From:   rob hollander <>
Sent time:   Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:41:58 PM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: OWS: Yes, we are anti-capitalist!

I like Andy's tiger. You remove the tiger's teeth -- and be very careful not to forget to declaw him too -- but let him keep his legs under your harness and his hunger.

Which leads to the anti-hunger Malthusianism that the green movement has managed to legitimize. I don't see that Malthusianism is any more true now than it was when it first appeared. I would not underestimate the ingenuity of human invention, if only it were cultivated with quality education accessible to all, instead of for just the few, and turned to human problems, rather than to corporate interests. There is the place for big government where capital falls short, and that's a notion older than socialism, it's the social contract. It's also called democracy -- making your gov't work for everyone.

The answer to rapacious capitalism has got to be democracy. That's what OWS seems to be at bottom all about. We've got a plutocracy of thieves, it doesn't work for us, we've had enough of it; we want our government back.

I do agree with snafu that capitalism is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. But what happens when you call out a Ponzi scheme? Everyone is left destitute.

I like the commons notion. There's something Georgist in it -- pool the social resources including all land. Georgism doesn't cure capitalism, but it wouldn't hurt.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Lauren <> wrote:
What alternative has even been allowed to run unimpeded?

Socialism? Social-capitalism is merely a stopgap to make the european
and latin american working class shut up.

Communism? Communism in Russia died in 1921. Maoism is confucianism
with a coat of red paint.

Anarchism? Yes, I guess being beaten by the combined might of Hitler,
Stalin, Mussolini and Franco, despite there being a war between each
other, could count as an objective measurement of failure, assuming
that your ethical standards are those of a jackbooted thug.

Where is the success of capitalism in Africa? Why do we keep being
reminded about the kulaks, but never about the millions who died
during the rubber boom, never about the millions who died during the
dust bowl, never about the millions who died because of Britain's
laissez-mourir approach to famines in India, Ireland, Africa?

Capitalist wealth is the wealth of empire. It's the illusion brought
about by concentration, by homogenization of societies that used to be
heterogenous even there; wealthy countries with wealthy regions with
wealthy cities with wealthy neighborhoods. Hey, some of the country
doesn't have electricity and running water? It's okay, we have
billionaires in the capital who are really enjoying the success of


Rob Hollander
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
622 E 11, #10
NYC, 10009