Forum Post: The Libertarian Solution
Posted 11 years ago on March 1, 2013, 5:52 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The financial elite are more wealthy and powerful than ever, and the wealth gap, both in America and globally, is enormous.
So how do the right-wing libertarians want to deal with this?
Their solution is to give the financial elite and the 1% ENORMOUS TAX CUTS, making them even more wealthy and powerful than they are now. They don’t think the wealthy and the huge corporations have been given enough; they want to privatize more institutions and shuffle even more cash into the pockets of the rich. This of course also leads to cuts in welfare services that benefit the 99%.
So, the solution these ultra right-wingers are proposing is quite simple:
TAX CUTS FOR THE 1%, WELFARE CUTS FOR THE 99%.
Tories and Royalists can't distinguish right from wrong. They don't know that an economy that works for 10% of the population is not merely wrong. It's broken! The conservatives everywhere and the Republicans and Democrats in America don't know that the “market” is a tool of concentration of wealth. But they don't want the money to stop coming to them at an exponentially increasing rate.
Finance and trade [the “market”] are not fundamental to economy. To say they are is foolish and immoral. But the rich are not guilty. They and the majority of true believers in market dogma can't differentiate right from wrong. You know who you are. You are incapable of rational thought!
Ironically, most of you see yourselves as objective. That's especially true of those who believe you've got yours. You're possessed by the demon Ayn Rand.
Rand has really been a destructive force. Her philosophy is so grotesque and immoral, I don’t even know where to start. But the republicans and libertarians love her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7zwO88nRH8
“Rand is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history”
– Noam Chomsky
funny, I knew of Ayn Rand in high school. I never heard of Noam Chomsky; if I heard that name I would have thought he was an Eastern European butcher. Come to think of it, his best contribution to the world has been in the Holy Grail screenplay.
So where do you stand on right-wing libertarianism and Rand?
It shaped my thinking. Quite raw and unforgiving as a college student. However, with the passage of time and experience, I try to be more understanding of people's situations. But my overriding goal for myself and others is self betterment and lack of dependency on anyone; other than mutual benefit. the government as the caretaker of the people is absolutely against my way of living
What do you think about libertarian socialism - building a real participatory democracy in which people are in control of their own lives and work.
I cannot imagine a participatory democracy on a national scale. Who determines whose benefit? Who acts as a leader? Who makes decisions?
“I cannot imagine a participatory democracy on a national scale.”
Libertarian Socialism can even be spread globally. It’s about building democracy from below. That can be done everywhere.
“Who determines whose benefit?”
The people in the different areas decide democratically how to organize their communities.
“Who acts as a leader?”
Libertarian Socialism is non-hierarchical, so there are no rulers or leaders. It's about creating as much direct participation as possible (workers' councils and so on); representation will be needed on a larger scale, but those are recallable delegates and under the control of the group to which they belong
“Who makes decisions?”
The people in the different areas decide democratically how to organize their communities.
I can’t think of anything less interesting than detailed information about your ignorance.
Chomsky is the most quoted human alive, and is considered by many to be the #1 intellectual. The fact that the mainstream media mostly has ignored him despite his knowledge and recognition, tells us a lot about these tyrannical institutions.
It's an Ayn Rand Planet!!
Just the way they want it.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/welcome-ayn-rand-planet-why-rich-prosper-stock-market-while-we-get-screwed
That's what they do, here there and everywhere.
Oh, you left off take over the OWS forum and blunt any criticism of their favorite people and organizations.
Like the brothers Koch and their pet project, ALEC.
I saw the trailer to GLB which you linked to earlier. Hope that can contribute to exposing the lies that these libe(R)tarians (thanks for coining that btw) are serving. Global warming is a really important issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUA4cm0Rck
It’s really sad to see so many buying into the ideology advocated by the Koch Brothers, Peter Schiff and the rest of these wealthy free market worshipers. Schiff actually once stated that the way to solve the problem of money in politics is to take away power from, not the wealthy and the corporations, but the politicians. He’s in reality advocating dismantling democracy and replacing it with pure corporate tyranny – and still people like “John32” and many others are buying into his shit.
The Paulie boys never really went away, they just re-branded and hopped on any train opposed to the forum and OWS in general.....
Have you ever noticed how hard it is to keep an actual issue close to the top?
Could you elaborate a little on this one, shooz?
Type the name of their god ron paul and ron lawl, in the search box.
No, I was just wondering if you could elaborate on the last thing you said, and the "re-branding"
By re-branding, I mean they quit using name and overtly pushing his more blatant politics. They will always refuse to admit the roots of modern American libe(R)tarianism. Chomsky has spoken of it and how it is VERY different from classical libertarianism....
This is the reason I've adopted the term neolibe(R)tarianism to describe the Koch brothers corporate style of it, as a way to distinguish between the two.
As far as the last?
It's been almost impossible to get important issues like the XL, ALEC, or even pollution to stay in the top comments ever since the gun nutters showed up after Sandy Hook.
Thanks for elaborating. I thought that was what you meant.
Yeah, the word “libertarian” sure has gone thru changes thru the years. How ironic that a word that originally meant communist and socialist anarchist eventually came to mean ultra capitalist.
Also check out Chomsky on the evolution of the word “liberalism”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFDt_yv5a64
Nice, I notice that he always stresses the reasoning behind the terms.
For this reason, I'm glad you understand the reasoning behind my usage of the term neolibe(R)tarian.
The problem is you aren't saying anything new about those subjects. Take Global Warming for example. It's a very important problem. However, Zendog makes a post on it every 2 weeks, and everyone just says the same stuff they said the last time around. What's the point of that?
In any case, who cares about the top comments. The number of readers on this site is very low at the moment. You, me, and a few others. That's it.
Not only does propaganda seek to invade the whole man, to Lead him to adopt a mystical attitude and reach him through all possible psychological channels, but, more, it speaks to all men. Propaganda cannot be satisfied with partial successes, for it does not tolerate discussion; by its very nature, it excludes contradiction and discussion. As long as a noticeable or expressed tension or a conflict oi action remains, propaganda cannot be said to have accomplished its aim- It must produce quasi-unanimity, and the Opposing faction must become negligible, or in any case cease to be vocal. Extreme propaganda must win over the adversary and at least use him by integrating him into its own frame of reference. -by Jaque Ellul
You seem to think that anyone who opposes your constant use of propaganda and Alinsky tactics is opposed to this forum and OWS in general.
I suggest not using propaganda and Alinsky and see if your issues stay closer to the top.
CATO then?
That would be better, eh? Since I don't know who Alinsky is.
Perhaps you should stop using Allison tactics?
How do you feel about unions?
I don't cater to CATO either. If they print something that works out factually great. If they don't, I ignore it. See that's the freedom of NOT bowing down before the great alter of party or group or left or right or up or down. I'm not obligated to believe anything or parrot off talking points. I get to question everything and answer to no one.
Who is Allison?
Unions? As in worker's unions? As with everything else-it would depend on my examination of each particular union and their behaviors and practices. I refuse to lump them all in together and judge them under a glittering generality called "unions".
You have nothing but parrot CATO talking points.
Allison? Look it up.
How noncommittal of you on the subject of unions.
UAW.
How DARE I choose to evaluate each situation independently of another! How FAIR of me! How EQUAL of me! How dare I not categorize people and groups so that I can stereotype them more easily! Damn me!
I have a cousin named Allison. You want me to email her?
I wouldn't know how you DARE. I've never seen you do it.
You just repeat CATO talking points.
How do you feel about union busting?
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Check it out . . .
I've known about TVP for quite some time now, but thanks anyway :)
I like his tenacity. Been working on that his who life. You gatta applaud that. Im a little fuzzy as to how the whole thing would work without money or government. Its out there for sure.
I have somewhat mixed feelings for tvp. Some of the things presented seem somewhat strange or peculiar; on the other hand there are a lot of good and decent values associated with it. For example, I totally agree that sharing the wealth is something we absolutely should do in a modern, wealthy society like ours.
Whether we will, or should eliminate money completely is not something I think we should spend to much time on discussing now; it’s so far into the future. I do however think that we should try to create a society that’s based less on money, and where we instead make more goods and services free and available to all – at least when it comes to necessities.
I think the important thing to focus on now is to fight capitalism and corporate tyranny, and try to replace it with a more free and democratic society:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism-the-1/
It should be clear to everybody by now. The ultra-rich have decided enough is enough, common folk in America have been having too good. Its time they need to start living like their po' counterparts in third world countries do on five bucks a day.
We must remember that it’s first and foremost the system that’s the problem here. The rich are in many ways just doing what they have to do. Capitalism encourages and requires greed and maximizing profit; the ones who don’t do this will eventually be replaced by someone who does.
What’s needed is not just tax increase on the financial elite; eventually capitalism must be abolished as well.
Yes, yes. So who is going to get a mob together with torches and pitchforks?
A free, just, participatory democracy can only come when the workers and the communities want it. The transition phase should be as peaceful as possible, and based on direct action.
Actually I suppose it is as simple as people just realizing that they really don't need the money, or at least not so much money. But that will probably happen anyway since most people don't have the money anyway, and that they'll figure out how to do without it. Then its bye bye capitalism.
Left-Libertarian is the way forward.
Looking forward to imposing it on corporate capitalists.
Small businesses should be able to operate fully capitalist, but at some point, powers need to be taken away from corporations.
If the people label a corporation an "Irresponsible Entity", they should be forced into worker owned and operated democratic organizations.
IMHO.
Left libertarianism is definitely what a future just society should be based on.
Eventually all workplaces should be democratized and controlled collectively by the workers and the communities. That’s the long term goal, and the closer we get to it, the closer we get to human liberation:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/part-ii-workers-self-management-workplace-democrac/
We are close to alignment.
I think we can't seek to control small-time entrepreneurs as they seek greater financial success. That would be an injustice. Also, there are too many who love the freedom to control things like wages and the future of their business. I'm just saying it will be a tough sell.
It will be easier to implement LS if mompop shops know they won't be affected. Then at some point democracy can determine if all-encompassing workplace democracy is the way to go.
An all-encompassing economic democracy is of course the long term goal.
Small businesses and mom&pop stores would benefit enormously from libertarian socialism. I don’t think the biggest challenge will be to convince these people.
What business owners want or don’t want is not very relevant. People should be free to control their own lives and have a say in the things that affect them, including of course at the place where they work. Institutions in society must therefore be democratized and controlled by the participants.
The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming majority will benefit enormously from libertarian socialism. Workers, students, seniors, they’d all benefit enormously when the wealth and resources are controlled democratically by the communities and not the financial elite.
I have to disagree on a point or two there.
"Small businesses and mom&pop stores would benefit enormously" -No, the employees might but not the owners. They might be hesitant to hire anyone or even to be an entrepreneur if they were forced to give it all to their employees.
"What business owners want or don’t want is not very relevant." -I don't think they would agree either. For example, If I invested my life's hard work into my personal dream and government told me it's no longer mine to operate as I see fit, I'd be pretty choked. Maybe I wouldn't have a choice in the matter if it's forced by government, but I also wouldn't support the movement... in fact, I would strongly oppose it along with many other sympathizers.
We really REALLY need to separate small business from big business when we talk about this. Even Wolff makes that quite clear. Mom&Pops are a billion miles away from the elite, no closer to being elite than the homeless man begging for change.
Why not let the small businesses be and operate as they wish, at least until sometime after the big evil corrupt empires have been forced to switched over? Let democracy decide if it's necessary or even a good move?
Listen, libertarian socialism is about human liberation: http://occupywallst.org/forum/part-ii-workers-self-management-workplace-democrac/
A free, just, sustainable and democratic society would benefit the entire population.
If power and control over others is included in “the dream you work hard to achieve”, then that’s unacceptable. Undemocratic hierarchies should be opposed no matter where they exist.
And again, an all-encompassing democratic economy is the long term goal. And, yes, a libertarian socialist society can only be established when the workers and the communities want it.
Power and control over others, in a one owner one employee hair salon IS acceptable if that is part of the stepping stone half way to the final destination. We won't be able to just flip a switch and see the transition happen. A good strategy is needed, more than just spreading the word, if we want to see it happen in our lifetime.
Think about the family-owned businesses that can only survive by employing one extra person. You think they will accept handing the decision-making over to their mentally-challenged assistant? That's just one example.
In the hair salon example above, if the employee had the choice of staying with their non-democratic employer or walking across the street to the worker-owned Supercuts, they could do so. No one would be upset. Eventually the one-owner salon would choose to change the way they operate on their own if necessary.
I’ve written about how I think and hope a transition phase to a free and just society will look like here:
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1321101669_the_transition_phase_.html
All the different tactics that should be done along the way, will vary depending on the situation. The day that all economic institutions can be democratized is pretty far into the future. Not everything will come at once of course, and that we have to live with, but in principle x controlling y is immoral, and should eventually or immediately be opposed and dismantled.
Have you considered the value of getting to the destination faster without much effort? The Conglomerate doesn't need protesting, strikes, marches, or anything like that. There's nothing preventing the two methods being used together either.
You're going to have to elaborate on that one.
OK, sorry for the delay, seem to always be too busy.
To the destination faster without much effort
without this, how long would we expect the transition to take?
it will arguably expand proportional to the expansion of co-ops/WSDEs and awareness/acceptance of such, and it will in turn work to stimulate this expansion.
the effort is as much as you personally want to put in, but you need volunteer minimum a few minutes *total ever to have a noticeable effect. As more people come to realize the personal and social benefits, it will become more widely accepted and understood.
non-active people or those not concerned with any movement will still find value in joining or supporting it. Also, anyone can start a Subsidiary for free and never even pay fees or offer goods/services (which describes a P1 Subsidiary)
this is not a threat to capitalism and actually encourages an evolving, increasingly more responsible form of capitalism.
there will be no active resistance from corporations/government/elite/TPTB as they really have nothing to lose (until maybe post-Phase 3 if they can't play by our rules and survive financially).
doesn't need protesting, strikes, marches, or anything like that
word will spread by mouth and example early on.
little effort is required from "managers", it's all very automated.
expect it to catch like wildfire in time, words like culture, paradigm and shift come to mind.
as markets become saturated by Subsidiaries, consumers will be able to find almost any product/service close by, and will know what gaps exist which is helpful for people looking to start businesses.
consumers will be scorned for not supporting Subsidiaries except for when certain products/services are unavailable from the 99% (or the Product/Service's quality/price/etc. is shitty).
all consumers, entrepreneurs and every sane person in the 99% worldwide can be turned into supporters of the overall movement without even having to care, which is the absolute answer to your question and justification for this initiative
What we should do is focus all energy on building cooperatives and communities based on cooperation and solidarity and at the same time fighting for a redistribution of wealth. The economy is all-encompassing; it affects us all. This must be addressed as well.
The goal must be a non-hierarchical society based on libertarian socialist principles.
Agreed, a community of subsidiaries pushing the "worker-owned/directed" mentality, connected with a common purpose: dominate and end capitalism, ushering in a new age of liberty where money is not a factor.
The final destination must be a non-money-based solution or it's not a solution really. Why? Because money is the only problem. It is the root.
http://groupspaces.com/99Conglomerate/pages/3-phases
I can elaborate further but might have to wait about 4 hours. The link above is a start but it might not explain well enough so I'll try to remember to come back to this.
Please, I can't summarize it more than this:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-democratic-and-left-libertarian-is-the-conglom/
Do you see what I'm saying though? I think if you support this we'll have a greater chance of seeing LS sooner than later. It's a good stride towards the goal.
If you're sure you never will and find this annoying, I'll refrain from trying to convince you in the future.
Socialist programs and solutions have their worth, but the wealth gap will always increase and get worse as long as the framework of capitalism is in place. Welfare and other social programs are just plasters covering a cut. They fight the symptoms, but do not cure the cause.
That’s right. Capitalism must be abolished: http://occupywallst.org/forum/abolish-capitalism/
Where do you stand politically?
Far left. However, I'm not quite sure I like communism either. I think both capitalism and communism are failures. I'm not sure what would be an ideal system, but I feel there must be something else to discover.
As far as political system, the future in my mind is e-democracy. We need to render the government much more transparent with the use of Internet tools. The actions of the government, the budget, gathered statistics and other data, etc... should all be accessible online in near real-time format.
What do you mean by “communism”?
How do you feel about Libertarian Socialism?
Libertarian socialism has some nice points.
I think workers can own their own corporations, but they should be lead by an elected few who can be rotated and who are held accountable. The problem with general assemblies and consensus type decision making (or majority vote) is that it always ends up that only a few people are interested in the inner-workings. So, only a few people make it regularly and they essentially become the leaders except they are not elected and cannot be rotated. This is what happened with Occupy general assemblies. Occupy had leaders, they were just those that had so much time they could attend all general assemblies. Leaders who cannot be rotated and who are hidden. Not good. It's better to have elected officials who hold short term mandates.
Democracy should be organized from below starting with democratic control of the economic institutions by the participants. On a larger scale there must be representation, but they should be recallable and elected from the group to which they belong.
Participation must be voluntary; if you don’t show up at assemblies and meetings, then that’s up to you. The key is to get people more engaged and interested in the things that matter. I’m all for rotation if that’s a possibility.
Also, you didn't answer my other question.
We need an NFL culling of the second string
variety is the spice
and I want to employ as many different people I feel like
if I'm unhappy or bored with them , I want to be able to fire them
It's not capitalism or communism or any ism. It's the money-based factor. History shows that any economy based on money will end up with a powerful elite and a weak 99%. So I've heard.
the economy must be abolished and money should not be in the realm of the republic.
Elaborate.
Sounds extreme.
How about stepping into the twentieth century, and using polymer note technology for cash exchange. Probably cheaper than allowing the fed res free access to the old paper printing presses, so they can run off as much cash secretly as they like. The North Koreans have been printing their own greenbacks for ages now.
I see Canada realised their old currency was also being perfectly counterfieted, so they switched to polymer notes.
Anyone holding millions (billions or trillions) of US dollars need only send their old currency in for exchange for polymer notes. No cashless transactions allowed.
That should put the fox among the hens for a while.
How systems of exchange should look like in detail is not the most important thing to focus on right now. The most important thing is fighting capitalism and trying to build a more solidaric and democratic society.
Money itself is the problem. Not how it is spent or distributed.
Capitalism is bad, socialism is bad, money is bad.
Some people are bad. Paper is neither good or bad.
Money has alot more to do with fetishism and less with paper.
Money is about MORE MORE MORE......
Anyone who wants more material wealth than already have is greedy. Anyone who wants to improve thier basic human condition through innovation and creative individual thought is not greedy.
Why is socialism bad?
So what's good, then? What kind system are you advocating?
Socialism is bad because it advocates for the stripping of people's individuality for the betterment of the group.
Capitalism is bad because the main focus is on profit and not innovation.
I want a system that demphasizes the importance of money, wealth and fame in life and emphasizes creative individual thought.
Socialism seems to work quite well in the Scandivavian countries
One of the reasons the neoliberal agenda, which has caused so much pain, has been successful is because they were able to successfully demonize the words LIBERAL and SOCIALISM
I have a long-time friend who owns a 3rd or 4th generation, family-run blacksmith and steel fabrication shop in Sweden, and employs approximately 20 people.
While visiting relatives in Sweden two summers ago, I asked him if he liked the Swedish system of governement. He said YES. And keep in mind that he has to give his workers 4-5 weeks paid vacation every year
On an added note, I did not see anyone protesting there
~Odin~
"liberal" implies free thought. "socialism" implies group thought.
No one is protesting in Sweden because they don't know any better. Same reason no one protests in china or north Korea.
Ridiculous. People in Scandinavia don’t complain that much, because they’ve achieved a lot of the rights that people in many other countries are still struggling for. I wrote about my country, Norway here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/welfare-and-workers-rights-in-norway/ Please check it out.
Ignorance is bliss, i guess........complaining is the first sign of freedom.
So what are you saying?
Silence (also known as "not complaining") is the first sign of ignorance.
The scandinavians are silent because they dont know any better. The government gives them just enough, so that they are obediant and "dont complain".
And what do you base this on?
Silence in Scandinavia? Are you serious? There's a lot of debate here with a lot of different people participating.
You said that the people of scandanavia dont complain that much. Why arent they complaining more?
“Socialism's focus is what is good for the group.”
Socialism is about the collective and the individual. Libertarian Socialism (which is what I advocate) strongly supports both collective and individual rights.
“According to you scandanvia has socialism.”
I haven’t said that.
“Thus scandinavia’s focus is on the good of the group at the expense of the individual.”
Specifically, what should the Scandinavian countries change in terms of individual rights, in your opinion?
“You said that scandanvians don't complain very much. I say that this is because they are ignorant to the possible alternatives.”
And I countered it. And I asked you what you based this on.
Again, specifically, which individual freedoms are you afraid socialism will take away and so on? And also, what exactly do you mean by ”socialism”?
In your opinion, what about the Scandinavian welfare state model is not working well?
What’s bad about socialism? Which individual freedoms are you afraid socialism will take away? What exactly do you mean by ”socialism” btw?
Libertarian Socialism strongly supports individual freedom: Freedom to live in a society without exploitation, tyranny and oppression.
Socialism=greater good
Not socialism=individual good.
That's the crux of my opinion.
"They should be complaining about their acceptance of the status quo."
That didn't make sense.
In your opinion, what are the most important issues Scandinavians are not, but should be complaining about?
"Socialism seems to work quite well in the Scandivavian countries"
Im to keen on a system that promotes intellectual equality over universal freedom.
Socialism is bad.
In your opinion, specifically, what is it that the Scandinavian people are not, but should be complaining about?
They should be complaining about their acceptance of the status quo.
"Socialism=greater good Not socialism=individual good. That's the crux of my opinion."
You didn't answer my questions. If you're not going to elaborate on where you stand, so that it's possible to have a normal debate, then I'm not going to respond anymore.
Again:
In your opinion, what about the Scandinavian welfare state model is not working well?
What’s bad about socialism? Which individual freedoms are you afraid socialism will take away and so on? And also, what exactly do you mean by ”socialism”?
Socialism's focus is what is good for the group. According to you scandanvia has socialism. Thus scandanavia's focus is on the good of the group at the expense of the individual.
You said that scandanvians don't complain very much. I say that this is because they are ignorant to the possible alternatives.
Scandanavia's state welfare focus' on the greater good and not the individual good of all the people.
Yet the Swedes seem to be such happy and intelligent people, with clearly the ability to think for themselves
Even my firend's lowest worker, an attractive young woman, whose job it is to keep the yard clean, and maintained was going to be vacationing overseas in a much warmer climate
And Sweden has the highest per centage of people with second homes, albeit usually rustic ones
And while our wealth disparity can be compared to a 'banana republic-like' one....there the gap between the rich and the poor is miniscule compared to ours
~Odin~
So is happiness and well-being directly tied to material wealth? Do you really need two houses to qualify as 'happy'?
No "happiness and well-being" should not be "directly tied to material wealth," and I for one am a good example of that
As i have always leaned towards minimalism out of CHOICE throughout much of my life, and knew that the virtues and values that people posess are much more important than consumerism and materialism
This change in ethos is probably the 'CENTERPIECE' of our struggle, and it is a harbinger of the World we want
And nowhere is that more exemplfied than with the good work that Occupy Sandy has done. Even some of the MSM have commented favorably on the hard work that they have done and continue to do in helping people who were devastated by that hurricane
Anyway I have passed those virtues onto my 3 kids, and they have put them into practice in their everyday lives in a plethora of ways....one being a Big Sister...another a public defender despite graduating Fordham maga cum laude & another who is a strong, in your face-type animal rights advocate
That is not what we were discussing though, was it?
Rather we were talking about socialism vs capitalism, weren't we?
Since I believe your views of socialism were misleading, I set out to correct them with first-hand knowledge, and examples
Remember Sweden and Norway were both under the control of the olgarchs at one time, and they fought hard to put this system in place
And that should be another indication to you that socialism while not ideal, is SO,SO much better than the crony capitalism that we have now
It does seem VERY amusingly odd to me that you seem to be defending unfettered capitlism, while implying that people in socialist countries like Sweden are shallow, stupid, and materialistic
That should be vice versa, and my line, not yours!
The More You Know......~Odin~
It will be complex to change everyone else....here's some ideas from India.
http://www.irnc.org/Recherches/Items/Economie/Documents/actes_Bhopal_Schwartzentruber.pdf
Page 21 Swaraj rests upon the satisfaction of needs and not on the abundance created by mass production: “The earth supplies enough to satisfy the needs of each person but not greed of each person. It is more greed and the hardness of heart (rather than a scarcity of resources) that have created the problem as much for this generation as for the following ones”. Greed comes from the desire for excess, swaraj aims to limit human desires and to satisfy first basic needs. An important axis of the economic thought of Gandhi is the simplification of needs or more accurately, the self-limitation of desires, that is the reason that many people think that he is the originator of the idea of a ‘zero-growth’ economy: “To live simply so that others can simply live”; “It is necessary to bring an end to this mad rush that drives one to always want more money”; “In what concerns my rule of life, I must say that I have never dared to possess that which I did not need”. Among the ingredients of the idea of swaraj, it is necessary to note the predominance of the traditional sector. The highest importance is given to agriculture and to food crops. A balance should be maintained between this primary sector (agriculture, forestry, fishing), the secondary one (industry) and the third sector (service) and the balance should be based on the human resources available in each country. Secondly, the villages ought to be more important than the cities. Gandhi observes: “You cannot build non-violence in a civilization of factories, but it can be built in self-limiting villages. You ought therefore to have a rural mentality and to have that you should have faith in the method of weaving”. Seven criteria characterize economic independence acoording to Gandhi: • Elimination of poverty and the minimizing of wealth. • Self-sufficiency of each unit in its basic needs. • Identification of basic human needs and the means of meeting them. • Agriculture that is respectful of the environment as a basis for the creation of a durable economy. • Production that is based as far as possible on small groups. • Control and elimination of distorted views by basic eduction and technical formation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZkQv25uEs
Swaraj is widely misunderstood concept, especially in modern india. Gandhi's meant 'self-rule' as in the individual ruling itself, not a group ruling a group of individuals. Post-assasination India has seen several wars with Pakistan, nuke capablities aquired by the Indian government, a genocide in Bangladesh, ethnic conflict throughout India.
Gandhi did not advocate for socialism nor wealth redistribution, he advocated for a post-economic society that deemphasizes material wealth and puts an emphasis on intellectual wealth. Gandhi wanted others to come to this realization on thier own, because Gandhi realized, as Buddha did also, that elightenment isnt something you can give or take, it must be found.
Swaraj is not an economic concept.
We can't force one to enlightenment, or any ways of thinking, including everyone to have same vision of economics or politics, especially now with Internet.
Therefore to change the whole world, with an economic philosophy, may be grandiose of a mission. I don't know if even a communal group can achieve it-- possibly monks.
Individuals, families, maybe villages can have common identity towards good views to sustain the village. As far as larger political units, countries as they are superior in strength but guided by other goals "superior" or stronger than those of villages and individuals, can get compromised by bad actions of its powerful interests, that are harmful to us.
Swaraj warrants a stateless society; according to Gandhi, the overall impact of the state on the people is harmful. He called the state a "soulless machine" which, ultimately, does the greatest harm to mankind.[6] The raison d'etre of the state is that it is an instrument of serving the people. But Gandhi feared that in the name of moulding the state into a suitable instrument of serving people, the state would abrogate the rights of the citizens and arrogate to itself the role of grand protector and demand abject acquiescence from them. This would create a paradoxical situation where the citizens would be alienated from the state and at the same time enslaved to it which according to Gandhi was demoralising and dangerous. If Gandhi's close acquaintance with the working of the state apparatus in South Africa and in India strengthened his suspicion of a centralized, monolithic state, his intimate association with the Congress and its leaders confirmed his fears about the corrupting influence of political power and his skepticism about the efficacy of the party systems of power politics (due to which he resigned from the Congress on more than one occasion only to be persuaded back each time) and his study of the British parliamentary systems convinced him that representative democracy was incapable of meting out justice to people.[7] So he thought it necessary to evolve a mechanism to achieve the twin objectives of empowering the people and 'empowering' the state. It was for this that he developed the two pronged strategy of resistance (to the state) and reconstruction (through voluntary and participatory social action). Although the word Swaraj means self-rule, Gandhi gave it the content of an integral revolution that encompasses all spheres of life. "At the individual level Swaraj is vitally connected with the capacity for dispassionate self-assessment, ceaseless self-purification and growing self-reliance".[8] Politically swaraj is self-government and not good government (for Gandhi, good government is no substitute for self-government) and it means a continuous effort to be independent of government control, whether it is foreign government or whether it is national. In other words, it is sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. Economically, Swaraj means full economic freedom for the toiling millions. And in its fullest sense, Swaraj is much more than freedom from all restraints, it is self-rule, self-restraint and could be equated with moksha or salvation.[9] Adopting Swaraj means implementing a system whereby the state machinery is virtually nil, and the real power directly resides in the hands of people. Gandhi said, "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."[10] This philosophy rests inside an individual who has to learn to be master of his own self and spreads upwards to the level of his community which must be dependent only on itself. Gandhi said, "In such a state (where swaraj is achieved) everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour";[11] and also "It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."[12] Gandhi explained his vision in 1946: ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaraj
"We can't force one to enlightenment, or any ways of thinking, including everyone to have same vision of economics or politics, especially now with Internet. "
That is exactly what I said. Enlightenment must be found by each and every individual on their own.
"Economically, Swaraj means full economic freedom for the toiling millions."
Swaraj has nothing to do with money or material goods, but it definatly doesnt mean 'socialism' or 'capitalism'.
"In such a state (where swaraj is achieved) everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour";[11] and also "It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."[12]
Swaraj, Self Rule, is when people will be able to upon their own doing, decide for themselves thier own personal destiny.
I want 'collegium', not community. I want associations among individuals to be completely voluntary. None of this 'greater' good crap will do, because it will not bring good to all, just the majority. Freedom is only freedom if everyone starts with freedom.
I concur.
No forced religions and compelled attendance.
However to yourself, your family and local community, to treat others respectfully, not steal, care for your parents and children, and to pay social dues--minimal fair tax, for schools and a modest community police.
The federal government should be cut, starting with military, whose people should be transitioned into infrastructure repairs, road, rail, and community improvement, eventually taken over by volunteers of youth, who trade a year service for a year college.
The army should not be a standing militia, but maybe train a couple months a year, as a defense, not offensive capability, and sometimes work with other countries like NATO or UN on real peace missions, to bring clean water and sanitation, and make friends in world.
The military should be abolished completely. Violence is never justified. Police should also be abolished.
Forced service is outlawed via the 13th amendment.
“Socialism is bad because it advocates for the stripping of people's individuality for the betterment of the group.”
First of all, what exactly do you mean by “socialism”? Secondly, what exactly are you afraid socialism will strip away from us?
“I want a system that demphasizes the importance of money, wealth and fame in life and emphasizes creative individual thought.”
I agree. But what system do you want? How do you want the economy to be organized, for example?
Socialism as in "cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity"
Cooperation shouldnt be forced.
"Socialism as in "cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity"
So which one of those is it? I wasn’t asking you to quote Wikipedia, I asked you what you meant by it.
“Cooperation shouldnt be forced.”
What?
You didn’t answer any of my questions.
What exactly do you mean by ”socialism”
Which individual freedoms are you afraid socialism will take away?
What system do you want? How do you want the economy to be organized, etc?
[Removed]
libertarians = fuck social security, fuck public education, privatize just about everything
Republicans, democrats = War, Goldman Sachs
Give me some Green! End the wars, fuck the banks, living wage, public health and increased education!