any more "severe" measures as MAY be called for.

Ideally though, "the people" would be successful in crafting the New Order in a way that leads away from violence and "the class division" of society with its severely "unequal" share distribution arrangement of the economic order. But WE, the people, like I say, will not be entirely in control of this matter. THEY will have something to say about it as well, in how THEY craft their response to the then NEW democratic will/consensus of society.

And IF it is entirely negative, as folks should be prepared that it MAY well, that will much shape whether we can all be more or less "mystical", and have the time and opportunity to be so, OR we have to be more directly confrontational. (And "weakness" of the social democratic/liberal kind will only encourage them to be bold and challenging, even violent... my experiential view.)

Lynn, as I have said, provided a valuable intellectual provocation to this discussion, and there is much truth in what she says. I am more inclined to agree with samuidave in my quotes from him above here... especially the first paragraph of this quotation.

Time is running down here, is kind of the overarching reality.

Good discussion and contributions, without exception in my view.

European Events...

By the way, again, another very insightful contribution to this discussion from KWD immediately above me here. I hope you are all watching all the news about the current wave of class strife currently wracking across Europe.

These struggles are now the leading indicator of what is to come... and we are still at the beginning stage of this, with this new working class view and concencus still taking shape.

The European working class, with its much longer history and understanding of class struggle, and preparedness to engage in it, is likely about to show the way here. (Even in the old GDR, or East Germany, keep your eyes and ears attentive to what is happening there... where there is more than a little disenchantment with the new United Germany beginning to turn into something quite different than we might have all expected.)

samuidave ...

Has, I think, expressed it very well.

While creating and enforcing legislation that constrains an individual's right to earn as much wealth as they choose may "feel" draconian, wrong, or somehow unfair to the so-called principles of democracy, it is clear, more than clear, that these wealth addicted fools will not constrain themselves even if their greed and obscene levels of owning-it-all mean the end of the world as we know it.

And, lynn, while it's possible that "debunk" may be a bit strong, yes, Jung has in many articles in academic journals, and in many research papers, and other academic resources been shown, as has Freud (and psychoanalysis in general), to be error-ridden in methodology and a very strong believer in countless forms of mystical woowoo and other unsupportable mystical nonsense.

That does not mean he may not have had some wise things to say from time to time -- though rather hit and miss. It simply means he is deeply flawed in reason, logic, and fact, and as such may be a questionable resource for quoting.

And what on earth

Sheesh....you're even going to miss out on Tom Robbins novel "Another Roadside Attraction, where ol' debunked Carl is oft' known to swagger and saunter through. Even the always captivating Amanda loves him.....

has to do with anything is simply beyond me. Oh, Robbins's fictitious bimbo Amanda believes in Jung, therefore I should?!? I've read Another Roadside Attraction a couple of times; pleasant fiction.

Mystical thinking, like magical thinking, may feel good, sound nice, and be all kinds of fun, but when it comes to dealing with these corporate and individual world busters and their plutocratic thieveries in the real world, mystical thinking, like magical thinking gains us nothing but pretty crystals to hang in our windows while the world collapses around us in lovely rainbow hues.

Speaking of woo woo....

John Greg wrote:

"And, lynn, while it's possible that "debunk" may be a bit strong, yes, Jung has in many articles in academic journals, and in many research papers, and other academic resources been shown, as has Freud (and psychoanalysis in general), to be error-ridden in methodology and a very strong believer in countless forms of mystical woowoo and other unsupportable mystical nonsense."

And yet just a few months ago you wrote this about Joseph Campbell in a reply to dorothy:

"Actually, I have a great deal of respect for Campbell and his work. His anaylses of the role of myhtology in society are deep, very interesting, and full of wisdom."

If you had even a superficial understanding of Joseph Campbell, if you had actually read him, you would know that Jung is the foundation of much of Campbell's work - as Campbell explained the great myths of the world's religions in terms of Jungian concept of: Guess what? The collective unconscious. In fact it was Joseph Campbell that popularized the main discoveries and the psychology of Carl Jung. He argued that world's mythologies, ritual practices, folk traditions, and major religions share certain symbolic themes, motifs, and patterns of behavior.....do you not see the vast significance of Jung's collective unconscious in this? Anyone who had actually read Joseph Campbell would know the significant part Jung played in his work.

You keep mentioning Freud, but I didn't. As I said I know the basics of his work but my knowledge of him is limited, that's why I don't pretend otherwise.

BUT I do know.....enough about Jung to know he and Freud ultimately took very divergent paths....

RE: "Amanda" - she would never "believe" in Jung, now that's funny but I know you know that especially if you have read the book "two times"... she would just dance with him on a sandbar under the night sky. If only the world had more "bimbos' like Amanda. Jung isn't actually a character in the book, but the novel fits a Jungian vision of the world....where a bimbo (your words) like Amanda would be the archetype of... ? Well, I'm sure you know that, too, Mr.Greg.

You wrote:

"Mystical thinking, like magical thinking, may feel good, sound nice, and be all kinds of fun, but when it comes to dealing with these corporate and individual world busters and their plutocratic thieveries in the real world, mystical thinking, like magical thinking gains us nothing"

I'm no mystic, far from it, but magic I like.

What would life be without magic?

That naughty Tom Robbins put it best:

"Disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing in government and business.”

You see that's where we've gone wrong... we've lost the real magic in life.

And allowed the corporate guys and the governments who represent their interests to replace it with artificial turf.

With crystals jingle, jangle, jingling I have some work to do - will then reply to samuidave.

Minimum wage hikes MAY kill jobs

Recent US experience suggests that too much of a minimum wage rise could very well kill jobs. Now, combine that with BC's HST, the new .05 drink/driving limit, and recessionary economy - its a recipe for the perfect job-killing storm.

From Bush’s Minimum Wage Increase Killed Jobs:
Economic theory is clear in its understanding of the minimum wage – it unambiguously reduces the demand for labor, but only if the minimum wage is above the market wage for unskilled entry level labor. In practice, the minimum wage has been far beneath the going wage for unskilled, entry level workers.

Increasing the minimum wage at these levels would have no effect on employment or wages. As a consequence, research findings have ranged from zero to modest job losses as the minimum wage increases. Unfortunately, the latest round of minimum wage increases, which occurred in late July 2007, 2008 and 2009, occurred from the peak through the trough of the recession. These increases were, at 14, 12 and 11 percent respectively, the largest since 1978 and the largest three-year percentage change since 1950. …the minimum wage increase accounts for roughly 550,000 fewer part-time jobs now than would otherwise be the case without the most recent three minimum wage increases. …Abandoning the minimum wage would have little or no adverse economic effects. Indeed, it would most likely boost employment."
-

MInimum wage kills jobs?

Like the HST is doing?

Minimum Wage Needs To Increase

I agree it does, I don't think Campbell and Co even care all that much about this issue and many other issues that face British Columbians every day. I think it's about this government's idealogies, corporate interests and other unknown facts. We all know the causes and effects of poverty right?, Then how come we don't insist on change?. Simple.Greed, it always takes top spot on the government's radar. I don't think that this will lead to the extiniction of our species but I do think that the total human cost of these kinds of "idealogies" will cost us all a helluva lot more down the road. Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberals have ignored the issues for too long. So I say if a low income earner has any chance of survival in this world then lets at least give him or her a decent chance at doing it.

if all else fails, blame it on greed

Unfortunately when we introduce greed as an explanation for our behaviour we end up getting caught in a monumental backeddy of judgmental thinking that leads to a whole realm of misleading statements like … ‘anger is a socially unacceptable behaviour’.

First off, anger (an emotion) is part of our natural survival response. It is driven by fear (another emotion). If it is suppressed, by trying to make it’s expression unaccceptable, we get all kinds of bizzare thinking and behaviour.

Secondly, greed isn’t a behaviour, it’s a judgment. And like most judgments it is tied directly to beliefs about a particular behaviour’s goodness or badness. How we arrive at those beliefs is a function of the training/indoctrination process we experience as infants and children. Goodness and badness are sociological constructs. The indoctrination process links them to pain and/or pleasure, and trains us to accept them as reality.

Greed is one of those convenient sociological constructs, like pride, that explains everything and says nothing. Greed is not part of our biological makeup. If it was we would not find people placing survival of the collective and the individual on the same level of importance.

The folks that have been trained to place their individual “self worth” … another pain/pleasure driven judgment … ahead of empathy are the ones that insist on a laissez-faire economic model, no minimum wage and no limits to wealth accumulation. We can call them greedy but that doesn’t help understand why they behave that way nor does it help if we are trying to reduce the occurance of that kind of behaviour.

samuidave

Quote:

"lynn, are you seriously arguing against a collectively imposed limit to any individual's greed? This is, afterall, a behaviour when unchecked few parents anywhere tolerate."

Yes, because it will not work. Not in the long term. Life's too short. I don't want to become a policewoman. As parents we never taught our son how 'not to be greedy' by imposing limitations. Hopefully, we have taught him that lesson by what my husband and actually value in life.... by how we live our lives.

So far our son's turned out rather well, not perfect, but a really nice kid we are proud of....and get this, no 'mystic' tendencies. :-)

So though I agree with a lot both you and coyoteman have written, I do not agree with the method. And I very much admire and respect and identify with coyoteman's" historical experiences with the "Old Left". And I agree there is much obscene wealth in this world at the expense of others misery...and that there is great urgency. Again I don't think your strategy will resolve things any quicker, it will just prolong an already rotten to the core system.

I don't pretend to have a major solution for the depth and mess of the problems of this world, nor have I read of one anywhere else. And you, yourself admit, samuidave, that wealth limitation will never happen in this time of insanity. So I don't understand the strategy here.

It doesn't mean that we sit and do nothing, only I see your solution as participation in the same old wealth-dominant system. It still says wealth is the thing in life to have, just with a ten million dollar limit. And it still is a system that values 'production' over our relationship to the living world.

So even if you don't see the practicality in what I wrote about production, thinking I'm swinging in a hammock waiting for enlightenment. you talk about 'sense" and yet as KWD notes, "production" itself no longer makes 'sense':

"Production is the prime reason why many of the myriad of jobs that exist today are not there to improve the quality of life beyond the realm of the individual, nor to produce goods and services that have lasting value. Many jobs exist (and produce) simply to keep the economy and people out of trouble."

And yet you have haven't addressed 'production' in your argument.

So when you write:

"I did not know our 'cultural desire' was to a few at the top own most the planet and its resources. If that is our desire, then we are certainly accomplishing our objective."

But you see, there is no question that that IS our cultural desire because that is what we have created and are ALL participating in.

We may say it isn't what we "want' but there it is, staring us right back in the mirror.

It is our desire. A lethal one but our choices have taken us there.

samuidave contd

So will the imposition of limitations decrease desire?

Do diets work? In the short term, yes. Maintenance is the hard part and research has shown that diets/restrictions don't work. In fact, they psychologically produce the opposite effect. Creating even more desire for the taboo thing.

It's a new way of looking at food that works, a new perspective of life.

Same as wealth isn't bad. It's what defines wealth that is.

So I don't see your solution having any more practicality than mine because I don't think it 'will work' or as you suggest yourself actually happen - and that surely is the definition of impracticality.

All you've done is put a ten million dollar limit on the addiction we all 'share'.

My paternal grandmother was of Burmese/Persian/Russian descent, and a wonderful courageous woman, a Buddhist, too, if you can forgive her that. ;-) Anyway, there is a Buddhist saying that goes:

"The task before us is very urgent so we must slow down.”

I think this applies here, in terms of taking time to determine strategy, strategy that is effective....exactly because the times are so urgent.

lynn / JG / Jung

lynn, it's okay to point out flaws in Jung's philosphy, especially in regards to psychoanalysis, and to at the same time have respect for Campbell.

One of Jung's great flaws was his disingenuous attempts to legitimaize his theories of psychoanalysis (while tying it in with mysticism, and other woowoo and pseudoscience such as astrology and alchemy) by "inventing" what he called analytical psychology. Psychology is a science; psychiatry/psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, and Jung tried to obfuscate the separation.

Jung made many claims regarding mysticism (not mythology) that simply were and are not supportable nor provable in the real world.

Campbell espoused many ideas, theories, and practical purposes of mythology (not mysticism) that are provable within the real world.

I think lynn it may be you who are confusing the two. Whether or not Campbell used Jung's ideas, and whether or not he helped promote Jung is irrelevant to my points and our discussion. The difference being fundamentally expressed in the difference between "mystical" and "mythical". An important distinction.

I have not and am not dismissing Jung in total. I'm simply pointing out that much of his ideology and his beliefs regarding the "reality" of mysticism (not mythology) and the role that plays in human behaviour and psychology are unsupportable and based on ephemera, woowoo, and faith -- of a kind.

However wise Jung or Campbell may have been, that does not mean they were infallible, inerrant, and not prone to wishful thinking and a certain degree of belief in the unprovable that is the basis of woowoo, mysticism, and faith -- of a kind.

And I mention Freud simply because he is the other "great giant" of psychoanalysis, a pseudoscience that has undergone a great deal of debunking over the last couple of decades.

As for Robbins, I read "Attraction" and "Cowgirls", and one other many, many years ago. I don't think I'd be as patient with them now as then. I merely quoted your comment about Robbins because I did not (and do not) see any relevance in it. Recall, you were the first to associate "Attraction" and Amanada with my critique of Jung; not I.

"What would life be without magic?"

Um, reality, perhaps; grounded in that which is rather than that which can never be.

It may be that because of the complexities of discussing Jung and Campbell, that we are talking at cross purposes. Also, we are drifting quite far from the original focus of the thread -- though I think that's largely my fault.

PS. Good research on my backquotes! Kudos.

Lynn, with JG back on topic

Lynn, you say:

We may say it isn't what we "want' but there it is, staring us right back in the mirror. It is our desire. A lethal one but our choices have taken us there.

Now, please correct me of I am wrong, but that sounds to me like you are saying we are all active and therefore guilty participants in the drive to attain the "cutural desire" that is killing us all. I think that's wrong. I think there is a fundamental difference between someone who follows the system only as much as is required to keep a small roof over their heads and some food in the fridge, and someone like, for example, Jimmy Pattison. I would see Pattison as amongst the gang that is killing us all, and the other as someone just scraping by with a fair slice of innocence. So to speak.

It's too bad you don't have, as you say, "a major solution for the depth and mess of the problems of this world," or at least a proposal. You are generally pretty wise and interesting in your posts. So, if you find a way to fix it all up, please let us know. I sure could use some light in this long oogly tunnel.

You also say:

I think this applies here, in terms of taking time to determine strategy, strategy that is effective....exactly because the times are so urgent.

Well, I certainly agree with that. But we cannot be too slow, or the infrastructure will just collapse and we'll have nothing to work with at all.

Bill's hit list???

The Recall being Bill's hit list just isn't right.
Is it even a hit list or a people who are tired of being on the Premier's hit list instead? Lets call it the premiers hit list because he is the packing all the pink slips if things don't go his way, only this is a democratic process and not a one man show where the players are tired of getting the short end of the stick.

KWD & lynn, briefly

KWD, let's not be too pedantic about what greed is or is not. Can we agree 'greedy behaviour' is not socially acceptable, despite a few of its byproducts being strangely exhalted as well? The issue is how to effectively address people hoarding wealth derived only from a shared and finite resource pool needed to exist in perpetuity.

lynn takes argumentative refuge in the Buddhist teaching -- "The task before us is very urgent so we must slow down”, noteably to take inventory of our best course of action. Fair enough. This seems the best way for progress to occur given an ideal setting.

Cognitive relection, giving way to intellectual enlightenment which fills one with awe, will give rise to a new perspective and should lead us in the best direction. Your approach, lynn, is certainly on a higher level of consciousness than my 'curb the behaviour' offering, again, given an ideal setting.

But I do not think our problems, in our setting, allow for much more sober contemplation in practical terms. Corporations running over government were noted and written about by Henry Adams in the 1870s; George Sedes exposed the lies of corporate tobacco publicly in 1941; the diminishing ecology was brought to the public's attention in 1962 by Rachel Carson in her Silent Spring; and the list of serious social threats exposed is long. But so is the proof of human inaction despite decades, sometimes centuries, of opportunity for us to contemplate our course on these same problems.

Thoughts without action can become meaningless. Governmental action to effectively deal with the larger problems we all face is seemingly non-existent. And our collective social will to act is also facing extinction. Upton Sinclair's truism that “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” comes immediately to mind.

When we weigh in the seemingly insurmountable load of state propaganda and corporate mind shaping, or as the always insightful and entertaining Joe Bageant writes about it, "the commodification of the human consciousness", it is abundantly clear we do not have a history of acting in a timely fashion. As the impending ecological, nuclear or political authoritarian dilemmas before us climax, soon we will have no preventative options left.

Personally I champion a BC revolution. I need not address more than this general precept now, but it is reflective of my viewpoint. So working within the status quo parameters, what options are left? Wait on enlightenment or change the law.