[CLUE-Talk] Re: A Call to Action

[Jeffery Cann]

On Monday 15 July 2002 01:35 am, Matt Gushee wrote:
> > Unfortunately, these experiments have mostly been flawed.
>
> In what way? How do you know?

Well, how about communism?  Surely, it is hard to argue that its 
implementation in USSR was successful.

Seems to me that communism may partly address the problem of scarcity (i.e., 
unlimited wants vs limited resources), but I think the poster's point is that 
others types of economic systems are flawed because have not lasted more than 
a few decades whereas capitalism has lasted for over 200 years in this 
country.  Now, the US is the most powerful country in the world.  So, were 
you to compare the fate of the economic systems of the USSR and USA, it would 
seem that capitalism has been more successful and the experiement of 
communism was flawed simply because it no longer exists.

Communism is only one example.  Here's what Winston Churchill thought about 
his country's economic system (socialism):

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the 
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

No one is saying that capitalism is perfect, but to this point it's better 
than anything the alternatives.  It's great to talk about possible to 
solutions to Matt's (and other's) economic woes, but so far I haven't seen 
any that consider the selfish nature of human beings.  Capitalism or 
communism or { insert favorite ism here } do not address this issue.

It would be nice if our world was like Star Trek where no one wanted more 
than they need because everyone has what they need.  In my experience, 
Americans have way more than we need, yet that doesn't stop most of us from 
wanting more.  Of course, we're not the only ones doing it -- other countries 
have the same problems.  Thus, it's a matter of human nature and not economic 
circumstance or philosophy that explains this common thread of greed.

So, being a pragmatic person -- what are alternatives to capitalism that 
actually have a chance of surviving for the long term?  Why would a LETS 
system help address this deeper problem of greed in humans?

> > increase in their costs).  That may be OK for many of us as individuals,
> > but I doubt if it would have much support in the corporate arena, or for
> > anyone who is competing on a regional or national scale.
>
> And that is a problem because ... ?

Contrary to Matt's current opinion -- unless everyone becomes a farmer how 
else would folks support themselves and their families besides working for 
someone else, such as a corporation?  Sure, we could return to the days of 
artisans and guilds and barter goods and services.  Currency systems are 
successful because they are more efficient than bartering systems.  Now that 
folks have been indoctrinated into the idea of a currency system for many 
generations, I think you'll face an uphill battle convincing the world's 
population to return to a simpler / alternative lifestyle because you believe 
it to be better.  Most folks won't agree.

Later,
Jeff