In response to comments by John MacDougall to date (3/31/12):
In general, all of your comments are good. I encourage others to read your comments and the books you mention. Some of these points have been address in the latest revision of my essay (such as your concept of a "war system", the destabilizing effects of speculation and links to the earth charter and universal declaration of human rights). If I have not address your points on equal coverage for campaigns and campaign spending limits, I urge others to read these points in your comments. Although I cannot address all of your points in detail, there are a couple I would like to address specifically here.
Regarding your points about "tension" between Green parties and Democratic Socialism, such as over local versus national organizing, and addressing "democratic socialism" without the word "green", I want to say the following:
Any tension between environmentalists and socialists is artificial. Where it may exist, it would be out of a limited perspective or the egos of specific organizers on all sides. There is no fundamental ideological incompatibility. While there are different flavors of environmentalism, socialism and true democracy, there is no reason why someone cannot be an advocate of all three, and there is a lot of overlap. For example, socialists often advocate that local companies pay for the cleanup of the environmental messes they created, perhaps for the interests of the poor human communities affected, if not also for our other species. Environmentalists often advocate against the privitization of water resources, perhaps in the interest of environmentally responsible management of those resources, if not also for the affordability of water or the loss of social control over them. What I mean by the difference between "democratic socialism" and "socialism" without the word "democratic" has little to do with specific European traditions. It is merely that not all socialists advocate for complete democratic control, from the beginning, preferring a "temporary" elite leadership. I add the word "democratic" to indicate that full democratic control of a socialist state should and can be present from the beginning. What I mean by socialism is that at least corporations are not in charge and that basic social human needs such as education and health care are met as a society. Most environmentalists are against corporate control in one area or another, any many who do not consider themselves socialists are advocating for a (U.S.) constitutional amendment saying that corporations should not have the same rights as people, as the constitution has often been interpreted in the courts. This amendment would go a long way if it could be enforced, although I don't think it could be enforced as long as corporations employ so many people and most of those employees have no control over those corporations. Only taking back democratic social control of the means of production can solve corporate power over society.
Regarding the evolution of money, toxic assets and simple versus compound interest: By toxic assets, I take it you mean investments that are "hot potatoes". This would not be an issue if there was true democratic social control of most of economic enterprises. "Investment" would be a matter of social spending on actual goods and services for use, not speculation. The same would be true of the issue of compound versus simple interest. True democratic social control of most economic enterprises would change everything about the lending of money. If it will even be necessary, loans could be given interest free.
Regarding your points about religion and spirit: I will defer here to those of like mind (re social, environmental, democratic and humanist issues) who may have greater knowledge of religious and spiritual traditions than myself. Your comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Michael Rainbow
