Bcc: contributors __________________ Dear friends, We got _lots of feedback on the three-part series I posted on capitalism, the rise of elites, and the opportunity offered by globalization. I hope the dialog continues... some strong viewpoints have come out, and these topics are of central importance in understanding our circumstances and our practical options. There is more here than you may want to read at one sitting, so I'll wait a few days until a follow-up posting. all the best, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:44:38 -0800 Richard; Glad to see you are thinking about the birth of capitalist exploitation, but 1700 is about 400 years after the abortion. If you are seriously trying to understand our immediate cultural genealogy read R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and Das Kapital by Groucho, all three volumes (the Moscow edition is the best translation - Modern Library removes the dialectic which is the soul of understanding history). There are about 3 major changes in human existence: 1. the change from hunting and gathering to farming 2. the origin of the state 3. the alienation of labour now we must figure out how to de-alienate labour. Don't try to answer this until after Groucho and R.H. Love, Brian BE is free ========== Dear Brian, For the benefit of our discussion, could you elaborate a bit on your three major changes? Dates, structural shifts, power shifts, wealth shifts, etc. Would be much appreciated. (But see first Adrian's comments below.) As for 'root causes' in general, I'm nearly through reading Daniel Quinn's "The story of B". (Many thanks to several of you who suggested reading this book!) My next posting will be about B. Everyone should read it; it's a good story, and it's a natural follow-on to Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, & Steel". The name of the protagonist in B is Jared, which is probably coincidence, but perhaps not. This is a book which should cause us all to look deeper to understand our condition and its solutions. --- Give my best to BE. (He was jailed for growing cannibas - a test case for the California Marijuana Initiative.) regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Adrian" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore (by way of •••@••.•••)" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: [simpol] -> capitalism Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:45:54 +1300 Interesting, It actually took off with the "agrarian revolution" which unseated the feudal aristocracy from its hegemony by the invention of a double bookkeeping loan system invented by the Baron de Rothschild. This shifted the power situation from land to money and I had not realised it took the industrial revolution to convert it into a social system. Most of the early factory owners were intent on doing the serfs some good and were rather Utopian where the aristos did not care. It then got knitted into "education" once it was realised the serfs had to be fitted to the workbench, after which brainwashing entered to make it more 'permanent'. Up unto Rothschild money played no great role in the social system as only the aristos had any. He invented the "pay to bearer" cheque paper money by play now and pay later. As a matter of interesting fact Clinton's proposal for all nations to trade and cooperate into wealth still copies that basic idea. It was only rather recently that the gold standard was dropped and since then we do our bookkeeping in the trillions. By this notion all debt is supposed to be balanced by assets, so as a whole nobody owes anybody anything. Capitalism subverts this "barter" notion into ownership of money. When Marx proposed his money as THE reference token for all social transactions the road to perdition was paved. Adrian ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:14:54 -0400 Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism From: "Bill Ellis" <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• CC: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• A great analysis of "The Birth of Capitalism," Richard. It makes me wonder if there wasn't even a deeper root. That is, the economic, materialist mind set of the people. Most other cultures were based on world views that the Earth was mother of us all, that our individual lives depended on one another. We produced for the good of our tribe, clan or family. Knowing that without them, we would be miserable as well as unable to sustain ourselves. The idea that our purpose in life was our own material well being was uniquely Ero-American. I wonder if capitalism could have emerged in any other culture? Bill Ellis ========== Dear Bill, The roots certainly go deeper. As Brian pointed out, much of it goes right back to the transition from Hunter-Gatherer societies. Daniel Quinn's analysis is very interesting. He claims that the 'agricultural revolution' was not a change in technology, but rather a change in mindset, or what he calls 'vision'. That change is recorded in the Garden of Eden story, in Genesis, and it has to do with the belief that the world was put here for the use of humanity. The people who adopted this belief Quinn calls 'Takers'. Agriculture had been practiced in various forms for a long time, but Takers turned it into 'totalitarian agriculture'. Since the world was 'ours', from the Taker perspective, other species must make way for more food production for humans. Cows may live, but wolves must die. Takers accumulated food surpluses; their population grew; and they expanded aggressively to gain more land for food production. Originally, Takers were just one culture among hundreds of thousands, which had co-existed for hundreds of millennia. But Takers spread and spread and now they are 'us'. But 'we' are not humanity! We are only one aberrant culture. And in that distinction lies hope! From this perspective, capitalism is simply the natural Taker response to the technological advances brought by industrialization. Certainly in the case of Japan, industrialization and capitalism seemed to developed together quite naturally, within the context of Japanese culture. Room for some fruitful discussion here, I think. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:20:36 -0600 From: Teresa Hawkes <•••@••.•••> X-Accept-Language: en To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism This is a very clear, unemotional explication of the development of capitalism. May we reprint this on the Oracular Tree and the ones to follow as a series? Blessings, Teresa Hawkes Publisher The Oracular Tree http://www.oraculartree.com Truth is the Land and Love is the Community ========= certainly, - rkm ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:27:40 -0400 (AST) From: Daniel Haran <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> cc: Jan Slakov <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism Hi Richard, I can't spend lots of time reading right now, but I'm glad you're touching on a definition of capitalism. From my experience here in the publishing sector for academic marxists, I can say for certain that one of the greatest weaknesses on the left is the lack of a cohesive understanding of what capitalism is. The post-moderns generally have a field day with those definitions. Peace- d. ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 06:47:33 -0800 (PST) From: Jessica Markland <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> The birth of capitalism To: •••@••.••• How very timely! A few of us spent last evening developing a working plan for our newly-formed Coalition to End Capitalism, and were debating words such as capitalism, corporate capitalism, corporate capitalist dictatorship, and corporate globalization. We are all members of Canada's NDP party which only just managed to retain its party status in the Federal election last Fall. There seems to be quite a lot of interest in rebuilding the Left in this country which is a hopeful sign, since the middle and right are pretty crowded. We'll keep you posted. ============ Please do! - rkm ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: Francisco Lopez <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites To: •••@••.••• cc: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• Dear Richard, The main cause of capitalism tending to creating monopolistic environments is that the utopian premises of the the Smith's model are just not part of the current real world (the best approximation to this utopia are the financial and commodities markets). Economic disequilibria, such as economies of scale, among others, as well as the relative lack of equal access to perfect information, equal access to resources, equal logistic conditions, geographic distribution, et all, can be exploited by shrewd capitalists to their immediate and short term benefit. Government intervention to reduce these disparities, to the extent of not hampering true economic development, is indicated. There is book by Michael Porter from Harvard, titled 'The Competitive Advantage of Nations.' I suggest it as a reading. Francisco ========== Dear Francisco, I think I agree with your sentiments, but I would frame it differently. I don't think Smith's premises are utopian, but they are certainly not observed in capitalist economies. In some sense, his premises amounted to policy proposals. He argued that if those policies were implemented as market regulations, then an economy would result which was both competitive and beneficial. I think he was right; and I believe his policies are practical and implementable - but they are not compatible with capitalism. Capitalism requires ever-more growth, and Smith's premises prohibit unlimited growth of enterprises. thoughts? rkm ============================================================================ To: •••@••.••• Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:36:54 -0500 Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites From: "T. K. Wilson" <•••@••.•••> Richard, I have to say I'm really getting off on this piece, however I have a few questions as usual; > Whole populations have been intentionally decimated, because their continued existence was considered counter-productive to capitalist development. ... How would this square with Capitalisms reliance on cheap labor? Why counter productive to capitalist development? > In Sub-Saharan Africa, a pattern of wholesale genocide is unfolding... From the point of view of capitalism, people have value only if they contribute to the wealth-accumulation process. And if they have no value they are expendable - subject to being cleared away to make room for development. When you point out these kinds of examples it would help your case if you were able to offer reference to existing or source documentation. > One of the most recent capitalist innovations has been the privatization of national water supplies, implemented by means of conditions attached to IMF loans. ... The net effect of this innovation is to deny water to 'valueless' locals, and make it available to export-oriented agribusiness operators. Once again, in the capitalist equation, populations must perish so that wealth accumulation can continue. What this says to me is that capitalism is fallible since it is so short sighted as to decimate its own potential customers. Why would it do this? Yes, these people are not good consumers now but they could be; and second, sooner or later the existing consumer base will get saturated. This strategy (or is it this explanation?) makes no sense. I don't know. What do you think? ============== Dear TK, As for source documentation, I've included a recommended reading list at the bottom. I'll also copy you on the water-privatization piece which I'm sending to Anup (see below). My first response to your comments, in general, is that one must be careful to keep theory subservient to empirical observations. The fact is that the premier agencies of global capitalism - IMF, WTO, & Word Bank - are carrying out certain policies, and those policies are leading to certain consequences. The consequences were predicable in the first place, and they have recurred over and over again in different places. If this is inconsistent with a theory about 'cheap labor' and 'potential customers', then the theory deserves to be re-examined. Chossudovsky's "The Globalization of Poverty" is a must-read on this topic. From a theoretical point of view, you need to look at the overall equation of capitalist gain. In a given situation, the land people inhabit might be considered more valuable than the potential value of people themselves. That was true in the case of Native Americans, and it is true today in Guatemala, where some still-remaining Native Americans live where capitalists seek to open up mining. Potential workers and customers are one component of the equation, but there are many others. In a world of over-population and dwindling resources, a natural question, from the point of view of capitalism is: "How can we squeeze the most profits out of the remaining resources?" One obvious answer, and one which seems to be unfolding, is: "Sell the resources to the wealthy North, and let the South starve." yours, rkm ============================================================================ To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:31:11 -0800 Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites From: •••@••.••• Dear Richard, I want to thank you for writing this and making it available to us. Keep up your good work. One of the things I wanted to note is that Americans, both prior to and after World War I and II were in dire financial straights and did not want to go back to the poverty they were enduring, particularly after the Great Depression. The book, 'The Great Boom' by historian Robert Sobel details how we structured our business and economic affairs to ensure that we would never be poor again. Once the leaders of that time found out that war was profitable, while not actually starting wars, the U.S. willingly entered into them using propaganda to lure the American people into feeling our participation was 'justified.' If one is to read the books, 'The Money Men' by Jeffrey Birnbaum; 'Rule by Secrecy' by Jim Marrs, and 'Blowback' by Chalmers Johnson, along with 'The Great Boom' there is a trail of names and events woven through all of them that clearly outline who the Bilderberg is, how they came into being and how they operate today. Coupled with the 'Dragon Syndicates' or the Triads of China, the mafia families of the world and the drug and oil cartels, one can see where the power is concentrated and how it is enforced thru the CIA and military industrial complex of the U.S. and spread worldwide through international trade by the multinationals. marguerite Marguerite Hampton Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute •••@••.••• http://tii-kokopellispirit.org ==================== Are you suggesting there are conspiracies going on?? I'm sure, if there were, we'd learn about it on 60 Minutes. Don't you believe in our free and objective press? (:>) rkm ============================================================================ From: "John Pozzi" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••>, <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:43:40 -0500 Dear Richard, Thank you for your history of capitalism. I concur with your view of Adam Smith's model of a market economy but not with your selection of the central principal of the Industrial Revolution. The central principal is the theme of Smith's 1776 Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations which is: it is not nature but humans that make basic commodities. And it is the creation of capital based on mortgaging this illusion that has paved the way for the current economic system of poverty and pollution. John Pozzi http://www.grb.net ================== Dear John, Can you give us some citations supporting this claim? Also, even if he articulated that concept, and even if he was the first to do so - would our current economic system have resulted if his 'conditions for a market economy' were followed? curious, rkm ============================================================================ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 07:12:39 -0500 To: •••@••.••• From: •••@••.••• (Forrest Lunn) Subject: re: "A unique opportunity..." Richard: This is very good stuff -- and very illuminating. I'm especially impressed by how you've taken the trouble to write in a clear, straightforward way. Anyone could understand this, including people -- armed with patience and a dictionary -- who have very little English. Good luck. Forrest =========== Forrest - thanks for the kind words! - rkm ============================================================================ changecourse Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:41:42 +0100 From: "Keith Gonzalez" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> how about a compromise? dear Mr. Richard K. Moore, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your articles on economic theory. I, too have been looking for ways to find a viable solution and empowering the public at the verge of dominating and non-representative globalization. I am sending you a presentation I gave to my CEO. Surprisingly, he agreed with many of the concepts, but stated that he needed time to look over the presentation again to see any major loopholes. After reading the first chapter of Natural Capitalism, and finding out that the ecosystems give off about 36 trillion dollars (energy units) per year, we might have a real chance to keep our individuality while still moving forward in a capitalistic direction. I like to call it Social Capitalism. It is a theory where everyone wins. Please examine the presentation and the complimentary web site at: http://126.96.36.199/new/website/ In the model that I have conceived (with help from John Pozzi's model of his GRB), I found a way to empower the people by putting a price on their personal marketing information, establishing a basic income for each individual, replenishing the earth, and giving the huge corporations a chance to reach 5 billion new consumers without the need for genocide. Most sincerely, Keith Gonzalez ============== Dear Keith, I admire your search for win-win solutions. Unfortunately, our elite regime is looking only among win-lose solutions, and is seeking to maximize the win side for themselves. Their success breeds arrogance, and I don't believe you'll find any elite ears willing to consider you proposals seriously. Any shift in course will require considerable political struggle, and I suggest that bending our goals in the direction of compromise diminishes the outcome for all of us without making our job any easier. Certainly we seek a win-win outcome - if we save the planet _everyone is better off. best regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Christopher Cogswell" <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: RE: rkm> Globalization: a unique opportunity for humanity to changecourse Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 7:28:12 -0800 Richard, I just want to say how happy I am that you are doing what you are doing. Your writing is making the biggest difference to my understanding of the world, and of reality itself! Gratefully, Christopher Cogswell ==================== Dear Christopher, Your words resonate with those of Forrest, above. I'm really glad to get this kind of feedback because my objective _is to make things 'perfectly clear' to anyone and everyone. I don't write for academics, and you wouldn't believe the cold reception I get on academic lists! I think they have a professional allergy to clarity and directness. They seem to live in a world of obscure discussion threads among published authorities. As they practice it, the 'scientific method' has been transmuted into the skill of quoting from these threads. Direct engagement of issues, approached pragmatically, leaves them at sea without a paddle. Science and Academia have become like the Pope that refused to look through the telescope, because 'We know the Earth is the center of the universe'. Galileo turns in his grave. cheers, rkm ============================================================================ From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> Globalization: a unique opportunity for humanity to changecourse Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:44:13 -0000 Hear, hear! John http://www.simpol.org ===================== Dear John, It's a pleasure to have you as a subscriber. Notice what a different response occurs here as compared to simpol. I hesitate to continue this series over there given the lack of response and the already heavy traffic. One must go with the flow, and each flow has its own special character. cheers, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Sargent, Gary B" <•••@••.•••> To: "'•••@••.•••'" <•••@••.•••> Cc: "'SARG22'" <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:42:44 -0800 Richard, Good summarization. Definitely parallels my thinking to date. One line of thought you might also pursue is the role of strategy in all this, or more particularly the emphasis of the premier importance of developing a strategy and acting on it. My thinking to date on strategy and it's amoral application: Those "in control" or the "elites" are there due to their constant work, and reiterative re-work on strategizing. "They" are very sensitive to threats. If there is a threat to the current "controllers/elites" agenda (which = protection of the "right" to endless growth and access to infinite profit), they come up with a valid means of countering that threat. If the opposition isn't intelligent enough to strategize and realize a counter to their counter, then until such a time that the opposition comes up to speed, the "control" counter remains operative. In this game, there are no rules of proper or improper, or any limits to growth and control (I think the word freedom is applicable here). There is only the gamemanship of the players that is there to monitor and compensate for any "over indulgences" on the part of any one player or set of players. And BTW, by dint of each of us inhabiting a body, we all have equal access to the game, and in some remotely sensed, conscience based manner are responsible for the maintenance of it as an asset for the betterment of the greater good. My $.02 on a bottom line. Get good at the game of strategy and strategy realization. "They" are very good at cold bloodily playing the game, and as can be seen by the "Right Wing Fundamentalist Agenda" working over Washington today, "they" are effectively realizing their agenda. Any well analyzed opinion that carries the slightest hint of emotional rhetoric -- bitching and moaning -- ain't a gonna' turn things around. A well formulated strategy based on deep analysis and understanding sourcing a realistic realization pathway is closer to what is needed. So, Richard, ya got any strategic initiatives that you're formulating on how to do this next step in this endless game of iterative re-evolution, or let's get real, evolution plain and simple? Cuz there is a HUGE need for "us" to come up to speed and then make the jump to the next level in order to strategize the rest of our brothers and sisters (which BTW includes "them", cuz my bet is that in the final analysis "them (assholes and ??imbeciles?? all)" is "us"......you know, Bodhisattva vow gibberish..[:-))]....) over the gap and into the next phase of life on our ever evolving involving world. Gary Sargent ============= Dear Gary, A very good statement! You've got your creative juices flowing and you're getting down to practical brass tacks. My own idea of strategy is to unleash everyone's creativity by getting together and talking about strategy, and about goals. Let's stop focusing 'on the next big demonstration', and start thinking long term. And let's get beyond our sub-movement cliques and start building a broader-based, more unified movement. When it comes to creativity, and strategizing, we the people have a considerable advantage over the regime. Theirs is the Microsoft approach, while ours is more like the Open Software Movement. They have thousands of high-paid strategists, and lots of resources, but their thinking is narrowed through a centralized channel. We can work on problems in our millions, in thousands of places in parallel, and the best solutions can be passed around, shared, refined, and synergized with others. We can outperform their expensive CPU approach with our massively-parallel distributed processes, and thinking like yours is the way to get the process going - keep those fires burning. I agree that 'them' is really 'us', at the deepest level. We are all Takers - descendents of the culture that left the Garden of Eden 10,000 years ago and set out to assert dominion over the world. But at a practical and strategic level, we must also recognize a big difference between the elite 'them', who control the reins of global hierarchy, and 'us' at the bottom. Yes we share responsibility for getting here, but we are now waking up to the suicidal nature of the Taker vision. Those at the top are blinded to their suicidal course; they've convinced themselves that their Titanic is unsinkable. We're going to have to pull them kicking and screaming into a better vision, for their own sake as well as our own. regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Anup Shah" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> The rise of capitalist elites Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:00:09 -0500 This is great stuff... as usual :) By the way, about the water privatization in sub-Saharan Africa, that you mention, I have read similar things, and with Latin America (I think Bolivia is the example that sticks out the most.) However, do you have any links on the web to the privatization of water in the African continent. I would like to add such things to places on my web site. Regards, Anup Shah http://www.globalissues.org =========================== Dear Anup, I'm really glad to see you here. Your globalissues site is very well done indeed, and I'm glad we're 'networking' in this way. The source for my comments on water privatization was sent in by a frequent contributor, Nurev Ind Research, but I haven't had a chance to post it yet. I'm sending it to you by separate post. rkm ============================================================================ From: "Anup Shah" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rkm> Globalization: a unique opportunity for humanity to change course Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:09:26 -0500 Good stuff again! In a way, it a shame to see how globalization problems are now of more interest in the west, because the problems also now affect the western middle and lower "classes". I guess one can't really expect it to be any different. J.W. Smith also pointed out how in the French (and other) Revolution, it only started to take hold once the poor could be taxed no more, and the affluent had to be taxed as well. Only then was there momentum for the revolution. In a sort of similar way, AIDS is now on the radar screen of western countries because it is a disease that can still threaten western populations. Other global killers like TB, Malaria etc combined kill more people than AIDS does, but gets next to no coverage -- because it's not a threat to "us" and therefore the pharmaceutical companies don't have to spend money on its treatment (besides, to them, while there is a large "market" for their products, that "market" cannot afford the treatment)... Sickening.... As I think you hint though, the glimmer of hope is that while there is a globalization of capital, there is also a globalization of people's thoughts and dissent, albeit slow. I don't think in earlier years, such transnational solidarity was as easily possible. The only fear is that "Northern" interests/agendas don't overrun "Southern" interests/agendas, but work in harmony... Keep it up; your articles are great. Regards, Anup Shah ========== Unfortunately, advantage breeds rationalization, and propaganda has been very effective. While the South has been roasting in the flames of imperialism, the North has been warming slowly like the proverbial frog. Let's just hope the frog wakes up before the whole house burns down. yours, rkm ============================================================================ References: "Guidebook", Part I, rkm, http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/. A more detailed examination of the same issues the series was about. Daniel Quinn, The Story of B, Bantom Books, New York, 1996. Can you read this book without becoming B?? Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel, WW Norton & Co, New York, 1997. A masterful instant classic. Remarkably parallel to The Story of B, with all the historical details, extremely cogent reasoning, and at the same time very readable. Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty - Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms, The Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia, 1997. This detailed study by an economics insider shows the consequences of "reforms" in various parts of the world, revealing a clear pattern of callous neo-colonialism and genocide. Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset, World Hunger, Twelve Myths, Grove Press, New York, 1986. Debunks simplistic Malthusian thinking, among other things. Here's a sample: "During the past twenty-five years food production has outstripped population growth by 16 Percent. India--which for many of us symbolizes over-population and poverty--is one of the top third-world food exporters. If a mere 5.6 percent of India's food production were re-allocated, hunger would be wiped out in India." Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds., The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward The Local, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1996. This fine collection of forty-three chapters by knowledgeable contributors analyzes the broad structure of globalization and its institutions, and explores locally based and sustainable economic alternatives. An excellent introduction, textbook, and reference work. Third World Resurgence, a magazine published monthly by the Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia, http://www.twnside.org.sg. This magazine deserves widespread circulation. It covers a wide range of global issues, presents a strong and sensible third-world perspective, and is a very good source of real-world news. Martin Kohr is managing editor and a frequent contributor. The New Internationalist, a magazine published monthly by New Internationalist Publications, Ltd, Oxford, UK, http://www.newint.org. Another good source of real news and commentary, with a global perspective. Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, HarperCollins, New York, 1989. "Zinn has written a brilliant and moving history of the American people from the point of view of those who have been exploited politically and economically and whose plight has been largely omitted from most histories." - Library Journal. -- ============================================================================ Richard K Moore Wexford, Ireland Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance email: •••@••.••• URL: http://cyberjournal.org A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. - Frantz Fanon "One cannot separate economics, political science, and history. Politics is the control of the economy. History, when accurately and fully recorded, is that story. In most textbooks and classrooms, not only are these three fields of study separated, but they are further compartmentalized into separate subfields, obscuring the close interconnections between them" -- J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 22. Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, and notices - including this one. ============================================================================ .