It seems we are nowhere close to agreeing upon the 'degree of brokenness' of the system; perhaps not even upon - a few specifics of the underlying myths which justifed an earlier form (?) As to -

What descriptor would you attach to the "model" of "citizen control of
the entire environment". Strictly in the theoretical sense...I believe
that to be a pretty concise definition of communism. Am I incorrect?

I apologize if you inferred that I was accusing you personally, of dismissal of criticisms of the present models -as simplistic 'Communism'- though I believe that simplicity remains the most common buffer against ever seriously reassessing the current state of the model.

IMO 'Communism' has never been remotely possible as a system of Government (that seems almost an oxymoron of the basic tenets ~ from each according to ability, to each according to needs). I deem it a Large Idea, conceivable at some future state of growth of the species. It could only ever operate where the delusions about power, wealth - as these apply or do not, to a (fulfilling? ___) life - had been individually dealt with as the chimeras they are. Not 'us'. Not in any foreseeable.

Yes, you acknowledge various broken details, after these are periodically pointed out by others. (I can't recall now if the 'bogus' unemployed, underemployed calculations are anything you've agreed about?) Certainly the system has yet to recognize much: those currently 'unemployable' for both external and personal reasons - lumped together under 'welfare', (whatever the individual desire to find work that anyone could live from). The plight of the Temp workers does not even appear to be on the long agenda for attention. Bets on the direction of that trend? Medicine for profit? Jails for profit? Are those even in the model?

I have few ideas - none new - for how Muricans might kill the incestuous relationship among PACs, Corps and paid legislators - nor even, how one alters rules such that: any legislator must devote a huge proportion of time towards raising funds for reelelection. So much for efficiency on other minor matters, like 'governing'.

Until the living conditions worsen, I also see no Grand process via which relatively distracted, ineffectual 'consumers' could force so large a change in quality of thinking about the models. The usual rubric is: to somehow accomplish gradual detail reform, leading to a change in quality (Mr. Kuhn IIRC).

But we haven't even decided yet - whether the idea of, 'the environment' is an issue describing a real concern (or for that matter: even very well defined what that word might mean re survival). It's still easily dismissed with Tree-Hugger derision as YAN Red Herring - let's get on with making money.

As I see it, if such basic issues as are supposed to set the rules for making models that work (?) are not yet even being raised, not even by the current model-makers: of what use is proposing a few minor tinkerings?

I see signs everywhere of what Corporate tinkering has produced: 'production', ownership of the tangible and control over much of the intangible - the hours of the day. Perhaps nobody else wants the responsibility. What with a new war and such..

Yer prolly right, BeeP - it's difficult to fault a system with such order and predictability. It might cause disorder.

I wouldn't want to do that.


Ashton