There is an Alternative to Capitalism

this is only temporary said:
This is capitalism. Not an alternative to capitalism. People raising funds to start businesses is pretty much... capitalism. Like what venture capitalists do but on a much smaller scale.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Not everything i've posted here is outside of the capitalist model

The situation that has occured as a result of the approach called 'neoliberalism' is that the government has deregulated the financial sector, privatised and bolstered protections for big business

What this has seen is a shift away from a form of capitalism that created wealth by producing things towards a form of capitalism where people invested not in new technologies and factories but instead in financial instruments such as derivatives which basically hide toxic assets which are then traded around spreading like a cnacer in the system

For example in my country we have outsourced our manufacturing abroad and instead grew the financial sector which is now 20% of our economy. The problem with this is that the banks don't produce anything, they only charge interest on loans

This model of capitalism is built purely on competition and fails to take into account the other dynamic force in human society which is cooperation. This means that large sections of society are being cut adrift whilst the super rich pursue short term gains in financial instruments. The current system of capitalism as employed in the west needs to strike a better balance between competition and cooperation if it is to function in a better way.

I say in a 'better way' because i still see it as unsustainable, and although i believe that reformism is destined to fail as well i still think it is better than continuing on the raod we are going, which is why i posted alternatives to the current model of capitalism
 
A comedian in Italy has started a political movement called the five star movement

http://www.movimentocinquestelle.it/

Below is some info from wikipedia and a clip of him speaking:

The Five Star Movement (Movimento 5 Stelle, M5S) is an a political party in Italy launched by Beppe Grillo, a popular activist, comedian and blogger, and Gianroberto Casaleggio on 4 October 2009.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] The party is populist,[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] ecologist,[SUP][10][/SUP] and partially Eurosceptic.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] It also advocates direct democracy[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP] and free access to the Internet,[SUP][15][/SUP] and condemns corruption. The M5S's programme also contains elements of right-wing populism and American-style libertarianism.[SUP][16][/SUP] Party members stress that the M5S is not a party but a "movement". The "five stars" are a reference to five key issues: public water, sustainable transport, development, connectivity, and environmentalism.

[video=youtube;0dEemZ2pVyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dEemZ2pVyo&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
International Organisation for a Participatory Society (IOPS): http://www.iopsociety.org/

''The interim International Organization for a Participatory Society (IOPS) was launched in 2012 with the aim of winning a better world.

IOPS is, currently, in an interim stage, leading up to a founding convention when the membership will determine the organization's definition in more detail.
Please watch our introductory video, scroll through our slideshow and learn more About ''
 
INTEREST.webp

Hey [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] I just did a super scientific study on this thread, and here are the results.
:nerd:
 
Alternative social media site to facebook called faceleft. created by the ZNet network:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet

Hello,

As you may know from prior announcements, ZCommunications has developed software for progressive social networking. It provides Facebook-like - and very soon Twitter-like and potentially much more functionality - with no commercial or coercive drawbacks. No spying. No ads. No selling user profiles. No limits on length of communications. Instead, substance and mutual aid. It would be natural to conclude that our idea is to provide a system hosted by Z - which we call ZSocial - for everyone. Instead, our goal is far more encompassing, cooperative, and ambitious.

We want to give other organizations their own sites, hosted by them under their own logos, with all the sites linked together to constitute what we call, "FaceLeft."

Indeed, our first "co-host" has already signed on and we are now creating UTNESocial, to serve the U.S.-based periodical, Utne Reader, operating the same way as ZSocial. In time we hope there will also be - along with Utne and Z - DemocracyNowSocial (U.S.), RedPepperSocial (UK), IlManifestoSocial (Italy), AporiaSocial (Venezuela), LeMondeDiplomatiqueSocial (France/International), and many more.

Additionally, we hope there will also be organizational hosts, such as GreenpeaceSocial (International), SyrizaSocial (Greece), PSUVSocial (Venezuela), AFLCIOSocial (U.S.), and many more.

Extrapolating across the progressive media world, and then also across the progressive activist world, reveals the potential for FaceLeft.


Of course many progressive people already use Facebook and Twitter to catch up with old friends or family as well as to use these commercial systems for progressive uses with political friends. Along with the undeniable benefits of those pursuits, however, such users - and perhaps yourself, as well - are often worried at Facebook's and Twitter's corporate motives and priorities. The most recent news is that Facebook is developing tools to see where all its mobile members are literally all the time, whether they are logged in or not - quite an amazing notion when considered commercially for earmarked ads or repressively, for spying.

So we wondered, why not escape those dynamics, at least for the social change part of our online socializing - and why not do that not just to serve Z's audience, but to serve the whole progressive world? Indeed, why not develop progressive social networking without commercial and coercive negatives, and large enough to materially and socially benefit the entire world of progressive communications, activist organizations, and individual progressive users? And why not do it in a way that precludes hassle and fosters mutual aid?


How would FaceLeft work? And why and how would FaceLeft attract hosts and then their constituencies?


  • Each hosted system within the larger FaceLeft framework will directly serve the audience of its host, like ZSocial is for Z's audience and, soon, UTNESocial is for Utne Reader's audience. However, each hosted system will be maintained as part of the overall whole, by a FaceLeft staff.
  • Any individual user who joins any hosted system of FaceLeft will be simultaneously joining FaceLeft as a whole by way of its preferred host, such as Z, Utne Reader, etc.
  • Every hosted system will have all the features that any other hosted system has because they will all use the same architecture. Improvements will accrue to every system simultaneously with each new innovation that is put online to meet users needs and fulfill their requests. Users of any hosted system will be able to easily find contacts, groups to join, events to relate to, media to follow, and commons areas to frequent - all with public and private posting options - as well as flows of commentary to follow, polls to take, and a lot more. And they will be able to do that across all the component systems (or, if a user prefers, from within just their own chosen system). FaceLeft will be large, but also, at the flick of a toggle, intimate.
  • All the media providers and activist organizations that host their own component system will pay nothing to receive it. They will have no responsibilities for maintaining it. They can help with maintenance if they want, but since such organizations are busy - and it may not be their cup of tea - a FaceLeft staff will be ready to do it all.
  • Hosts of each component system will attract their own constituency to join their system. But they will also automatically reach out with their content, as they desire, to the whole universe of FaceLeft users.
  • Each user will pay $3, in the current conception, to whatever hosted system he or she signs up with.

How will we get even users who have means to afford the payment to realize that a $3 fee is incredibly low and reasonable, and is much less of an overall "cost" than giving over your personal profile for commercial exploitation? And how will we we serve those who would be unable to afford the fee?

User response will depend on users wanting to avoid ads and escape profile selling and spying. It will particularly depend, as well, on users wanting the material benefits that accrue from their progressive networking to stay within the progressive community rather than benefitting external corporations. And it will depend on users realizing that a social networking system oriented to activist and mutual aide needs, will, given time, develop facilities far more useful to their endeavors than a system that prioritizes seeking profit.


Imagine that for any of the above reasons Nikos joins SyrizaSocial (supposing that particular component comes into existence). Nikos pays $3 a month - or perhaps more, should he wish to donate beyond the minimum fee. The first third goes straight to Syriza. The second third goes to Faceleft for maintaining the whole operation, constantly innovating it, etc. The last third (in the current conception) goes into a pool that is distributed at the end of each month, with shares going to each participating host organization in a progressive way that benefits the smaller ones more than the larger ones.

With this approach, imagine that the U.S.-based AFLCIO joins and elicits participation from a significant subset of its relatively massive membership. Not only does the AFL-CIO and FaceLeft benefit, but this would also yield a big influx to the shared pool and every host would benefit from that. Ditto for the PSUV joining. These shared funds will hopefully help facilitate local hosts being able to subsidize participation by audiences that could otherwise not afford the fee.

The technology for all this is within reach. We can, and indeed we already are, using an early incarnation of it, and the current facilities, which are already quite good, can only get much better.


Faceleft as a whole, would be, then, a universe of users organized into component systems hosted by various organizations. Appealingly, unlike the usual situation with political alliances, the host organizations would have nothing to dispute about with each other.

For example, suppose a user somewhere in the system has an idea for an innovation. If it isn't controversial and isn't too hard, the FaceLeft staff just does it and everyone benefits. If it is somehow controversial, or hard, it goes into a list that the universe of FaceLeft users and hosts vote on. That way everyone sees what users and hosts want, and programmers pursue innovations in light of the preponderance of preferences. Growth of any part of the whole, and of the whole, benefits everyone.


Could FaceLeft take root and grow?

Suppose we initially have Z, Utne, and then also, say, Democracy Now (U.S.), Red Pepper (British), Il Manifesto (Italian), Le Monde Diplomatique (French), Aporea (Venezuelan), and Babylonia (Greek), as media hosts (or some other set). Then, with a good selection of initial media organizations aboard, let's say we start advocating for participation much more widely with other progressive media groups of all sizes and focus. Once the vision gains some legs, why would a media group prefer that their users continue to exclusively use the largest spying agency in the world, a giant corporation, Facebook, without any material or organizational benefit accruing to progressive institutions? Why would they not want to team up with other progressive outfits, all over the world, in a shared effort that benefits everyone involved, materially, politically, and socially, even though there is no cost, no risk, and no reason for dispute or hassle?

Simultaneously, we begin communicating about Faceleft with a few activist organizations - feminist, ecological, labor, immigration, peace, or other groups around the world - and then, having involved enough of them to make the case for viability and significance, we branch out more widely on that side, as well. The same dynamic as with media organizations ensues. Once we get a few serious activist groups on board, would an activist or otherwise progressive organization who is invited thereafter say, no, I don't want to help provide a real, viable, worthy, alternative to giant corporations who are stealing our profiles and implicitly and sometimes even explicitly defining the range of our communications? I don't want to be part of a project that materially and socially benefits progressive organizations rather than giant multinationals - especially when participating yields revenues for my organization and involves no additional work for our overstretched staff?


Okay, now imagine FaceLeft has a growing array of hosts. Ten, twenty, forty, or more. Will its user membership grow? Will the constituencies of these host media outfits and activist organizations sign up as users sufficiently for the revenues they contribute to finance steadily adding tools and features to aide all members? Will the evolving scale and features warrant people making this social networking community the hub of activist and progressive social networking?

It seems to us quite a few folks would, once FaceLeft is growing, join its ranks instead of joining Facebook and Twitter, and that vastly more would do so to augment those commercial operations, still using Facebook and Twitter to engage with wholly non political audiences, family, and friends, but using FaceLeft for more social and political purposes.


The hardest step of succeeding may be getting the first few host organizations on board. And that is why we are now writing up the full FaceLeft idea for the Z audience. Anyone who wishes to get on board and help in the early stages can certainly join ZSocial (or, soon, UTNESocial) and urge others to do so as well. But many of you are also in other constituencies, and in addition to directly joining ZSocial or UtneSocial, or getting others to do so, you could suggest hosting a FaceLeft component site to various other potential host organizations. At first, these need to be rather large - else the costs of setting up systems would exceed our means. But once a bunch of large organizations are aboard and their constituencies are signing up, reaching out more widely will be possible.

Here is the punchline. FaceLeft is a way for alternative media and activist organizations to cooperatively host a collective effort that provides a great service, generates massive connectivity and mutual aid, and advances the financial prospects of all alternative media and activist organizations.

We hope you will agree with us about the potential of FaceLeft to benefit social change as well as serve all its participants, and that you will, in light of that, support FaceLeft.

We hope as part of the Z constituency you will join ZSocial and that you will urge people you know in other constituencies to take a chance on advocating for a widely shared international mechanism for left media and activist institutions of diverse kinds to work cooperatively to each other's collective benefit.
 
Apone said:
View attachment 17792

Hey @muir I just did a super scientific study on this thread, and here are the results.
:nerd:
Click to expand...

Your survey is flawed as this thread has to date had almost 8,000 hits making it one of the most successful threads on the forum

It wasn't set up by me (created by lerxst) but i think i could quite reasonably claim to be one of the major contributors to it (if you wanna bring me into it) and I was the second person to post after the op which means those hits have racked up since i've been contributing :)
 
Last edited:
muir said:
Your survey is flawed as this thread has to date had almost 8,000 hits making it one of the most successful threads on the forum

It wasn't set up by me (created by lerxst) but i think i could quite reasonably claim to be one of the major contributors to it (if you wanna bring me into it)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, 5,567 of those hits are you.
But hey, you know I'm just kidding, right?
 
Apone said:
Unfortunately, 5,567 of those hits are you.
But hey, you know I'm just kidding, right?
Click to expand...

Sure as my hits won't be much more than the number of posts i've made which is a handful of those nearly 8000 hits this thread has had lol

That's a lot of readership!

People sure do seem increasingly interested in alternatives (which if you go back into my old posts from before you came here you'll see i predicted)

:)
 
Woody Harrelson explaining the problem with the system today:

[video=youtube;bxI1skgga1U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxI1skgga1U&feature=player_embedded#![/video]
 
Apone said:
This blew my mind:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/student-took-eminent-economists-debt-issue-won-095347790--business.html

Republican economic policy and the budget cuts forced forward when the House stalled Obama's tax plan this year are based on an ERROR that has now been corrected by a graduate student.

I keep going over it in my head, and it's still impossible to believe.
Click to expand...

Here's another perspective that might make it believable: the government are lying to you and lie all the time
 
would anyone care to comment on
Monetary circuit theory


“SupremePower” of government: the power to create and control the money of the land. Currently, this power is being usurped by the private financial system. So far, that financial system has created almost the entire stock of money that circulates in our economy—around $50 trillion.In contrast,
the Fed, since 1913, has created only about $1 trillion in paper money, of which less than half circulates within the U.S
Click to expand...
http://www.reidenver.org/
 
Last edited:
Stu said:
would anyone care to comment on
Monetary circuit theory



http://www.reidenver.org/
Click to expand...

This is the stuff ive been talking about here for years....you know the stuff some have called me a 'conspiracy theorist' for....central bankers dominating the money supply and the need for the government to take back the control of the money supply

I could give you 57 reasons why it would be a good idea
 
muir said:
I could give you 57 reasons why it would be a good idea
Click to expand...

given my antipathy for wading through verbose threads, could you take a moment and quote the pertinent posts?
 
Stu said:
given my antipathy for wading through verbose threads, could you take a moment and quote the pertinent posts?
Click to expand...

ooooeeewww 'verbose' huh?

And there was me thinking i was packing some good info into those posts and really all i was doing was filling up the airwaves with words!

do you remember that link i posted to the documentary 'the money masters'? That's a good place to start. The author Bill Still is a journalist who argues the case strongly that the US treasury should take back the control of the money supply from the privately owned fed

He cautions against the return to a gold standard as advocated by some such as Ron Paul

Still reckons that as long as a currency is managed well it won't create boom and busts

Before making his case he explains the history of banking and how the central bankers took control of the money supply. Its fascinating stuff. he has a website as well and is involved in politics; a smart guy (and quite possibly an INFJ!)

He made the film in 1996 yet he predicts the 2008 crisis! He has a newer film as well; the link is below

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/

newer film: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-secret-of-oz/

I hope that wasn't too wordy for you sir!

;)
 
Great book explaining the problems capitalism is facing at the moment:

''Big Oil & their bankers in the Persian Gulf'', by Dean Henderson, ''pulls back the covers to expose a centuries old cabal of global oligarchs whose control over the global economy is based on hegemony over the planet's three most valuable commodities: oil, guns and drugs- combined with ownership of the world's central banks''
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top