Capitalism ≠ Democracy

Capitalism does not equal democracy. In fact, in many respects, an under-regulated/deregulated/unregulated capitalism is anti-democratic. In a capitalistic society, where monied interests have privilege and special influence over government, democracy is threatened, because the pre-requisite for full access to political participation is money. Under capitalism, money is the object of worship - instead of democracy, where participation in decision-making by people is the ideal. So, capitalism does not equal democracy. Nor does the practice of free-market capitalism constitute freedom. True freedom necessitates freedom for all. In a capitalism that is practiced without adherence to humanistic moral principles (where, for example, great powers are driven to war with each other for profit,) there is no freedom. There is only slavery. Even the rich are enslaved to the financial bottom-line, enslaved by want for money, and enslaved also by fear of losing money. In a society where capitalistic is under-regulated, the interests of profit are put before the interests of people. People are hurt, sacrificed, and more-or-less enslaved to serve the interests of capital.

Instead of this, I think it would be better where people work to serve the interests of themselves, of humanity, and of all life. Toward a life-serving society, Berd

Public Opinion Matters

In regard to the City of Olympia General Government Committee's decision to recommend repealing the Nuclear Free Zone Act:

Here's some of the text of a comment I just left at my City Council Member, Rhenda Iris Strub's blog:

You’re right. America is not a Democracy. It is a Republic. - However it is a democratic Republic. The opinion of the people matters. Public opinion is integral to the formation of the laws of government, and the ethics of society. No getting around that.

The opinion of the public matters. So, we must then ask, is the public opinion reasonable? Does it make sense? The argument in favor of the ordinance is a winning argument. What is the argument against the ordinance? It’s not strong enough? It is impractical? It’s ineffective.

Which leads me to my third point: The ordinance is effective. It is effective for me. It makes me feel good. I am proud of my City and my Community because of this, and similar, ordinance.

So, please. Don’t take it away. I hope the other City Council Members read this too, because the same applies to them.

Public opinion matters. The opinion of the public in favor of the ordinance (and in favor of strengthening it) is reasonable - it makes sense. And the ordinance IS effective.

Sincerely,

Bert

Here's a link to the post: Disrespectful and Duplicitous [url: http://rhenda.com/?p=30]

And a direct link to my comment: Defending the Nuclear Free Zone [url: http://rhenda.com/?p=30#comment-25]

Medea Benjamin at the Green Festival (pt. 1)

This is part one of a multi part series of videos of a speech by Medea Benjamin at the Green Festival. Ms. Benjamin uses the example of Port Militarization Resistance when she mentions the promise of citizen action and civil resistance to stop members of the government from perpetrating acts of aggression. She also discusses the intricate connections between the anti-war and environmental movements.



Here are links to three adjoining videos (of the rest of her speech):

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

The American Empire and "Blowback"

I love America: the diversity of people and ideas, the geography, the natural beauty, the opportunity, among many other aspects, make this a great place to live; and a great place to fight for the future of - a better future without the threat of global economic hegemonists barking for more bloodletting. I love America, but not Empire. I have a vision for a future America that is free of imperial pursuits. That's why I am posting this:

Chalmers Johnson
Empire v. Democracy
...
I had set out to explain how exactly our government came to be so hated around the world. As a CIA term of tradecraft, "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to, and in, foreign countries. It refers specifically to retaliation for illegal operations carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. These operations have included the clandestine overthrow of governments various administrations did not like, the training of foreign militaries in the techniques of state terrorism, the rigging of elections in foreign countries, interference with the economic viability of countries that seemed to threaten the interests of influential American corporations, as well as the torture or assassination of selected foreigners. The fact that these actions were, at least originally, secret meant that when retaliation does come -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 -- the American public is incapable of putting the events in context. Not surprisingly, then, Americans tend to support speedy acts of revenge intended to punish the actual, or alleged, perpetrators. These moments of lashing out, of course, only prepare the ground for yet another cycle of blowback.
...

go to original