R-evolution - to Capitalism, Transfromed
18 March 2014
John Courtneidge
It seems that, judgiing from the publication of the book, photographed below, that our friends in the USA might be ready to consider the Co-operative Socialism variant.
If so, I hope that the following short writing encourages them to find the essays on Co-operative Socialism in the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org.uk and . . .
---------------------------
Last week my friend, Jim, spoke of his preference for
"Regulated Capitalism":
"I just had a quick look at "interestfree..."
I don't have the time to investigate this idea fully. However, I think back to
the times I lent money to people and the troubles I had. (The most I was ever
owed was $400.) Now, if anybody asks to borrow cash, I laugh uproariously in
their face. If they persist, I get very angry. . . I know my experiences are
small scale and I know that in our complex society, we need some way of funding
people with good ideas however . . . My ideas about a new economic model, I
call 'Regulated Capitalism." This would not require a revolution. . . My
way of talking about economics is geared at changing the minds of young
economics students and also debating with the people who are the problem now. .
. Are you familiar with the way the US reformed it's economy beginning in 1938-9?
Their purpose, of course, was to fight WWII, but it gives an example of what is
possible in economics."
------------------
I replied to ask:
- that he consider a
change to an active adjective - so developing "Regulated
Capitalism" to 'Transforming Capitalism' - ie to 'Transforming Beyond Capitalism' .
Like Jim, I'm no fan of revolutions - they have always ended
up a) with violence and b) with a new set of bosses replacing the old set of
bosses, then there's a counter-revolution and the children of the old set of
bosses replace the new set of bosses . . . think City of London/England.
Now, the transformation - r-evolution - involves first of
all a mind-set change from 'What can I get?' to 'What can I give?'. This seems to go through a 'What can I
share?' first of all.
Next, we need a paradigm inversion (for 'How Rigid is Your
Paradigm', please see that essay in the papers' section at
www.interestfreemoney.org - it seems to be one of the two 'entry-level' essays
into this - the Needs on is the other).
Anyway, that inversion is to see that ownership is wrong
rather than right. That way, the
consequential 'unearned incomes' that flow from ownership (rent, interest,
profit, higher-than-average-incomes-from-paid work ie RIP-Up in the TRIP-Up
acronym, T = Theft = Ownership of economic resources) evaporate.
Now, unless we are led back, to become hunter/gatherers in
the Garden of Eden, we will need to work to sustain ourselves.
And work is that opportunity to give; work is, as my friend
Peter Challen says, love made manifest (which work, at present for 99+% of the
population - even for the Queens, bond traders and other thieves - it's not!).
So, we'll need access to those economic resources - and that
where the concept of careship rather than ownership and co-operative careship
rather than ersatz careship = stewardship - comes from.
But, enough, for now.
So, thanks again, Jim - and for your vignette on lent money
- what a piece of work debt, usury, rent, etc are!
For all - the best! - equally!
john
*************
No comments:
Post a Comment