Welcome to Robert Warden's Box-Free Blog: the Psychology of a New World View

A Natural Lefty's 100% Organically Grown Brain Candy -- Here is Psychology in all of its ramifications for Philosophy, Spirituality and all of Science. This is the website that is not only outside the box, there are no boxes.

My name is Robert Warden, and I am a Psychologist with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of California, Riverside. I currently teach at a local community college. These posts are mostly in the form of progressive series of short essays built around common themes. I also have updates and commentaries about things which are going on in my life or Eunice's (my wife's) life.

Most of these posts are also put on The Thom Hartmann Bloggers Group on Facebook, and the Thom Hartmann Community Blog on Thom Hartmann's site. You can leave messages and comments in either of those places.

January 22

A Capital Idea Part 104: The Sky is the Limit

When it comes to capital, I have noticed that there is a dichotomy which money fails to take into account. Specifically, natural resources are limited for us, to what we have on earth. So is the amount of space available to us humans on this planet, our ecosystem, and the health of the planet upon which we all depend. In spite of this, money is treated as limitless. This fantasy of an ever growing supply of goods is a huge problem for financial capitalism. However, in another sense, we have potentially limitless capital -- human capital.

By human capital, I mean our abilities, efforts and potentials as people and as nurturers and cooperaters, which I wrote about early in this series. We may only be able to imagine what a future with an enlightened democratic economy which serves the people would be like, but one thing is for sure; great things would come of it from the standpoint of human creativity, intelligence and wisdom in all of its potential.

At the same time, we would also have to use our human potential to effectively deal with shortages of raw materials, as well as the limits of food, space etc. on this planet. Someday, perhaps our descendants will be able to colonize new worlds, but that day is still far, far away, and we may find any habitable new worlds to be already occupied. We must think in terms of what is sustainable on this planet for now, something that financial capitalism fails at miserably. In fact, financial capitalism depends upon creating shortages, not only of material goods and jobs, but also, of human capital. The fewer qualified people, the better they can exploit their positions for financial gain. The goal is to be one of the few people at the top of the humongous pyramid scheme, whatever that takes. If you are the best medical malpractice lawyer in the world for instance, and a true capitalist, you wouldn't want a great medical malpractice law school opening up that would create a great deal of competition. You would rather have a monopoly on your business. You would also want to create a shortage of jobs as a true capitalist, in order to keep others' pay low (i.e., all of your pee-on style underlings). However, if you were not capitalistically oriented, you might actually welcome any efforts to a create smarter, more capable population even though that means that many other people could do your job as well as you could, and you would welcome gainful employment for all who seek work.

In terms of human potential, we must distinguish between the potential to exploit our fellow human beings, and the actual potential of human beings. Both are essentially limitless over time, but the first diminishes humanity and shames the exploiters, while the second enhances humanity and lifts us all. An enlightened society nurtures human potential to do good both individually and cooperatively, through nurture, nature and the will to do good; it does not allow endless exploitation of its own kind. In the world I see for our future, the sky is the limit -- not in terms of material wealth, but in terms of human potential, and it is human potential and well-being that really counts.

Achieving such a world will require universal education, an economic system that is not rigged to create wealth disparities and make the general "worker bee" population too busy and stressed to pursue their own interests, and a culture which nurtures our potential. All of this is well within our reach, in my opinion, not immediately, but over a period of perhaps decades if we collectively pursue this goal.

January 18

A Capital Idea Part 103: A Peacefully Creative Revolution

A little while ago, I had one of my really creative dreams, one in which I wrote a song. This happens for me from time to time. My wife, my parents, a singer and keyboard player who looked suspiciously like Elton John, 3 cute Chinese gals with gold painted faces who played drums and various other instruments, a bunch of candy which spilled onto the floor of the auditorium, and a hispanic guy who sat in the same chair with me (so I got up and sat on the bench with my parents) were all involved in the dream. When I got up from my seat, my wife was there by the way. (She is scheduled to return on February 2 and has been asking me to plan a trip to celebrate our 10th anniversary.)

I would provide the lyrics of the song, but I am still working on that.

This dream may not seem particularly relevant to the present topic, but creativity is what we need, that capitalism, along with thwarting diversity and promoting conformity, also ultimately thwarts. Perhaps the average "worker bee" person becomes consigned to limiting his or her creativity to dreaming.

My friend Ria was talking to me about this topic a few weeks ago, and it is really not a new topic. People have brought it up from time to time that I have heard already. I thought that maybe I had written about it before, but the closest I could find was a post entitled "Capitalism is Antidiversity," so here it is.

How does capitalism thwart creativity? First, corporations want to control the supply of something that people want or better yet, need. This is not a formula for creativity, except for the counterproductive kind which is focused on selling people on the idea that they need something. (Addictive or absolutely necessary products are the best items from the standpoint of corporations to sell.) The focus is taken away from the innovation of new products, and placed on the selling of a particular product. Second, corporations grow fat and lazy; they don't want to bother making something new unless they are virtually forced to. It is much easier to control the market and just continue selling the same product, perhaps with minor tweakings and repackagings to exaggerate any small changes being made to appear as major changes. Third, capitalism promotes monopolization, which is anticreativity. When one has a monopoly on a product, there is no need to create anything different, unless it can be turned into another monopoly, which is unlikely, since the initial stages of product development and innovation are the competitive stages which allow other businesses to succeed. In fact, corporations frequently actually work to prevent the development of innovations by other people -- scientists, inventors, and would be business moguls. They have laws passed, which make innovation difficult, or make the use of certain products illegal, and they even engage in industrial sabotage. Fourth, patent and copyright laws actually stifle creativity. Thom Hartmann just happens to be talking about this topic at this time. He even mentioned that there seems to be more innovation in places where technology piracy is rampant.

Due to these factors, the development of new products is discouraged. Innovation requires research and development funding, from the standpoint of a corporation, which might not pay off. Businesspeople who already are on the receiving end of a corporate gravy train don't like taking risks with their money. Maybe if they could steal somebody else's invention, which is what usually happens, they would do it, but not otherwise.

Thus, in order for society to advance progressively, we need a creative, peaceful revolution. I see this as sort of a catalytic process, much as the development of human culture acted as a tremendous catalyst for human creativity, because culture allows people to exchange ideas, and to act cooperatively to produce life-enhancing items and expressions of our creative impulses. We need a new sort of cultural revolution now, one which allows us to grow beyond the limitations of the corporate-financial system which has built up over the centuries. This is the creative aspect of the current revolution which seems to be fomenting, the OWS movement. Once the paradigm has shifted to a more people-oriented economy, one that cares for and serves the people and promotes their actualization both personally and collectively, a torrent of creativity we could at present only dream of (speaking of dreams), will be unleashed. That will be a great and wonderful happening in the history of humankind.

Rather than most people working for other individuals, as in our capitalist system, I foresee most people being either self-employed or working cooperatively in work collectives (similar to Mondragon) in the new, morally and ecologically resource-based economy. People will be allowed to be far more creative than in the current system -- "doing their own thing," so to speak, pursuing their interests, which naturally, tend to be creative (sort of like I do when I blog, but I am not being paid to do this, get no work credits for doing this and have no guarantee of any right not to live in poverty under the current system). What this blossoming of creativity will exactly lead to, we can only guess or dream about, but surely, it will be a good thing. This is what is at stake in our current situation -- our well-being as a species, the fulfillment of our creative potential, our actualization as a species and as individuals by and large, our future.

Perhaps you will have some ideas about what our creative future will look after having a progressive economic revolution, as I hopefully will as well.

January 16

A Capital Idea Part 102: Should Political Candidates be Psychologically Tested?

Psychological testing for job applicants is commonplace, when people apply for ordinary jobs as employees of large companies or organizations. Such testing tends to focus upon the applicant's character. For example, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory may be given, with special attention paid to the Psychopathic Deviance scale, which predicts psychopathic behavior such as stealing, aggression, impulsive and manipulative behavior. This scale relates to disorders such as Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which were discussed in my previous post.

Ironically, psychologists such as myself have never been psychologically tested, although psychologists give such tests. I do remember one female graduate student who did take the MMPI and mentioned that she did have a high psychopathic deviance score. She was married but had an "open marriage." In the years after completing her Ph. D., she got a job in the San Diego area, had a child with someone other than her husband, got divorced, and I think had a drug and/or liquor problem. Political candidates are not psychologically tested, either, even though they arguably have the most important jobs that there are. I am here to argue that they should be tested. The same applies for business executives as well.

At issue here is not so much the common psychological reality-distorting disorders such as the mood disorders and anxiety disordrers, but once again, personality disorders. The basic reason that personality disorders are more of a threat, is that people are motivated to get better when they have depression, bipolar disorder or anxiety disorders and can learn to cope with them and function fairly well if they need to. People with such disorders are usually responsible people. In fact, history shows us that many leaders have successfully coped with depression, anxiety disorders, or even bipolar disorder, although in some cases, these disorders can be debilitating. With regard to schizophrenia, having a schizophrenic leader would be a problem, but schizophrenia is pretty obvious and debilitiating, unlike personality disorders, and thus, schizophrenics rarely if ever reach positions of power. On the other hand, personality disorders are deeply ingrained in a person's character, extremely resistant to change, and guide a person's agenda in life. Thus, when a politician has a personality disorder, it guides his or her behavior and greatly affects government policy and actions. We can only make retrospective, informed guesses about which leaders may have had personlity disorders in the past, but my guess is that virtually without exception, such leaders did great harm to others through their positions, and their terms in power did not end well.

The following are some personality disorders which would be problematic for a politician to have: Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorders, as discussed in my previous post; Borderline Personality Disorder, which involves impulsive and sometimes paranoid behavior, as well as extreme insecurity; Schizoid (lack of interest in other people and poor ability to understand emotional cues) and Schizotypal Personality Disorders, (highly idiosyncratic and rather bizarre behaviors as well as "loner" behavior), Paranoid Personality Disorder (Richard Nixon comes to mind here); Histrionic Personality Disorder (extreme sensititivity to rejection combined with hyper-emotionality); Avoidant Personality Disorder (social isolation combined with fear of criticism); Dependent Personality Disorder (excessive dependence upon others); and finally, Obsessive-Complusive Personality Disorder (extreme need to be in control combined with obsessions over rules and orderliness). Guess what? This is the entire official list of 10 personality disorders, although some other ones are considered to exist by some psychologists, and the new DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Version 5) may have some revisions to the personality disorders (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/personality-disorders/DS00562/DSECTION=symptoms). (There is a website about the DSM-V revisions, but it didn't connect for my computer.) Of these personality disorders, the most common among politicians is likely to be Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the same one discussed in the context of business executives. However, I thought it was worth noting that any of the other personality disorders might occur in a politician, although some seem unlikely, and any of these would be a problem.

I did a search for research about narcissism among politicians, and as I expected, there was relatively little research about this topic. However, what I did find was informative and seems to help clarify a larger picture in which logic and observation are consistent. I shall begin with what little research there is on the topic. A USA Today article notes that there is quite a bit of research about narcissism as a whole, but little that relates to politics (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-28-political-narcissism_N.htm). However, it does mention two notable studies on narcissism among politicians. This study, by Robert Hill and Gregory Yousey, reported in 1998 in Current Psychology (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-psychology-answers/201101/the-psychology-politics), compared university faculty, librarians, clergy and politicians, and found that the politicians had the highest scores on narcissism, as well as leadership and authority. These politicians were state legislators, by the way. The second study used biographical and presidential fact sources to rate 39 U.S. presidents on narcissism. This study found that the more narcissistic presidents had the more "charismatic" styles -- think of Adolph Hitler here, although he wasn't a U.S. president. The article concludes that narcissists fail to have brakes on their behavior, and thus pursue extreme agendas that end up hurting people severely. As far as the research on narcissism among politicians go, that is it. However, here come the related studies.

The Psychology Today article goes on to relate political behavior to personality. Of particular relevance, moral dimensions are related to conservative versus liberal ideologies. A large, website-based study by Jonathan Haidt found that liberals place more value on the Care and Fairness/reciprocity dimensions of morality, while conservatives place more value on the Authority-respect, Ingroup/loyalty, and Purity/sanctity dimensions of morality, among the 5 dimensions studied. Another article by Delaney Dean talks about John Dean's (no relation to Delaney Dean) book Conservatives Without Conscience, relating conservatism to authoritarianism, which actually has considerable basis in research dating back to around the 1950s. Thus, it is to be expected that conservatives would place emphasis on authority, respect, ingroup loyalty, and personal as opposed to collective morality, as well as placing more emphasis on the individual rather than the collective. This creates fertile breeding grounds for the monster of narcissistic leadership. Meanwhile, the liberal moral viewpoint, emphasizing caring for other people and fairness, runs counter to narcissistic tendencies. According to Delaney Dean, conservative leaders tend to be high in Social Dominance Orientation, which consists of dominance, opposition to equality, commitment to expanding their own personal power, and amorality, all of which lead to political psychopathy. Conservative followers, on the other hand, are characterized by submission to authority, aggressive support of authority, and conventionality, all of which act to maintain and support the political psychopathy of conservative, socially dominant leaders.

My final source is an article entitled "United States of Narcissism." This article cites research indicating that narcissism is on the rise in America. The USA Today article also hinted at this, saying that previous estimates were that 1% of the American population were pathologically narcissistic, but that recent research indicates that this percentage is over 6%.

I will quote approximately the last half of the "United States of Narcissism" article by Daniel Altman at this point:

"Psychologists have been tracking narcissism through surveys of American college students since the late 1970s, and levels of it—often measured as a lack of empathy—have never been higher, according to Sara Konrath, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s Research Center for Group Dynamics. “If you look at the levers in society, almost all of them are pushing us towards narcissism,” she says. These levers go beyond Twitter feeds and Facebook pages, which offer endless opportunities for self-admiration. They also include advertising that tells consumers “You’re worth it” and reality-TV shows that turn regular people against each other in a battle for celebrity.

Unfortunately, the notion that any American can become a superhuman success is increasingly a myth. In recent decades Americans have encountered far more inequality and far less social mobility than their parents. But narcissism leads these same Americans to reject redistributive tax systems, since they’re sure they will succeed and have little empathy for those who don’t. They prefer to receive tax breaks rather than investing in opportunities for future generations (although they may make exceptions for their families, who often fall within their narcissistic spheres of concern).

As narcissism gathers momentum, American lawmakers seem to be making matters worse. “Politicians tend to encourage these shortsighted, selfish trends by promising people they can enjoy a better life without having to make sacrifices for it,” says Roy Baumeister, a professor of psychology at Florida State University.

This rhetoric—that Americans can have everything without having to pay for it—dates back to the Reagan era, when an economist named Arthur Laffer suggested that lowering tax rates would result in more revenue by spurring spending among businesses and consumers. He was wrong, but it’s clear from the budget debate in Washington that people still believe him.

Some media outlets try to debunk political rhetoric, but it has also become easier for Americans to ignore them—as any narcissist tends to ignore feedback that challenges his self-image. “With the fragmentation of media and the Internet, people can more and more easily just expose themselves to information and perspectives that don’t challenge their existing views,” says George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.

If social mobility continues to erode, and narcissism increases, the nation will someday face tremendous economic and psychic costs. Crushing debts left by the Me Generation will fall upon a country ill prepared for its economic future. At the same time, Americans will suffer a moment of epic disillusionment as their narcissistic balloons finally burst."

The article concludes that this trend will continue until parents start raising their children to be more empathetic and socially responsible, and less self-focused. While we may quibble about the causes of the United States current trend toward narcissism, the problem is clear. Altman traces the trend back to people wishing to explore their human potential in the 1960s, which became distorted into something self-serving. (This was a summary of a book by Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell on the topic.) Personally, I doubt the validity of this idea, but rather, I think the narcissism of the United States has more to do with the feelings of American exceptionalism and the "top dog," alpha-male mentality from which so many Americans, especially males, suffer. I believe the origins of this go back to World War I as well as World War II, and has a great deal to do with the American military-industrial complex. The self-fulfillment movement of the 1960s was largely a liberal minded movement, which was socially focused at least in part, on the greater good, although elements of narcissism crept into it. By the way, it would be interesting to check narcissism trends worldwide, but I don't know of any such studies. My understanding is that the United States is one of the most, if not the most, narcissistic society in the world currently, and other nations do not particularly mirror the United States' trend toward narcissism, although they may to some extent.

In any case, the increase in narcissism bodes ill for the United States, and must be reversed if we are to avoid disaster. Also, the higher the rate of narcissism among the American population as a whole, the more American politicians -- especially conservative ones -- can be expected to be pathologically narcissistic, providing us with yet another reason for us to oppose the election of conservatives, since the election of narcissistic conservatives in particular is a recipe for the disaster described in the above quote.

When I see the current assorted collection of mostly narcissistic nutbags vying for the nomination of the Republican Party to run for President of United States, I have to say to myself, please, can we pass a law requiring psychological testing for political candidates? After all, our future may well depend upon the mental well-being of our leaders.

January 7, 2012

A Capital Idea Part 101: Narcissists to the Front of the Line, Please!

My first post of 2012 finds me returning to the topic of personality disorders among the wealthy. This time, rather than proposing a new one, I looked at the prevalence of existing ones as diagnosed in business executives. I found considerable information about the topic, including research findings, and a growing interest in this topic as a whole.

Let me start with some research findings. A study in England from 2001, by Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon, gave personality questionnaires to 39 high level business executives, and compared their results to prisoners with histories of psychiatric problems. Although the sample was small, the results were unequivocal. According to Belinda Board (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/opinion/11board.html) "the business population was as likely as the prison and psychiatric populations to demonstrate the traits associated with narcissistic personality disorder: grandiosity, lack of empathy, exploitativeness and independence. They were also as likely to have traits associated with compulsive personality disorder: stubbornness, dictatorial tendencies, perfectionism and an excessive devotion to work.

But there were some significant differences.

The executives were significantly more likely to demonstrate characteristics associated with histrionic personality disorder, like superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulativeness.

They were also significantly less likely to demonstrate physical aggression, irresponsibility with work and finances, lack of remorse and impulsiveness."

In other words, business executives were even more likely to exhibit histrionic personality disorder than prisoners with psychiatric problems! Furthermore, they were as likely to exhibit narcissistic personality disorder as well as compulsive personality disorder as the mentally disturbed prison population. They only fared better in terms of being less aggressive, more responsible in the workplace, and in having more sense of remorse and less impulsiveness. Keep in mind that mentally disturbed prisoners, represents an extreme sample in terms of at least 2 of these personality disorders. Criminals tend to be highly narcissistic, and histrionic. Only compulsive personality disorder, among those mentioned above, is probably not particularly prevalent in the prison population. Antisocial personality disorder was not mentioned, either, although it is known to be extremely prevalent in the prison population. Antisocial personality disorder is similar to narcissistic personality disorder, except that it tends to be associated with disturbed upbringings and poverty, resulting in manipulative, distrustful people who are very cynical about the world, but do not have particularly high levels of self-esteem. In contrast, narcissistic personality disorder is found primarily in manipulative, selfish, privileged people who have an overly high level of self-esteem (literally, self-love which is the meaning of the word narcissism).

The next recent study looked at the prevalence of "psychopaths" among business executives. The term psychopath is something of a catch-all term, but it has utility in terms of understanding those who abuse other people -- people who act in extremely selfish ways. According to Duncan MacPherson, the researcher, Dr. Paul Babiak "designed a 111-point questionnaire with the University of British Columbia's Prof Bob Hare - the world's pre-eminent expert in psychopathy and a regular adviser to the FBI - to determine how many industry bosses were psychopaths.

They found that nearly four per cent of bosses fitted the profile, compared with one per cent among the general population" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032912/One-25-bosses-psychopath-hides-charm-business-speak.html).

In other words, business executives are four times as likely as the general population to be psychopaths. There is another quote I find extremely insightful in this article:

"And only favourable environmental factors - such as having had a happy childhood - prevent their psychopathic tendencies turning them into serial killers."

That is, exactly that which separates narcissists from those with antisocial personality disorder, who are prevalent among serial killers, is what turns one person into a bankster or corporate megalomaniac who robs people legally, from the typical criminal who leads a miserable life spent largely in jail.

The final website I will cite in this post (being very selective since there are many websites dealing with this topic), does not report a study on the prevalence of personality disorders among business executives, but does describe the problem of narcissistic business executives as very pervasive, describes their traits, and gives advice for how to deal with them if you are dealing with one of these in a business setting (http://www.leadershipconsulting.com/narcissistic-executives.htm). In this 2009 article, Carl Robinson, Ph. D. writes "many of our most successful executives have strong narcissistic tendencies and it is the positive side of that narcissism that enables them to dream big, chase seemingly impossible dreams, take extreme risks, convince skeptical investors to handover millions of venture capital dollars, and overcome obstacles that most people wouldn’t even attempt. However, it’s the shadow side of the more extreme form of narcissism, or narcissistic personality disorder, that causes havoc, alienates employees and investors and can tank a company. And, what is especially insidious about these extreme cases is that investors are often blind to it or gloss over some of the early warning signs because these executives often have charismatic personas, can sell like crazy and achieve outstanding results. They begin to crash, however, when they can no longer pull the magic rabbit out of the hat. When their charisma and natural sales ability collides with an economic downturn, repeated rejections for additional venture capital funding, questioning or demanding investors, intelligent employees, or encounters with other obstacles that demand substance over flash. They then will resort to anger, outrage, browbeating and other behaviors that alienate top employees and investors who will jump ship rather than work for or fund a jerk. And, if the narcissistic executive is able to stay employed as the leader, employees who remain tend to be those most afraid to leave, who are often the most passive and least creative…not a recipe for continued success."

In other words, the capitalist system creates an atmosphere which promotes narcissists, who often succeed remarkably in the beginning, but ultimately leads to a crash for which the narcissistic bosses refuse to take responsibility, and tend to resort to strongarm tactics in fact, to continue getting their way even after a crash. Does any of this seem familiar? The boom and bust cycles, the financial hostage taking and terrorism perhaps? It certainly should. These problems have occurred in the current economic crisis, on a scale never before seen, and have hurt the 99% at the expense of the 1%, so severely that it has spawned a rebellion (the people "jumping ship" as described in the quote), as it well should. With regulation, the problems described by Dr. Robinson can be ameliorated, but only a system which is so thoroughly protected against such abuses as to render them virtually impossible, can prevent future abuse of the public by wealthy businesspeople, or prevent the predictable occurence of boom and bust cycles which are breeding grounds for personal misery, insecurity and further psychopathology.

In other words, if we wish to avoid being virtually ruled by the narcissists of the world -- a population which is also drawn to politics, sexual profligacy, or anything involving power (largely from a masculine perspective) -- we must, I reiterate from one of my recent posts, create an intelligently designed economic system which serves the people as a public good, rather than allowing a small group of largely narcissistic people to control and rig the economic system in order to serve themselves.

A final note is that it could be argued that perhaps the system makes the wealthy become narcissistic, rather than promoting those who were narcissistic before becoming wealthy and "successful." This could be true in many cases, but an intelligently designed, public-serving economy would prevent this from happening, as well, so the chicken-egg question becomes a moot point. If anything promotes the creation of narcissistic personalities, it is an excessive focus on the celebration of wealth and success, which happens when wealth disparities are huge and which current business culture promotes. Once society is more economically fair, and the business culture has changed from something like an individualistic, competitive wealth lottery, to a more cooperative, people-oriented venture, narcissism will no longer be the natural result of business success. In fact, business "success" in a cooperative model could even promote empathy, especially when success is measured by the ability to serve the public and to help people earn good livings.

December 31

A Capital Idea Part 100: Will 2012 be a Year of Paradigm Shift?

Since my political predictions in the past have turned out to be quite accurate, though usually unwritten, I thought I would write my inutitive feelings about what is in store for the world politically in the coming year and in some cases, years. Actually, I have a special reason for making predictions this year, because my gut feeling is that we are at the cusp of a tangible paradigm shift worldwide, something which will shape humanity's future.

The basic paradigm shift I am referring to is one from a more business, oligarchy-oriented approach to government, to a more people-oriented approach to government -- in other words, a populist, progressive worldwide revolution, an extension of the Occupy Wall Street movement which has already begun. Perhaps I am being too optimistic, but to me, all the signs are there -- the "Arab Spring," OWS, and extremely dissatisfied and volatile electorates, whom I have noticed worldwide have tended to vote whomever is in office, out of office. Where there were liberals, conservatives were voted into office, and where there were conservatives, liberals were voted into office. I noticed this trend over and over again throughout the year, although I don't have an encyclopedic memory for all of the elections around the world. Nonetheless, anybody could google it, and find that people voted for regime change at a much higher rate than usual. I feel that this represents an early, naive stage of populist revolt at the democratic level. Over time, people on the whole, will realize that only progressive politics will take them where they need to go. California where I live, is ahead of the curve, and has already been through this process and concluded that conservatism has nothing worthwhile to offer, only further degradation of our condition. The rest of the United States will come along in the coming years, I believe, as will the rest of the world for the most part.

In the preceding days, I read a couple of things which also indicate to me that observant people are sensing a paradigm shift. Valley Life Today is a local magazine delivered to my mailbox for free, which seems to focus on education in Moreno Valley. In an interview, Dr. Gregory Gray, the Chancellor of the Riverside Community College District (the one I teach for) says "We are not in the midst of a crisis. We are attending a wake!" He then argues for more local control of community colleges, and says that community colleges are in the process of putting "the old system to rest." What is replacing "the old system?" Estate gifts, donations with no strings attached from wealthy businessowners -- Moreno Valley College was just given a 5 acre parcel of land valued at $5.3 million -- and perhaps increased local sales taxes. Frankly, this talk by Dr. Gray about "public-private" partnerships makes me nervous, and seems far too much like the insidious influence of big business that the California Teachers Association has been decrying, with good reason. However, Gray is talking about kindly donations with no ulterior motives, or local businesses partnering with the colleges. The larger point is that we are seeing a localization of the community college economy.

Even more to the point, I picked up a local Japanese American free magazine when I took my step-daughter Isabella and her friend Wendy to a Japanese restaurant a few days ago, and found some interesting comments in an editorial by Masato Ochi, an author and television producer in Japan. In his words: "Japan last year was probably the darkest year in all 46 years of my life. Expressing it in one word, it was the darkness in downward spiral of defeat called Wazawai (catastrophe)." Next, he describes the situation in Japan including Japanese peoples' reluctance to change, and notes the ending of the Mayan calender on December 23, 2012 as well as the major political changes likely to occur. Then he goes on to say: "I believe the highlight of 2012 in Japan is, if Japan realizes the world's paradigm shift and has enough courage to change and develop." Okay, that is where I got the idea for today's post, I admit. I think that the term "paradigm shift" is a good way to put what is happening in this "Fourth Turning" period of revolution.

When Obama was elected in 2008, it was a turning point, no doubt. However, it only set the stage for later change, moreso than causing instant change. This lack of instant change is what has gotten many progressives so upset. Instead, Obama has been a firm believer in compromise, even with uncompromising foes, and has wound up capitulating far too often to the other side. However, I would argue that this was to some extent made necessary by the political realities of the time. In due time, the shackles will come off. I believe that Obama will be re-elected in 2012, bucking the trend seen in so many nations, and -- having experienced four years of horrible, callous obstructionism by Republicans -- will give them less credence in his second term, and focus more on the will of the people and helping the average citizen. I think it will be a pretty good election for progressives around the United States in general, as well, and a bad one for conservatives, with the failure of the "Tea Party" movement and the growing success of the OWS movement becoming increasingly evident. In Taiwan, my wife's homeland, Ma Ying-Jeoh is up for re-election soon. According to Eunice, he has been a very good President and it looks like he will be re-elected, also bucking the general trend. I don't know very much about him, but he seems to be an empathetic, democratic socialist type, which I believe is mainly where world politics is heading. With Taiwan's extensive and intensive experience regarding the development of a more democratic society in the face of opposition from mainland China, Taiwan is ahead of the curve in terms of democracy just as California is. In North Korea, I expect that young Kim Jong-Un will turn out to be a very different type of leader than his father or grandfather were, or his elders want him to be. I think Kim Jong-Un will want to modernize and open up to the outside world, creating a power struggle between his side and the existing power structure which will want him to be their puppet. Perhaps the people of North Korea will actually find some courage and strength to stand up for their rights, at long last.

Aside from these elections, I believe that populist revolts around the world will continue to accelerate, including the continuation and extension of OWS. I don't believe that we will see very many big, immediate changes in the coming year as a result of such populism, but it will be setting the stage for much bigger changes to come. Such revolts will occur both in the more autocratic nations, where "freedom" from oppressive governments will be the call, and in ostensible democracies, where something to the effect of "freedom from the financial oligarchs" will be the cry of the Occupiers. Leaders will change in many nations, and regimes will topple, but it will mostly be a time of regrouping (much as this winter is for OWS) and trying to answer the question "where do we go from here." Expect much larger changes in political structure in the decade or so to come after 2012. When we look back upon 2012, it will be as a pivotal year in terms of paradigm shift, preceding the realization of the radical changes which will follow, I expect.

A general point about change is that we tend not to notice it while it happens. We think that the world is fairly stable, and for most of us, the changes we would like to see either are not happening as far as we can tell, or do not happen "fast enough." In reality, however, the rate of change in human society, as well as in our environment, has accelerated drastically. This is a natural consequence of the creation of a global, technological society. Changes that happen in one part of the world, are quickly transmitted to other parts of the world, whether those changes be technological, economic, political, educational, cultural or whatever. Modern culture acts as a catalyst to enact change. A well-connected populace, cannot help but direct that change, whatever opposition it may encounter.

As a caller to a progressive talk show (hosted by Nicole Sandler, I think) said a few days ago, "What do we do when the Monopoly game is over? We toss the pieces back in the box and play a different game." We are getting to that point in terms of the world economy as well. The people of the world are getting ready to toss the pieces of the world's financial monopoly back into the box -- or the trash. The next game that the people decide to play, will be not one of competition, but one of global cooperation -- a game in which everybody is a winner, and in which the public as a whole is the main beneficiary, I expect. The coming years will see, I think, calls for either an extension of the United Nations to create a global economic framework, or the creation of a new body to do the same. This will be a populist, progressive-style framework, not the economic cooperative councils that we have heard about, which consist of rich people plotting their eventual conquering of the world and winning their game of "Monopoly." This will be the real thing, with documents such as a global economic constitution or bill of rights. At the same time, there will be economic reforms at the national, regional and local levels around the world. The year 2012, I expect, will be the year when all of this change begins -- a year of paradigm shift.

Of course, I could be wrong -- the changes I predict could occur even faster than I expect, or not at all. I never predicted that I would reach 100 "Capital Ideas" posts. By the way, I think I am probably nearing the end of this series, finally. Thus, here is another prediction for 2012: I will finish my Capital Ideas series (at least for the time being) and yet, at the same time, we will begin to see more of the ideas discussed in this series, actually be implemented, or steps being taken toward their implementation.

December 26

A Capital Idea Part 99: The United Fiefdom of Vespucci

Once upon a time (yeah, right) in a land far, far away -- it surely couldn't be anywhere near here, right? -- there was a place called the United Fiefdom of Vespucci. Fancying themselves to be enlightened Lords, the Lords of Vespucci held elections every four years just before Christmas, sort of a Christmas present for the entire fiefdom. However, only the Lords were rich enough to run for public office, so the only choices to run the government, for all of the serfs and vassals of Vespucci were from among the small number of Lords of Vespucci. As a consequence, the 99% of the population who were serfs and vassals, did not have true representation in their government, and the government's policies were essentially run by the Lords of Vespucci, who designed them in such a way as to keep the serfs and vassals poor, and the Lords of Vespucci, rich, pampered and powerful. After all, in the view of many Lords of Vespuccci, the Lord of Lords had given them Vespucci and placed them through the holy inheritance of the lucky sperm club, in positions of wealth and power. In reality, the wealthy ancestors of the Lords of Vespucci and their loyal advisors, who comprised the 1%, had achieved their positions largely through greed. These were the kids who refused to share their toys, and many of them grew up to be prototypical cases of Antisocial Personality Disorder and/or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (not to mention Avaricious Personality Disorder). To be sure, some of them had achieved their positions through skill and talent, and some of the 1% were truly good people, but far too many were pathologically self-centered.

Over time, there were many small uprisings among the vassals and serfs of Vespucci. However, these were always put down by the brute force of hired militia -- oops, I mean police -- and failed to spread given that communications were rather poor in those olden days. Eventually, some genius serfs invented the internet and cell phones, however, which turned out to be a game changer. In the next rebellion, the serfs and vassals communicated amongst themselves extensively, and the 99%ers Occupy Lords' Boulevard movement grew to massive proportions. Yet, as had happened every time before, their movement was squelched by force. Armies of hired militia -- oops, I mean police -- moved in to tear down the Occupiers impromtu encampments. Furthermore, the Occupiers were blamed for their own movement. The news of the day described them as a bunch of dirty (because they had no means of bathing themselves), ignorant (because only rudimentary education was available to serfs and vassals) socialist (as though something is wrong with that), commie (no way -- democracy is not communism), miscreants (the Lords should look in the mirror if they want to see a miscreant) troublemakers (as though it wasn't the Lords of Vespucci who had created the troubles of the serfs and vassals). How dare these "little people" try to upset "the natural order of things" and upset the wonderful "gravy train" of wealth in The United Fiefdom of Vespucci's supposedly enlightened society! In fact, many local governments decided to sue the "Occupiers" after their forced removal, adding insult to injury. This happened even in some of the more sympathetic cities. The media, through its well-financed and coordinated propagandistic actions directed by the Lords of Vespucci, even managed to get 99%ers -- in addition to being recruited to put down the protests for pay -- to blame each other at times for their problems.

However, ultimately, this morally grounded movement for economic fairness, opportunity and true government representation, was too powerful to fail. The serfs and vassals managed to cooperate, using the power of their high-tech communication tools, and decided to select and vote for progressive-minded candidates from amongst themselves in the next election. After all, voting was the one great tool for promoting change which was granted to them. There were two political parties in The United Fiefdom of Vespucci, the Lords' Party -- which was beyond hope of reform -- and the Politicians' Party -- which had some truly civic minded representatives but was mostly lacking in moral fortitude and as in love with money and power as was the Lords' Party. Thus, the serfs and vassals decided to run their chosen candidates primarily as progressive, civic minded candidates who wanted to advance the public good by creating a more fair and representative government which wasn't run by money. Since they lacked access to "The Mainstream Media," the candidates from among the 99%ers had a hands-on campaign approach, attending local events at which they gave campaign speeches and recruited campaign workers. After all, the 99%ers knew that they would win hands down if they collaborated and voted for candidates from among their number. When the election came that Christmastime, the serfs and vassals candidates were swept into office. This was their Christmas gift to the world. Some of the more sympathetic Lords were also re-elected, but the entire composition of the government was transformed by that election. They proceeded to change campaign finance and election laws to no longer favor the rich, opting to use public financing instead. They outlawed lobbying, and prosecuted the worst offenders among the Lords, who were given long jail terms. They also enhanced the education system to make a good higher education widely available and inexpensive for all, and began the withdrawal of their empire-making soldiers from foreign lands. And these steps were just starters in a new, more enlightened United Fiefdom of Vespucci, as the momentum of the peaceful revolution continued and further reforms followed. The gig was definitely up for the Lords of Vespucci. Ironically, the transformation of society which occured, not only benefitted the 99%ers, but also benefitted the 1%ers ultimately, as quality of life as a whole improved, crime rates decreased, and everybody had a society they could be proud of. Furthermore, the democratic transormation of the United Fiefdom of Vespucci allowed people to become better, more evolved and enlightened people as a whole, including the families of the former Lords and their loyal advisors. And thus happily ends my story of The United Fiefdom of Vespucci.

I seem to recall a story often told at Christmastime, about a man who lived about 2,000 years ago, who advocated peace, love and understanding, but at the young age of 33, was branded as a troublemaker, blamed for problems he did not create and was tortured and crucified. That he was -- and still is -- believed to be God by his followers, does nothing to change the tragedy of his story, nor of the untold stories of countless others who suffered and died for the sins of others. As my mother says "That's too bad about Jesus being crucified and all that." Maybe, a tragedy is just a tragedy; lives are wasted sometimes. But if we are wise, we can learn from their tragic stories, and use what we have learned to transform the world for the better.

I have been reminded in recent days, of how the innocent are still being blamed by those with more money and more power, for their own problems, as well as their peskiness in upsetting the gravy train of wealth that the 1% enjoys. On the local news a few days ago, there was a report that Occupy Los Angeles is being sued (or a lawsuit is under consideration) for $2 million dollars due to the mess and damage that their encampment reportedly caused. If anything, the city of Los Angeles should be suing the people that the Occupiers are protesting against, people such as the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, et cetera -- people who fight against our democracy tooth and nail in order to keep their elite positions. Yesterday, I was reminded again of this phenomenon of victim derogation, as I filled out Christmas cards. I found an envelope with several Christmas cards in it, sent to us by one of the places that my wife Eunice (Zunliang) donated to in the past year. On the outside of the envelope, was written, "Innocent but punished for the crimes of the guilty." It was referring to children in poor nations who are homeless and ostracized for one reason or another. As I was listening to my radio yesterday, I heard an interview on Pacifica Radio of a man who studies things such as global sustainability. He said that the overuse of global resources is essentially a problem caused by approximately the richest 10% of world's population, around 600 million persons. I couldn't help but think that these children could be well taken care of and no longer have to live as outcasts, fending for themselves, if the "haves" of the world would learn to share their wealth with the "have nots."

For sure, issues such as overpopulation, environmental degradation and global warming -- among others -- must be dealt with as well, but I suspect, when people are better taken care of, better educated, and men and women are treated more fairly and equitably around the world, they will be much better equipped and motivated to do so. It will take a peaceful, democratic revolution in order to make this happen, just the sort of thing that the OWS movement seems to be leading to. We must continue its momentum and translate its energy into voting and political activity in favor of progressive reforms. That such a peaceful, democratic revolution become a reality is my Christmas wish, and this post is my Christmas gift to the world.

By the way, "America" is strangely, named after the given name of an early explorer of North and South America, Amerigo Vespucci. Thus, I chose the name, The United Fiefdom of Vespucci for my story.

December 20

A Capital Idea Part 98: Economic Democracy

Based on my friend Zenzoe's mention of Economic Democracy in a reply to the True Economic Freedom and Public Economy posts, I looked up "Economic Democracy" on the internet. I had heard of this term in passing, but didn't know there was such a large body of literature about this topic or such a large movement toward Economic Democracy, so...there I go again reinventing the wheel, more or less. At least I am learning something, and have my own perspective on the economy actually, which does have differences from these other ones (Venus Project, Peer-to-Peer, Economic Democracy, certain progressive economists' ideas).

First, I found a site at economicdemocracy.org (http://economicdemocracy.org/), but it seems to be pretty much low on content aside from a homepage which says things such as "We can overcome corporate rule." Many of the links say the information is "coming soon" but there were some links to a few specific articles, poems and cartoons. I had better luck with other websites about Economic Democracy, especially Wikipedia, which has an extremely long description of Economic Democracy, despite most of this site's materials being written by conservatives. There is an excellent introduction to the topic there, rather lengthy itself, but well worth reading, which follows here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy):

Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that suggests a shift in decision-making power from a small minority of corporate shareholders to a larger majority of public stakeholders. There is no single definition or approach for economic democracy, but most theories and real-world examples challenge the demonstrated tendencies of modern property relations to externalize costs, subordinate the general well-being to private profit, and deny the populace majority a democratic voice in economic policy decisions.

Classical liberals argue that the power to dispose of the means of production belongs to entrepreneurs and capitalists, and can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the marketplace."The capitalistic social order", they claim, therefore, "is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word." Critics of this claim point out that consumers only vote on the value of the product when they make a purchase; they are not voting on who should own the means of production, on who can keep its profits or on the resulting income redistribution. Proponents of economic democracy generally agree, therefore, that modern capitalism tends to hinder or prevent society from earning enough income to purchase its output production. Centralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power.

Economic democracy has been proposed as a component of larger socioeconomic ideologies, as a stand-alone theory, and as a variety of reform agendas. In most cases, economic democracy promotes universal access to "common resources" that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism or centralized by state socialism. Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic rights, economic democracy is a proposed solution for the problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples range from decentralization and economic liberalization to democratic cooperatives, fair trade, and the regionalization of food production and currency.

Following this, Wikipedia discusses topics such as:

"Deficiency of Effective Demand" (the loss of capital due to accumulation by the wealthy);

The need for unemployment created by the capitalistic system;

The need for artificial scarcity created by the capitalistic system;

"Enclosure of the Commons" (the private holding of what should be public resources);

"The Rise of Corporations" (a historical perspective);

"Imperialism" (considered an advanced stage of capitalism by the author, at present being the United States' massive international military-industrial complex);

"Alternative Models," citing several people including Martin Luther King, Jr. and a Hunagarian historian named Karl Polanyi, and one named Schweikert who defines Economic Democracy in terms of Worker Self-Management (eg., unions and workplace democracy), Social Control of Investment (eg. public banks or credit unions), and The Market (in which profits are equitably shared among all employees rather than hoarded by "owners");

"Inclusive Democracy" which includes "Demotic Self-Reliance"(decentralization and self-reliance), "Demotic Ownership of Productive Resources" (economic decision making by the entire community), and "Confederal Allocation of Resources" (planning and decision making at the regional, national and international levels). The words used in the article are indeed "demotic" and "confederal," by the way;

"Social Credit" including "Credit as a Public Utility" (eg., zero-interest loans from public banks), and "A National Dividend" (cash dividends and pricing subsidies instead of allowing capital to be accumulated by business owners);

"Monopoly Power versus Public Utility," in which J.W. Smith advocates using public utility to basically collect public rent for the use of all resources (similar to my recent "Public Economy" post with the addition of the idea of actually collecting rent from business people for resource usage, which is a form of tax);

"Democratic Cooperatives" including worker cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, and food cooperatives;

and finally (yes finally, as this took quite a while for me to go through), "Regional Trading Currencies" (which I understand as each nation or region issuing its own trading currency, which would help resource producing third-world nations economically by allowing them to take control of their resources rather than having to give them up at low cost to richer nations). In summary, yes, I have indeed more or less reinvented the wheel, but without some of the ideas included in this article and with much more psychology and ecology involved in my approach. Thank you to whomever wrote the Wikipedia article on Economic Democracy, which was the most comprehensive and excellent Wikipedia document I have yet seen. Due to its length, I only summarized as well as I could the major content of this article.

Aside from this article, I found another article by J.W. Smith, but it focused on eliminating poverty and never directly discussed Economic Democracy (http://www.globalissues.org/article/5/economic-democracy). I also found a short description of Economic Democracy in a British website (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/take-action/economic-democracy). There was even a link to a mention of how to "restore" (as if it had ever existed) Economic Democracy on the Forbes magazine website, but when I clicked on the link, I only got an advertisement, then the Forbes magazine homepage. I guess the thought of Economic Democracy was subsequently banished from Forbes magazine, and I guess my description of Economic Democracy from Wikipedia will suffice.

Clearly, this is another example of the breadth and magnitude of the economic reform movement around the world, as well as the great degree of agreement regarding the sources of our economic problems and commonalities in the suggestions for reform. Such ideas in my opinion, shared by so many people -- eventually by the entire 99% I think when we all become aware of these ideas -- are the intellectual basis of the Occupy Wall Street movement and thus evidence that the movement will continue growing. Good ideas can never be killed. Good and necessary ideas will only keep growing until they become beliefs which must be acted upon.

December 13

A Capital Idea Part 97: True Wealth

Every person wants to be happy. Presumably, every person also wants to achieve his or her potential in some way. Yet, wealth is measured in monetary terms. Perhaps it is time we started measuring wealth in terms of the things that really matter.

As I have mentioned before, money isn't even real, in a physical sense. It is only a social construct used as a placekeeper, of which people end up having trouble equitably keeping track. Money exchanges hands in various phantom ways, through wires, through stock market exchanges, and so forth. It is merely a claim on resources, mostly, material ones. This makes the concept of monetary wealth all the more bizarre. On the other hand, there are sources of true wealth on both a personal and social level.

One form of true personal wealth is happiness. Happiness is difficult to quantify, but it is something which every person values, quite properly. Actually, there nonetheless is a happiness index which has been created and used to compare various nations, and I wrote about before in this series.

An even more appropriate form of true wealth is how well people reach their potential as persons, the goal of life called "self-actualization" in humanistic psychology. Facilitating self-actualization is what I argue is the goal of a fair and just economic system.

Also, resources are forms of true wealth, including natural, human-made, and human-capacity resources, as described in my Capital Ideas posts and which are all part of a resource-based economy.

I would say that there is also interpersonal wealth. What can be more rewarding and enabling than being in love, or participating in a happy family? People in small groups can accomplish things that we could never do as individuals, and as people sometimes say, "Love is its own reward." Love is the ultimate source of emotional and spiritual wealth.

However, there is another aspect of true wealth which transcends the level of the individual's resources or even immediate family and friends. I believe that there is such a thing as collective wealth, which transcends personal wealth. To paraphrase a German businessman sometimes mentioned on the Thom Hartmann show, when asked why he didn't mind paying such high taxes as a German citizen, he replied that it is better to be a normal person in a wealthy society, than a wealthy person in a poor society. To put it in psychological terms, according to Gestalt principles, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

We can easily see this fact when we look at the interdependence people have in attaining progress. Without education, few people would be able to advance scientific knowledge. Without infrastructure, it would be difficult to educate people. Without labor, there would be no infrastructure. On the other side, without an educated populace, there would be no one to utilize new technologies, and of course, without money, there would be no customers to buy the new technologies, if money is required as it generally is in a society which depends upon money to acquire just about anything. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts; everything works together to make an integrated whole. The same for that matter, can be said of a body, although that is far less relevant to the current topic.

Thus, another goal of my Capital Ideas is to create and present ideas which can facilitate a wealthier worldwide human culture, in which the interlocking parts work together synergistically as a whole. When people don't have to worry about going broke, or finding adequate health care, or being oppressed, or compromising themselves to please their bosses, they have all the more opportunity to self-actualize as well as to be happy. When people have the opportunity to explore their interests, when people are socialized to be caring, civic-minded, socially responsible persons, who respect others and do not abuse them, this gives all of us all the more opportunity to self-actualize and find true happiness. A society in which all people -- or as many as possible to avoid sounding overly utopian -- contribute to the general well-being, is truly the most wealthy kind of society. This is the kind of world which I envision with every intention of helping to make a reality. Just imagine what true treasures of love, happiness and human potential we would enjoy in such a world!

December 8

A Capital Idea Part 96: True Economic Freedom

As long as I am writing about freedom issues, this is an opportune time to discuss another blog post idea which had been waylaid and sitting on my notepad since July, due to my trip to Taiwan plus the advent of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Nowadays, we are hearing Republican candidates such as Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul talk about eliminating minimum working ages, and utilizing prison labor. This is really anti-economic freedom talk. This is about the ruling class finding the cheapest possible labor to exploit, which could not be further from economic freedom. In fact, I wrote a post a while back, in which I speculated that low-wage sweatshop style workers around the world, and even here in the U.S., are probably cheaper for business owners than slaves were to keep in the bad old days of legal slavery. After all, these workers are supposed to take care of themselves on their itty bitty salaries. I could not find any actual estimates of what it cost slaveowners to take care of their slaves' needs, interestingly. I wonder if "the ruling class" considers that a secret that it wouldn't want to be known, lest it be found out that modern minimum wage workers are cheaper than slaves. In any case, the financial capitalist system clearly craves cheap labor -- the cheaper, the better -- and that is an anti-freedom thing.

I am sick of hearing about "the free market," as though such a thing existed, as though it made people "free," and as though there were real alternatives, for that matter, to having a market of one sort or another. Obama even mentioned the free market in his speech a couple days ago as the world's greatest creator of wealth, just before assailing trickle down economics. It was definitely the sort of speech I have been waiting to hear from Barack, but it did include too much deference to "the free market," the role of banks, the military, and way too much nationalism in my opinion. However, it was a good beginning toward changing the direction of our economy which clearly implies that anti-corporatocracy type actions by the Obama adminstration will be -- well, attempted in the face of stiff, uncompromising opposition by the miscreants on the other side of the aisle. Obama even talked about reducing wealth disparities, a very welcome thought.

Thus, here is another premise: Human exchanges will always involve some sort of market where people get together and exchange things (unless somebody invents a "replicator" a la Star Trek which people simply ask to create anything they want). Even taxes and government are a form of market in a sense, with taxes being exchanged on the government market for services which the public barters in a democracy through electing representatives and informing them of "the will of the people" which the people demand be met, or else, well, they will unelect their representatives. In theory at least, that is how it works. When the market is unfair, people are less free. It's really a pretty simple fundamental rule. When the government does not represent the people, the people are less free. When the market is rigged, and the so-called "playing field" is slanted toward one side, people are less free. When government "representatives" actually represent the rich instead of their constituents, people are less free. This is why people are waking up and starting to rebel -- our economic freedoms, as well as other kinds of freedoms, have been eroded by the corrupting influence of money, as we find that we live in a society in which the so-called "free market" becomes more and more slanted toward the rich, as the market itself becomes "freer" in the parlance of economics, and our government becomes more and more "bought and paid for" by the rich. In other words, not only is "the free market" not a producer of freedom, but to the contrary, the less regulated and the "freer" the money becomes, the less free the citizens become!

True economic freedom involves a truly "level playing field" in sports parlance. In other words, a system which does not favor any one person or any one profession over another -- a truly fair and impartial system. It is my contention that as long as we have a system dependent upon using money itself to acquire more money, through such means as stock markets, and usury (loan interest), we will never have a fair, economic-freedom producing financial system. This is another way of explaning why I believe that stock markets should be eliminated (in addition to their general uselessness and waste of human resources), and usury should be strictly regulated. And of course, monopolies should be broken up, and our economy well-regulated by all the means we know to be effective. These are things which are feasible and could be done in the relatively near future, given the political will to do so and a progressive enough Congress to take these steps.

However, none of these steps will prevent those so-inclined -- a group which includes just about every greedy businessman or greedy businesswoman -- from working to slant the playing field again. You can count on this: The greedy among us will always be looking for ways to rig the system in their own favor. This is why we need to take drastic steps to reshape our economic future, away from financial capitalism, and toward a more resource-based, public economy. This is ultimately what I think the current revolution -- which I suspect is only in its infancy -- will be about, so that such abuses and restrictions of freedom by the wealthy class against everyone else as we are currently experiencing, can never happen again, and so that people can enjoy more true freedom, both economic and personal. Elements of this new economy will include localization of economic activities -- perhaps even local currencies -- plus at a national or even international level, the ensurance of human rights to basic needs such as food, health care and education, and the usage of specific methods of exchange in the market, such as credits, vouchers, etc. which can be used to acquire things that people need but not to accumulate excess wealth. As mentioned in the previous post, people will be entrusted with a certain share of resources, pending good standing as citizens, but will not be considered "owners" of resources who can treat their acquisitions as part of an expanding, personal empire. Rather, their use of resources will be contingent upon their responsible, socially productive and environmentally sustainable use of these resources. There should also be limits on how large a business can be, and still be run by a single person. Perhaps all businesses above a certain size will ultimately be required to be collectively owned and operated, although smaller businesses can still be run by an individual and self-employment will be encouraged. When people don't have to worry about where their next meal will come from, or about "pleasing the boss" which may entail intense sacrifices and compromises, they will be all the freer to pursue productive activities which please them and lend themselves to self-actualization. When education is free and equally available to everyone, and people are socialized to be civic minded and socially responsible, with the help of good role models, people will want to engage in productive activities. That will only be natural.

It is in such an atmosphere of fair exchange that true economic and personal freedom can thrive, and the wonders of the greatest of resources, that of human potential, can be unlocked as it never has been before.

December 6

A Capital Idea Part 95: The Public Economy -- An Intelligently Planned, People-Powered Approach

A new concept has been gelling in my mind recently, one that integrates and unifies several more familiar (at least to me) concepts -- the public economy. This may be a better way of framing the future of a better economic system than the various ideas I have heard thus far. Actually, I have heard of public capital as a concept. From there, it is not much of a jump to think of a public economy.

Let me explain what I mean by the public economy. First of all, when people talk about the economy, they often mention "the public sector" and "the private sector." The public sector works for government in one capacity or another, which is the type of job that conservatives are trying to eliminate. The private sector consists of people who work for private corporations, which conservatives apparently think should be everybody, so that the business-owner faux "job creators" can run everything, including government. More reasonable people think that there should be a balance between the public and private sectors.

Let's start with this premise that there is such a balance which is optimal. Next, let us redefine what the private sector does, and change the way it functions correspondingly. My wife often says that the entire world -- or The Universe for that matter -- belongs to God. A form of this is my second premise. That is, the world does not "belong to us" humans, neither as individuals, or even in the collective. It belongs to a higher order, which is "God" to some, nature to others. Thus, the concept of "private ownership" is not really valid. If we do not "own stuff," then how do we consider the stuff that we use? It's pretty simple, but it requires an out-of-the-box leap in thinking. We are entrusted with things as citizens of the world. We do not "own things," but we can have and use the things that we are entrusted with. Whoever thought of the idea of "ownership" was being very egocentric.

Next, what entity does the entrusting? Religions are very fond of saying that God entrusts them with something -- that is, God gave them this land, these animals, these plants, these minerals, and so on, and meanwhile, God made these wonderful promises to the people as "the promised ones." This is a very toxic place to go, especially when other people with different ideas about what belongs to whom, want to occupy "the promised land." As a human culture, we must make a third premise, that God or Mother Earth -- Gaia -- has entrusted us collectively with the right to figure out "who gets the goodies" (as a sociology class at my alma mater Pitzer College was called). In other words, it is up to us as a species to create a fair, moral, sustainable and productive economy, and at the same time, protect the environment upon which we depend. Thus, anything which is entrusted to us, is entrusted by society as a whole. It is government -- at its varous levels -- which in effect should bestow the entrusting of resources upon people, with the knowledge and consent of the people.

Now that we have gotten to the point in this conversation where individual people are entrusted with a certain share of resources, as a right, let us consider what the individual's obligations are, a la the social contract. The individual is responsible for taking good care of those resources with which he or she is entrusted, and not degrading them. Furthermore, the individual is responsible for the so-called externalities of his or her use of the resources, such as costs of environmental cleanup when the individual's actions do in fact degrade the environment. The individual does not operate in a vacuum, so to speak, separate from the rest of society. To an extent, our legal system as it exists, does hold people responsible for the consequences of their economic decisions, but quite ineffectively. Business people tend to get away with environmental crimes, and even manslaughter (as Thom Hartmann is talking about at this moment) due to the money-bought laxness of our economic system, which favors business owners over the rest of us, and the bigger the business, the more the person is favored. Rather than what we have, we need a comprehensive legal system which holds all people equally accountable for their economic actions. (I know I have written about this before, but this is a new way of framing this idea.) Creating a fair, moral, sustainable and productive economy demands nothing less. Also, there needs to be cultural oversight -- presumably through democratic governance at local, regional, national and international levels -- of fair wages for all, economic morality which means ensuring our rights to a certain share of resources, and economic sustainability and productivity.

The concept of the public economy also subsumes the concept of a resource-based economy. The idea of a resource-based economy, as I understand it, is to take all of the "goodies" with which humanity has been entrusted, and divide it up according to criteria including human rights and needs, and the value to society of the work that a person does. The resources are divided first at a central level, most likely, then subdivided at a more local level. In addition, local economies may exist in which certain resources never leave the region. Instead of using the same currency for everything, there may be different credits, vouchers, etc. which are good for different basic needs such as food, utilities, and so forth, while the familiar money could be used to buy specialty items of personal interest, or extra items relating to basic needs. The public economy places the resource-based economy in the context of a larger system which employs government oversight in a democratic manner. It also allows for a wide variety of economic activity, including businesses run (but not literally "owned") by individuals, cooperatives, and public employment as well as being able to coordinate local, regional, national and international economic activity in a people-powered manner. It places the people collectively -- rather than certain individuals -- wholely as in charge of the economy, as entrusted by the greater forces of The Universe in the most rational possible manner.

Before finishing, I want to discuss the issue of a having a rational economy a bit more. The public economy is the most rational -- and thus the best in my opinion -- way to run an economy. It is a planned economy, which is a radical departure -- again in my opinion -- from what has ever actually occured in the history of humankind. Much as the founders of a nation, most famously those of the United States -- U.S. spells US by the way -- planned their government through the creation of a Constitution, much to our benefit, the economy should be planned. Perhaps creating a sort of global "economic Constitution" would be an excellent idea. This is the kind of thing that the public economy would endorse. However, the economic system that we have, evolved haphazardly out of the exchanges of peoples over the centuries, and particularly with the influence of wealthy people who rigged and built the system to suit their own greedy aspirations. This stupid, unplanned, might-makes-right system must be stopped, and replaced by an intelligently planned (to borrow a phrase from debates over evolution) economic system which does not allow the sort of abuses and economic oppression that our current system manifests; this system which is intelligently planned and modifiable with democratic consent and input, is what I call the public economy.

November 27

A Capital Idea Part 94: The Great American Freedom Scam

Here is another post about "freedom" as presented in the United States. I have written around the edges of this topic previsouly, but hearing or seeing so many Americans give obligatory "thanks" to our military for the second time in two weeks, made me realize that this is a scam perpetrated by the military-industrial-religious-political complex in the United States, and thus needs to be framed that way. Also, this time, I did some research comparing the "freedom" of the United States to that of other nations.

First of all, here is the scam. We are brainwashed into believing -- those among us who are susceptible to the message -- that it is American military might that made us "free" and keeps us "free." Our military "must be strong" and "must respond to challenges around the world" in order to "maintain our freedom" and "extend freedoms to other nations." Does this sound familiar? It should. This is the language of empire, and empires are destined to collapse to the right, under their own weight. How does this scam relate to the economy and capital ideas? The answer to that question does not require much of a stretch. We know that several trillions of our national debt -- probably most of the national debt which is such a hot topic in politics these days -- is due to military spending. This is a horridly misplaced priority, this military spending, however one conceives the motives to be. I would say that it is mainly in order to build and maintain an international military-industrial complex for the 1%ers, but if the motives are more noble, it is a horribly ineffective, even counterproductive, strategy. It only works as a strategy in order to enrich people who are part of the military business, to keep distant flocks of sheeple who work for tiny wages, under control, and to placate the enormous egos of American politicans.

In order to maintain the current military order, our government needs a certain level of cooperation from the public. It needs military personnel who are willing to carry out orders with unquestioning patriotism, for one thing. It also needs to justify in the minds of the public, the military budget and various military actions and bases around the world, for another. The lie which we are constantly subjected to, that we owe a debt of gratitude to the military for giving and maintaining our "freedoms," is the primary means by which public consent to these horrid policies is attained, as well as acting as an effective military recruiting tool. We are especially subjected to this enormous untruth during holidays, which tend to have conveniently militaristic (Veterans Day and Memorial Day) or nationalistic themes (Fourth of July and President's Day), or offer thanks to people such as military personnel (Thanksgiving and Christmas). Thus, the United States' military can go on spending profligately, military contractors can continue living in their mansions, and military equipment used to kill people, including Americans, around the world can continue to be perhaps the United States' biggest export. Meanwhile, international businesses feel that their overseas investments are protected, and American politicians can proudly point to the "accomplishments" of the military that they run, even while American troops are accidentally killing Pakistani soldiers as happened yesterday, or killing innocents by remote control drone attacks, and excusing their actions with an "Oops, mistakes happen!"!

If military spending "makes us free," then the United States should be the most "free" nation in the world by far, so is it? The answer is most definitely "no." There are a large number of nations which are just as "free" as the United States, if not freer, including military-less Costa Rica according to Freedomhouse.org, which has been measuring freedom in the nations of the world since 1972 (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=379&year=2011). To be exact, there are 87 nations out of 194 nations for which their was data, which ranked as free in both civil and political rights in both 2010 and 2011 according to their surveys, one of which was the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World). This represents 45% of the nations in the survey. Each nation can get a score from 1 to 7 on civil rights and on political rights, with lower scores indicating more freedom. According to the survey, the majority of the nations (48 of them) described as "free" in terms of both civil and political rights had scores of 1 on both measures, including the United States, the best scores that they could have had. Moreover, the percentage of nations considered to be "free" in terms of both civil and political rights has trended upward over the years since this measure began, beginning with only 27% of the nations enjoying such "freedom" in 1975. Thus, the rest of the world is "catching up to" the U.S. in terms of freedom, and most of these nations who are doing the catching up, appear to be ones that spend relatively small proportions of their national treasure on their militaries, at least, relatively little compared to the U.S., and also, they in no way owe their freedom to U.S. military "protection," based on my admittedly subjective perusal of the data.

On the topic of "freedom" in the United States, anybody who thinks that people in the United States are as "free" as people could be are living in dreamland. The following critique of freedom in the United States, for example, as well as the definitions of freedom used by Freedom House was presented in Wikipedia. "The definition of Freedom in Gastil (1982) and Freedom House (1990) emphasized liberties rather than the exercise of freedom, according to Adam Przeworski, who gave the following example: In the United States, citizens are free to form political parties and to vote, yet even in presidential elections only half of U.S. 'citizens' vote; in the U.S., 'the same two parties speak in a commercially sponsored unison,' wrote Przeworski" in 2003.

Apparently, and surely to be expected, "Freedom House" is basically a right-wing organization, so when I use its own statistics against it, that is damning evidence indeed. The quote continues as follows:

"More recent charges of ideological bias prompted Freedom House to issue this 2010 statement:

Freedom House does not maintain a culture-bound view of freedom. The methodology of the survey is grounded in basic standards of political rights and civil liberties, derived in large measure from relevant portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development."

Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear to me, that virtually nothing would prevent the United States from obtaining the highest possible scores in "Freedom House's" survey. There is a clear cultural and nationalistic bias there. The way that these ratings are obtained, is not by surveying residents of each nation, but rather, by having a panel of "experts" rate each nation on 10 political rights questions, and 15 civil rights questions, then obtaining average scores for each nation. Although the questions themselves seem good ones as far as I can tell, the reliance upon "analysts" and "academic advisors" (probably mostly or all U.S. citizens) for ratings seems very suspect in terms of subjective bias potential. Even with such bias, however, it seems very clear that spending our resources (i.e. human, natural resource and financial capital) at such an enormous rate as the United States does, on military endeavors, is not making us any freer. In fact, quite the opposite is most likely true. That is, it is impinging on both our civil and political rights, as well as our economic freedoms.

The fact that "freedom" itself is a bizarrely abstract concept, makes it easier to use as a tool to manipulate public opinion. I will end here with some of my personal perspective on the concept of "freedom" which helps to explain my constant use of quotes around the word, as well as helping to frame the topic.

First, the word "freedom" implies a lack of limits or restaint, as in being totally free to do whatever one wants to do. Of course, this is nonsense. Although using the word "freedom" tends to invoke the notion of unlimited choice, in reality, only an omnipotent being would have total freedom. Freedom is relative, and actually denotes being granted the right (or left) to make certain choices for oneself.

Second, the concept of freedom is biased toward an individualistic world view, which itself, is biased toward conservative ideology. We are taught to think of freedom as applying basically to the individual. There is such a thing as collective choice, or collective freedom, if you will, which operates at the societal level, and which outweighs individual freedom in many regards. Elections, if done fairly, are a good example of collective choice. However, the concept of freedom is seldom thought of as collective in an individualistic culture such as this, at least. Perhaps it is in more collectivistic cultures, which helps account for differing perceptions on topics such as civil and political rights. If members of the OWS movement began referring to themselves as fighting for the collective freedom of the 99%ers to direct their own governance such as by having truly fair elections, and truly representative democracy, it would help focus the movement. That is happening to an extent, which is a good thing, but due to our cognitive training it is difficult for Americans to stop thinking in terms of their own personal freedoms, and their own economic plights.

Third, the freedom that matters most is mental, not behavioral. Freedom (the right to make choices) can be thought of as having emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components. However, the act of choosing, is essentially a cognitive process, aided by emotional processes. A person can have considerable freedom to behave as he or she chooses, yet still be mentally trapped into a certain way of thinking. On the other hand, a person who lacks much behavioral choice, may mentally be free to think and feel quite freely. (Think Stephen Hawking, for example.) We probably all have had experiences, in which we found ourselves trapped in a certain modality of thought which limited our ability to choose, or on the other hand, have found our choices taken away by others, but we essentially remained as free as before because our mental alacrity to think and feel as we pleased, remained unaffected. However, the discussion of "freedom" focuses obsessively on the idea of behavioral freedom.

Fourth, here is something which I have heard from several people to whom I am very close: Freedom is overrated. This is not to say that freedom is unimportant, but rather, that it does not always lead to the desired outcomes, as I understand it and agree with. The phrase, "Be careful what you wish for" comes to mind. Perhaps we would find ourselves happier and better off, if rather than obsessing over personal decisions and what is "right for me," we deferred somewhat to those with more experience and especially, to the greater, collective good. The concept of freedom that we have here in the United States, at least, and probably around much of the world, is akin to being a teenager who is given several credit cards, and told to go shopping, buy whatever you want, and money is no object. Now, that's freedom! It is for awhile, anyway. And people in such situations tend to be inordinately happy, until the bill eventually comes due, when they suddenly become alarmed and stressed. That is exactly what has happened with the huge scam that U.S. politicians and the military-industrial complex has perpetrated upon the people of the United States, and predictably, they don't want to pay; they want us to pay the bill and go through severe austerity in order to do so. Freedom in the hands of a fool, is a dangerous thing; it must be used wisely if we are to enjoy our freedoms.

November 22

Made to Love

Tomorrow is Zunliang (Eunice) and my tenth anniversary. Sadly, Eunice is in Taiwan, has been there since we went to Taiwan together in early August, and will be there until around Christmastime. She asked me to write something for our anniversary, but I was going to do that anyway. I could write a silly love poem, but not this time. Rather, I will let my mind meander a bit about love and Eunice.

We have a magic Guava tree. I don't know how many people out there have a magic tree, but we do. I collected a large (1 gallon, I think) bowl of Guavas yesterday. A while ago, I almost got another gallon of Guavas. These are Pineapple Guavas, one of those tricky fruit which for some reason, evolved to remain inconspicuously green, making only the cleverest and most knowledgeable critters among us, savvy to their delicious ripeness. The ways to know which ones to pick, or pick up, or basically, to pick up ones that have recently fallen to the ground, shake the tree and pick up the ones that fall to the ground, or lightly pull on different fruit and pick the ones that detach from the tree with the light pull. These are the ones that are ripe. Fortunately, Eunice and I both like Pineapple Guavas, but unfortunately, she is not here to eat them. Thus, in the past 9 days, I have given a large bag full of them to Occupy Riverside, and another to my Okinawan neighbors. I know that Doreen's 93 or 94 year old mother, Mabel, likes them a lot, at least. A few years ago, I wrote about this tree on my blog when Eunice was in Taiwan, and I basically used the tree to provide all my fruit needs at the time (and still had bags full in the refrigerator when Eunice returned). I estimated that the tree produced about 900 Guavas that year. This year, I would have to say that the total will be well over 1,000 Guavas, perhaps around 1,500 or more, another new record amount. Yesterday, I probably picked up at least 150 Guavas that had fallen off the tree (and left a few that were difficult to reach). Today, I probably got about another 150 of them. This may be the peak of the season, which lasts from about September through December, with a few possibly in late August and in early January, but I had already picked hundreds, and there are still hundreds on the tree. The particularly magic, strange thing about the tree, is that the fruit are very difficult to see on the tree. Although some fruit can be seen, the tree has far more growing on it than it appears to. They seem to appear out of thin air as they fall to the ground. Today, as I was picking up the fruit, I found myself laughing repeatedly as I found bunches of fruit on the ground which had appeared since yesterday, and as new fruit kept falling as I was rummaging around under the tree. It occured to me that such laughter has been a common occurence while picking up the Guavas over the years.

It also occured to me that this tree has had a lot of help in becoming so "magical." It was one of our first purchases for the yard at our house, and we placed it on the side of the front yard, in a place with good soil and not far from the front door, making it convenient to toss fruit peels, veggie peels and other stuff that is yummy for plants, under the tree. Eunice in particular, has had a habit of nurturing the tree in this way, but I do too. I know that the productivity of the tree is a result of good genetics, good soil, good climate for this species, lots of natural fertilizer, and tender loving care -- in other words, compatibility between the tree and its environment. On the other hand, we also planted a Pineapple Guave tree on our back hill, which for the most part, has been a tree graveyard. Aside from the point, it was sold to us falsely as a "Strawberry Guava," but clearly, it appears to be a Pineapple Guava tree. I say it appears to be a Pineapple Guava tree, because it has never succeeded in producing a single fruit. Being a hardy tree, it has remained green-leaved and healthy throughout these years, but cannot find enough nutrients to produce fruit. Last year, it had a few blooms for the first time, and this year, it had probably around 30 flowers, so I was hopeful that this was the year it would have fruit, but they all fell off. I have tried to fertilize the tree, but it is difficult to do on a fairly steep, dry, hot granite soiled hill such as this. Can you see where this is heading?

Yes, love must be nurtured, too, in order to work. I know that both Eunice and myself have always nurtured our relationship, because we treasure it and it is of the greatest importance to us. If only every couple was so commited to their relationship, and so nurturing, divorce would be a rarity. Our love is like the "magic Guava tree," which keeps producing so many goodies that it gets ridiculous to the point of making us laugh.

I believe that the most important factor in being loved, is being lovable -- being loyal to the relationship and worthy of love. There is another side to our relationship, however. Of course, there is a very strong compatibility factor, but there is also the greater issue of life's purpose. Perhaps the Universe has brought us together, in other words. I won't go into the circumstantial evidence for that here. I know a lot of people don't believe in that, while many others do, but the evidence is there. I have a friend who believes in reincarnation, who says that every soul must experience being a male, a female, a father and a mother, in order to be complete. Perhaps, our souls also need to experience true love in order to be complete -- deep, soul-wrenching love, I mean, the kind that Eunice and I experience. If so, I pity all the people who fail to find true love or do not pursue it. I know that Eunice and I have found such love. Perhaps this is our time to complete our souls through love. We have sacrificed a great deal to be together, have suffered in many ways and spent much time apart, but none of that dissuades us. Whatever happens, wherever life leads me, however long we may live, or however long we may be apart, I will always know that I have experienced true love. I take this gift from Eunice with me always. Xie Xie (thank you) You-Nice, or as she is known in Taiwan, Chairwoman Chu, the adorable, kindhearted, living doll of a person that I was fortunate enough to have love me and be my wife. Understand this as I do; we are made to love, as much and as deeply as we can.

Imagine the cultural evolution and the progress we would make if we lived in a love-based society, instead of the greed-based one we currently find ourselves in.

November 16

A Capital Idea Part 93: I Occupied Riverside, and I Liked it

On Sunday morning, I noticed a post on Facebook from Occupy Riverside which said that they would be having an "education day" that day with various workshops. I checked the workshop schedule, and decided that this was the day for me to make my first appearance at an Occupy site. Thus, I found myself headed for downtown Riverside, CA that afternoon.

I got there around 3 p.m., although I apparently was so excited that my adrenaline was in high gear, resulting in me having to pee by the time I parked my car. I parked on Mission Inn Boulevard (Riverside's most iconic landmark), so I had a short visit to Riverside's Historic Landmark prior to heading for the Occupation site in the area of University and Main Streets. This is essentially a plaza area where no cars are allowed, a beautiful and excellent site for an Occupation, surrounded by various quaint shops, many of them actual one-of-a-kind, local businesses. The place was clean, obviously well cared-for, as well as attractive, and absolutely no obstruction of the businesses was taking place. In fact, the Occupy movement seems to be bringing more business to the downtown plaza. This area has the government buildings of Riverside and Riverside County, since Riverside is the seat of Riverside County, which is a very large county. It also contains legal and financial centers of the region, such as they are (relatively minor, to be perfectly honest).

Every hour there were 3 workshops scheduled, at locations "A," "B," and "C." I immediately noticed a group of people at location "A," and saw from the board that it was an overview of the causes of the current economic crisis. A fairly young lady was speaking, and she did an excellent job although she was covering material that personally, I already knew pretty well. At one point, she mentioned teaching, so I figured that she was a professor, like me. I counted about 15 other people at station A, mostly college student types, and saw that several people were actually taking notes. There were also several little child revolutionaries running around in a sort of populist preschool atmosphere. Around 3:30, the first presenter gave way to the second presenter, a fairly young man who also appeared to be a college instructor. Again, he did a very good job, although I had to wonder about his singling out of psychology departments as being bought off by big business. This is definitely not the case anywhere that I have been. After finishing his short talk, there was a discussion period, which was very active, with probably no fewer than 10 questions and/or comments from the audience. I added a couple of comments of my own in fact. I was very pleased to see such a high level of intellectual curiosity, and willingness to learn by the Occupiers. After finishing, I introduced myself to the male presenter -- the female one went somewhere very quickly so she was unavailable. Here is what I found out. It turns out that both of them had been teaching at U.C. Riverside, but had been let go due to budget cuts. The man I was talking to was an English professor, and I think the other presenter is too. His wife was the oriental (I think Japanese) gal (while the presenter is a "white guy") with the young daughter and son little revolutionaries orbiting around her. He also admitted that the big business connection to psychology is not so much at the U.C. schools, but mostly at east coast Ivy League schools. It is my opinion that universities are victims of coporatization, all departments, not just psychology, so that in the face of lost public revenue, they have to look to deep pocket businesses for funding these days. Now here is where it got really interesting. After being let go by U.C. Riverside, both of them have found part-time work at Moreno Valley College, the same place where I teach! I had not seen them before, but we all teach at the same school. An audience member said he had recently finished going to Moreno Valley College too. I am surprised the two Enlgish professors found work where I teach, since we are also losing professors and classes due to budget cuts, but I guess my school is still hiring people with Ph.D.s. It's getting to the point where almost everybody who teaches at Community Colleges has a Ph.D. these days, including myself.

Around this time, lo and behold, a familiar young man shook my hand and said "Hello Dr. Warden." I knew immediately who he was -- a student from this winter session who had read my blog and complimented me on it. I couldn't remember his name though, so he told me he was Cesar (plus his last name). Cesar had those plastic serving gloves on his hands. He said he was dispensing donated food, so I followed him back to his food stand. People were asking him for food such as salads, all for free. It was totally refreshing to see such sharing and community. I asked Cesar about how to contribute and he said pretty much any food or supplies were welcome. A moment later, a young African American woman asked me if she could interview me. She asked if I was part of the Occupy movement, so I told her yes, but mainly, I blog about it. She was fine with that, and for the next half hour, she basically listened to me and took copious notes. She really didn't have to ask me much; she just pushed my "on" button and my engine ran by itself. It turns out that she is a student at U.C. Riverside, and she was interviewing people for an English class assignment. By the time she was finished with the interview, it was 4:30 so the next workshops were about halfway through.

After getting Cesar's phone number and email address, I went over to a workshop at location "B" that said "Nonviolence." People there were reading in turns from a scholarly article. However, the article wasn't what I had expected from the title. Frankly, it did remind me of the conversations about racial oppression I had with my African-American advisor while in graduate school. There was definitely a lot of "hate whitey," references to "white privilege" and white pacifists not understanding why violence by oppressed populations is sometimes justified, in the article, even though it was written by a guy with a Dutch-type name. I had to have some very mixed feelings about this workshop. A couple of people apparently left it in disgust, in fact. However, nobody in the group seemed to feel like advocating violence. They seemed to simply be trying to understand why it happens sometimes, thinking about the issues, and many of them were taking notes. I counted about 18 other people aside from myself, even after a couple of people left. The article was fairly long so the session lasted until about 5:20 instead of ending on time at 5 p.m. I was sitting on a curb, and a young man next to me let me share his article. At one point, I asked him to let me look it over so I borrowed it from him for a few minutes. After finishing, there were a few questions, although most people were in a hurry to go to other workshops, etc. I needed to go home to eat dinner, prepare for school the next morning, etc. One of the comments, interestingly, brought up the topic of victim derogation, comparing racial/ethnic oppression with the derogation of rape victims, a topic which I did some research about, with a recent Ph.D. graduate, Geri Stahly, when I was a graduate student. I did speak with the young man next to me, on our perspectives on violence, and we seemed to pretty much agree that people have a right to self-defense, but should never instigate violence. In a case of synchronicity, Thom Hartmann was discussing the topic of potential violence by Occupiers the next day, and he took the same position I have been taking -- that we must take the moral high ground to make the movement as inclusive and effective as possible, which means pledging ourselves to nonviolence, even if opponents may behave violently toward us. I think the article that was read had valid points, but it does not apply to the present movement. It was about long-term oppression of people of one race by another, basically, which is completely different from what the Occupy movement is about. My fervent wish is that the Occupiers realize this and listen to the moralistic voices advocating nonviolence, whether its source is a "whitey" such as myself of Thom, or someone else. I think the presence of large numbers of women among the Occupiers I saw (about 1/2 of them), will help dissuade Occupiers from any violent impulses they may have, in general, although I am sure that there will be exceptions. (Before I forget, the gals must be evolving, as a good percentage of them had bright hair colors such as pink, green or blue. One of them even appeared to be growing feathers from her head; perhaps self-powered human flight is coming next.) Since this is a "99%" movement, clearly, it includes the large majority of "white people" who have never experienced systematic oppression by people of another race. Most importantly, with the means of instant communication and recording that are available now, it has become very difficult with oppressors to get away with violence or other forms of oppression, anymore. They may not televise the revolution, but the people will.

After talking with my reading partner, I went to find Cesar again, but he had temporarily gone somewhere, so I headed home. By that time, I had to pee again.

I called Cesar yesterday to ask him some more specific questions about donations and parking. It turns out that one disadvantage of the location is that this is the "high rent" district, such as it is, of Riverside County, which means that free parking is difficult to find except on weekends or outside of the 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. working hours. Thus, I decided to go back to Occupy Riverside today after 5 p.m. when the parking is free. I will bring an American flag, some markers for writing on signs, bottled water, a bunch of Pineapple Guavas from our "magic tree" that has close to 1,000 Guavas every fall, "Caesar" Salad Dressing (for Cesar), Ketchup, Mustard, canned Tuna, and paper towels. Most of these items are thanks to my gorgeous packrat wife's shopping habits, who buys large amounts of on-sale food and stores it in various places in our house, patio and garage. Eunice is still in Taiwan, and plans to return around Christmas, but she told me she wants to go to check out Occupy Riverside and make more donations shortly after she returns. Bless her heart!

Well, that is my report from Occupy Riverside. Overall, it was very encouraging to see so many young adults educating themselves in civics, politics, economics and so forth, and being willing to learn from others with more experience such as myself. Also encouraging is the sense of community they are forming, and the experience in direct, hands-on democracy. I am proud of them all, especially Cesar, as well as my friends "Nimblecivet" (James) who is a camping Occupier in San Francisco, and David Walker, who is a day Occupier in Chicago. I don't know what the outcome of the Occupy movement will be, but I know that something good will result from what we are learning.

By the way, I wasn't counting the total number of people at the event, but I think it was somewhere between 50-100 at any one time.

November 13

A Capital Idea Part 92: Truth, Knowledge, Power, Money and Freedom

I was listening to a radio show guest a couple of months ago talking about Native American folklore when something clicked for me regarding this topic. I saved this topic for later, and now is later. I don't remember a lot of the details, but she was talking about Native American stories which taught that Knowledge is Power. We have similar stories and sayings from virtually any culture, I suspect. A related truism regarding Freedom is "The Truth Will Set You Free."

In theory, all of these sayings should be true, indeed. Knowledge is really only knowledge if it is True, by definition. Knowledge allows us to influence our environment to effect certain outcomes; thus Knowledge gives us Power. For example, scientific Knowledge gives us Power to manipulate our environment for our own perceived benefit. The same of course goes for knowing the Truth. It allows us to have clear perceptions of our circumstances so we can effectively deal with them. To give a counterexample, schizophrenics do not accurately perceive their environment due to false thoughts and perceptions coming from self-generated stimuli; thus, they are unable to effectively deal with their circumstances. As for "The Truth Will Set You Free," we will never truly be free as long as we are living a delusion. To continue the schizophrenia counterexample, schizophrenics tend to suffer many idiosyncratic (as opposed to the culturally prescibed) delusions; thus, they find themselves prisoners of their own warped thought processes. The more Knowledge, i.e. Truth we know, the more freedom we can enjoy as relatively enlightened souls -- freedom to be who we were meant to be, to make rational and informed choices while taking responsibility for those choices. From a psychological standpoint, conventional wisdom works out excellently regarding Truth, Knowledge, Power, and Freedom.

However, these is a proverbial fly in the ointment of these fine proverbs, namely Money. The basic problem is that Money distorts the relations between Truth, Knowledge, Power, and Freedom, inserting itself into the process and basically taking it over if it can. Money will run, and ruin, everything if it has a chance to. And when unrestrained financial capitalism reigns, Money has every opportunity to do so. Money is used to manipulate the messages we hear -- to convince people that what the people who run the media want us to believe, is in fact the Truth. This is called propaganda, but when I say propaganda, I mean it in a broad sense, a sense which includes the spin we hear in conventional news shows, and even in many ordinary conversations with friends, family and acquaintances, as well as advertising and political or religious messages we hear. When we are affected by propaganda, of any of the kinds mentioned in the prevous sentence, what we think we "Know" is not actual Knowledge, but rather a socially constructed distortion of the Truth. Essentially, we become as delusional as schizophrenics, but on a mass scale, when socially prescribed delusions become the norm, and thus, society becomes dysfunctional. The influence of Money and Power concentrated in the hands of a few people, acts to create these socially constructed, delusional memes which serve their masters.

Of course, we Know that if we let it, Money will become Power. That is what we are dealing with now, which has prompted and is the focus of our growing revolution as exemplified by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Money inserts itself big-time into the political process, if we let it, and our recent predecessors have indeed let that happen, big-time. Rather than stemming from Truth and Knowledge, as it should, Power stems from having more money than one's competitors. Of course, humanity has a long history of Power resulting from having better weapons and more aggression than other potential leaders, so True democracy and enlightened culture has been difficult to establish, but as a whole, humanity has been working in that direction. Now, Power is not coming from the barrel of a gun so much, at least not directly, but rather, comes from the Money that buys the political process, as well as the guns from whose barrels Power sometimes still comes. It is the influence of Money, not raw agression and threats, which stand in the way of a more enlightened society now (or perhaps it has always been that way). We, the 99%, have been effectively pretty much neutered, in the process, from the standpoint of political Power. Without Power, we are relatively helpless, unable to effectively make the changes we need to in order to move forward, especially the big changes. Our Freedom has been compromised in this state of pseudo-democracy, or semi-democracy, a state which is very difficult to characterize. We still have democracy, we still have campaigns and elections. We have some very good politicians even, as public servants, but frankly, we have mostly bad ones. No wonder only 9% of Americans approve of the job Congress has been doing. We have a choice between two political parties which are both more conservative than the large majority of the public, and certainly far more conservative than they need to be, in the relatively stultified system that American politics has become. No wonder we, the 99%, are beginning to openly revolt against politics as usual, and especially, the influence of big Money in politics.

We are underpaid or out of work. That has to be bad for one's sense of Freedom.

We are undereducated and most of us can no longer afford higher education without a scholarship or going into so much debt that it resembles indentured servitude. That cannot be good for our sense of Freedom.

Education is derogated in popular culture and in the media oftentimes, as well. This only serves the purpose of those who do not want us to have Truth, Knowledge, Power, and Freedom -- or Money, for that matter.

And of course, as mentioned above, while being told we are included in and crucial to the political process, we are effectively marginalized in terms of access to real Power. That has to detract from our sense of Freedom.

The way to regain our Freedom, Power, Knowledge, and Truth, is to assert ourselves politically. We, the 99%, must continually use the right of democracy to speak out for what we believe in, what we need, so that we can build a society in which Knowledge is indeed Power (and Money is no longer Power), and in which the Truth Will indeed Set Us Free (and the amount of Money one has will no longer be directly proportional to whatever limited Freedom a person enjoys, which doesn't appear to be much Freedom for me at this time since I only have $1 left in my wallet). I Know it will not be easy, but this is the path that history has set us upon.

November 8

A Capital Idea Part 91: Cyber-Occupying, Micro-Occupying, and Voting-Booth Occupying

As a social scientist as well as an interested observer, I have noticed how culture consists of a coordinated set of norms, standards, rules, customs, language, and so forth. The same applies to cultural change. What we are talking about here, is actually cultural evolution.

I have mentioned that it is my impression that the Occupy movement is the most recent and most visible expression of a revolution which has been fomenting in people's hearts for years. This revolution I believe, will actually be a process of cultural evolution, and as such, it will need to consist of a coordinated set of related phenomena in order to succeed.

The revolution probably began with social networking via the internet. Suddenly, people were sharing their political opinions with others they never would have known otherwise, and they found like-minded people, probably far moreso than they expected to. Arguably, the revolution may have started prior to that with local movements, such as creating local economic cooperatives, people attempting to be more self-sufficient by growing their own food, or efforts to buy from local businesses rather than large conglomerates. However, it seems to me that this aspect of the revolution is just beginning to pick up momentum with the advent of Bank Transfer Day and the whole movement toward utilizing credit unions. I would say that the second phase of the revolution was most likely Voting-Booth Occupying, particularly with the election of Obama in 2008. Unfortunately, conservative backlash and the pre-existence of a deeply conservative political system, regardless of who was elected to be our President, temporarily derailed the Voting-Booth sub-revolution. I would say that Micro-Occupying is the fourth phase of the revolution.

Of course, all of these sub-revolutions are interconnected and interrelated, so creating a timeline with separate phases is rather misleading. Instead, what is crucial to the success of this process of cultural evolution, is for the people to recognize what is happening, and make every effort to engage in coordinated actions involving the various forms of occupying. In other words, people, Cyber-Occupy, Micro-Occupy, and Voting-Booth Occupy your hearts out! Occupy to your hearts content. Do not make the mistake of equating the current revolution with the in-the-streets protesters. But don't hesitate to engage in In-The-Streets Occupation, if so inclined. This revolution consists of all sorts of occupation, using our voices and our actions, to effect progressive change -- a change that is nothing less than a fundamental change in the nature of our culture.

Ultimately, the most important actions we take in order to effect political change, will probably be the processes which lead to the election of politicians. We need to be involved in the process, all of us, of selecting -- or even being -- politicians, from showing up at campaign stops or political debates, to donations to progressive candidates, to voting for progressive candidates in primaries, to voting for them in actual elections. In fact, I heard a councilman from Los Angeles yesterday morning, a true progressive named Rosenthal -- these past few days have been so eventful that I almost forget this in the midst of events -- essentially make the same point on Pacifica Radio. He said that we must use the energy of the Occupy movement to translate to the voting process, in order to elect more progressives to public office. I couldn't agree more.

I would add further that instead of falling asleep at the wheel once our candidates are elected, as often tends to happen with the electorate, we must continue to take the wheel of politics and steer America into the future. We must always keep the pressure on politicians to engage in progressive policies, and make our representative actually represent us. Otherwise, the forces of corporate fascism, social conservatism imposed on all of us by a relatively small minoirty, and political corruption will tend to take hold, until we create a system in which such things are not possible. It should be our goal to create such a system. Yes, I know that many people will claim that an uncorruptible system is not possible, but I believe it is, once we take the influence of big money out of politics, making it illegal, and establish a truly representative democracy in which all the people are taught to participate. By actively and conscientiously participating in the political process, we can Occupy it.

October 30

A Capital Idea Part 90: The Genius of the Occupy Wall Street

Last night I watched The McGloughlin Group, the longstanding political discussion show on public broadcasting. I used to watch this show regularly, but not so much anymore since I noticed that even the discussion on the left side of the panel was truncated to prevent any discussion reaching the point of true progressive systemic changes. However, yesterday they spent much of their time discussing the Occupy Wall Street movement. Predictably, the persons on the right (Pat Buchanan and some woman I had never seen before) were saying that the real number of protesters were small and that the movement would peter out in the winter. In addition, Pat Buchanan was saying that they were a bunch of modern-day hippies who would discredit themselves with their horrible behavior, exactly the sort of thing which happened to some extent in the 1960s and which I warned the protesters against in my previous post, and furthermore, which this time I don't think will happen. The two members on the left (Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page) in contrast, said that the movement has staying power and will continue over the long haul, if not grow. As usual, Moderator John McLaughlin was leaning toward the wrong side with Buchanan and the new right-wing talker.

It struck me during this conversation that only Clift and Page really understood that this is a far larger movement than a few thousand disgruntled persons. I think only Clift mentioned the social media as supporting this movement, although I know Page is aware of that too since I am "friends" with him on Facebook. Furthermore, Clift mentioned that earlier movements did not have this level of organization and communication made possible by the social media. The hippies of the 1960s could only dream of such things, which might as well have been something out of Star Trek as far as they were concerned. Well, maybe I am exaggerating a bit, since they did have stay put telephones, at least, but that is not nearly the same thing. One thing that has become clear to me regarding the Occupy movement, is that among media pundits, only progressives really understand it even though it is supported by over 92% of the population in a recent poll. Also, this poll found that 70% of the Occupiers were political independents, suggesting the impetus and desire for the formation of a new, reform-minded and progressive political party, or pulling the Democratic Party well to the left of where it has been. Most of the Occupiers were found to have jobs, also, contrary to media portrayals of them.

Conservatives to a person at this point, just don't seem to understand the genius of the Occupy movement, and perhaps it is fuzzy to most progressives as well, so I will lay it out here. (I didn't hear Clift or Page really show they understood this in all of its details, although they know it is a far larger movement than just the protesters who are doing the "Occupying.") First, we have chronically high unemployment. This is an essential consequence of putting financial capitalists in charge of the economy. For all the talk about lowering the unemployment rate, it will never drop substantially as long as the Banksters and their CEO buddies control the conversation regarding the economy. The reason is that capitalism craves cheap labor. It will both go wherever in the world cheap labor exists, which it has, and it will make the supply of jobs scarce so that people will be willing to work for minimal pay, which it also has done, giving us chronically high unemployment. It has become difficult for young people, even with college or even more advanced degrees, to find work. This creates a large supply of frustrated, resentful, talented young people who have little to lose by protesting. (The Arab Spring is also largely being fueled by much the same lack of job opportunities for its educated young persons.) To that population which sees corporate greed as their enemy which denies them work opportunities and pays them unfairly even if they do find work, are added progressives who have been around much longer, and have educated themselves over the years regarding the economic/political situation. Some of these have already been political activists over the years for progressive causes, who can add their expertise. Also, there are a mix of middle aged and older persons who have probably never protested anything before, but may be chronically unemployed and blame corporate greed for their situation, or have realized that they have been getting abused by the system even if they are employed. Many of them are concerned regarding the fate of their children or grandchildren, in fact.

Take this mix of disgruntled persons, and put it all together, and you get a political powderkeg which inevitably will lead to some sort of protests. Add to this, the raw power grabs by Republican politicians, attempting to disband unions in some states, for instance, or change electoral college law in states they expect Obama to win, so that the Republican candidate will get at least some electoral college votes. I almost feel as though I am watching the Republican end game, not as vile but just as antisocial as the Nazi's end-game which involved eliminating the Jews and whomever else they didn't like. Of course, that ended in the implosion of the Nazi movement in Germany, and I suspect that events which are unfolding in the United States will end in either the implosion of the Republican Party, or a radical leftward shift within the party necessary for it to become rational once again. The level of anger and frustration at this point among the majority of the electorate has reached the point where it must have some sort of expression. But none of this background addresses the real genius of the OWS movement.

Here is what is so ingenius about it, that far surpasses previous social movements:

First, we have a large and relatively steady supply of unemployed and underemployed persons, with little to lose and a whole lot to gain collectively, who act as peaceful soldiers, if you will, in the war against corporate oligarchy. The more the system oppresses the 99%, and the longer the current dysfunctional system goes on without remedy, the more determined they will be to fix the system.

Secondly, they have a support system which is unlike anything that was possible in the past. People are using the internet to donate food, shelter, port-a-potties, clothing, and whatever these protesters need. Protesting has essentially become their job, which as far as I know, was never the case in the past.

Third, many of them have both photo and movie taking capabilities which were not present during past movements, either, and which can broadcast -- live in many cases -- police brutality or the actions of conservative infiltrators, for instance, when these do occur. They can also record the large peaceful crowds of protesters, and all of the good things going on there, without having to wait for the "Eyewitness News" truck, or whatever, to show up.

Fourth, speaking of police, the protesters are on the side of the police, as police are part of the 99%, and furthermore, are unionized employees who are the target of Republican royalist nutbags who wish to have them replaced by private militia or "security." Some policemen and policewomen don't seem to realize that yet, but eventually, they should. Thus, the power of authority to squash the protests is very limited, given the sympathy of most police to the movement.

Fifth, and most importantly, the Occupy movement is just the visible manifestation of a far larger movement which is occuring in the blogosphere and the social media of the internet. Thus, no matter what happens to the protesters who carry signs while walking or occupying financial centers, the movement will continue. There is no way our internet or cell phones can be taken from us. Of course, this larger population of internet connected people is supporting the protesters in ways material, intellectual, spiritual and inspirational. Thus, one way or another, the movement will continue. There is no way for the oligarchs to stop it. The only way it could stop, is if complacency among the electorate sets in again. It was complacency which led to the conditions which made this movement necessary in the first place, but now that people are waking up politically, not only here in these United States, but around the world, we will not fall asleep on the job again.

Sixth, the movement has learned from past movements. The large majority of the protesters have pledged to stay non-violent. They have learned from, if not studied, previous nonviolent movements. I am confident that some of the leaders among the movement have studied works describing how to have a successful, peaceful revolution, such as the works of Gene Sharp. They have also by and large decided that it is best to behave themselves, and not act like spoiled adolescents who have run away from home and wish to act wild and crazy, or some such. So far, the protesters have taken the moral high ground, as they need to continue doing in order to maximize the success of this largely morally based movement.

Seventh, it is a relatively leaderless movement, a truely populist one, which avoids the problems caused by cults of personality. Eventually, there should be identifiable leaders of the Occupy movement, some already well known, some new names and faces to the public, but it will remain the ultimate populist movement of potentially global proportions.

Finally, the "Occupiers" are policing themselves, another lesson they have learned from past movements and the recent revolution in Egypt. They are catching infiltrators who try to make them look bad, as well as disciplining those among their number who commit transgressions such as acts of violence or other inappropriate behaviors -- often using their high tech capabilities to aid in these efforts.

It is the combination of all these factors which make the current political movements around the world, actually, beginning with the "Arab Spring," and continuing with the Occupy movement, distinct from previous political movements. However, compared to the Arab Spring, in this global economy, the Occupy movement's reach has become truly global. The combination of these factors, acting synergistically to allow the Occupy Wall Street movement sustainability, global outreach, and the broadest possible appeal, is the true genius of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

October 24

A Capital Idea Part 89: This Could be the Best Revolution Ever

This is my special message to all the 99%er revolutionaries among us. I really believe this could be a positively transformational period in human history. It could be, but that depends -- on us. I suffer no delusion that 99% of the population is on our side, although it should be. However, I am sure that it is the large majority of us.

Who is not on our side? For one, and most importantly, the oligarchy and their massive wealth is not. For another, the banksters are not. We all know that Republican politicians are not on our side, and many Democratic ones are not either. The right-wing pundits are not, either, of course. And of course, there are the Archie Bunkers and ditto-heads of the world who act against their own self-interest. But all of these put together, probably amount to 20-25% of the American population.

Let me give you my perspective on what we are up against, that is, what these wealthy people who oppose the 99%ers really want and don't want of the American public.

Don't be delusional about these people. They don't want you to be rich -- they want little obedient wage slaves instead. As long as you are too busy trying to "make a living" to pay attention to politics or complain too much, the system they put into motion can keep churning along.

They don't want us to be educated, really -- they want us to know just enough to make good wage slaves. People such as myself are what they think of as anomalies, no matter how many of us there are. There must be institutions of higher education, so people such as myself slip through the cracks and get PH.Ds in what they refer to derogatorily with such language as "pinko commie liberal institutions" such as the University of California, where our advisors rage against the military industrial complex and the corruptness of the Republican party. I was supposed to hate affirmative action, and be a conservative champion of the power of the individual over collective action. I was supposed to love the private sector and hate big government, but something went wrong; actually, something went wrong with probably over 90% of us. I have yet to meet an openly conservative psychologist, despite the omni-present bald pate of Dr. Phil, Texas conservative clinical psychologist (or some such) on the television. What went wrong? We were educated! By the way, I think the same holds true for my two older PH.D brothers (a geneticist and a water quality specialist). No wonder these people want to privatize the educational system, make it the domain of the wealthy, and dictate its agenda and curriculum!

They don't want a low unemployment rate either. No, they want many of you to be unemployed and struggling to find work. Why? When their is a shortage of jobs, people get desperate for them, so they will work for just about any wage, no matter how low. What do they do about the unemployed? Social Darwinism, basically. If you are unemployed, so they say, you must be an Unworthy One. The rich deserve their wealth, they say; it is proof of their worthiness. The poor are like lost sheep which deserve nothing better than to be victims of the wolves of the world. Meanwhile, Republican politicians circle Obama like a school of sharks on the hunt.

They don't want you to vote either. They say they believe in democracy, and as proof, they are willing to export what they call "democracy" from the barrel of a gun. But they don't want democracy; they want an oligarchy of the wealthy. The less the people vote, the better for them. They assuage us with mindless entertainment -- sports for men, soap operas for women, idiotic sitcoms for both genders, etc. And they let us have computer games and other high tech toys, hoping to distract us from our growing problems.

What do they want? Well, that's easy -- money, power, prestige, comfort, security, self-esteem-- the more the better. How do they get what they want? By rigging the system so that a constant flow of money comes their way, and using that money to buy the rest, except for self-esteem, which cannot be bought. How do they get self-esteem? They rig their own personal belief systems to make their actions worthy of only the best among us. They believe in Social Darwinism, and place themselves at the top. They convince themselves that they are the "job creators" without which society cannot function. They even adjust their religious belief systems to reflect their privileged reality.

What do we want? We want economic fairness, an unrigged system, education for all, widely available employment, and true democracy in which money plays no part. In other words, we want all the things they don't, and I believe, we are going to get it, sooner or later.

How will we get there? By being persistent, by all pitching in and helping, and by all understanding the current situation and how we need to transform society.

In the previous two blog posts, I described the Social Contract and some ways to enforce it. This is my way of framing the new revolution. This revolution is about forming a new Social Contract and making sure that it cannot be undone by a small minority of greedy (in any way) individuals. I described how "the other side" -- namely the corporate oligarchs, many bankers, and many of those in government and the miliatary -- have broken the Social Contract. However, we, the 99%ers, have our own social obligations to fulfill if we are to form a new, much better Social Contract and succeed in making it a reality.

This must remain a peaceful movement, even if the opposition becomes violent. Never let them have the social ammunition to make the case that they have the higher moral ground.

This movement must be focused and disciplined, something which is often difficult for the young and angry to succeed at. We, especially those in the public eye, must be on our best behavior as much as possible. Have fun, but don't turn protests into parties! Don't take drugs, don't engage in sexual promiscuity, don't act like jerks, and don't blame clean living people such as me when people do so and we all suffer the consequences. This is a moral movement; thus, it must act morally.

This movement must not become a showcase for personalities. The cult of personality can be a dangerous thing. That is why it being a "leaderless movement," at least in the beginning, is a good thing. I believe that the movement will eventually need leaders, but based on rational reasons, not based on the "Need for Power" (as psychologist Henry Murray would call it).

We must be persistent, and not get discouraged when things don't go as we hope. Things we rarely go exactly as we hope, but as long as we make our point and keep moving forward, we will succeed.

We must all do what we can to help. This is not a movement merely of disgruntled, mostly out of work people protesting against corporate power. In fact, the seeds of this revolution were planted long ago, and all of us who are not on the side of the oligarchs, are revolutionaries. Make no mistake: There will ultimately be no such thing as neutral in this revolution. This is a populist revolution, with the large majority against a relatively small minority. All of us will take part in it. Those of us who are not out in the streets, may do as much or more for this movement in many cases, as those in the streets. Those who write, talk, or take action in favor of the 99%ers are all effective revolutionaries. Those who love humanity are 99%ers too, as are the people who buy Pizzas or Port-a-Potties for the protesters and otherwise support them. Holding protest signs and walking around in large city downtown financial and government centers is only the more out-in-the-open, attention catching side of the revolution. Ultimately, most of this revolution will take place at the ballot box, the Whitehouse.gov email box, and the halls of Congress and the White House, when we find representative who finally represent us! But those of us who do go out and protest, keep on protesting. We need you. You have gotten their attention. And if you support the revolution in some other way, keep on doing that as well. This generation has a chance to transform the world in a positive way, to advance human cultural evolution to a point where we at last, put the era of financial capitalism dominance behind us, but we must all participate. Don't ever think of political participation as merely an optional right. It is not only a right, but really, an obligation!

I have been hearing a relevant quote attributed to Ghandi recently in relation to the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, when I looked it up on the internet, I found that this quote was disputed, but there is a verified similar quote from a Union activist named Nicholas Klein in 1918. Here it is:

"And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

We have gotten past the "ignore" stage, and reached the stage of being ridiculed. Please be prepared for the real attacks on the movement and those involved in it, in the coming years. Be brave, but be careful and self-controlled.

Finally, we must understand the world pretty much as it is. Live life with an open mind, a rational mind, a caring mind. Believe in fairness and work for it, always. Most of all, live a life of good conscience. The growing revolution we now find ourselves in asks nothing less of us, and nothing more.

October 17

A Capital Idea Part 88: Enforcing the Social Contract

Last time, I wrote about the social contract, a mostly unwritten understanding of the rights and obligations of both individuals and the institutions which they create. Lacking official status, the social contract is relatively easy to break, and in fact, even deny that it exists. Thus, it has been sadly abused by those who have the power to manipulate financial, political, religious and military institutions in recent years.

In order to prevent such abuses, the social contract must have a pre-eminent position in society, as enshrined in culture and law as the Constitution is. One way to do this would be to actually write it into the Constitution, perhaps in a manner similar to the Bill of Rights. This is what I would prefer, but given the stultification of the American legal system, it is unlikely at present that such a large scale change could take place -- perhaps it could happen sooner than we expect (like 2025), but not now. Before something which creates a far better foundation for society such as this occurs, the groundwork must be laid. The first step would probably be to have a group of citizens write a social contract. In fact, this has essentially been done, by various groups or individuals, although it is usually presented in terms of a "people's bill of rights." I have seen 2 or 3 of these already on Facebook. A comprehensive social contract includes the rights and obligations of all concerned -- the rights and obligations of the citizens and consumers, as well as the rights and obligations of government, financial institutions, religious and military organizations, etc. Thus, a more comprehensive document needs to be formed than the various ones which are floating around the cybersphere these days.

Next, the document needs to be publicized. The obvious way to publicize it in these days -- what I suspect will be the very early days -- of Occupy Wall Street and the 99%ers, is to bring such a document to the attention of the protesters and have it incorporated into the demands of the protesters. At present, the Occupy movement is essentially leaderless and without agreed upon demands by the protesters. It is more of a movement against corporate greed in general -- something to which the maximum number of Americans (probably about 99% of us), can relate. However, in order for the movement to effect social justice and progressive change, it must endorse specific policies eventually. As the movement matures, leaders and more specific agendas will emerge. Part of this maturation should include something in the way of a social contract, which the people demand be encoded into law.

With the success of the movement which I expect, laws will change, perhaps in a piecemeal fashion, but at least changes reinforcing the social contract will be made. However, the progressive movement must keep its eyes on the goal of enshrining the social contract into the Constitution. Anything less, can be rather easily overturned by lobbyists and their political cronies, should the wrong group of people happen to once again attain political power. Part of this process should also be political reform, in order to make democracy more democratic. This is social contract point number 9, actually, which I forgot last time. The social contract must specify public funding of elections, and outlaw corporate funding of elections and lobbyists, at the very least. Additionally, it should include reforms such as instant runoff voting, perhaps voting for parties rather than individual candidates for governing bodies, and perhaps requiring all eligible citizens to vote, all of which should make parties other than the Democratic and Republican parties viable, giving us a multiparty system and much more of a true democracy. This people's movement must work relentlessly for these reforms, and insist upon them.

In the larger picture, the ultimate solution to the problem of money corrupting people and resulting in the disruption of the social contract, I believe, will involve creating a resource based economy. Such an economy will have strong local as well as regional and global ties. It will be based primarily on cooperation and ecological soundness and sustainability rather than competition. It will be like a thriving ecosystem as I envision it, with a multitude of economic practices which act synchronistically, rather than antagonistically. It will include redundancies just as a healthy ecosystem does, so that the economy does not depend upon any one business or institution. It will be a people's economy which gives people the relative freedom to pursue their productive activities, separately or together, but does not condone counterproductive activities. It will be a people's economy, in a truly democratic sense. When money no longer carries the meaning that it does now, and the accumulation of disproportionately vast amounts of it is no longer possible and no longer a pathway to power, making a social contract which truly serves the public will be a natural consequence. Breaking the social contract as is routinely done now, will become not only be difficult if not impossible, but rather than being a sort of status symbol of wealth and power, as it is now, such actions will be viewed as they should be, as something grossly obscene and cause for the punishment and shaming of the social contract breakers or would-be breakers.

Next time, I will present my plea to the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially it younger members, regarding my view of what their goals should be.

October 12

A Capital Idea Part 87: The Social Contract Breakers

My introduction to the concept of the social contract was when I learned about Lawrence Kohlberg's cognitive theory of moral development. I have found this a most important concept over the years, and I still think a moral perspective on the social contract is the most appropriate way to view it. In Kohlberg's theory, there are 6 stages of moral development. The fifth stage is the social contract. In terms of Kohlberg's theory, the social contract is conceptualized as a personal contract between an individual and society, including rights and obligations of the person. This is an informal thing, as in between oneself and God. Personally, I think that the social contract should be the highest stage in Kohlberg's theory; however, Kohlberg had a cognitive and individualistic bias, not surprisingly, so he placed universal ethical principles (self-chosen) and personal conscience at the highest level. Perhaps it was difficult for Kohlberg to wrap his mind around the idea of collective morality, which is really the logical extension of the social contract.

In order for a society to function effectively, there must be collective morality, actually. People must agree upon basic moral principles which undergird the legal system, personal relations, and even religion. Thus, there are unwritten, informal social contracts by which society functions, but of which people are generally unaware, and therefore, there is no particular remedy for violations of the social contract (unless they break the law) and furthermore, people may not be aware of them since they are not generally aware of the social contract itself. This makes violating the social contract relatively easy to get away with. We are suffering the consequences of powerful, rich people getting away with breaking the social contract now, and it has been only getting worse over the past several decades.

What is this implicit, collectively moral, social contract? Here in the United States (and surely without much difference throughout the world), the social contract is rather difficult to define, since it has never been clearly stated. However, it would presumably include the following components:

1. Paying taxes on a graduated scale with those who have higher incomes paying at a higher rate, to fund government services is the price which income earners and corporations must pay in order to enjoy the benefits of democracy and government services such as government built and repaired infrastructure, protection, etc.;

2. Business people are obligated to avoid using their money selfishly to advance their own agenda through political influence;

3. Consumers have the right to reasonable consumer protection, including government agencies which protect the environment, and protect consumers from abuses;

4. Workers have a right to a decent living wage from their employers;

5. The military is obligated to serve the public and not its own grand visions of a military empire;

6. Religous professionals are obligated to maintain the separation of church and state, and thus, not involve themselves in endorsing political agendas or specific politicians;

7. In return for being good citizens, the government has an obligation to protect "the commons" and use them to provide for the citizens' needs;

8. In return for being good citizens, the government has an obligation to serve the public good through large scale interventions which would otherwise be difficult for people to perform, and through the redistribution of wealth.

There may be other aspects of the social contract of which I have not thought, and since it is a work in progress, different people may have different ideas about it, but there is generally agreement among most people that it exists and that it contains components such as these. Perhaps you can think of some other aspects of the social contract.

As I examine this list, it is clear to me that all of these aspects of the social contract are being systematically violated.

1. The rich and corporations tend to avoid paying their taxes, which have been reduced to a rate which is already far too low as it is. Yet these people still whine and moan about their so-called "tax burden."

2. Large businesses hire lobbyists and support corporate candidates to change laws in their favor and increase their wealth and political power.

3. Consumers lack adequate protections as businesses and military operations continue pillage the environment, with weak environmental regulation. Similiarly, consumer protections are weak, although a new government consumer protection agency has been formed, a truly good development. (Thanks, Barack!)

4. Pay is so low for a large percentage of workers that American homeowners are losing their homes in droves, and most Americans are struggling to get by financially, even if they are employed, often working 2 or more jobs and requiring both husband and wife to work as well.

5. The military-industrial complex of the United States has reached such proportions that it resembles a military empire more than anything else, which has been occupying not only Wall Street as a resident, not a protester, but also military bases and even entire nations around the world, using excuses such as its "war on terror" to continue its extremely destructive and costly reign.

6. Fundamentalist preachers have violated the separation of church and state systematially, while enjoying tax-free status, consistently supporting socially conservative policies and politicians.

7. Our government has been mostly taken over by politicians who do not believe in "the commons" or even the social contract, but rather, are beholden to the corporate interests which fund them. As a consequence, most of them (with some notable exceptions) are more interested in supporting the upper echelon of the business community than in serving the public by providing for the needs of the typical citizen. Even those politicians who would like to serve the public good are, in my opinion, often so intimidated by lobbyists and the power of big business, that they are afraid to do anything to oppose them and risk cutting off their funding which might result in them losing their next election.

8. Conservatives, who are experts at accusing others of what they are guilty of, decry "class warfare" anytime the idea of appropriate redistributuion of wealth is brought up, through raising taxes, social programs, etc. Government has been stultified to the point where, although we clearly are drastically in need of major reforms, these become political impossibilities in the current political climate. Republicans in Congress have become so obstructionist, that they routinely oppose anything that the Obama administration proposes, on principle -- not the principle of what is good for Ameirca, but the principle that the worse they make government govern, the more voters will presumably blame the government, giving whichever sorry idea-challenged candidate they choose for next year's election, a better chance of beating Obama, and putting the "White" back in "Whitehouse." Meanwhile, since Republicans don't believe in government, governing poorly only serves to confirm their skepticism as well as that of Republican voters.

There you have it -- the rich, big business, the government, military and religious leaders hare all systematically breaking the social contract in America these days, a problem which has worsened since the 1970s or 1980s until reaching a critical point now. These people who break the social contract, as well as their apologists such as conservative radio show hosts, generally deny that it exists -- that enlightened self-interest and Social Darwinism will take care of all of our problems once they purge society of these pesky liberals and their compassion-based, logic-based and reality-based cooperative society ideas.

My basic remedy for social contract breaking, is to make it official -- a written document encoded into law much as the Constitution is. Much of the social contract which I have described is written into law to a degree, but the social contract breakers have been eroding these laws over the years, when they should have been strengthened. Also, the wealthy and powerful are very adept at getting away with violations of the law, although they would much prefer to change the law so that everything they did was legal, no matter how immoral. Once there is an actual social contract, the social contract breakers will no longer be able to deny that it exists.

Also, we need to start calling social contract breakers exactly that, something which will be far easier to do once there is a real social contract for us to point to.

I will discuss in more detail how to make the social contract work better and more difficult to break, next time.

October 6

A Capital Idea Part 86: Cheaper than Slavery

As growing crowds of unemployed people, college students and political activists protest corporate and financial greed here in the United States, millions of people still live in unofficial slavery around the world. The latest estimates are around 30 million people living in slavery, at least according to a couple of estimates that I saw (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/New_Slavery_DP.html), although it is not legal anymore in most places where it occurs, if anywhere (http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx). Actually, this amounts to less than 1/2 percent of the world's current population of about 7 billion, so as shameful as modern slavery is, it represents a tiny percentage of the population. In contrast, in states which allowed slavery had an average of about 1/3 of its inhabitants were slaves before slavery was banned in the United States. According to Wikipedia, slavery represents a smaller percentage of the world's population than in the past, although more actual slaves due to the tremendous increase in the world's population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery). Included in the world's current slave population are, most shockingly, about 1 million slaves in the United States according to the CIA, including women imported for the purpose of prostitution, as well as domestic servants and farm workers who work under conditions of sheer coercion and no pay (http://matadornetwork.com/change/10-shocking-facts-about-global-slavery-in-2008/).

Forms of modern slavery mentioned in the websites include chattel slavery (permanent servitude), debt bondage (being unable to leave due to permanent debt), contract slavery (tricking people into slavery with a false contract), early forced marriage, trafficking and forced child labor. It is worth noting that much modern slavery is connected to prostitution, in places such as Thailand, and even in England.

I believe that business owners would currently be managing to turn a much higher percentage of persons into slaves if not for one thing: It is cheaper to have wage slaves than actual slaves. I searched the internet for costs to slaveholders of owning slaves, but was unable to find anything specific about the topic, although I did find this fine article about the history of slavery in the United States, written by Jenny B. Wahl (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us). Apparently, there is no good data about the costs; thus, I cannot prove my thesis, but I think it is true.

Think of the costs of being a slaveowner.

First, back in the bad old days of public slavery, slaves were often bought, which was expensive.

Once bought, the slaveowner had to provide food and housing for the slaves, including any slave children or old slaves who could not work. This is another major expense which business owners obviously do not have to pay. When a slave died, the slaveowner might feel obliged to pay for a funeral. There were most likely some pretty high security costs, as uppity slaves had a habit of rebelling against their owners. Thus, in the old "south," the head of the household probably had to pay other white people to keep the slaves in line through violence and intimidation. Business owners who pay low wages presumably do not have to pay for their former workers' funerals, and probably have relatively low security expenses. Basically, it is easier to own a sweatshop than to own slaves. Owning slaves is inconvenient -- certainly inconvenient compared to paying sweatshop workers a pittance and asking them to take care of all their needs on that small salary, and furthermore, it's more expensive to own slaves.

There is also a very important psychological benefit of being a business owner rather than a slave owner. The legions of business owners around the world who pay very low wages get to envison themselves on the high moral ground, however delusional it may be, that they are "job creators," and "defenders of freedom," etc. since after all, their employees are free and "choose to work at this job of their own free will," and they may even live in what they call a democracy. Slaveowners do not enjoy these psychological advantages. They must do their dirty business more or less in secret. Their hearts must feel filthy. Similar advantages accrue to the paid workers compared to slaves, as well. Slaves are humiliated enormously, and must lead miserable lives. On the other hand, people who are paid ridiculously low wages, which could very well be the majority of workers around the world, at least have autonomy over their lives to a degree. They have "freedom," inasmuch as a person who barely gets by financially if even that, can have freedom. Certainly, this autonomy, or at least the perception of autonomy, is an enormous psychological advantage. On the other hand, being paid less than a slave has to be bad for a person's mental health, as well as their personal welfare!

This practice of businesses racing to the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder to find the cheapest possible employees, or even slaves, regardless of the consequences, must end. The systematic underpayment of employees must end, for the sake of humanity and its future. This is what the Occupy Wall Street movement is fighting for. Wage-slavery is a dead end in terms of cultural evolution. Viva La Revolucion!

September 28

A Capital Idea Part 85: The Psychology of the Economic Cycle of Destruction

This is a topic suggested by my psychiatrist friend, David Malen, and I thought it would naturally follow from the previous one. Get well soon David!

An examination of the Fourth Turning website (http://www.fourthturning.com/html/generations___archetypes.html), by Strauss and Howe, shows that although they are historians, they do a psychological explanation of the four different generations within a cycle. Here is my summary of what they have to say, starting with my generation, called the Prophets.

Prophets are born during the "high" which follows a crisis. They are indulged as children, but they are passionate, principled moralists, and have the attributes of vision, values and religion. According to Strauss and Howe, as young adults they challenge established institutions. As middle adults they become downbaeat and cynical, and preach a values-fixated belief system, and as older adults, they attempt to resolve deepening ethical issues.

Nomads are born during an awakening period which follows the high. The have the attibutes of liberty, survival and honor. They are cynical realists and individualists. They are underprotected as children, independent in early adulthood, tough pragmatists in middle adulthood, and advocates of simple lifestyles in older adulthood.

Heroes are born during a period of unraveling (such as the period just prior to the present). Their primary characteristics are community, affluence and technology. They often are advocates of prosperity and optimism. As children, they are nurtured and protected by pessimistic parents. As young adults during a crisis, they challenge the failures of their elders. As middle adults, they become upbeat and socially constructive, and as older adults, they continue to construct social changes.

Artists are born during a time of crisis, such as now. My parents are also artists, from the previous cycle. Their activities include pluralism, expertise and due process. They are overprotected as children during a time of crisis. As young adults during a post-crisis high, they become good helpmates in socially constructive change and in fostering a feeling of calm. In midlife, they apply expertise and due process to further progress while calming the passions of the young, and in late adulthood, during an unraveling, they quicken the pace of social change by favoring sensitivity and complexity over the old order.

What do I think of this exercise in glittering generalities? Well, it seems to me that attempting to summarize entire generations psychologically is impossible to do well. Strauss and Howe succumb to the temptation to do so, and further, make each generation look good for the most part, which begs the question: If every generation helps build a better world, how do these destructive crises occur? Strauss and Howe, being historians, not economists, seem to ignore the economic factors involved in the cycle to an extent. However, there is probably some truth to their generalities. That is, the average person in these four generations may differ in ways predicted by the Strauss and Howe model; however, it does not come close to accurately describing every individual. Taking myself as an example, I was indulged as a child, and grew up to be a principled moralist, in a progressive sense. I am a visionary type (thus fitting the "Prophet" label), and consider values important. (But who doesn't?) I am not religious in any conventional sense, however, although I believe in a higher power and am spiritual. As a young adult, and even younger, I disagreed with established institutions but was not really an activist. As a middle adult, which is now although I feel and act more like an early adult, I diverge sharply from the description. I am not a pessimist at all, although I have my pessimistic moments. Fundamentally, I am an optimist, something which transcends life-stage periods. In fact, I have become increasingly distressed with the cynicism I see, now primiarily among my fellow progressives. (Thank you Thom Hartmann for singing my tune in recent days on the toxic effects of cynicism, such as people who don't vote or participate in politics because they are so convinced that the democratic process is meaningless.) I do not preach a values-fixated belief system in any conventional sense, such as conservatives and their traditional values. It is quite the opposite in my case, although I could be considered an advocate of a different values system which considers the greater good of humanity and the entire ecosystem first, and values scientific input over traditional religious input. I suppose that I will continue to work to resolve moral issues. But again, who wouldn't? However, most important will be resolving practical issues in a way which will allow the resolution of moral issues. (For example, if your nation is embroiled in a war, how can you resolve issues relating to violence?)

I think a better approach would be to look at the economic and social drivers of the Four Turnings cycle.

I will start with the "high" period just after a crisis, and proceed to the next crisis. During the "high," as when I was born, people and government are working together in a relatively cooperative and egalitarian manner, benefitting the economy greatly. Things are "booming" economically at this time. Monopolies of the previous cycle have been destroyed or considerably downgraded, families previously of great political influence have been turned into ordinary citizens except perhaps more affluent than average, and progress occurs, especially in a materialistic sense. Psychologically, working to build a more prosperous society, is the predominant sentiment. This was seen quite clearly in Japan and Germany as well as the United States, following WWII.

As time goes on, society enters into the "awakening" period of Strauss and Howe, when people, especially young adults, yearn for not only material progress, but also spiritual progress. At the same time, the natural progression of financial monopolization begins to take hold. More successful businesses begin to accumulate great wealth, and these businesses begin to coalesce, either through mergers, or business cabals. Meanwhile, they begin strategizing about how to consolidate their wealth and increase their political influence. They learn that money can pretty much buy most politicians, and they also learn that money-generated propaganda can pretty much fool most of the public, during this period. At this time, the public, accustomed to the relatively serene and caring cooperativity of the "high" period, are rather easily lulled into ignoring the machinations of the wealthy. Worse yet, the financial capitalist system favors the emergence of the greediest among us as the richest and most influential individuals, for the most part. Those with my proposed Avaricious Personality Disorder thrive during the "awakening" period, even as the more spiritually inclined and morally inclined among us are striving for completely different goals. The growing rich, as wealth disparities begin to grow, also form coalitions with reactionary elements within society. Whether this is an intentional strategy or not, traditionalists such as the ultrareligious, and ultraconservative minded individuals, find themselves drawn to the conservative, big money sources of society. This is because the wealthy, the ultrareligious and the ultraconservative, all are distressed by people who want to fundamentally change things -- people with new spiritual, moral, economic, and political ideas who want to continue the progressive momentum of the previous 20 years. Thus, an unholy coalition of people who fancy themselves as holy ones forms to thwart the ambitions of the changlings of society.

During the "unraveling" period, wealth disparities continue to grow, reaching the "unravelling" point eventually, where it becomes clear to the public that rather than their time being better off than previous periods, their society is actually in a worse condition economically for the general public. People become aware that society is moving in the wrong direction, and become alarmed. However, the forces of money, power, military, nationalism, traditional religion, and social conservativism all combine to thwart and confuse the public. Such a combination proves to be very potent. Much of the public, especially at first, believes the propaganda and blames the forces of change for their problems. Throughout this period, society languishes while cynicism and pessimism grow, but it is a gradual process as is the unraveling.

Eventually, however, the nation enters the period of "crisis." Economic conditions reach a crisis point and an economic crash, precipitated fundamentally by the undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, which takes money out of circulation and prevents sufficient economic activity from occuring. Basically, most people no longer have the means to buy as many goods or services as they used to, and may not even be able to pay for their homes, cars, etc, leading to an economic crash. At this time, the combined forces of money and conservatism continue to ply their trade with much success at first, but ultimately, the true nature of what is going on becomes evident to all but those truly committed to conservative ideology and the reification of the all-mighty dollar. At this point, an uprising, in the streets and at the ballot box, through protest and voting, or by any other means neccessary, becomes a reality, and a peaceful or bloody revolution occurs. Whether the revolution remains peaceful, or becomes bloody, is largely dependent upon the reaction of the combined forces of wealth and conservatism. If they show a sufficient amount of realism and restraint, if not growing wisdom regarding what is going on, it will remain peaceful. On the other hand, if they hold on stubbornly to power and the rigged system they have managed to create, it will become bloody -- how bloody, perhaps depending on how much cooperation the status quo can exact from the military they attempt to control and direct at their whim.

I am optimistic that the current revolution will be of a different, more peaceful nature than previous ones, and hopeful that it will be the last one needed before permanent reforms junking society's dependence on financial capitalism, will be instituted. As stated previously, the public has new organizing tools involving communications technology at our command. Also, we have the benefit of more knowledge of history and historical trends, as Strauss and Howe's work exemplifies. We have more people committed to peaceful resolutions of conflict than in the past, and more reluctance to engage in raw aggression, either by government, or by rebels, for the most part. Finally, the world has gotten closer together over time, not only economically, but also socially. Thus, the current revolution will affect people all over the world, and people from all over the world will take part in it. Organizations such as the United Nations will be able to play a role in conflict prevention while allowing change to take place, and hopefully even encouraging it. There are more people than ever, with more tools and information at their disposal than ever before. Thus, there is no reason this should not be the public's most politically aware period of history to this point. Given the emerging technologies which enable greater action, and the increasing world consensus that democratic actions in the name of the public good should be the norm, the people never have had more collective had power to enact change, now, we must learn to use it. We know that there are powerful forces aligned against us, so we must use our powers well and wisely.

September 18

A Capital Idea Part 84: The Fourth Turning is Upon Us

"Though I do not believe a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed. Convince me that you have a seed there, and I am prepared to expect wonders." Henry David Thoreau, courtesy of my good friend Poor Richard of the Poor Richard's Almanac blog site.

In 1997 William Strauss and Neil Howe, two American historians, published a book called The Fourth Turning (http://www.fourthturning.com/html/fourth_turning.html). When I first heard about this book on the Thom Hartmann show, I thought the authors' ideas were a bit hoaky and overwrought. However, over time, I have come to suspect that they have discovered a fundamental truth of financial capitalism as it relates to history. This book has also grown on the public, as well, considering the amazingly active message board on the intelligently done website created by the books authors to discuss and promulgate their ideas.

In brief, the thesis of Strauss and Howe is that history goes through approximately 80 year cycles with 4 different periods corresponding to different generations. They applied this in particular, to the United States, but the same thesis seems to apply to much if not all of the world -- anywhere that the economic system is based upon financial capitalism, in my opinion. (This isn't discussed as ar as I could see by Strauss and Howe in my brief studies of their theory.) The first period following a crisis is upbeat, works hard, is civic minded but conventional and cooperates to build lots of things such as infrastructure. The second period is idealistic, progressive, and spiritual and continues to promote cooperation and infrastructure building, while questioning existing institutions and working to creatively change them. The third period is materialistic, reactionary, selfish and short-sighted, and engages in capitalistic and other excesses amid growing pessimism. The fourth period is when the excesses of the third one result in collapse of the system and a crisis which leads to some sort of revolution and a new civic order, starting the entire process over again.

Now, let's take a look at Strauss and Howe's timetable and current circumstances. Looking at American history, and keeping in mind that similar events occured around much of the world on a similar timetable, we see the striking regularity of events which must have first given Strauss and Howe their idea. The American Revolution began in 1776 officially, although its roots go farther back. The Constitution was written in 1783. The Civil War began 85 years after the American Revolution began, in 1861, and ended in 1865, 82 years after the Constitution was written. The Great Depression, which was a clear sign of collapse due to the excesses of a previous capitalistic generation, happened in 1929. This period of crisis concluded with the end of WWII in 1945, exactly 80 years after the Civil War ended. The financial collapse of 2008 happened right on cue, 79 years after the crash of 1929. Is this starting to seem eerie to you, or perhaps, just starting to make sense? According to this timetable then, breaking down the four "turnings" into 20 year periods, the last period of "The Fourth Turning" occured from approximately 1925 to 1945, and the next one should be going on at this time, with the approximate timeframe of 2005-2025. That would put us in the early stages of this period of crisis and revolution -- essentially, in the crisis stage, but not yet in the manifest revolution stage. The signs of crisis certainly are everywhere -- from political instability, and public dissatisfaction with the current state of politics -- to persistent economic woes and growing debt -- to consolidation of power and money in the hands of a few -- to diametrically opposed political points of view separating the only 2 political parties with any real power, clashing in Washington -- to the deliberate, power-mad sabotaging of America by Republican politicians who represent only monied interests rather than their constituents. Yes, the seeds of revolution are growing in our hearts, and so, in our minds, the revolution is already here in a real sense, as my good friend Ria so eloquently described in response to my previous post on this topic.

When I mentioned these ideas to another good friend, David Walker, he mentioned that progressive economist Ravi Batra had similar ideas. I had heard Batra on the Thom Hartmann show several times, but reading about his work was a revelation. Clearly, listening to somebody talk is not as informative as reading that person's ideas. It turns out that Ravi Batra's ideas are far closer to my Capital Ideas than I had realized. Concepts such as public capital, for some reason, clearly have been de-emphasized on the Thom Hartmann show (although Thom talks about "the commons"), as well as Batra's spiritual and theoretical frameworks. Batra has been making economic predictions for some time. He first predicted an economic collapse and worldwide depression in 1990, which did not come to pass, but since that time, has been making much more accurate predictions, including predicting the election of someone such as Barack Obama a couple of years before it happened. According to Wikipedia, Batra's main thesis is that "financial capitalism breeds excessive inequality and political corruption which inevitably succumbs to financial crisis and economic depression" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Batra). This is basically what I have been saying in this series although Batra said it first. Batra also has long been a believer in historical cycles, which he calls "Social Cycles," and roots his ideas in Hindu religion. His resolution resulting in the end of these destructive cycles comes from his mentor Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's PROUT theory, which stands for "Progressive Utilization Theory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROUT). According to Wikipedia "PROUT is a social system that overcomes the limitations of both capitalism and communism. Among other things, 'progressive utilization' would optimize the use of natural, industrial and human resources, based on cooperative coordination on a wide basis, ranging from local communities to larger regions and nations, and between the people of diverse geographical areas." The economic system proposed by Sarkar is a balanced one which resembles many of my conclusions as well: "Prout’s three-tiered economic structure consists of government-owned key industries (oil industries, wind farms, etc), worker-owned cooperatives, and privately owned enterprises. Of these three, the cooperative structure—industrial, consumer, agricultural and credit—forms the core feature of the Prout economy.

According to P. R. Sarkar, cooperatives are considered the best economic structure for human society. If individuality dominates human life, it will adversely affect the environment, the welfare of different groups and even the continued existence of humanity."

Regarding morality, the Prout system advocates sensitivity to human needs as well as promotes egalitarian ideals. There are five moral prinicples of this Hinduism-inspired system, from the Samskrta aphorisms:

"1.There should be no accumulation of wealth without the permission of society.
2.There should be maximum utilization and rational distribution of the crude, subtle, and causal resources.
3.There should be maximum utilization of the physical, mental, and spiritual potentialities of the individual and collective beings.
4.There should be a proper adjustment among the crude, subtle, and causal utilizations.
5.Utilizations vary in accordance with time, space, and form; the utilizations should be progressive."

As far as I can tell, Batra does not directly deal with the psychological issues of economics, nor the ecosystem analogy as I have presented. Batra however, does believe that we are entering a period of crisis and reform, just as Strauss and Howe do. Batra's latest book published in 2008, The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos, suggests that a period of political crisis and revolution will result in a new Golden Age of political and economic reform.

In fact, I would go a step farther than Strauss, Howe and Batra, to suggest that the current cycle may be financial capitalism's last. (Actually, Batra has predicted the end of financial capitalism as well, plus communism, but it is not clear to me if he thinks that the New Golden Age will spell their end or not.) The seeds of a new system are growing, and resourceful people around the world are putting into place the mechanisms by which this system of public capital, cooperative living, and technology sharing may be put into place. More importantly, the world has changed in ways, since the previous cycle, which make a worldwide economic revolt and revolution possible. First, the financial world has been globalized as it never has before. Second, technology allows for worldwide as well as local communication to continue unfettered even in the face of authoritarian efforts to prevent it. Third, social networking via the internet allows public organization to circumvent propaganda efforts as well as efforts to control public dialogue. Fourth, people are becoming less naive regarding history and politics. Now, there are books such as The Fourth Turning, which in my opinion, do a great service by informing the public of the destructive cycle we find ourselves faced with. Also, there are a plethora of available economic ideas which people can learn of, such as Batra's ideas as well as those of many others (Max-Neef, Wolfe, etc), and practices such as The Mondragon Cooperative, etc. These forces should act to create an intellectual atmosphere of economic enlightenment, in which new ideas emphasizing economic morality, justness, cooperation, sustainability, the vital role of ecosystems and their relationship to the economy, and the psychological awareness of how cognitive processes effect economics, can take root and grow. The flip side of this analysis is that, until humanity sheds itself of dependence upon financial capitalism, destructive economic-political cycles will continue to occur. Thus, it is a moral incumbent upon the current generation, being aware of this cycle of economic excess and destruction as previous generations have not, that we make this cycle the last one in world history, and replace it with something much better, more stable and of lasting value.

Last night, I saw a segment on the local news about an auto mechanic with a colorful nickname which I happen to forget at this time. Over the past several years, he has devoted himself to transforming cars from gasoline powered to electric powered. When interviewed, he stated that he saw a revolution going on, but it was a slow, bloodless one, the good kind. A larger revolution is going on as well, a worldwide economic one, one which will ultimately be the source of great good. May it be successful as well as bloodless!

September 11

My Declaration of Peace

I have often heard of declarations of war, many of them not actual wars. We study when one nation declared war on another, and the two nations proceeded to slaughter each other's citizens, or one part of a nation declared war on another part, and the two sides proceeded to slaughter their own citizens. We see, or at least see advertisements for, an endless parade of movies about wars past -- "big ones," "important ones," "world changing ones." But now, our beloved United States wages war on other nations without declaring it. In fact, the United States has not declared war since World War II, and even that declaration was most likely contrived. Our beloved United States also now occupies other nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and calls them "wars," apparently well enough to convince the large majority of my fellow citizens that these foreign occupations are indeed wars. Meanwhile, we declare wars on drugs, AIDS, poverty (although Republicans and most Democrats long ago surrendered to the financial oligarchs on that one), polio, German Measles, Tuberculosis, teen pregnancy, STDs -- whatever seems to be a threat to the public good, which is fine, but none of which are really wars. Some people go further and declare war based on their own personal biases, against Islam, abortion, gays, or people who don't act, look or think like they do. These are personal crusades, not wars. And of course, enabled by the events which happened 10 years ago today, our government has declared war on terror, but this is not a war, either. Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war, and should be treated as such. Now, even politics has become so partisan that has turned into a pseudo-war. Politicians declare war, talk-show hosts declare war, and scientists declare war. If you want to do something about some problem, convention tells us that "waging war" on it is the way to go. Instead, I say, waging peace is the way to go.

Never have I heard a declaration of peace. Are we such a war-minded people, that a commitment to peace is not possible? I don't think so. In fact, the world, including the United States, is full of pacifists and other peace-minded people, although our government has been hijacked by warmongers. My parents belong to a brand of Republican long-extinct in government -- peace-minded ones. They raised my older brothers and myself also to be peace-minded people. When I went to my parents' house yesterday, the conversation quickly turned to politics, 9/11, and miltarism. "We voted for Obama, but we are disappointed that he escalated the invasion of Afghanistan" -- not to mention killing middle easterners by remote control and mucking about militarily in Pakistan -- was my mother's biggest complaint about Obama. My mother said she thought he would bring all the U.S. troops back from both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I said I thought so too. On top of that, a large percentage of our beloved nation's public debt has been caused by military overspending, my parents pointed out. In fact, I suspect that the large majority, if not all, of America's public debt is due to military overspending over a period of generations. My father said that Obama did mention making further military commitments in Afghanistan, but somehow, my mother and I missed that part of his campaign. My disgruntled Republican parents concluded that they were disappointed in Obama, not so much because of his attempts at domestic policy making, but rather, due to his military policies. I had to agree with them. By the way, my parents also mentioned that they are already sick of the 9/11 media overcoverage -- ditto here. We have absolutely no viable political choice in America as peace-lovers, and that is tragic. Only war-mongers and people who are afraid to be called pansies and thus are intimidated into supporting militaristic policies (who are probably the majority of politicians in my opinion) run for political office as Republicans or Democrats. I am not sure if American politics has always been this way, but it is now, and I suspect it has been for a very long time. Excepting those who are putting their lives are on the line by going to war, it takes more courage to be for peace, than for war.

However, I am for peace, and am willing to declare it. I hope for as many people as possible to join me.

I declare myself at peace with the Middle Easterners and all the Muslims of the world.

Perhaps a Muslim terrorist should happen to come to my town and blow me up, but chances are far greater that I will be killed by lightning than by a terrorist, and are greater that I will be killed by a non-Muslim terrorist than a Muslim one. The miniscule chance of being harmed by terrorists is a chance every one of us cannot avoid. Let us not waste our resources chasing those few who would commit acts of terror, nor worse, create more terrorists and enemies in the process. Let us treat terrorism as a crime in those rare instances in which it does happen, not as an act of war.

I declare peace and cooperation with the peoples of the world. We are not in an endless competition, but rather, all of humanity is bound to a common fate. Let us collaborate peacefully and make our common fate the best that we can.

I declare reverence for the environment, and thus, recognize the necessity of living peacefully within the environment even as we reshape it. Pillaging the natural world for profit does not profit humanity; it diminishes our world.

I declare that I will never support my nation going to war unless another nation has declared war on my beloved United States first, and is killing Americans on American soil.

I declare that I will not support my nation invading other nations, occupying other nations, or having military bases on foreign soil.

I declare that I will not support my nation's grossly oversized military nor its disgustingly gross military overspending. In short, I will not support the United States' military-industrial complex. This is where the nation's budget axe needs to be aimed!

I declare that I will approach relations with my fellow human beings, citizens of the United States or otherwise, from a position of peace and cooperation. I will never personally, intentionally cause harm to others or do anything counterproductive to the greater welfare. However, I will do what is necessary to create a better future for our world, a peaceful future, even if that means opposing those I disagree with, shattering their delusions, and/or derailing their war-time gravy trains. As I said, being a peacemonger takes courage.

I declare that I will vote for and support progressive, peace-minded candidates for political office whenever possible -- candidates who will stand up to the United States' mighty military killing machine and its mighty military-industrial complex, and who will ultimately be instrumental in bringing these institutions under control or even eliminating them.

I declare that I will push our existing administrations for peaceful policies and an end to war-based and militarism-based policies, beginning with President Obama, but including all of those who are part of our system of govenrment.

I declare the same peaceful priorities for all of the world, and thus, support peace among nations, peace organizations, and also support the implementation of peace-enhancing policies by international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO.

I recognize that paranoia, fear and fear based policies and politics are the enemy of peace. I will not give in to them and I will encourage my fellow human beings not to give into them as well.

I recognize the right of self-defense, but I believe, peace-minded politics will ultimately create a world in which war and thus the need to engage in wars of self-defense, are obsolete, and if not obsolete, greatly diminished.

I recognize that while actual bloody, armed conflict in the world has been diminishing over the decades, weapons-making and militarism as a means of control and intimidation have only increased and become more sophisticated. Contrary to conventional thinking, we will never truly be free until military control, intimidation and arms races are no longer part of world culture.

I recognize that I am imperfect, as a human being, and may not always live up to my ideals, but I will take them seriously, and never abandon my ideals or ideas for making ours a truly peaceful world of love and understanding.

This is my Declaration of Peace. Will you join me?

September 8

A Capital Idea Part 83: The Coming Revolution

Change is part of the human condition. Some people like that; some do not. Either way, it is unavoidable.

Conditions over these past several decades, as corporate globalization has spread the power of money, has set up conditions for a global revolution. Yes, I believe a revolution is coming to us, and perhaps it is already beginning. The only alternative to revolution is a global corporate empire in which a privileged few economic elites control the fate of the rest of us. The global corporate takeover has been gradual, and the public's realization of it has been correspondingly gradual, but I don't think the world will stand a permanent state of corporate feudalism.

The revolution of which I speak may be gradual itself, or more abrupt, but it seems inevitable. It will hopefully be peaceful, but that is the dream of a pacifist which is unlikely to be realized. I think it will be largely peaceful but not in all cases. Added to the economic pressures for revolution, are ecological pressures caused by global warming and the world's enormous and still growing human population. Only a drastic change in lifestyle can adequately sustain the human race as climate zones shift, sea levels rise and crops fail or diminish.

This revolution will be democratic and populist in nature, and will center around economic themes. However, it must involve politics, the environment, and the use of the social sciences as well.

Economically: The public will demand that the growing inequality in wealth be reversed;

The public will make a stand against corporatism, demanding they pay more in taxes;

The public will demand the assurance of labor, union, health, safety, environmental and consumer rights;

The public will demand a new social contract in which all citizens in good standing are guaranteed as decent standard of living as society can muster;

Alternative economic practices such as cooperatives and local economies emphasizing local products, will become more common.

Politically: The public will demand that their voting rights be ensured as they realize that they have been eroding. They will make a stand against election fraud and efforts to prevent people not favored by the conservative establishment, from voting. Voter turnout and participation in politics will increase, and there may be movements to require all eligible voters to vote, as in Australia, or to have voter IDs and records to ensure that votes are correctly counted;

The public in the United States in particular, will demand political reforms which will make parties other than the Democratic and Republican parties viable, as it is very clear to the public already that the current two party system is dysfunctional and deeply conservative in nature, serving the interests of the rich primarily. The reforms will most likely include changes which will make the United States more like other democracies, such as proportional representation, instant runoff voting, etc. Political reforms in the United States will be inspirational and helpful to the rest of the world, and vice versa.

Environmentally: The public will become more aware of the crucial importance of environmental health, and thus will demand that government will hlep them take care of their environments. Local efforts to create wholesome, healthy local environments will increase, but more importantly, a global movement to create a sustainable living environment for humanity will become a very large and influential movement. Havoc wreaked by global climate change will play a large and unpredictable role in the coming revolution.

Socially: The public will use social media to organize and to promote democratic reforms. The public is becoming more aware of media-based manipulation tactics, so are becoming more immune to them gradually over time. Social media will be used to counteract the effects of media propaganda, and to create psychologically and sociologically based strategies for peaceful positive change. Social scientists of all kinds -- especially academics -- many of whom have long been calling for societal reforms, will be at the intellectual heart of these reforms although the involvement of the public will be the most crucial aspect of the revolution as always.

The revolution of which I speak will probably be as slow as the global corporate takeover has been, taking place over a period of decades, but it will be global in nature, and will have specific events which will be turning points -- watershed moments, if you will. These are my predictions based on the momentum of human culture over the past several decades, and historical trends. I have no special abilities to prognosticate involving ESP; my expectations are simply based on logic. Many of the change processes mentioned have already begun, but they are still in the early stages in my opinion, and will gain momentum. I cannot discount the power of money which will be used by those so inclined, in attempts to prevent and oppose the coming revolution, but the power of money concentrated in too few hands, is the reason that the revolution is needed in the first place. In other words, the more big money is used to prevent or oppose a populist, democratic revolution, the more obvious these ploys become to the public, which further revolutionizes the public. In this sense, people of wealth who wish to consolidate wealth and power, are caught in a trap, which I believe has always been the case, historically, largely accounting for the periodic revolutions seen throughout recorded history. People can put their proverbial heads in the sand, as conservatives -- and I am sure, our greedy overlords -- are apt to do, and say everything is fine; only minor tweaking is needed, but they would be in denial of world reality.

Yes, a revolution is coming -- one that is a force for good. It's coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Don't miss it!

September 2

A Capital Idea Part 82: A Spirit of Generosity

This post came about due to a comment by my friend David Malen, and although it overlaps with other topics mentioned in this series and in progressive circles, I did some research yesterday about the topic which revealed some interesting new information.

Last time, in my post about Taiwan, I finished by mentioning the spirit of giving which I saw there, which is part of my wife's psyche. In fact, she is still unofficial chairwoman of Kaohsiung's charity society, at least according to her. She and several of her Bhuddist friends were donating to Mrs. Wong the coffee shop owner's charity fund. Gift giving is an important part of Chinese society, as is leveling the playing field to some extent by helping the needy. Gift giving is part of "Guanxi" -- the Chinese word for relations, as in maintaining relationships and smoothing social interactions. I think the spirit of generosity that this embodies, also is typical of more collective societies and fits well with democratic socialism.

However, conservatives say "not so fast." I remember having a lengthy argument with a conservative on the Thom Hartmann site in which the other person insisted that conservatives are more generous than liberals. It turns out that his assertion was based upon a single study, by one Arthur Brooks, who happens to be the head of the conservative thinktank known as the American Heritage Foundation. I won't provide a link to Brooks' work because it has been so widely promulgated by conservatives on the internet, and it is very easy to look up. Basically, he received his Ph.D. at a school run by the Rand Foundation (say what? I didn't even know they had a school), which is another conservative thinktank, revealing his bias from the beginning. After finishing his Ph.D. at said not-so-esteemed institution, he somehow landed a job at a major university, where he promptly began his study of the giving habits of liberals versus conservatives. His basic findings were that people in "red states" give more to charity than people from "blue states," and that "religious people" give more to charities than do nonreligious people. He claimed that these findings surprised him (yeah, right!). Regarding the first finding, this involves the crux of the research I did yesterday, and is not a simple issue. However, I will point out first that the findings are about the states in general, so they don't necessarily mean that conservatives give more than liberals. Perhaps liberals in those "red states" are the ones who are so generous. Nonetheless, I tend to accept that conservatives give more personal charity to causes of their own choosing, which is very different from conservatives being more charitable in general, yet Brooks equates giving to charitable orgnazations with a conservative spirit of generosity, which I assert is a false conclusion. Regarding the second finding, that one is a no-brainer, as devout Christians are practically required by the churches and social order, to tithe generously to their churchs and other related charities. In fact, analyses have shown that differences in charitable giving are virtually abolished when church giving is taken into account.

Now, here is what I have found about the difference between liberals (AKA "progressives") and conservatives in terms of their views on having a spirit of generosity. First, to describe the difference between progressives and conservatives as Thom Hartmann does, implies a much more giving spirit among progressives than conservatives. Hartmann says that progressives are those who wish to care for the least among them, as Jesus asked his followers to do, while conservatives are people who blame the poor for their own dilemma, and thus think something such as "I've got mine and nobody else can have it. To hell with the rest of society!" In other words, they are paranoid, fear motivated, greedy bastards who selfishly only care about themselves, their families and maybe other people like themselves. Perhaps this is a bit overdramatic in its condemnation of conservatism, but it does fit the general observations of conservative behavior and the current class warfare being waged by the forces of wealth against the rest of us. Of course, this view of conservatism directly contradicts that of Brooks and other defenders of the conservative ethos.

Let's take a look at some recent research then, to see what it says about the spirit of generosity. I was interested in personality correlates of liberality versus conservatism. First, I found a post by someone named Steve Bogira which looked at this research (http://m.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/4462041-liberals-conservatives-and-personality-traits). A recent study in the journal "Personality and Individual Differences," as I already knew and several studies have confirmed, found that Openness to Experience, one of Costa and McCrae's Big 5 Personaity traits, is associated with liberality. The study in question, however, examined voters in 5 european countries, and thus seemed pretty comprehensive. This trait was the best of the 5 traits in predicting political views. The second best predictor was the trait Conscientiousness, which actually predicted conservative political views. I found that inconsistent with much of what I know, and wondered if there was a better breakdown of the trait Conscientiousness into parts which predicted liberality and conservatism, respectively. I found such a study was done recently, in fact, in an abstract for an article called "Compassionate Liberals and Polite Conservatives: Associations of Agreeableness with Political Ideology and Moral Values, by authors Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu (yes, a Chinese), and Peterson (http://psp.sagepub.com/content/36/5/655.abstract). All but DeYoung are affiliated with the University of Toronto, while DeYoung is at the University of Minnesota. Their research divided Agreeableness into Compassion and Politeness, and divided Conscientiousness into Orderliness and Openness-Intellect. They found that actually, liberal political attitudes are associated with Compassion and Openness-Intellect, while conservatism is associated with Politeness and Orderliness. So there you have it: There is a liberal ethos and a conservative ethos, but they differ. The liberal ethos is compassionate and open minded, while the conservative one is polite and orderly, and also, from other research, tradition oriented. If you ask me, however, I would take a compassionate, open-minded spirit of generosity over a polite, orderly, traditional one any day. My thanks goes to Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu and Perterson for their excellent and timely article, which was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin!

To summarize, liberals (i.e. "progressives") tend to base morality upon compassion and are open-minded and inclusive in their approach to morality and spiritual generosity, while conservatives are guided in their spirit of giving, by tradition, and culture which promotes politeness and orderliness.

The most disturbing aspect of this topic to me, which I have mentioned before without it drawing any comments, is the heritability and biological aspects of conservatism versus liberality. Apparently, the conservative and liberal mindsets are largely heritable. In fact, the post by Steven Bogira mentioned this, and even mentioned research which is pessimistic about society ever reaching a consensus short of the anihilation of one set of genes or the other. In short, genetics was found in a recent study to have more influence on political orientation than socialization does, and furthermore, it has been found that people tend to marry others who match their political views pretty closely, so there is "no genetic melting pot" in terms of genes which influence political orientation. In other words, one invisible genotype of people are liberal, open and compassionate, while the other is conservative, tradition bound, orderly and polite in their natural inclinations according to current research. Of course, such behaviors are not "hard-wired" into us, and may be influenced by experience or drift and change over generations. Perhaps WWII eliminated most of those in Germany or Japan who had the conservative genes since they were more likely to be eager war-fodder, for instance, leaving these nations more liberal-minded afterward, although their horrific war experiences probably had a lot more to do with the liberal shifts seen in those nations since WWII.

A final study I came across looked at brain differences in liberals versus conservatives (http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/11/liberal-conservative-related-to-different-brain-structures/25184.html). This article by Rick Nauert focused on research by Ryota Kanai (a Japanese-born person apparently) of the University College London. The study published in Current Biology found that the anterior cingulate cortex (in the front, more advanced part of the brain) was larger and more active in liberals than in conservatives, and responded more readily to conflicting information in the brains of liberals. On the other hand, conservatives have larger and more active amygdalas, which is a primitive part of the brain involved in primitive emotional responses such as fear, anger or basic pleasure. Furthermore, Kanai found that conservatives were more sensitive to threats or anxiety when faced with uncertainties than were liberals. Sorry, conservatives out there; I didn't make this stuff up. Apparently, the brains of liberals are more advanced and able to handle a wider variety of information, while those of conservatives are more primitive and focused on fear, anger or basic pleasure responses. Based on the heritability findings, it seems likely that these brain differences are largely genetic, although that issue is not settled, and certainly, experiential factors are also involved.

Regarding the spirit of generosity, my conclusion, consistent with all I have found out, is that both conservatives and liberals can be equally generous. However, the generosity of liberals normally involves entrusting one's resources to larger agencies such as government, to be distributed in ways that help, to those in need, raising the standard of living for all of us, and taking care of the least among us. In other words, liberals don't mind paying their fair share of taxes, or whatever fees that are required to make a good, prosperous society. This is the generous spirit of the liberal. Conservatives may also believe in generosity; however, they depend on individual generosity to organizations of the individual's choice, giving a sense of control to the conservative and soothing the conservative's fearful mind. They view taxes and government generally, as intrusions upon their freedom, including the freedom to donate as they please, rather than as extensions of a caring society which allows for good governance and the common welfare. Unfortunately, although many conservatives have a giving spirit, their reliance upon the individual's spirit of generosity opens the way for the wealthiest, greediest and most selfish among us to dominate society by choosing not to share their wealth with the rest of us, or pay their fair share to society for all the benefits they have received from others, which allowed them to achieve their wealth in the first place.

Archives by category

2011 Topics

Taiwan2011

HealthCare2011

One World

Education 2011

Capital Ideas 2011

2010 Topics

Election 2010

Capital Ideas 2010

Trips 2010

Pets 2010

Personal versus Collective 2010

Personal 2010

Economics and Politics 2010

Education is Progressive

2009 Topics

Holidays 2009

Tributes 2009

Miracles 2009

The Universe 2009

Eunice 2009

People 2009

Popculture 2009

Evolution 2009

Nature 2009

Pancreas

Love is Progressive

Tahoe Trip 2009

Rational Spirituality

The Myth of War

President Obama

Chinese Culture

Diet

Economics 2009

Life is Hard Work

Good Riddance to Bush

Pets 2009

The Barnum Effect

Trips 2009

Research

Site

Updates

2008 Archives

Please note that some posts are found under more than one topic.

Other

Links

About Me

Links Exchange Sites

The Thom Hartmann Bloggers Group is the bloggers group that I formed on Facebook. Yes, it's my own group with much of the same material, but it has lots of other stuff, too, and I do link to this blog from there.

(Regarding the photo: The photograph at the top of the page was taken on Mount Cadillac in Maine, which is said to receive the first light of the day in all of the United States. The pools of water are rain pools because it had rained heavily the night before. The photo was taken by Eunice.)