Right here http://buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1083709

This essay is simply an attempt to turn the current rhetoric on its head. I'm afraid this is a very meager attempt.

That said, I believe we are all thinking within the box of a consumer culture and its hard to see outside of it. What would it be like if, as a rule, family and friends were the center of life and "stuff" was not?

There is no perfect solution, look at the present corruption of our government and the financial system; how did that happen? As with those people who, as you say, don't want to pull their weight there are also people who want more than their share and ruin it for everyone.

I do think there is some truth in what you are saying but I would encourage you to think carefully about our own history with welfare and the kind of rhetoric around that and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a fine example of the people serving the state and it had to end. It was not socialism that killed it.

I remember Johnson's welfare state and, as you were intimating, there were a lot of people taking unfair advantage of that and it could not continue. Still it is a complex discussion and I am in favor of a discussion free of stupid rhetoric.

Oh and agree with you on the global warming thing. Al Gore is behaving like a profiteer.

I believe we are all thinking within the box of a consumer culture

Definitely. One passage that stood out to me in your post:

First of all, as we are aware, the more people who buy cars makes the cars cheaper to produce; its the economics of mass production.

The cars are cheaper to produce because more cars are produced over time and this experience with car manufacturing (and servicing) makes them cheaper. So, its the increased production that directly translates into savings. Of course, you can't keep producing cars unless someone is willing to buy them, so you're right overall.

But the cause-effect relationship is much more accurate (imo) when stated as production influencing costs of production rather than demand influencing costs of production. We're all stuck in the consumer mentality and its a hard habit to break :)

As you point out there is an irony in the scaling of production; what I was trying to get at was the destruction of so much that was good so that production could scale and make the cars cheaper to produce. A lot of that destruction involved private transit systems; for example the little red trolleys in LA and the trolley system in San Jose.

You did a very good job. I'm not entirely in disagreement with you. I think things were much better (as for quality of life) prior to us becoming obsessed with things. Family and loved ones should be the core of our lives. In a culture where this is the central value the quality of life is much better. I can have ipods, playstations, expensive cars, and a big house, but without being cared for by other people I have nothing. I think everybody should be watched-over... loved... protected.

It was not socialism in and of itself that was the problem. It's the cultural expectations that make systems fail. In a tribal (local as some others who responded have noted) system there are different expectations. Certainly some work harder than others... it's just part of human nature. We need to think smaller, not larger.

There will always be people who would rather not work and live off the labors of others. However, one has to ask the question "Would I rather provide for all out of a sense of shared humanity and dignity, or would I prefer instead to provide for only those I deem worthwhile?" If the latter part, then you need to figure out what makes someone worthy of receiving the benefits of a socialist system, other than simply living within it--and also why those not worthy of the benefits are deemed unworthy.

Frankly, I'm in favor of providing every living human being with food, shelter, and the opportunity for formal education. The only problem with this is that it requires some incentives to minimize free-riding, and determining those incentives is a big problem.

I really hate the 40+ hour work week too. We had it decades ago and we still have it today, yet average worker productivity has increased immensely since then. That seems to tell me that we shouldn't be working 40+ hours. Check out the argument at this link. I'd rather work 20 hrs/week and have time to pursue other interests, such as writing or coding.

I agree for the most part. I tell people frequently, though they never seem to get it, that for every corporate exec out there flying in a private jet there are hundreds or thousands who are making a wage that does not allow them to maintain an acceptable quality of life. Money is a resource. For every dollar somebody makes somebody else is sweating that dollar out. The distribution of wealth in this world is getting more and more unbalanced. It's shocking and disgusting.

I would contend with your comment about people living like animals. I should also point out that I in no way meant to assert that animals are not worthy of our respect and care. I love animals and I volunteer at a wildlife hospital caring for sick animals. I work with people on a daily basis that choose to live like animals. If you have no job and stay at home all day what is to stop you from picking up your garbage and disposing of it properly? What is to stop you from being kind to others and being respectful of other people? Nothing. Being a good human being has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you have or what resources you have. Civility and kindness are not expensive. This goes for people with or without money. It's a mentality, but it does tend to be more predominant in the poor.

I'm not trying to scapegoat them, but I believe that there are choices we can make that are completely independent of our financial status and the resources available to us. I met a man last year who was obviously quite poor, mentally handicapped, and worked as a custodian at a daycare. He was so proud of his work and of doing a good job at it. I don't think I have met somebody since that day that I felt more proud to have the pleasure of interacting with. I honestly believe that if he won the lottery he would still be there picking up the trash that others carelessly drop on the ground because it's the right thing to do.

I suppose I may be a bit harder on the poor than some having grown up poor and clawed my way out of it. One of the things that stands out in my mind is that during the most desperate times, times when I didn't know where I would get my next meal, who I was became incredibly important to me. I had nothing, but I could still be good to others and I could still be a benefit to the world around me. It frustrates me that some people, people with nothing, don't seem to care enough to do even that.

I do hope that we manage to take back the power some day. We are most certainly losing right now.

You described the small scale model you can support. You explained it's subjugation by large scale organizations. You described a counter large scale organization whose emergence you ascribe as opposition to the previous large scale organizations. You then reject both versions of large scale organization. And that's where you left off.

You did not suggest a version of small scale organization that could successfully oppose either version of large scale organization. You also did not opine on the quality of governance of your two versions of large scale organization.

I am asking: Could a large scale organization develop a structure of governance that could potentially gain a more favorable review from you?

But I don't think we can save what is already lost. Like a drunk, until we honestly assess where and what we are, there's no hope in changing.

We've a hard wall to hit first.

Then, perhaps, we have a chance. But not until then.

I did inhale.

One was, as you are saying, "the weak shall inherit the Earth" is not exactly capitalism's holy cry. One can see conservative Christians trying to come to grips with this.

In my opinion you've got Jesus figured out perfectly, Don. It's a strange story, how that Jesus got co-opted by Church and State and became the Jesus of today...all uber-capitalist holy warrior. (Strange, not inexplicable as the explanation is clear cut: the welding of Church and State.)

Like you, i reject both the big and opposing models of social organization. I'm not a believer in human rationality on the large scale, a necessary requirement for both models. It is only when the scale is reduced that people seem capable of making rational decisions. Moreover, i'm coming to the conclusion that at smallish scales, a certain style of socialism is quite natural. By socialism i don't mean "the state owning the means of production" but rather recognizing that the individual is part of something larger that's necessary for the individual's survival and ability to thrive.

I like to call it "philosophical socialism", because i haven't come up with a catchier name for it yet.

My best guess is that if power was decentralized whenever possible to the most local level possible, we'd see a fairly natural socialism evolve. And i don't think it would be a utopian, egalitarian model. So much of the socialism/communism model is based on resenting the have mores, but that is predicated on the behavior of the have mores.

It's quite possible to respect the have-mores and not resent their having more when the have-mores respect the have-less and behave in a way that benefits the society. To some degree i think it could still be seen when capitalism was represented by individuals rather than publicly traded companies with no name or face.

The actual capitalist exists within a society and recognizes his dependence on the rest of his society. For all his faults, Henry Ford realized that he would be unsuccessful in the long run if his workers weren't paid a wage that allowed them to purchase the product that they made. And for all the combined faults of the America's great capitalists, they were responsible for a fair number of institutions that benefit the public. My little city of 20,000 has a library that would do a city of 500,000 proud because a capitalist made it so...and because this community has recognized the benefits of it and maintained it.

It's really all about scale. Once thins are impersonalized, it doesn't matter what form we're working within. Capitalist, socialist or other...the majority of people will be left out and trampled upon.

The question is how merit is to be defined. Most societies have considered themselves meritocratic. The French aristocracy believed merit was born in the blood. Harvard considers itself a meritocratic institution, but the only people getting in are those who have resume's packed with extra-curricular activities and hobbies. Have a job in high-school? Forget about it. Don't have money for special lessons of one sort or another? Too bad. That isn't even mentioning special tutors and prep classes for entrance tests. Even in this country, "merit" is usually dependent on access. A true meritocracy requires a truly level playing field.

'Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice...socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality' - Mikhail Bakunin

If the government changed the way it calculated productivity to include the productivity of all individuals, whether they are stay at home for child care, have a disadvantage, or are in prison. What if unemployment statistics included all the unemployed. Then some people might be valued differently. Think if the statistics had to account for productivity that includes a growing prison population? Suddenly it would be all about prevention and merit would have to cast a very wide net.

Limiting the amount of wealth an individual can accumulate (and not some ridiculous cap like 1B; more like 10M) and making sure everyone has a certain minimum, which includes health care, access to information, housing and food, could go a long way to leveling the playing field so that merit can be evaluated more objectively.