#theworldtocome pt. III


Capitalism is not about supply and demand according to a billionaire.

That’s quite a statement. Not to say it is wrong, but it is quite a statement.

This billionaire, Nick Hanauer, also believes a nation’s economy cannot grow without a strong Middle Class.

According to him, supply and demand are not the foundation of an economy – but rather, human innovation and the ability to reduce our ‘problems’ in society.

[link to article here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-capitalism-has-nothing-to-do-with-supply-and-demand/]

The question that came to my mind was: what are these ‘problems’ he speaks of?

I believe we have to separate problems into three categories: individual & collective, and a combination of the two: IC.

The individual (who believes it or knows it) respects prosperity as the sum of individual innovation and poverty as individual failure.

The collectivist respects prosperity as the sum of sharing resources.

The moderate respects prosperity as the sum of sharing resources in order to correct fallacies in human choice and to maintain a state of social equilibrium that permits individuals to compete and feel fulfilled.

Here is an excerpt from the article highlighting the author’s emphasis on the importance of a thriving middle class:

So middle out economics is essentially a 21st century way of understanding how an economy works – not as this linear mechanistic system — but as an ecosystem, with the same kinds of feedback loops. The fundamental law of capitalism is if workers don’t have any money, businesses don’t have any customers; that prosperity in a capitalist economy is a consequence of a circle of feedback loops between customers and businesses, which means that a thriving middle class isn’t a consequence of prosperity. A thriving middle class is the source of prosperity in capitalist economies, which is why a policy focused on the middle class is and has always been the thing that drives prosperity and growth — not pouring money into rich people, which simply makes rich people richer.

The first question that pops into my mind is – don’t people want to get ‘out’ of the Middle Class?

Perhaps not everybody – the argument here is that some people are content living average-income lives as long as their minimum requirements are met.

For me, personally, I thrive on my ambition to be financially fulfilled as much as spiritually fulfilled…in the mind of a conservative; whose primary focus is money (and not perhaps fulfilling his spirit; expressing himself), this Middle-Out Economics theory would seem nothing short of communism – an attempt to keep individuals where they are at in an economy.

In the eyes of the heroic libertarian, there is always a conspiracy against the individual, his enterprise, his intellectual property, and his ambitions in life to achieve success and fortune.

Perhaps the source of this paranoia is the potential for human beings to desire ‘vanity’ – that is, to desire to be regarded as exceptional beyond standard human capacity to such an extent that freedom and happiness are only awarded to those exclusive human beings.

At the end of the day, in a functional democracy – human necessities are met; but unfortunately, capitalism does not serve these means. Just as communism concentrates wealth at the top preventing individuals from obtaining a level of freedom; so to does fundamentalist capitalism.

So it goes to show that Mr. Hanauer is not far off in his critique of the dogmatic model of capitalist economics. A mixed economy, or a Middle-Out Economy, as he calls it, respects individual ambition, competition, as well as the dignity of human beings by assuring them of healthcare, housing, and a decent wage.

Wages are largely determined by supply and demand with minor interference from public factors; and the assumption in capitalism is the man who strives can create his own wealth. But this assumption is grounded in a human fear: there aren’t enough resources for all of humanity to live ideal lives; some human beings prefer to be slaves to power and economy-control; originality will be compromised.

Why must we rely on money to survive? This system has convinced us that it is the only rational one – that capitalism and supply and demand and the exchange of currency is the natural mode of human affairs; scarcity, that is, is the reason why capitalism is necessary. The USSR told us that the lies and shortcomings of capitalism vindicate the necessity for communism as its replacement.

But why is it always one or the other? Why must we worship concepts? DEMOCRACY. COMMUNISM. CAPITALISM. These are not my gods. These are the gods of the extremists; the fundamentalists; the hypocrites; the power-grabbers; the usurpers of freedom; the IMPERIALISTS.

In the East, they don’t believe in God. In the West; they believe they are God.

Somewhere in the Middle (the Middle East), are those who trust in the Infinite. The Infinite the God which we worship; permitting us to take from concepts like capitalism and communism without becoming hostage to any one of them entirely – allowing for a mixed economy so to speak.

So what does that say about the course of history as taught in the East and West? What does that mean about the twentieth century narratives? How have the East and West successfully torn apart the Middle East? How have they used these extremities to divide individuals all across the world? How have they been able to secure their empire at the expense of a moderate individualist-collectivist hybrid sovereignty?

The enemy is imperialism and its symbols and gods are evident. Its enemy is the golden rule – the straight path – the anomaly – the infinite. Instead of a mixed economy, and a national boundary – these guys want ISMS and expansion.

They succeeded in the Middle East by creating a new version of Islam which can be more appropriately labeled as wahhabism, salafism, etc. and by introducing self-idolatry and paranoia into our societies. The establishment of a zionist state in 1948 only furthered this objective by further implanting a power-house of fundamentalism, religious exclusivity and imperialism in the center of the Middle East, crashing any hopes for sovereignty, independence and prosperity for the Middle Eastern people.

Who are the victims? All the moderate secularists, liberals, and moderate monotheists who are struggling to secure their peace.

How does this translate into our tangible reality? The House of Saud and Israel as well as every other monarchy in the Middle East have allied themselves together with every brand of islamism and zionism and have secured a support system with the West (US, UK & EU) as well as the East (Russia, India & China).

There are two forces at war: imperialism (hubris) and sovereignty (equality). Choose your side.

EZLN


Image


An Artist’s greatest struggle is against time.

RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman


A clip from a great film starring the late Philip Seymour Hoffman. RIP.

I would like to educate Middle Easterners on


I would like to educate Middle Easterners on my perspective on global politics and especially the Arab World.

While this is a difficult task for a variety of reasons, I feel it is now a pressing issue that must be addressed, or else we as an Arab people may face further humiliation, indignation, oppression, and eventually, complete elimination.

I do not know exactly why it is so commonplace for Arabs to have a distorted understanding of their own homeland, but I do know that this problem exists and that it has not only caused rivets between fellow Arab brethren — it has allowed for ill-intentioned insiders and outsiders to use it to their advantage. As the age old saying goes: “divide and conquer”.

What seems to be happening in the Middle East is a perfect example of modern colonialism. The brilliance of modern colonialism is that it is easily guised as an effort to “bring nations into the community of civilized nations” by imposing democracy, or I should say pseudo-democracy.

It isn’t much different from history though, for even in the past, individuals and nations together justified invasions and occupations through religion. The Americans wiped out the indians because they were ‘savages’. Europe did the same in Africa and the Middle East, colonizing nations and exploiting their resources.

The problem in the Middle East and in most places that are under pressure from the spheres of influence of bigger nations like the U.S., China, Russia and the European continent, is that it is difficult for nations to be fully democratic because they are easily infiltrated and penetrated by insiders and outsiders trying to exploit resources. Even in modern developed democracies like America, there are forces inside and out constantly seeking to exploit America’s wealth, it’s resources, and its values. Some of these entities include major banks, oil companies, lobbyists like the NRA and AIPAC. If even America faces constant threats to its democracy, to its protection of individual rights as well as its social community, why is it so hard for arabs to understand that a black-and-white transition to arbitrary democracy is irrational, unscientific, and if anything naive.

Before democracies can flourish in countries like Syria, Egypt, etc, there must be an establishment of certain laws, absolute laws, preventing abuses of power, politically, socially, and economically.

But you see the reason why democracy itself does not exist in the Middle East is not because of socialist regimes and baathist regimes that are seeking to usurp power and control economies. In fact, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries are more inclined to do such things under the guise of “Islam”. What better way to convince people that your way of life is right then to equate failure with burning in hell eternally. This is not Islam.

Syria is the way it is precisely because of the West — not because of democracy, not because of capitalism, not because of freedom. Certain actors in the West got big heads and thought they could take advantage of other countries that have not yet reached democratic status.

Ultimately, what I am trying to get at is that Israel is the remnant of colonial ambitions in the Middle East and has perpetuated the lack of genuine democratic development by staging a two year long farce of an Arab Revolution.

If Israel didn’t exist, there would be no apartheid government in the region, and a more stable Middle East could transition to democracy.

But you see the West is too afraid to grant the Arabs the right to self determination. No, if we grant them freedom they might actually make use of their resources and become free, self-sufficient, and dignified. No, we don’t want that says England, says Corporate America. We want Kings and Pseudo-Democracies like Israel (which is really just a colonial satellite guised as a religious entity in order to garner post-holocaust sympathy), that are bent to the West’s will and that will secure economic interests — namely, oil.

So before we begin jumping to conclusions let us understand that all people deserve the right to self-determination, and the only forces in the West that recognize that are the more liberal ones, which is why I am more satisfied with Obama being president than a Mitt Romney or another George W. Bush…

All I can say is that I pray that the Arab people will forgive themselves for getting too cocky and will accept the truth so that we may live a dignified existence, free from occupation, slavery, ignorance, and hypocrisy.

God grant me this wish.


Don’t be afraid to point out injustices because you might be proven wrong. Injustices are injustices if that is how you perceive them. Let them out. Express them honestly and civilly. 


this world is bent on forcing us to do what we don’t want to do. the source of this compulsion is  pressures from different forces within society, such as family, school, work, government, friendship, politics, etc. these forces pressure us to do what is “right”, “moral”, and/or what might please them for whatever reason we can come up with. i am a victim of this, constantly battling between what i want, what makes me happy, and what would make others around me happy. Another conflict is between what I believe would make my God happy versus the God of others — the God of compulsion, restriction, and authoritarianism; the God of Limits and Regulations. 

All this boiling inside me stems from an even greater, global conflict between two forces — the force of freedom; that is, the freedom of individuals to live the life they’ve imagined for themselves; and second, the force of conformity; to live the life imagined by others. 

I want to live the life I’ve imagined though, but I am scared to displease God and I am scared to displease those around me. I am afraid of being or committing evil — because that is not what I desire. My desires are what I desire — that part of man that is an enigma — our want, of whatever comes our way, be it the creation of a new song, the experience of a new woman, a trip to New York for a weekend, a show performance in Los Angeles. I want all that. In this world we are told that we need money to get all that — and yes, it’s true — you cannot do any of those things without paying for them; but I can’t worship and chase money. I want happiness. I want to feel that I am doing the things I love, earning recognition and prestige, without having to relegate myself — any longer — to the harsh conditions of miserable labor, whether its retail sales associate this or administrative assistant that. I want more out of life, to display myself to the world, my talents, both for the applause and the money, and for the mere feeling of self-fulfillment, that — I did something! — feeling. Accomplishment…destiny…you know?