Living Democracy

[Pathless]

Some interesting thoughts on democracy, civic engagement, and economics by Frances Moore Lappe:

"Ideas either serve life or not. And unfortunately for our species' chances, our idea of democracy--our shorthand for the system we use to shape society and solve problems--itself is life-stifling. Accepting the idea that democracy equals elections plus a market economy, we do not question an especially peculiar notion: that a market driven by a single rule, that of highest return to existing wealth, can return benign outcomes for all."

More:
Why Are We Playing Monopoly When We Could Be Living Democracy? | Grassroots Economic Organizing

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Some interesting thoughts on democracy, civic engagement, and economics by Frances Moore Lappe:

"Ideas either serve life or not. And unfortunately for our species' chances, our idea of democracy--our shorthand for the system we use to shape society and solve problems--itself is life-stifling. Accepting the idea that democracy equals elections plus a market economy, we do not question an especially peculiar notion: that a market driven by a single rule, that of highest return to existing wealth, can return benign outcomes for all."

Of course you don't check your morality at the market door. {Do you ever check your morality at the door? You might as well be checking your humanity at the door.}

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Of course you don't check your morality at the market door. {Do you ever check your morality at the door? You might as well be checking your humanity at the door.}

The market system, implemented globally, is not amoral; it is immoral. Whether or not the individual participating in the global, corporate capitalist economy checks her morality at the door or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant. If we are participating in an economics that places profits over people--and everyone is, by compulsion; and any multinational corporation, which are the engines of the global economy, must place profits over people in order to simply function--our own personal choices as to what products we consume are practically irrelevant. Take fair trade coffee, which France Moore Lappe advocates in her short article: as great as this development is, there is still a hierarchy of being: on top is the generous and socially aware, privileged, first-world consumer who is willing to pay extra money for fairly traded coffee, and on the bottom, as ever, is the third-world peasant farmer working to produce the coffee. Now they are paid a "living wage," but they are still bound to the global capitalist market. Perhaps that coffee farmer has better things to do with his time than farm coffee, but since he is bound to the global market for his survival, he farms coffee. It may not be an awful life, but it's not a free one either.

As FML noted in the linked article: "In the dominant, failing idea of democracy, society is a subset of economic life. To make the needed planetary turn to life, we must envision the opposite: economic life re-embedded in society guided by shared human values, including fairness, inclusion, and mutual accountability."

[seattlegal]

P-nut, when was the last time you watched The Gods Must Be Crazy?

Here's the first 15 minutes of the movie:



What was it that made Xi want to throw the coke bottle off the end of the earth? Was the coke bottle inherently immoral? It was quite useful to the people. Was it the immoral capitalistic system that caused the family to start fighting and hurting one another? It was each person's desire to posses the coke bottle that lead to their hurting one another.

The market is one way we have of dealing with our inherent desires. People will naturally trade with one another in order to mutually fulfill each one's desires, and this is the basis for the free market system. It's much less violent than simply taking what you desire from another person, which people are prone to do without another means by which they can procure what they desire. If you outlaw the sale of an item, a black market will spring up in order so the desire for that item can be fulfilled. (And people really start hurting one another when black markets spring up.)

It's not the market that is inherently immoral. You can see that from what happened with Xi's family and the coke bottle. We are drawn out by our own desire to behave in an immoral manner, plain and simple. You can blame the market all you want, but it won't get to the real source of the problem.

[wil]

Namaste all and thanx SG, salient points.

I was a democratic utopian in my youth. As I age I think I see things not as I wish them but as they are. Unfortunately no true Democracy works on a large scale.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

P-nut, when was the last time you watched The Gods Must Be Crazy?

I haven't ever seen it.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

The market is one way we have of dealing with our inherent desires. People will naturally trade with one another in order to mutually fulfill each one's desires, and this is the basis for the free market system. It's much less violent than simply taking what you desire from another person, which people are prone to do without another means by which they can procure what they desire. If you outlaw the sale of an item, a black market will spring up in order so the desire for that item can be fulfilled. (And people really start hurting one another when black markets spring up.)

While all of this is true, the global system of corporate capitalism is not a simple market economy. It's more like a plague of parasites, draining vitality from human beings and ecosystems, draining resources and replacing them with pollution. At one point it generated cash money; now it generates speculative profits. It does not generate free market economies in the many regions in which it attaches itself to extract and exploit fossil fuels, minerals, and plant and animal energy.

The transnational corporations, staffed by human beings who distance themselves from taking responsibility for the actions of the corporation, have a single mission: to create profit for shareholders. We can call that amoral, but if we begin to look at the damage that these corporations do to land, to water, to plants and animals, to people on an individual and collective level in order to create profit, we can also pretty safely classify their actions, and the action of the global governing and economic systems that support them, as immoral.

It's not the market that is inherently immoral. You can see that from what happened with Xi's family and the coke bottle. We are drawn out by our own desire to behave in an immoral manner, plain and simple.

Corporate capitalism, with its unprincipled pursuit of profit, tempts, drives, and motivates people to behave in an immoral manner. It also rewards them for ignoring their consciences and principles, or abandoning them entirely.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Pathless

I haven't ever seen it.

I think you'd thoroughly enjoy it.

While all of this is true, the global system of corporate capitalism is not a simple market economy. It's more like a plague of parasites, draining vitality from human beings and ecosystems, draining resources and replacing them with pollution. At one point it generated cash money; now it generates speculative profits. It does not generate free market economies in the many regions in which it attaches itself to extract and exploit fossil fuels, minerals, and plant and animal energy.

Agreed. It can be quite easy to appease your individual conscience when you engage in collectivism. (Collectives really don't have conscience. That is the realm of the individual.)

The transnational corporations, staffed by human beings who distance themselves from taking responsibility for the actions of the corporation, have a single mission: to create profit for shareholders. We can call that amoral, but if we begin to look at the damage that these corporations do to land, to water, to plants and animals, to people on an individual and collective level in order to create profit, we can also pretty safely classify their actions, and the action of the global governing and economic systems that support them, as immoral.

Have you compared the amount of damage private corporations do as compared to government industrial collectives? (Hint: check out the list of The World's Ten Most Polluted Places) When industry becomes a function of government, what check is there on them regarding the damage they do? (Look at the percentage of government owned energy companies doing business with Burma as compared to private corporations.)

Corporate capitalism, with its unprincipled pursuit of profit, tempts, drives, and motivates people to behave in an immoral manner. It also rewards them for ignoring their consciences and principles, or abandoning them entirely.

I would say the same thing can be said regarding government owned industry, except to an even greater degree.

[shawn]

When I was younger I would make similar rants about the corruption which abounds, but as time passes I have started seeing from other perspectives.

So many people blame the tool, when it is with the user where the problem lies.

We can rail about the problems of our system of doing things and say that, here is another system and it is superior and when we implement it all will be rosy.

But this is not so.

It is the quality of the user and not the tool which is the real issue.
A master craftsman can make fantastic things with less than adequate tools.
Bumbling fools, with even the best of tools, will still find a way to make a complete hash of things.

So if we want the world to improve...work on yourself.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by shawn

It is the quality of the user and not the tool which is the real issue.
A master craftsman can make fantastic things with less than adequate tools.
Bumbling fools, with even the best of tools, will still find a way to make a complete hash of things.

So if we want the world to improve...work on yourself.

Agreed.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Have you compared the amount of damage private corporations do as compared to government industrial collectives? (Hint: check out the list of The World's Ten Most Polluted Places) When industry becomes a function of government, what check is there on them regarding the damage they do? (Look at the percentage of government owned energy companies doing business with Burma as compared to private corporations.)

No, I haven't looked into that.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I would say the same thing can be said regarding government owned industry, except to an even greater degree.

Okay.

This isn't necessarily about socialism vs. capitalism, and if you are under the impression that it is, perhaps you should (re-) read the article linked to the OP. Not everything is either/or. The either/or perspective is not going to lead us to the imaginative and diverse kinds of actions and ideas that will help us live in a more just, joyful, and sane world.

Originally Posted by Frances Moore Lappe

There is no either/or here. Reich operates from an outdated view of self and society, which flows from a false assumption about our nature-that we can act from opposing sensibilities and values and remain sane. Because all aspects of our internal life as well as our external life are interconnected, trying to carve ourselves up makes us crazy. I'm convinced, for example, that doing has contributed to the epidemic of depression.

She is offering up some ideas about democracy. She is pointing out that democracy is not akin to "elections plus a market economy," but instead is a participatory process "guided by shared human values, including fairness, inclusion, and mutual accountability."

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by shawn

When I was younger I would make similar rants about the corruption which abounds, but as time passes I have started seeing from other perspectives.

So many people blame the tool, when it is with the user where the problem lies.

We can rail about the problems of our system of doing things and say that, here is another system and it is superior and when we implement it all will be rosy.

But this is not so.

It is the quality of the user and not the tool which is the real issue.
A master craftsman can make fantastic things with less than adequate tools.
Bumbling fools, with even the best of tools, will still find a way to make a complete hash of things.

I'm sorry that you feel like this thread is a rant, but I don't see it that way. I posted a link to an article that I feel is insightful and constructive, hoping that there may be a few people who would also feel that way and would like to make comments, post thoughts, or extrapolate other ideas from the ideas presented. Instead, like usual, I get contrarion responses, plus apparently I come off as a party pooper, railing unconstructively against the system.

I'm of the mind that if people are not happy with the state of the world, it certainly doesn't hurt to voice their concerns. Criticism can be constructive.

Originally Posted by shawn

So if we want the world to improve...work on yourself.

I do that, too. Do you assume that simply because I am dissatisfied with and disturbed by social and economic realities that I pay no attention my own needs and growth? Thanks for the vote of competence.

[nativeastral]

'Why does McDonald's serve organic dairy products in its Swedish stores but not here? Why do cooperatives contribute 35-40 percent of the GDP in Italy's region of Emilia Romagna but not in any U.S. region? No law demands organic milk in Sweden nor that people join coops in Italy but norms created by citizens created the context.'

have said this before the national lottery should be a cooperative for the funding of the national health service

it would be a joy then to 'bet' on a win/win situation, thats democracy

[shawn]

Originally Posted by Pathless

I'm sorry that you feel like this thread is a rant, but I don't see it that way. I posted a link to an article that I feel is insightful and constructive, hoping that there may be a few people who would also feel that way and would like to make comments, post thoughts, or extrapolate other ideas from the ideas presented. Instead, like usual, I get contrarion responses, plus apparently I come off as a party pooper, railing unconstructively against the system.

I'm of the mind that if people are not happy with the state of the world, it certainly doesn't hurt to voice their concerns. Criticism can be constructive.



I do that, too. Do you assume that simply because I am dissatisfied with and disturbed by social and economic realities that I pay no attention my own needs and growth? Thanks for the vote of competence.

First, you need to know I agree with your critique.
Many things are crappy about our world and the systems we use.
My comments were not directed towards you specifically.
I just posted an observation which I thought pertinent.

The system which we currently have in place could be replaced with any other system the world has to offer and it too would quickly become just as corrupt and duplicitous due to the calibre of people which make things work.
There is no replacement system which will somehow be able to fix our collective problems.
There is only the hope that we will become better people, and then it matters not what system of politic which we use.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by shawn

First, you need to know I agree with your critique.
Many things are crappy about our world and the systems we use.
My comments were not directed towards you specifically.
I just posted an observation which I thought pertinent.

The system which we currently have in place could be replaced with any other system the world has to offer and it too would quickly become just as corrupt and duplicitous due to the calibre of people which make things work.
There is no replacement system which will somehow be able to fix our collective problems.
There is only the hope that we will become better people, and then it matters not what system of politic which we use.

Thanks for the clarification.

[shawn]

Hope you don't feel slighted, as that was not my intent.
And I think that it is important to critique the stupidity we see around us.