[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Rail to Russia
Title: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Rail to Russia
I don’t follow. This isn’t written by LaRouche. It’s by a Canadian guy in the Youth Movement.
And the whole thing seems perfectly understandable, with some phrases in the last section that could use some refs to history to clarify political economy factors that form LaRouche’s arguments against the European banking-based feudal economies that were the centerpiece of the U.S. revolution. These formed the basis for the “American System” of economy that applied in the U.S. when it made great progress, between the times when the bankers again bought up the politicians to attain ownership of the country and its citizens (e.g., the Federal Reserve) as in recent decades.
The fundamentals of these principles are addressed in Plato and the Greeks (Socrates and the Sophists), the Romans, and the Venetians with the issues of the rights of humans vs. the rights of kings, and the population vs. the bankers, and colonialism as represented by, e.g., the British East India Tea Company vs. the rights of subjects who were precluded (as in the U.S. colonies) from the free development of their own economies under their own control (not so much as individuals, but as a nation and government of the citizens to produce the success that became U.S. free citizens working entrepreneurially within a governmental system that considered the inalienable rights to be life, liberty, and “the pursuit of happiness,” vs. “the pursuit of property” (as stated by Adam Smith); and the responsibility of government to work “for the general welfare” vs. working “to protect property” (which meant working on behalf of the “masters” over the chattel – or “human cattle” as LaRouche would say - as in Dickens’ England).
He also argues that humanity’s unique ability to think and create, in a partnership with the prime creator, is the central cause and purpose of our existence, as we bring the earth into being in its third phase of development. The first as the Geosphere – rock and volcanoes. The second as the Biosphere – starting with the initial single cell organisms that worked for billions of years to produce oxygen to produce the earth’s atmosphere, which lead to all plant and animal life. With the third – starting with human consciousness, beginning to have gross effects with agriculture and animal domestication and husbandry to re-form the earth into a safe and productive home for man, which for millions of years allowed for only a small, difficult, dangerous bare existence of a small number of scattered tribes, eventually becoming “nasty, brutish, and short” a few hundred years ago in Europe (and continue today in undeveloped countries) in societies which still supported only a small world population.
These grew with difficulty (the populations along with the human rights “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”) into a world that will be supporting a population as great as all of the people who ever lived, and is on the verge of providing all these populations with much greater access to the resources (including shelter, with a door) that the keep the wolf and weather from the door. LaRouche refers to this, after Vernadsky, the great Russian geochemist, as the Noösphere – the earth that has been, and is being, formed by human capacities from the raw and hazardous biosphere from the visions and actions of human consciousness, for the welfare of humanity and the whole earth. This enhances the growth of the security and welfare of world populations, enabling the ever larger development and contributions of the conscious capacities of individual humans and their societies as they rise above desperate subsistence (usually short-lived) existence, including being considered chattel or prey by those who see the world as “haves” and “have-nots,” or “winners” and “losers,” or “predators” and “prey.”
Coincidentally, from yesterday’s “Dilbert” comic:
And a factoid that was reported this week is that, if the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as average CEO pay, just since 1990, it would now be about $23 per hour. :-)
So, it may be, as LaRouche argues, that we may need to wait for another Wall Street collapse to enter another “correction” to predatory excesses (e.g., Enron et al.) to go into another growth cycle - unless the core group of knowledgeable economists (other than those anointed by their fealty to the financial powers-that-be, can reorient the economy to the American System principles of Hamilton, Carey, Hopkins and others who see national investment in essential infrastructure and development projects (e.g., a few thousand nuclear plants, along with a few million wind turbines, in the next 50 years) founded on entrepreneurial competition vs. predatory monopolistic capitalism (as represented by Rockefeller who expressly hated, and destroyed, all competition; and J.P. Morgan et al. bankers – vs. the large industrial builders, like Edison and Insull, Bechtel and Kaiser et al.) This occurred in the ‘30s-’70s, from the Maritime Commission (1934-35) that (re)created the American shipbuilding industry (which was then in place when it came time to produce the - one-a-day - Liberty ships) to the REA, TVA, etc., to the post-war Interstate Highway System, COMSAT (built on the capabilities of AT&T and Hughes which had already flown Telstar, but would have progressed by providing capacity for business to business, major city, high-cost capacity, instead of implementing wealth-generating whole-world communications through linkages with all nations), the space program, and many other great projects.
on 6/14/07 12:41 AM, Randal Leavitt at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
If I could understand anything the Lyndon LaRouche says I would probably
dislike his organization even more than I do now. I find them
impossible to take seriously. But they seem to consistently write
articles such as the above that contain a lot of points that I agree
with. Is it possible to pick the pearls out of the muck, i.e. to
believe articles written by someone you don't respect?
This is the opposite of the greenpeace propaganda problem.