The Key to a Sustainable Economy - Transition Whatcom2024-03-19T11:29:46Zhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/forum/topics/the-key-to-a-sustainable?commentId=2723460%3AComment%3A65462&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI used to follow Jeff Vail's…tag:transitionwhatcom.ning.com,2012-12-20:2723460:Comment:857812012-12-20T19:51:26.933ZDavid MacLeodhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/DavidMacLeod
<p>I used to follow Jeff Vail's blog a lot too, but I haven't read A Theory of Power. Vail was a former contributor to The Oil Drum blog, and then started his own, talking about systems theory and his rhizome theories, which it looks like developed into this e-book. Not sure why, but as Behrouz noted, he hasn't been posting about these topics for a while now.</p>
<p>Looks like a nice summary of the Theory of Power book by Dave Pollard (see Dave's …</p>
<p>I used to follow Jeff Vail's blog a lot too, but I haven't read A Theory of Power. Vail was a former contributor to The Oil Drum blog, and then started his own, talking about systems theory and his rhizome theories, which it looks like developed into this e-book. Not sure why, but as Behrouz noted, he hasn't been posting about these topics for a while now.</p>
<p>Looks like a nice summary of the Theory of Power book by Dave Pollard (see Dave's <a href="http://howtosavetheworld.ca/" target="_blank">How to Save the World</a> blog) in his review posted at <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2006-12-05/jeff-vails-theory-power" target="_blank">Energy Bulletin here</a>.</p> I sympathize with you Garrett…tag:transitionwhatcom.ning.com,2012-12-17:2723460:Comment:858642012-12-17T10:20:25.781ZBehrouzhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/Behrouz
<p>I sympathize with you Garrett, but I never think I am only writing to my immediate audience, when writing in a public forum - as your response to my post shows the point.</p>
<p>I briefly reviewed the book you suggested. It looks interesting. I went to Jeff Vail's web site and was surprised to by what I found about his background as a special ops. planner and a current attorney. And yet I viewed some of his other posts which seemed related to his book, but seemed to stop towards the end…</p>
<p>I sympathize with you Garrett, but I never think I am only writing to my immediate audience, when writing in a public forum - as your response to my post shows the point.</p>
<p>I briefly reviewed the book you suggested. It looks interesting. I went to Jeff Vail's web site and was surprised to by what I found about his background as a special ops. planner and a current attorney. And yet I viewed some of his other posts which seemed related to his book, but seemed to stop towards the end of 2010. Thereafter, his posts seem to be all related to his business. What happened? Actually, I thought this apparent contradiction between his business and his 'ideas' could not be reconciled in the long run and so it is hard for me to take him too seriously. I wish he would recognize this too, and resolve to abandon his current business / individualist interests sooner than later, before he is completely swallowed up by the system death machine for his own and our species sake. 'Tomorrow is now and will soon be yesterday'!</p> Warren, I look forward to con…tag:transitionwhatcom.ning.com,2011-08-31:2723460:Comment:655702011-08-31T08:46:41.634ZBehrouzhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/Behrouz
<p>Warren, I look forward to contacting you when I get into town in a few months. Hoping to learn more from your experiments and experience.</p>
<p>Warren, I look forward to contacting you when I get into town in a few months. Hoping to learn more from your experiments and experience.</p> I suppose we have to disagree…tag:transitionwhatcom.ning.com,2011-08-30:2723460:Comment:654622011-08-30T21:28:00.029ZBehrouzhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/Behrouz
<p>I suppose we have to disagree on that point Walter. The basis of every nation state, i.e., the identifying factor of a genuine national experience and cohesion has been a unique local / national economy. During the mercantilism stage of capitalism when governments actually protected their local national production (manufacturing / agriculture / etc.) against foreign ones by economic (e.g., taxes and tariffs) and political (e.g., wars) means nation-states still existed. However, the…</p>
<p>I suppose we have to disagree on that point Walter. The basis of every nation state, i.e., the identifying factor of a genuine national experience and cohesion has been a unique local / national economy. During the mercantilism stage of capitalism when governments actually protected their local national production (manufacturing / agriculture / etc.) against foreign ones by economic (e.g., taxes and tariffs) and political (e.g., wars) means nation-states still existed. However, the banking sector "banksters" / gangsters always led the charge and bankrolled the larger and larger-scale industries which then generated increasing amounts of profit / capital demanding "free markets" (lifting of tariffs and national barriers for trade / commerce) serving the ever increasing demands of capital in their fiercely competitive . During the colonial times many wars were fought around this issue (among the "western" nations) sometimes by proxy in colonies such as China and India as it became known that opening of markets for industries of one nation could in effect lead to subjucation of another by economic means. This culminated in world wars I and II where nation-states in the western world effectively disappeared with the effective victory of the anglo-saxon imperialists (primarily U.S.) and establishment of a relative free-market zone in the "western" world that although was on the surface led by the U.S. was increasingly led by multi-national banksters and corporations with U.S. acting as a police state / watch dog as the world was divided into two camps (the Soviets and Chinese vs. the U.S. led multinationals). The "developing world" at this point became increasingly devoid of any true nationhood as their economies were devastated during colonialism and subjugated to the greater capitalist / imperialist market becoming client states thus devoid of any national control and living national identity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The neocolonialist era was extended to the era of globalization where the final nails were driven in the coffin of nation-states even in "developed" countries. Due to the ever-present profit imperative of capitalism (in search of lower cost labor and other means of production) the ruling class elite in these countries had outsourced the manufacturing base across the globe serving the overlord of capital which reached its highest level of freedom and power moving around the globe in the name of "free trade and free market" while subjecting the masses of the world to the highest level of restriction and oppression by limiting and controlling their movement in the administrative zones / "nations" of yesteryears all for the purpose of profit. Thus, with NAFTA, KAFTA, WTO, World Bank, UN, NATO, EU, etc. an effective new world government was set up following the interests of global capital with all semblance of localism (like nation-states, and political factionalisms e.g., "democracy" / "socialism" and "communism" / "theocracy", etc.) becoming empty caricatures and resembling one another due to the uniformity of the pervasive underlying global economic system (capitalism) in its final life stage. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>We should not let the superficial political divisions such as nation-states (administered for the purpose of "divide and control" of the populace) confuse us and lead us to overlook the deeper reality of economic uniformity in the world designed to serve the interests of capital. For example, while the borders with Mexico do not stop flow of capital (i.e., freedom of expropriation or profit-making on either side of the border) it does limit the flow of labor which serves to divide the population / labor rendering the "undocumented" immigrants more vulnerable i.e., easier to exploit, cheaper labor - effectively serving the interests of capital. While there is a political benefit in convincing the U.S. populace in validity of nationhood with genuine national interests worthy of defense or even war, the deeper economic reality is that the "national leaders" have done nothing but to wreck the lives of most of its populace including but not limited to outsourcing their manufacturing jobs (the backbone of its national economic identity) and squandering their wealth by a gigantic military complex has not done any defending of their interests at least since the civil war and rather serves the interests of the global capital (i.e., world government led by multinational banksters and corporations).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for considering ideas as "idealistic" and "reactionary" I certainly did not mean to attack you personally. But I have call the ideas the way I see them. I think it is valid to label ideas (not individuals) as long as the meaning of the label is clearly communicated as well as supporting evidence / arguments so to avoid misunderstandings. I will try to do better. As you can see I have to often resort to somewhat lengthy discussions to explain my point of view as it is further from the established framework of thought than most. That is the challenge when one tries to question the established paradigm with its inherent inertia. Unfortunately, our language (a clumsy instrument of our relatively primitive culture often at best based on vague and abstract reason / rationalization / common sense) and our divisive competitive lives (full of distant virtual realities), both reflecting the underlying state of economy, are not very conducive to deep and clear understanding. Meanwhile, as we try to come to terms with the myriad of influences on us and the extent of the task at hand to change the paradigm, we should realize the historical figures that we are; possessed by the prevailing economic system and all its reflections influencing us through its institutions (e.g., education, media, other institutions driving our lifestyle). Thus, we are but vehicles. Our ideas are not ours. In fact we have no individual identity despite our individual consciousness telling us otherwise. From our genes, to our ideas, thoughts, and "spirit" we are but a synthesis of material / natural elements in time / history. Personal attacks are uncalled for when personhood in reality does not exist.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'll be happy to join you in your farm for more discussions while doing some REAL work as long as you show REAL commitment and interest through action for collective work and living.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>P.S. I enjoyed your videos on "feeding the soil".</p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
<blockquote cite="http://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/forum/topics/the-key-to-a-sustainable#2723460Comment65164"><div><blockquote cite="http://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/forum/topics/the-key-to-a-sustainable?commentId=2723460%3AComment%3A64785&xg_source=activity#2723460Comment64785"><div><blockquote cite="http://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/forum/topics/the-key-to-a-sustainable#2723460Comment54851"></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote> Thank you Behrouz for your re…tag:transitionwhatcom.ning.com,2011-08-28:2723460:Comment:649662011-08-28T16:23:45.090ZDavid MacLeodhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/DavidMacLeod
<p>Thank you Behrouz for your reply. I appreciate the perspective you are sharing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like to quote a comment on a blog post I read a few months ago (by someone who called him/herself "Riversong"):</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"But if we understand the current paradigm as a necessary but no longer functional part of human evolution, then the sane solution is to create another, more functional, paradigm. Only when it becomes widely perceived as “better”, because we are joyfully living it…</p>
<p>Thank you Behrouz for your reply. I appreciate the perspective you are sharing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like to quote a comment on a blog post I read a few months ago (by someone who called him/herself "Riversong"):</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"But if we understand the current paradigm as a necessary but no longer functional part of human evolution, then the sane solution is to create another, more functional, paradigm. Only when it becomes widely perceived as “better”, because we are joyfully living it while others suffer, will it become the next dominant paradigm and the previous one will fall away."</p> "Capturing seigniorage is a…tag:transitionwhatcom.ning.com,2011-08-28:2723460:Comment:647852011-08-28T11:02:50.925ZBehrouzhttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/Behrouz
<p><br></br> "Capturing seigniorage is a wonderful idea, but I find it unlikely to be put into practice until the nation-state is already toast. At that point there may be other wonderful ideas floating around."</p>
<p>On this point I agree with you Walter. The problem with most reformist critics of the status-quo whether from the left or right is that they ignore that these problems have been known for a long long time (i.e., at least a couple centuries). Yet it is in the nature of capitalism…</p>
<p><br/> "Capturing seigniorage is a wonderful idea, but I find it unlikely to be put into practice until the nation-state is already toast. At that point there may be other wonderful ideas floating around."</p>
<p>On this point I agree with you Walter. The problem with most reformist critics of the status-quo whether from the left or right is that they ignore that these problems have been known for a long long time (i.e., at least a couple centuries). Yet it is in the nature of capitalism itself to reward the most monopolistic elements who become even more successful and powerful by each crisis they help to create - as you alluded to. They become more and more powerful. How could you argue against or lecture to power? How could you reform those that write the rules (i.e., the kingmakers)? To expect that somehow by conventional / legal means (i.e., means within the system such as protest or strike, unions, voting, law suits, etc.) we could deprive the top 10% out of their >90% global wealth would be like an ant telling a charging elephant to back off (in fact ants being more social than most of us "individualized" creatures would probably have a better chance). So I consider all such reformist proposals idealistic and more precisely "reactionary" in the sense that they want to take us back in history not considering the inherent dynamics and contradictions of the system that eventually cause its demise - the work of evolution at work.</p>
<p>The nation-state has been toast for a long time as "capital" is free to go wherever in the world thus undermining local economies and as a result any semblance of true nationhood / community. The only viable response / solution will have to be a "superior" economic model - i.e., one that is more responsive to the survival needs of the species / global population (since capitalism has conquered all the world thoroughly during its "globalization" phase). If you study the dynamics of economic system transformations through history you will notice that this will necessarily require a different form / system of production, exchange, distribution and above all ownership - i.e., a transformation in class-structure. I won't go into details but suffice it to say the weaknesses or problems of the old system (e.g., poverty and unemployment, accelerating global crises especially on the economic front, disease and epidemics, climate change and environmental devastations, etc.) will be fuel for the new system and thus the new economic system would grow organically out of the ashes of the old - evolution at work. Power is rooted in economics (survival factor) and the new system by providing better survival advantages to the species overpowers the old one and replaces it. </p>
<p>A few other questions worth pondering are 1) what other internal contradictions make capitalism unsustainable and unreformable? 2) where is capitalism in its life cycle? (terminal? how long?) 3) what would be the defining characteristics of the next economic system and how can / will it take shape locally?</p>
<blockquote cite="http://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/forum/topics/the-key-to-a-sustainable#2723460Comment54851"></blockquote> I just watched Money as Debt…tag:transitionwhatcom.ning.com,2011-06-15:2723460:Comment:550942011-06-15T14:12:16.387ZKyler Boyeshttp://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profile/KylerBoyes
<p>I just watched Money as Debt videos 1 thru 5 on You Tube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The first part of this article is explaining the same stuff as the video. If these details about how money is created and leveraged for profit by private institutions are true, then yes- it is an almost unfathomable sleight of hand played against a great mass of unwitting people. -Kyler</p>
<p>I just watched Money as Debt videos 1 thru 5 on You Tube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The first part of this article is explaining the same stuff as the video. If these details about how money is created and leveraged for profit by private institutions are true, then yes- it is an almost unfathomable sleight of hand played against a great mass of unwitting people. -Kyler</p>