Bcc: <x>, <y>
Dear cj,
Hope you find these of interest...
rkm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Police State Conspiracy
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 98
From: X
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Dear Richard,
I am an avid reader of New Dawn here in Australia, and consumed with
interest and agreement your brilliant series on the police state
conspiracy. I have to be honest in saying that I only hope and pray that
people will wake up and see the logic in what people like yourself say,
because the truth is right in front of our face if we decide to use our
brains, but my experience of the mass human condition doesn't give me much
hope.
Humanity has been more and more severely repressed by those in power as
history has gone on, and we seem to be in a constant mindset of "thigns are
not as bad as they could be". hence, we all realise that we are being
conned by our political (and in turn, business) leaders, but we are never
prepared to do anything about it because we always have it better than
some. When Irish and Australian are living in fly-blown communes with no
food and dying of starvation because of the corporate thrust across world
leadership, I wonder if we'll be saying that someone else has it worse.
I'm also conscious of the seemingly insurmountable task of bringing this
information in its raw, non-sensationalised form to the public. The problem
for activists such as yourself in today's world seems a lack of media.
Freedom of information is a mask for corporate media monopoly, and we have
such a skewed and narrow view of the world it would shock most of us to
learn how little we really know. And whatever voice you can raise is
immedaitely shouted down by the establishment media stirring up
irrationality through infotainment labels like racist, radical, right wing
etc.
I will never stop doing what I can against the tide of the world, but I
believe that I will see my children starving in gutters, and i believe that
because the human race as a whole is an easily herded mob who just want to
get on with their lives and don't make any fuss as their basic freedoms are
taken away one by one. I don't think there will be any real opposition.
But I'll never stop trying. I'm glad people like you are just as
determined. Thank you for bringing such clean, logical material to so many
people's attention.
Best Wishes,
X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Y
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: New Dawn article
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:04:15 +1100
Dear Richard
I am an interested reader of alternative news and keen researcher of the
truth of what is going on in the world. I read your Nov-Dec 1998 article
in New Dawn with great interest.
I did have some difficulty following certain aspects of your article and
would like to enter into discussion with you on some points.
On page 57 you make the distinction between an owner-operator and
stockholders - this I fully agree with as a person who has tried to grow my
own business and found it difficult in the current economic climate. Also
I have seen the damage to employee morale done by economic rationalism
which has seen increased bottom line profits for the stockholders with no
real benefit to the employees or the business itself.
However, I then found it difficult to fully comprehend your definition of
capitalism given that an owner-operator could be seen to be pursuing a
capitalist-type business which is quite different from the playing of the
stockmarket which does not benefit the real economy one bit. I see the
stockmarket as the problem and not investment in the real economy.
My personal definition of capitalism would be true free-enterprise or
laissez-faire in which an individual is free to pursue his/her economic
interests without the interference of government providing that he/she does
not harm or intend to cause harm to another. Perhaps we need a different
word, but I struggled with your use of the term capitalist and really
needed further information. Also I have no clear idea of what you would
consider to be "a more appropriate (system) to human happiness and
well-being." as an alternative to what you call the capitalist elite
oligarchy. And indeed is there really any difference between a capitalist
oligarchy and a communist oligarchy? I have long thought both to be the
same in different clothes.
In principle I think I fully agree with you but given that I am not sure of
your definitions I need a clearer picture before I can make that judgment.
I would really appreciate your comments in the cause of furthering truth
and freedom. Could you also perhaps enlighten me as to why the web site
quoted at the bottom of your article is "forbidden" to me. I am a novice
on the net anddon't know who to ask for assistance in these matters.
Yours in freedom,
Y
-----------------
Dear Y,
Thanks for your message.
2/20/99, you wrote:
>However, I then found it difficult to fully comprehend your definition of
>capitalism given that an owner-operator could be seen to be pursuing a
>capitalist-type business which is quite different from the playing of the
>stockmarket which does not benefit the real economy one bit. I see the
>stockmarket as the problem and not investment in the real economy.
I'm not sure we have a disagreement. It's difficult to make a
strict distinction between a capitalist investor and an owner-operator.
I'm trying to show that there's a free-enterprise continuum, with
single-owner business at one end, and stock-market speculator at the
other. One can be a strong supporter of private enterprize without
favoring capitalist domination of the form we have with now, and which is
getting rapidly worse under globalization. The distinction is not black &
white, but rather a matter of seeing each situation in its position on the
continuum.
There's a similar continuum for "freedom of action". At one end is the
freedom to do what you want peacefully in your own home, and at the other
end is the freedom to go out and maim and kill others. One can be very
much in favor of freedom of action while also believing murder should be
illegal.
>My personal definition of capitalism would be true free-enterprise or
>laissez-faire in which an individual is free to pursue his/her economic
>interests without the interference of government providing that he/she does
>not harm or intend to cause harm to another. Perhaps we need a different
>word, but I struggled with your use of the term capitalist and really
>needed further information.
You seem to be seeking a definition of capitalism that makes it
into a "good thing". Why bother defending it? It is what it is. The
question, I suggest, is what kind of economic/political system we want. If
it's not capitalism, as we know it, then let's figure out what we want and
make up a name for it.
I would define capitalism something like this:
Capitalism: The doctrine that economic affairs should be
determined by those who have the most money.
The word is an "ism", and "isms" are doctrines which proclaim one single
principle to be of primary importance, overshadowing all others. Capitalism
proclaims "the interest of capital, ie, money" to be supreme. Similarly
communism proclaims "communal ownership" to be the supreme principle.
"Fundamentalist" is an adjvective which raises an "ism" to even higher
supremacy... as in "fundamentalist muslim[ism]". We seem now to be living
in an era of "fundamentalist capitalism". I believe capitalism is
well-named -- it means what it says.
I don't believe in very many "isms", because they're too absolute, too
limited in their options, too likely to push round pegs into square holes.
The farmers of Minnesota don't want communal farms, while the indigenous
people in Chiapas don't want private ones. Why should either be forced
into the ism of the other?
>Also I have no clear idea of what you would consider to be "a more
>appropriate (system) to human happiness and well-being." as an alternative
>to what you call the capitalist elite oligarchy. And indeed is there
>really any difference between a capitalist oligarchy and a communist
>oligarchy? I have long thought both to be the same in different clothes.
The two are not the same, but they are equally restrictive on those who
would promote different economic models. They're both "isms" and are both
bent on forcing their models on everyone else. And they've both been
hell-bent on industrial development, without regard for damage to our
environment or destruction of our communities.
As for "a more appropriate (system) to human happiness and well-being", I
don't really mean one system, but rather whatever system is appropriate to
each given community and society. I don't believe either capitalism (in
the US sense) or communism (in the old Soviet sense) are appropriate
anywhere to human happiness and well-being.
If you'd like to see my ideas on this spelled out a bit more, you might
take a look at my website (http://cyberjournal.org). At the top you'll see:
A book in progress (© Richard K. Moore):
Draft 1: Globalization and the Revolutionary Imperative -
abbreviated treatment, up through Chapter 6
Draft 2: Achieving a Livable, Peaceful World - more developed draft
of Introduction and Chapter 1
Take a look at Draft 1, Part II. I'd be interested in your feedback.
>I would really appreciate your comments in the cause of furthering truth
>and freedom. Could you also perhaps enlighten me as to why the web site
>quoted at the bottom of your article is "forbidden" to me. I am a novice
>on the net and don't know who to ask for assistance in these matters.
I think you'll get into the above site OK. Sometimes the Cyberlib site is
mysteriously unavailable -- server malfunctions no doubt.
All the best,
rkm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
•••@••.•••
a political discussion forum.
crafted in Ireland by rkm
(Richard K. Moore)
To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.•••
A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
(mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org)
Non-commercial reposting is hereby approved,
but please include the sig up through this paragraph
and retain any internal credits and copyright notices.
Copyrighted materials are posted under "fair-use".
To see the index of the cj archives, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
To subscribe to our activists list, send any message to:
•••@••.•••
Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance!
A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication.
-- Frantz Fanon
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
committed citizens can change the world,
indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead
Share: