But sure, if the west (tm) stopped buying stuff today, millions of people would loose their jobs. There is a transitional problem.
Then this angle perhaps works:
How do you create a proletariat? By reducing the populations possibility of sustaning itself, by way of removing control over the means of production (enclosure, regulations on trades favoring big biz, intellectual enclosure).
Then how do you uncreate a proletariat? By it regaining means of production. How? Ok, now it gets tough (and I should get sleeping). Backtracking the above looks like a starting point, but to what state? It is all about not being hindered to use the means of production so that you can produce what you need. A general rule allowing use of idle stuff, perhaps? Idle stuff like houses noone lives in, land that is not used, factories that has been shut down. All intellectual property is a sense idle as an idea can never be used up and can be used simultaneosly by unlimited people. Squatters unite! A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Then how do you uncreate a proletariat? By it regaining means of production.
by rolling back the Enclosures.
and that gets us back to land reform and agricultural reform, reform of zoning laws, land use, rights in usufruct, preservation of the productive commons.
one of the serious problems with compound interest is that money can multiply in geometric progression whereas biosolar returns are annual and fixed. one thing this means, as I've been mulling over lately, is that those who control the money can kite ahead of its inevitable devaluation: they can own, at least today, enough money to buy the whole world several times over, whereas a peasant family must work and scrimp and save for years to accumulate enough surplus to buy an extra acre or two.
this means that inevitably, the money-owners can buy all the land; their money will eventually devalue as its theoretical value spirals way out of touch with reality (see earlier posts on the absurdity of compound interest and how it forces either steady inflation or abrupt "resets"), but they can surf the moving wavefront of compounding money and -- essentially -- buy up the world, Enclosing everything and forcing the non-wealthy into a global "dispossessed lumpenproletariat" -- thereby rendering that class incapable of self-sufficiency and abjectly dependent on centrally controlled sources of food, clothing, artifacts etc -- which in turn creates a pool of cheap desperate hungry labour and a captive market for mass produced stuff. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
...which was the whole point of the Enclosure movement in the first place: not only to secure more pasturage for the capitalists' favourite beast of the time (sheep), but to ensure the existence of a dispossessed proletariat who could be forced, through hunger, to work for wages as low as was compatible with keeping them (barely) alive to tend their masters' mills.
only a person or family or tribe with the ability to feed herself by her/their own efforts is in any position to say "no" to the Boss. the rest of us, whether we care to face the fact squarely or not, are wage slaves: we eat or don't, we have shelter or don't, at the pleasure of the bosses who control our access to money and hence to food and shelter. we are not allowed to build shelters of our own (that is called "squatting" and "unpermitted construction" and is punished by demolition and/or imprisonment and/or fines); and the ag industry is moving with ever more open intent towards making it illegal for anyone to grow their own food w/o paying a money rent for "patented" cultivars.
the money system is totalising: nothing and no one is allowed to exist outside it... the days when you could pay your property tax in potatoes are long gone.
every act of charity, every act of barter, every effort of self-support, seems like a small act of resistance in such a system... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
