Reform or Revolution: Facing Into the Abyss - Part Two

The possibility of reformation of the economic system to a degree where citizens may enjoy a standard of living similar to the 'middle classes' in the 20th century may not exist (as implied in the previous article). This article will make the argument that even if reformation was possible, doing so is not desirable. But, that is debatable.

Reformation aims to maintain the existing institutions, tweaking them to suit our needs. Revolution on the other hand, aims to take control of the institutions that dominate our lives. It aims to place control of them into the hands of those that have made them work in the first place. It aims to remove control from those that have a goal in mind and one goal only. To serve themselves to the detriment of everybody else. Instead, the aim should be to abolish or change institutions that do not serve the public good.

Fundamentally, the plight of the general population is the same now as it was for hundreds of years under feudalism. Under feudalism, wealth was created on the ground and made its way, forcibly, to the lords and monarchs. The serfs, slaves, of yesterday and wages slaves today have little control of the whims of power that control our lives. Under feudalism, power was exercised through violent repression. Whatever arbitrary whim His majesty may entertain, at His pleasure, would be adhered to. Under capitalism, it is not a matter of arbitrary decisions made by some personality with power but rather, the fluctuations of global capital dictate life on the ground.

These fluctuations and processes affect us and our response is far from homogeneous. On the one hand citizens swallow the notion that we have but two choices; free market capitalism (so called) or, communist totalitarianism. They will naturally gravitate toward reform (if they can muster any tolerance of change at all). The second strain will see a myriad of choices about how we can produce and distribute goods and services. Unfortunately for the former group, there has never been any system and probably never will be as radical and shape shifting as capitalism. Especially now. Instability and insecurity are two features the system will never shake. Just when we get used to certain ways of doing things, more efficient and innovative means are invented. The results can be both good and bad.

In times of great upset and insecurity, as are occurring now, more radical overall changes are demanded by citizens, many of whom are now out of work and without income. They become less reform minded and demand revolutionary change. We are entering these times. The days of relative stability and security are behind us.

The Current Context

Over the past three decades the so-called 1% have declared, through institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and their runners (politicians), that government is the enemy and particularly, wealth redistribution. They have called for alarming reductions in government influence and control of financial and non financial matters. And as we have seen, they have ensured that government programs and institutions that serve the 99% are reduced or abolished but have made sure that the 1% is protected through bailouts and vast sums spent on their collective bodyguard, the military. As has been observed, it is a system of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

The upper classes, the 1%, are fast becoming explicit controllers of states. They are tossing political baggage such as Berlusconi and Papandreaou out into the street. Governments have been put into the hands of economists in the service of his majesty's pleasure. They demand, through the IMF and other sock puppets that governments follow the neo liberal line to the letter. This always means; privatize and control everything that can be bought and sold and to slash and burn anything and everything that looks like wealth distribution. The infrastructure that large portions of the population relied upon can't be scrapped quick enough for them. We are entering a bizarre and frightening twilight zone.

In response to all this, citizens are voicing outrage and disaffection with the capitalist system itself. Mainstream media and wealthy capital gamblers repeat endlessly the lie that the protesters do not articulate their anger. And in the meantime, the protesters repeat, over and over and over again that the top 1% have everything and are taking more and they (we), the general population, have little and are getting less. Implicit in this complaint is a call to end the capitalist system altogether. Perhaps the ruling class can't hear it out of disbelief; they may be in a state of shock and awe.

Protests like this are not altogether new. Prior to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, anti-capitalist protests were large and angry. The most memorable occurred in Seattle and in Quebec City. They were spreading and becoming a force to be reckoned with. After 9 11, the protests disappeared, the mood changed.

Anti capitalist protests had been absent in the heart of the hegemony prior the Seattle/Quebec City uprisings. Protests themselves however, are nothing new. We have become accustomed to single issue protests that are implicitly reformist in nature. There were civil rights protests, women's rights, gay rights, environmental protests, and protests for many various issues. They all had in common the underlying desire to tweak the system, to make the plight of a certain segment of the population better.

Protests against capitalism itself are a direct result of the excesses of modern monopoly capitalism. This is a result of neo liberal policies that have been shoved down our collective throats. This is a result of the policies of governments that have been at the beck and call of the ruling class. These statements would be viewed as excessively radical and unrealistic only a few short years ago. Now, they are hardly controversial.

Organizing A Substantial Movement

The breadth and depth of this organic movement is truly revolutionary. This movement is both radical and widespread. These are the conditions that make capitalist monarchs shudder, and with good reason. These are conditions that are revolutionary. The capitalist world is pregnant with revolution.

Thus far however, the comfortable minority have little to fear. So far, it is a protest movement and that's all it is. This movement is simply a reaction to excessive money hoarding and Imperial brutality. To take it a step farther would require organization.

Taking that step requires vision. An alternative to the status quo needs to be articulated. What would that society look like? How do we get there?
For the most part, much of our collective mentality is mired in traditional reformist mode. Reformation is all about redistributing wealth and tinkering and modifying the current system. At this point, there isn't much stomach for it either in the halls of parliament or on the ground. There certainly is not any ideas about redistribution of wealth amongst the rulers of us all. It's not that they don't want to. They couldn't, even if they did want to. The reasons for that are discussed in the previous article (Reform or Revolution: Facing Into the Abyss).

We are collectively in a bit of a pickle, so to speak. Do nothing and we are going to lose jobs, homes, and many of our vital needs. We need to do something but we are utterly unorganized. We can continue to protest. We can complain and make noise. But so what?

Our first step is to bring the debate out into the open. We need to reach some consensus as to where we go from here and we need consensus on broad goals. Will we aim to reform the crippled capitalist system? Can we? These questions need debate. If we can, and if we want to, let's get at it. Let's work together and make sure it happens. If we agree that we cannot, we have a lot of work to do.

At this point we need to sustain the protest movement. And as it develops, we will need to build solidarity and alliances. We need to develop broad goals and specific tactics. Secondly, we need to formalize alliances between individual organizers, writers, news outlets, and organizations. We need to call on past reformist groups; women's rights, gay rights, unions, anti-poverty activists, greens, and reds. We also need socialists, communists, social democratic parties, anarchists and we need to communicate in a genuine way. We need to accommodate and compromise within this movement and we need to develop a vision; a grand goal.

There will be distrust and conflict within the movement but that cannot deter us. There will be great efforts to fracture and splinter the movement. There will be fights among broad sections and there will be groups aimed at controlling and commandeering it. In response, we accept nothing less than democracy. If the majority want reform, we reform. If the majority want revolutionary changes, we aim for that. If the majority want to live off the avails of crass capitalism, so be it. It is vital to listen to others and to be willing to change our minds.

Let the best, and hopefully the most democratic and rational arguments carry the day. Now is no time to be rigid. The time for energetic, honest, and fearless debate has arrived.

One thing is clear. Reform occurs only when the threat of revolution is real.

Reform or Revolution: Facing Into the Abyss

The gravity of the current economic situation appears to be sinking in. Day by day, week by week, and month by month, we are waking out of our docile slumber. People are hitting the streets. This is not the handiwork of some dissident group with an ideological agenda. It is the natural outpouring of citizens anger, frustration, and hopelessness. The nature of the problem; capitalism, corporate greed, and careerist politicians has been expressed and expressed very well in many different forums. There seems to be some general consensus that we are in deep trouble.
Solidarity is crucial. We need to stick together and work together. The 1% will aim to fracture this new organic movement. We need to ensure that we don't do their dirty work for them. And no doubt, we will have enormous disagreements. Reformers will argue with revolutionaries, liberals will argue with socialists and so on. We need to use those differences of opinion to strengthen ourselves. The crux of the problem needs to be assessed and thoroughly analysed.
What is crucial is that we don't get mired in 'my opinion' or 'my ideology' and that we listen to each other. Debate is important and it is healthy. That is how we learn and grow. It is vital that you look at what I say and that I look at your analysis. After all, we all want the same things. We want stability, peace, and we want governance 'by, for, and of the people'. We want our kids and our neighbours to be able to eat. We are bound together by common goals. How we get there will need to be worked out.
What is presented here is a view, an opinion. You may not agree with it but please, take a minute to read it. If it is correct, our collective response then must take on a particular shape. If it is wrong, then we will need to point that out. We need to develop an assessment. We need to uncover the crux of the problem. If we can find some agreement on the nature of the problem, and we can, we may then develop a plan of action to correct it.
This then is an assessment of the current problem.
Analysis
The following analysis may describe the nature and scope of the problem. And if this analysis is correct, there is no easy way out. The upshot of this analysis is that capitalism itself has outlived its usefulness. Further to this, it has become financially toxic to all but those on the top of the heap. And the longer we depend on it, the worse the situation will become.
This view suggests that capitalism, due precisely to its efficiency and energy, has become antithetical to human needs. While the profit motive has served the majority in the developed world well, it will no longer do so. It will render the lot of us serfs without lords, slaves with no master. It will impoverish us and it will kill us. It will steal our vital needs or prohibit them from ever being produced.
The efficiency aspect, while impressive, is turning on us all. The wizard technology we've become used to has rendered many occupations obsolete. It can manufacture all we need with very little labour input. And, given time, it may be able to produce all we need with the push of a few buttons. While that may sound good, this condition does not suit capitalism. In fact, capitalism cannot survive this condition. It is impossible.
While capitalism may spit employees out onto the street, it needs consumers. Unfortunately for capitalism, an individual needs to be a worker before he or she is a consumer. The worker and consumer inhabit the same physical body.
The Diminishing Rate of Profit
As capitalism matures, the rate of profit from a given unit of labour diminishes. That is, it becomes more difficult to squeeze a dime of profit from an hour of labour. To make matters worse, global competition has rendered the old formula where firms were subsided by the state to pay decent wages, dead. Workers are now competing with the most oppressive terms of exploitation on the planet. The old (so called) 'American dream' is finished. It's time to wake up.
Individual firms are under constant strain from two sources; competition from other firms and ongoing costs such as maintaining payment of wages to employees.
Firms aim to increase productivity as much as possible. This is accomplished through improving technology and through squeezing as much work from a worker as is manageable. It is in their interests to get workers to work as hard as possible for as little pay as possible. On both counts, they are doing very well.
It is vital to out-compete other firms; to drive costs down. This allows the firm to lower prices. Efficiency and low prices are the objective. Profit is the goal.
Large scale production has become impressive in its efficiency. To lower costs firms utilize lateral acquisition of resources that are required goods and services that go into production or, they contract out to sources that will fetch the product at lower prices than anyone else. Generally speaking, the pressure to cut costs also cuts the rate of profit.
Suppose the rate of profit were to remain constant. In that case profit would expand according to what was invested in stocks. If the rate is falling however, profit is naturally more difficult to achieve. And when this occurs, the incentive to invest in manufacturing diminishes. As investing in stocks grows more risky, the growth of capital in stocks falls. The rot of the integrity of the value of liquid capital spreads. Capital itself loses its integrity and value. And as long as they depend on worker's wages to pay the bills when in reality they can't, the crisis related to the value of money is magnified.
Additionally, the ensuing lack of wages results in not only lack of demand but in an evaporation of the tax base. Workers that depend on the tax base such as civil servants and teachers are thrown out of work as a result, further eroding the diminishing tax base. This exacerbates the problem by driving down demand for goods and services which in turn forces more firms out of business and workers onto the streets. We are entering an economic black hole, a period of crisis.
This crisis is fundamentally different than cyclical fluctuations (recessions) which may be remedied in various ways such as investing in public works with tax dollars and borrowing until the ship is righted again. Similar crisis occurred in the periods 1873 to 1893 and from 1929 to 1941.

In its heyday, the capitalist system saw increased real wages in western economies. From 1947 to 1967 real wages grew in the United States by approximately 50%. Unemployment was not an issue, and deficits were miniscule. The so-called Western world was the base of manufacturing and consumption. But, as Professor Ismael Hossein-Zadeh points out in a recent article: "By the late 1960s and early 1970s ... both US capital and labor were no longer unrivaled in global markets. Furthermore, during the long cycle of the immediate post-war expansion US manufacturers had invested so much in fixed capital, or capacity building, that by the late 1960s their profit rates had begun to decline as the capital-labor ratio of their operations had become too high. In other words, the enormous amounts of the so-called “sunk costs,” mainly in the form of fixed capital, or plant and equipment, had significantly eroded their profit rates."

As the rate of capital accumulation decelerates, and capital, like a shark, needs to continually eat and grow, or die, the shark itself becomes more aggressive and ruthless. It will squeeze an extra dime from any unit of labour it can and, when that dries up, it will look elsewhere.

Since the 1980s capitalists and politicians have been kicking the can down the road. This mess has been coming at us for some time. Avoidance was helped by real growth due to the building of high tech infrastructure, which in turn has helped crucify the employee. The infrastructure, once built, will not need to be built again. And it's maintenance is not going to save us.

Various bubbles (like the dot com bubble) had put the reality of our collective abyss out of view. Some bubbles were based in widespread criminal behaviour on the part of large corporations, bodies like the Federal Reserve in the United States, and scores of politicians. They have propped up the illusion (with the help of mainstream media and whores that have degrees in economics) that all is well - for three decades. In the meantime, the rot of the capitalist system has been eating away at our real security. We have continued to depend on something we can no longer depend on.


John Maynard Keynes is Dead


In the coming months and years there will be sincere and intelligent arguments from the left to return to Keynesian economic policies. After all, this formula has worked, arguably, better than anything else in history to provide a decent standard of living for the most people. The good ship Fabian appears to have sailed however. As Professor Hossein-Zadeh points out:

"The US capitalist class pursued the Keynesian-type policies in the immediate post-war period as long as political forces and economic conditions, both nationally and internationally, rendered those policies effective. Top among those conditions, as mentioned earlier, were nearly unlimited demand for US manufactures, both at home and abroad, and the lack of competition for both US capital and labor, which allowed US workers to demand decent wages and benefits while at the same time enjoying higher rate of employment.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, both US capital and labor were no longer unrivaled in global markets. Furthermore, during the long cycle of the immediate post-war expansion US manufacturers had invested so much in fixed capital, or capacity building, that by the late 1960s their profit rates had begun to decline as the capital-labor ratio of their operations had become too high. In other words, the enormous amounts of the so-called “sunk costs,” mainly in the form of fixed capital, or plant and equipment, had significantly eroded their profit rates.

More than anything else, it was these important changes in the actual conditions of production and the realignment of global markets that precipitated the gradual abandoning of Keynesian economics. Contrary to the repeated claims of the liberal/Keynesian partisans, it was not Ronald Reagan’s ideas or schemes that lay behind the plans of dismantling the New Deal reforms in fact, steps to hammer away at those reforms had been taken long before Reagan arrived in the White House). Rather, it was the globalization, first, of capital and, then, of labor that rendered Keynesian or New Deal-type economic policies no longer attractive to capitalist profitability, and brought forth Ronald Reagan and Neoliberal austerity economics."

Let's not get caught up in the notion that the capitalist class and their paws (politicians) had decided to be kind to working classes or middle classes. Each and every benefit, including decent wages, social security, free medical care (except the USA), in developed countries were won through hard and sometimes deadly struggle. It was the threat of revolution and the preservation of the privileged class that compelled Keynes himself to distribute wealth.

We are about to witness a period unlike anything we have seen before. The tension on global capital, the increasing and continuing falling rate of profit, and the ensuing hunger of capital itself will reduce or eliminate your wages, your pension, social security, and it will find the change under the cushions of your sofa.

As we become increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, as our kids lose hope for a decent future, as homeless people stand alongside burning barrels next to empty and foreclosed homes, we will hit the streets. Predictably, we will aim, at first, to resurrect John Maynard Keynes. We will discover, eventually, that Mr. Keynes is as dead as a doornail. Perhaps it is best to let him rest in peace.

We Need to Talk

The sentence "We need to talk" is a powerful one. When it is used in a marriage it either means that the request is to deal with difficult problems or, in the case of an abusive relationship, that phrase may mean the victim has had it. It's over.

If you're old enough you may remember when we fell in love. We had just emerged through tough times; a depression and a war. It was the 50s. The grim years had passed and we were courted by a spirit; the spirit of capitalism. The grim bleakness of the past was giving way to televisions, household conveniences of all sorts, rock and roll and a world of optimism and colour. And over the next few decades the trajectory was clear and it was aiming toward heaven. The sky was the limit. Everything was getting better.

We collectively fell in love with the spirit of capitalism. It was youthful and charming and it was a fantastic provider. Our lives were improving. Wages were rising and demand for goods and services demanded more goods and services.

In Western Europe and North America we not only fell in love with capitalism, we got married. Our past flirtations with socialism were forgotten. Capitalism loved us and we loved capitalism. It demanded fidelity and we grew to trust it. We became loyal. It was a marriage made in heaven.

Something happened along the way.

We assumed that capitalism would remain faithful. But it hasn't. Instead, it began its affairs. We looked the other way. Capitalism had its 'needs'. It dated throughout Latin America and in Asia but we remained confident that it would always come home. It spent weekends in the Middle East and assured us that it was a matter of bringing home the bacon. It was business.

At first, we could look the other way. After all, this was just sex. It wasn't love.

Have we fooled ourselves? Has capitalism just used us? We thought it was genuine love and that love would last forever. Are we in denial? We still dream of yesterday and superimpose it on tomorrow. We continue to believe the lies; we want to. We believe that this is just the natural cycle of boom and bust and that the good times will return. We want to believe it in the face of some very hard realities.

Our partner seems more and more inhumane as time goes by. Sometimes it behaves like a psychopath. And maybe it isn't "sometimes", maybe it is a psychopath all the time. Maybe that is just what we have been married to all these years.

We must examine ourselves; our own dual nature. We are a consumer and we are a worker. Capitalism has always served and smiled at the consumer side. And it has been served by the worker side. It has been far more ruthless to the worker that it has depended on for its very sustenance; capital. It has turned vicious to the worker while still flirting with the sexy consumer side of us. But we are one and the same. Kill one and the other dies as well. Abuse the worker and the consumers wilts.

Capitalism flirts and smiles at others and still rules the household with an iron fist. In the past we ignored its nasty side when it would come home drunk and beat the hell out of us. We were forgiving when it raped Vietnam and punished us for protesting. We have forgiven and forgotten all the violence, the cruelty, and the disappointments.

But now things are getting serious. We are at a point where we have to ask ourselves whether this marriage is good for us. We thought the violence would end, that the system would mature and settle down. It matured alright but instead of settling it has become more virulent. Like the saying goes - 'be careful what you wish for'. It matured and is becoming less stable and predictable. It is ripping all we had built to shreds. It still rules the roost and what do we get out of it? The house is falling to pieces. We are running out of food and medicine and capitalism is off running with that whore in China. In the past we put up with the abuse but we were getting something out of it.

What we have to face up to is the fact that we fell in love with and married a psychopath and that psychopath is now an addict. While the house falls to pieces capitalism it is still borrowing and spending like there's no tomorrow. It is feeding its insatiable gambling habit. And where is the money coming from? Need we ask? We are in hock to his communist whore and we have no idea how we'll pay it back. We never see a paycheque anymore and the kids are getting hungry.

Taking Stock

It is time to take a sober second look at what we have been married to.
To be fair, capitalism never did promise loyalty. It always said that it was interested only in making profit. We assumed that we were part of it. And we were as long as we were needed to create capital. In return we got shiny new cars and a feeling of security. We didn't complain or even notice the ugly moods as long as we got what we wanted. We sold ourselves to them. We needed the money. We knew we were being exploited and we all said, in unison, "what's good for GM is good for America". We knew it was a marriage of exploitation. We considered it mutually beneficial and it was.

Our failure to look at the ugly nature of our partner is something we all need to take responsibility for. Our partner went all over the globe killing and dominating poor people and what did we do? We turned away and pretended it wasn't happening. Their theft was our hegemony and we glazed over the invasions, the assassinations, and the proxy fascism that our masters used to bring home the bacon. We accepted it and called it 'national security'; obedient to a fault.

Within the hegemony the terms of exploitation we had agreed on are no longer satisfactory to our partner. Gambling finance capital is far more lucrative and far more attractive than dealing with ugly blue collar workers demands and complaints. Gambling is a lot more fun, even when the gambler knows he will win. The shell games have been hard to keep up with but they are worth watching. These games expose the lack of loyalty our partner has for us.

We have just witnessed massive criminal activity on the part of capitalists resulting in further gutting to our manufacturing infrastructure. They created a false economy through leveraging to overvalue stocks. They have operated using any means available to increase short term gains for themselves and have been rewarded for their criminal behaviour with massive bailouts granted to them by their employees (politicians). They have created bubble after bubble staving off reality. Pretending everything's okay - telling us everything's okay. Lying.

Our partner continues to spend and buy flashy things and as time passes he spends less on the house and family and more on himself.

Reform

Before running to a divorce lawyer we may want to look at the possibility of reforming the relationship. If two parties want to make it work it has a chance. But we need to ask ourselves; What would reform look like? After all, the marriage itself starting within a context of reform. John Maynard Keynes recognized flirtations back and forth between workers/consumers and capitalism and he dressed capitalism up in a shiny new suit and taught it to speak and act like a gentleman.

In the 1980s the magical belief that supply creates demand was pushed by politicians, right wing think tanks and economists. These voodoo ideas took hold and this redefined the relationship. The Keynesian marriage was now standing on precarious ground. Supply side economics implied that wealth emanates from the wealthy class and dismissed the value of work and workers in favour of a myopic focus on increasing short term capital. It was as if the marriage didn't matter anymore. And to the capitalists, it didn't.

Keynes was on the demand side and said that demand creates supply. Keynes made sense. The former does not. The crisis of 2008 drives that reality home in spades. And even though it makes no sense to you or me, Bush and Obama were instructed by their betters to deliver boatloads of tax dollars based in dead labour to bail out the criminals. The story line was that those deemed "to big to fail" were supposed to stimulate the economy by loaning our tax dollars back to us.

That cynical thought that just crossed your mind is pure intelligence. Recognize it.

The model that has been successful worked with the understanding that to stimulate the economy it is necessary to stimulate demand for goods and services. Instead of bailing out the capitalists the Treasury should have saved homes and jobs. They should have provided massive infrastructure projects like Roosevelt's New Deal. That would have stimulated the economy. But it would have caused inflation. The same people that wrote up Obama's bailouts are those that would be hurt most by inflationary pressures. And it was not done.

But there is more to it than that. The context we are operating with is one of advanced and matured monopoly capitalism. Products are produced as cheaply as possible (for the benefit of the consumer) and any and all means to cut costs are utilized as the capacity to squeeze a dime from a unit of labour decreases. As it is, capitalists are becoming ruthless. And it is far easier to squeeze a dime from a unit of labour in China than it is in North America or Europe.

Not only is John Maynard Keynes dead; so is Henry Ford. Capitalism in 2009 - 2010 is not the same partner that we married in the 50s. It has morphed into monopolism. It has lost its facade, its charm.

Raw capitalism is cruel. People are sacrificed every day in wars and over 40,000 Americans die each year because they cannot afford health insurance. This is a health care holocaust. It is easily and completely avoidable but the problems persist and persist for the sake of profit. Monopolism has shown itself to be a more ruthless psychopath than any human could possibly be. Decisions are made every day in boardrooms that result in human misery and death. The system is pernicious and incorrigible.

We also need to consider the outcomes that reform (if at all possible) would result in. If we could resurrect Keynes and get the production machines back in gear in the post industrial world, the outcome would be exactly the same as it has been. We would stave off the inevitable but the nature of the beast would remain unchanged. Staving off the inevitable is exactly what Greenspan, Paulson and Bernanke have done. It is what the smoke and mirrors bubbles of the past few decades have done; bought time.

In all this we tend to our daily lives and ignore the deterioration of our economic and social realities. We have been doing so since the 80s when capital began its 'globalization' emphasis. Leftists like Michael Moore and scores of protesters were pointing out red flags to no avail. And here we are twenty years later and we can see that the leftists were right. And at this point, time is not on our side.

Or Revolution

The metaphor here points toward divorce. As we search the metaphorical singles bars looking for a new marriage partner we can see that there is none. The old communist order has fallen to pieces for good reason. Communist and clerical totalitarians smile and wave from the dark corners. The psychopath told us its either him or them. We have but two choices. The dictatorship of the psychopath or totalitarianism.

Looking into a crystal ball for the way forward we consider the status quo and see shades of Colombian drug gangs or Somalian style anarchy in our streets. We may see shades of Mussolini fascists beating them back. No matter what way we look we see poor people trembling over burning barrels. It is capitalism without Keynes and it could morph into any of a number of styles of barbarism.

The status quo has got to go.

Collectively we are pioneers. We are going where no society has gone before. For the most part, we have no idea where we are going. We really need to take this matter seriously. And we must look at facts.

To begin with we need to recognize that the psychopath had never been our provider. It was always the other way around. It is the workers that have fashioned every item of value in our world; the cars, the streets, the buildings and everything in them. The capitalist hires managers who are workers and people to organize the trading and the buying and selling; also, workers. Everything that is done is value from mining the ore to building the cities is done through work. If we examine it, it was us all along. It is us that built this infrastructure that now rots and rusts. And it rots and rusts because Joe Psycho can't make a profit.

We lack confidence in our ability to survive without our abuser. But this is nothing to be alarmed about. Slaves have always felt dependent on their master and on some level feared independence.

We have more choices than we imagine. We don't have to decide between one tyrant over another. We can roll up our sleeves and stand together, independent of rulers and tyrants.

We need to develop a vision where each and every human being has his and her vital needs guaranteed. THEY will tell us we can't do it without 'them'. THEY will tell us we will perish without 'them'. Abusers always need to make victims feel dependent and helpless. But if we examine what has really happened and how wealth is actually created, we can see that all the wealth, including capital, has been manufactured by us; the people that get up and trudge off to work every day.

We believe that the abuser has the power but in fact, we have all the power. The abusers power is based in illusions and scams.

We need to talk.