zymposium 3: a meditation on conscious capitalism
Posted on Oct 8th, 2007
by 
Siona
Siona
Zymposium 3: A Meditation on Conscious Capitalism
I've started this essay more than a few times now. This topic is so deep, and so vast, and so richly complex; it was hard to know where to start. So at first, I started everywhere.
I started with a version grounded in an environmental perspective, urging a deeper awareness of the relationship between capital and the natural world, and the possibility of integrating economy and ecology—or realizing that the two systems cannot be separated.
I started from the point of view of collective power, encouraging consciousness around the value of the dollar not just as something that can be spent, but as something that makes a statement, that serves as a vote, and that has a worth beyond what it can buy.
I started by discussing alignment, and about how personal integrity demands that we be aware of how we make and how we spend our money, so that we can be sure that the effects our financial actions have in the world are effects we can feel comfortable with.
I started by writing about the process of creating value in the world, and how creation and contribution and participation is something that ought be recognized and celebrated and enjoyed.
And I started by discussing right livelihood, and about discovering one's calling and one's purpose and one's passion, and what it would be like to live in a society in which our Work--in what we created and produced and contributed--what what gave us satisfaction, so that we'd not feel compelled to find it through consumption.
I kept disappointing myself, though. I kept stepping back and discovering I'd produced an ideological monologue, defending something I didn't feel needing to be defended.
Also, I kept realizing how much I didn't know, and how much I couldn't defend: I am not an economist, nor a sociologist, nor a politician, nor a historian; I'm not an expert in archeology or environmentalism, nor in the machinations of profit nor the psychology of consumption. I've read (perhaps too much), and I've traveled and thought and talked, but in all honesty this has only conspired to make me laugh a bit at the idea of any system providing a solution to the problems of the world, be they suffering or poverty or inequality or injustice. (Or perhaps laughter is the wrong response; what comes to mind when you hear the words "Final Solution"?)
I couldn't pretend that 'conscious capitalism' is an answer.
Still, I also couldn't pretend that I'm not passionate about the topic. There's a reason I first came to Zaadz, and a reason that Brian's beautiful vision won me over, and a reason why I'm still here, proud and excited to be the first voice of Julian's third Zymposium. Obviously conscious capitalism means something important to me.
So that's where I'll start: with what it means to me, and why I'm so passionate about this subject.
To me, conscious capitalism involves, first and foremost, responsibility. (See Brian's recent post on this for a taste of what 'responsible' means to me.) Instead of blaming the state of the world on some out-of-control corporate system, or angrily calling for a benevolent utopian government to mete out equality and justice, or crying for a return to some prior Eden where our neighbors are expected to radically change their lives to conform to our ideals, conscious capitalism asks us to own our role in the system. For me, it's less an economics of compassion than it is an economics of responsibility. It's an economics of accountability. And it's an economics of understanding.
I'm being general, aren't I?
Apologies. :)
For me, conscious capitalism is about taking ownership of my position in the world. It's about recognizing that the economic actions I take (whether driving my car or selling it, or deciding to buy from my local bookstore rather than Amazon, or letting others in my workplace know how much I appreciate them and how great an impact they have on my life, or opting to live without a television) have a real and lasting effect. It's recognizing the extent to which so much of what I do is mediated by money, and, instead of bemoaning this fact, or denying it, asking what attitude I'll choose to take and how I might use this to create a society I can feel proud of. It's about waking up to the fact that there are fewer 'givens' in the world than I might have been lead to believe. It's about refusing to subjugate myself to a job I don't believe in, and instead committing to my own purpose and my own path and to doing what it is I love—so that I'm not looking to satisfy some aching emptiness through consumption of first commercials and then commodities. It's about accepting that if I want the world to change, it's my responsibility to change myself.
Perhaps it's easy for me to say this; after all, I love my job. I love my work. I love what I do, and I love the people with whom I get to work every day. Because of this, though, I can say, too, that I would love for nothing more than for all those around me to feel the same way.
Wouldn't you? Because what else, really, is there? Aren't we all connected in this? Why would you want to share your home with people who are miserable, or to live in an environment that's sickly or sad? I love my local farmer's market, and my independent bookstore, and the little owner-run coffee shop I've been visiting before work in the mornings, because I love being able to participate in a marketplace of human beings who have made a choice in their lives and who enjoy what it is they do.
(An aside: To my mind it seems obvious that if we consume misery, we'll be miserable; if we eat food that suffered—pain is one thing; suffering another—we'll suffer ourselves. I don't mean this in some fluffy karmic sense. I mean it from the point of blunt human psychology. I think most of us would agree that denial or unconsciousness is not a desirable state. How many of us, though, remain willfully ignorant of what happens when we discard a plastic bag or purchase a box of ballpoint pens? Are we not, by cutting off that awareness, causing our own psyches to suffer?)
But back to the idea of work, and of love.
For me, this marriage is one of the keystones of the whole notion of conscious capitalism. Are you doing what it is you're meant to be doing? Are you spending your life engaged in what you love? Are you taking responsibility for your life and your happiness? This culture has a bizarre tendency to see work as something to be avoided, but this, to me, seems a strange assumption. Why not see work an opportunity? Why not see it as chance to give back, to contribute, and to give of myself to the world? Why not start with the assumption that a healthy economy should be concerned with helping people discover how we can each best contribute—that is, to discover what our greatest strengths are and to use these to benefit others? This is what is at the heart of Zaadz, and this, too, is what conscious capitalism is about—contribution, and service, and responsibility, and satisfaction. It's about finding and doing the work you're meant to do, and feeling free, as a result, to appreciate and support others who are doing the same.
It seems to me that this would heal so much. We'd have a healthier relationship with money, because it wouldn't be so colored with resentment and compromise and dissatisfaction. We'd have a healthier relationship with our planet, because we'd not be rabidly consuming it in an attempt to fill up our inner sense of emptiness. We'd have a healthier relationship with our communities, because we'd feel we were appreciated and valued for our work. And we'd have a healthier relationship with ourselves, because we'd be honoring our personal gifts and our strengths and our desires. (And it should go without saying that all these relationships interconnect, because how can we love ourselves without loving our animal bodies that depend on the earth to be healthy? And how can we love our planet without caring for our own biological being?)
Of course, I don't know that this simple commitment is a panacea. I wouldn't know how to reply to the objection that the summation of our collective life's work might end up being harmful and destructive, nor would I know how to answer someone who informed me that what I saw as my gift to the world was, from their perspective, unwanted and unnecessary. I'm not wholly sure how I'd reply to those who'd argue that there is some work that no one could ever enjoy, or to those who'd ask how I could be so sure that creativity and contribution is the best route toward satisfaction.
I would, though, firmly stand by my insistence that all life on this small planet is interconnected, and all our myriad actions, no matter how small, affect the whole, and I'd argue that conscious capitalism is one of the most readily available routes by which we might both be aware of this interdependence and realize that there can be no true self-interest without Self-interest—and that this Self-interest amounts to caring, and taking responsibility for, the whole.
I think I'll end here, and hand the reins off to you—and the other participants. I know there's much I skipped over—is so-called sustainable or green business anything more than a band-aid? Is the fiat system inherently inequitable? How did we come to be able to 'store value,' and should such a thing be possible? How can we keep talking about any of this when there are people suffering in the world?—so feel free to leave a word or so about anything you'd like me, or the rest of the group, to address. I'm excited to see where this will go next.
---
Here's the original call to conversation.
Brian continues with another personal view. Following his post comes Christiana's beautiful essay, and then Jeff' offers his reflections. More to come!
Access: PublicTagged with: zymposium, conscious captialism, debate, julian walker, julian walker yoga, brian johnson, c4chaos, christiana, tommy, eco gifts, zaadz, meditation, awareness, money, business, christiana wyly, jeff klein, gaiam
C4Chaos
August 2008 
siona! thanks for this personal and open-ended setting of the stage. i always appreciate your desire to be even handed and humble, while at the same time passionate and direct.
so glad to have you on board!
would you mind responsing here in the comments section with a brief definition of conscious captilalism as you perceive it?
are you calling conscious capitalism the willingness as consumers to buy with awareness and as workers to do our best to choose work we feel good about?
this makes sense to me, but is there another copmponent that has to do with how the holders of capital as defined by the phrase capitalism engage in their business and what kinds of choices they make?
tell me more siona!
wow, Siona! this is beautiful! it's a very eloquent (non-elitist, self-reflective) first-person perspective look at conscious capitalism. i especially like this paragraph, because i always come back to this train of thought when it comes to any topic that i hold dear, whether be it conscious capitalism, science, politics, religion, or spirituality.
“For me, conscious capitalism is about taking ownership of my position in the world. It's about recognizing that the economic actions I take (whether driving my car or selling it, or deciding to buy from my local bookstore rather than Amazon, or letting others in my workplace know how much I appreciate them and how great an impact they have on my life, or opting to live without a television) have a real and lasting effect. It's recognizing the extent to which so much of what I do is mediated by money, and, instead of bemoaning this fact, or denying it, asking what attitude I'll choose to take and how I might use this to create a society I can feel proud of. It's about waking up to the fact that there are fewer 'givens' in the world than I might have been lead to believe. It's about refusing to subjugate myself to a job I don't believe in, and instead committing to my own purpose and my own path and to doing what it is I love—so that I'm not looking to satisfy some aching emptiness through consumption of first commercials and then commodities. It's about accepting that if I want the world to change, it's my responsibility to change myself.”
i definitely agree with you that “conscious capitalism involves, first and foremost, responsibility.” but i would add that this sense of responsibility should first be grounded in deep, more-embracing, and “higher” ethics in general and a more sophisticated business ethics in particular. and that is where it gets tricky, because a person can have a good sense of responsibility but if his ethics is “misguided” (lack development, less aware), then responsibility can only take him so far. and indeed, our collective sense of responsibility has only taken us so far in business, science, politics, and religion.
if we are to develop a more “conscious” business/capitalism then we have to evolve a more sophisticated set of ethics in business, science, politics, religion, and spirituality, since they are all interconnected. but that is another mind-boggling topic(s) for discussion. i understand that your focus here is the first-person where change can happen in a blink of an eye ;)
~C
Hi,
My name is Juan, and I'm using Manish's account to participate in this discussion. I work for Manish here at Handmade Expressions, a fair trade company, doing most of the marketing and communications efforts.
We market handmade, fairly traded goods from India (mostly purses, tote bags, sling bags, tree-free paper journals and accessories) in the US and Canada. Our goal is to provide sustainable employment to numerous groups of artisans by guiding them with market and fashion information, which they use to produce functional products that can be sold in the Western world. We also promote the idea of fair trade among our retail partners and the local community.
Now that our introduction is done, I would like to ask you: how do you think Fair Trade fits into Conscious Capitalism?
The way I see it, fair trade and conscious capitalism are very similar. Our goal as fair traders is to take into account the emotions of the people as a key factor in the making and trading of products (handcrafts, produce, etc). Fair Trade guidelines state that a real, meaningful relationship must be made between the producer and the buyer. Profits are not the main decision-making factor, but rather the needs of producers and buyers drive the trading.
Thank you for your response :-)
Also, to add to C4Chaos' comment: fair trade is not only a movement but a set of socially responsible business principles. Everyone involved in the movement is trying to spread the word about responsible, guilt-free buying. As opposed to conventional trade and economics theories, fair trade takes into account the impact on the environment, and the emotions and motivations of producers (either artisans or famers) as “costs” of the products. It'll be great if businesses and politicians take these factors into account as well, and not base decisions solely on profits and the needs of shareholders. Trade should be a partnership, a real relationship between everyone involved, not a situation where one party takes advantage of another because of lack of information.
Kind regards,
Juan
PS - my Zaadz application is being processed, once I have it I'll login as me
Siona, that was a lovely post.
I liked especially all the ideas at the beginning, that try to explain, but dissolve in self-reflection… because I think this is fundamental to the discussion that Julian is prompting us all to have. To observe it all and see what we all say and what seems ‘sticky’, what clicks and adds and widens our perspective of this subject. And your musings are just the things that we perhaps all are beginning, or in the midst of having - doubts about all the systems that bring things to market. That is such a complex bunch of things, we really do have to start with ourselves… what do we stand for, how do we afford things, what are my strengths, what can I give… we are the market, we are the converts, we are the little bunch on the side of the see-saw trying to tip it…
Two specific things that have been very useful for me:
Using the concept of the triple bottom line - business needs profit, needs to engage with the interests of all people involved and affected by the enterprise, has to respect the environment. It works very well as a model to keep things clear.
The book ‘Conscious Business’ by Fred Kofman, which is incredibly useful, and has helped me change ‘how’ I interact in order to affect change.
I working in the printing industry, and our clients use a lot of paper, so my strengths in communication allow me to engage them in better purchasing practices (FSC paper for example), whilst informing them about the pros and cons that will effect ‘how’ the products differ from others so they are educated in not only being good to the planet but have an increase in skill and knowledge of how to apply this. This is therefor not JUST about consciousness, it engages I, IT and WE. As Ken Wilber would put it… very handy!
love it.
I share Julian's interest in hearing more about your (oft eloquent) definition/description of conscious capitalism!
-bri
Thanks, all, tremendously, for your kinds words and great questions. While I'm starting to explode at the linguistic (and conceptual) seams with the desire to leap in and engage, this is just a placeholder comment until I can come back this afternoon and answer in more detail. I'll do more with both defining my terms, and addressing my decision to take, as a few of you have mentioned, the first-person perspective; I do recognize that it is partial and I loved C4 and Juan's words about the critical importance of the 'We' of ethics. (I think I touched, ever so lightly, on that in the final two paragraphs, but that touching didn't involve codification.)
More soon. So keep it coming. :)
Hi Siona,
Loved your post! Your love, compassion, and enthusiasm permeated it. Thanks also for giving me this hook by leaving these fun open-ended questions which I'll take a shot at answering. Of course, I'd love your thoughts and those of others on my answers.
I wouldn't know how to reply to the objection that the summation of our collective life's work might end up being harmful and destructive
Well, it depends on how you define harmful and destructive. These terms mean different things based on your psychological development (i.e. spiral dynamics memes), culture, etc. Figuring out what those would mean to you is a first step. Then, figuring out some metrics to determine the impacts of your work in all four quadrants (using the integral model) could be a good next step. Last, continuously refine what you do based on the impact your work is having as measured in the second step. Still, it is impossible to determine the outcomes of external events so, like Sanjuro, I highly recommend Fred Kofman's “Conscious Business.” His concept of “success beyond success” is critical here - basing your success on things you can control (i.e., intent, ethics, effort) while simultaneously striving with nonattachment to have the highest positive impact in the external world.
nor would I know how to answer someone who informed me that what I saw as my gift to the world was, from their perspective, unwanted and unnecessary.
I'd start by asking why they thought that. Again, judging that something is “unwanted and unneccessary” is developmentally dependent, and they may have good reasons that cause you to modify what you do or you may agree to disagree with them. The worst-case scenario is that you understand their subjective judgments better and choose not to follow them.
I'm not wholly sure how I'd reply to those who'd argue that there is some work that no one could ever enjoy,
Enjoyment of some kind of work is a highly subjective judgment, so on that ground alone there is sure to be someone who likes doing just about anything. Finding just one person who was happy doing whatever kind of work would be enough to disprove that statement.
or to those who'd ask how I could be so sure that creativity and contribution is the best route toward satisfaction.
While its hard to say this is the “best route” toward satisfaction, there is ample psychological data that service and contribution to the world are major contributors to personal happiness. Martin Seligman is a real leader in positive psychology, or the psychology of wellness. I am not sure if he specifically covers this topic but his work is a good place to start.
Thanks again for the great post and to Julian for organizing the Zymposium!
Siona,
I think its great that you began with an admission of how much we don't know. I feel that we have to acknowledge the failures of the previous systems of thought, including unbridled capitalism and anti-corporatism/anti-materialism. It's important to recognize that as wealthy as we are as a culture, we are spiritually impoverished. But, as much wisdom as they contain, the embrace of Eastern traditions and the fetishization of all things Asian is more often a symptom of the disease than it is a cure.
You raise the contrast between conscious capitalism and consumerism. I believe that we must also look at how similar they are, since they are both strategies for finding meaning in the world. The emptiness and the lack of meaning is actually more present for the conscious person, and there is a very real sense in which we who are conscious should envy the blind consumer, because they can still temporarily obliterate their emptiness with a trip to the shopping mall. To me, rejecting consumerism should not be an exercise in self-discipline, renunciation or deprivation, but a recognition that it fails to hold meaning any more. Otherwise, we will simply transmute our existing materialism into a pseudo-spiritual framework.
What a wonderful, impassioned piece!
I agree that Conscious Capitalism is where work meets love, and we contemplate deeply where we use our time, energy, and money for the greatest good.
You also highlighted some difficult, but important questions:
1. Does everyone pursuing their own highest good always lead to a collective higher good?
2. Is it possible that one person's highest good may be conflicting with others, or irrelevant or destructive to global goals? (e.g. sustainability, social justice)
3. Does anyone enjoy politics? :) Or more generally, are there important jobs no one loves? (or not enough people love, or too many people love being life coaches and not enough love being social workers, etc.)
These are tough questions that I too do not have answers to yet, but I'm very interested in participating in the discussion of them.
Thank you for kicking off the Zymposium with such a thoughtful and impassioned piece Siona.
You reflect on of the foundational themes that came forth during our Conscious Capitalism retreat this weekend in Austin. That of the role of Consciousness - and Conscious beings - in the emergence of Conscious Capitalism. After all, Capitalism is a system generated and embodied by human beings. And, as with all human creations, it is informed and evolves through our consciousness - by individuals and groups whose consciouness emerges to a new place, and who apply this new consciousess to the systems & “forums' of human expression and endeavor. Economy and business are clearly significant human sustems and forums.
So, “be the change” has profound relevance in the context of Conscious Capitalism. As does 'critize by creating” - which is one of the opportunities inherent in capitalism - it promotes the very forces that can transform it… creativity, innovation, experimentation, transformation, etc.
I look forward to the further unfolding of this conversation.
Yours in FLOW,
Jeff
mmm elijah tasty offerings!
enjoyed your reflections too senor T to the cup. :O)
oooohh duff i wanna hear you struggle some more with those very good questions - say more!
oh Siona, I almost skipped over it, but this would be well worth an essay on its own:
”pain is one thing; suffering another”
especially since um, you do eat bunnies and balut and so forth ;)
l'ei - huh?! do elaborate…
juan so glad to hear your voice - please share more!
c'mon y'all let's ge t a little more specific and juicy here. what are we actually talking about?
what is closestt to your heart in this subject and what are the details of the actual struggle to bring it into being?
what is it not - or as buddhists say - what is the “near enemy” - of conscious capitalism that masquerades as it or is misunderstood as it but actually undermines the vision?
I have a few questions of my own,
Are America and its people, evil because they have “more” than the rest of the world? Is a wealthy person inherently bad, and are the poor good by default?
The terms big business and capitalism, have negative connotations attached to them like dirt smeared across their names, but why? Should we take from the rich and give to the poor? Or teach the poor to become “rich”? Are we rich or bankrupt in the things that matter (education, patriotism, morality)? Should we demean, devalue and demoralize the poor by simply assuming that they are too stupid or lazy to reach success through their own hard work, intelligence and ingenuity? Who are the poor? Who are the wealthy? Who are we? Which do you prefer: Capitalism where everyone can choose, and most have the opportunity to succeed? Or socialism, where the government chooses for you and everyone, (except for the government) is equally poor with no chance of progress? Are the children living in poverty in Africa more important than the 20% of American children who live below the poverty line? What is poverty, and are there different kinds?
Thank you for inspiring some thought in me.
Siona,
One part of your entry reminded me of my teacher Guru Prem who, when I asked him if it was my fault when some unwanted thing happened in my life, responded “Tommy, your life is 100% your fault!” He is constantly reminding me that if I want to change the world all I have to do is change myself and the world is automatically changed along with me. Today, I visited another incredible teacher, my Ayurvedic physician, Dr. Jayagopal. He is very clear that nature takes care of all imbalances and that we should not worry about this process. Rather, he insists, we must raise our vibration in order to access solutions to the problems we face. Conscious Capitalism is one example of raising of this vibration. You presented well about this when you spoke of loving one's work. This basically means walking around with a sense of Gratitude - a very high vibration indeed. Thank you for your thoughts.
All my best
Tommy Rosen
Dear Siona…..
Your title for this piece reminded me of Thorstein Veblen and his philosophy in 1902 of “Conspicuous Consumption”.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1902veblen00.html
Source:
From Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions (New York: Macmillan, 1902), pp. 68-101
Just wondered if you knew about this before your wrote this piece ?
a warm smile
silent lotus
I posted an absurdly long comment already on Bri's entry, but it certainly didn't address much of what the group of you wrote here. So I'll dive in. :)
Brian and Julian: My definition? Hm. Like Brian, I'm a bit less interested in the capitalism side of the phrase and more interested in the conscious (as if that weren't obvious). And I think that the definition itself is evolving and in-process. We all have different edge-of-consciousnesses, and what I see as being a broad perspective on capitalism might seem shallow and naive to some and well over-the-heads of others. To me, conscious capitalism is merely the application of awareness to our current economic system. It involves both the intellectual understanding of how that system works (something that I'm not sure that many people take the time to do; we all spend a great deal of time learning how to make money, but not much learning about what it actually IS), and the more embodied awareness of how that process ties us, as physical and psychological creatures, into the rest of the culture, and how the rest of that culture connects to the rest of the world. My definition of conscious capitalism is the application of an individual's or culture's consciousness to the economic system around him or her or it. We talk about spiritual consciousness with ease. We talk about environmental consciousness, too, and social consciousness. And somehow economics holds the shadow.
'Zat help?
C4Chaos: Thank you, as always, and I completely agree; you point out a certain depth that needs to accompany any taking of responsibility. For me that's where the awareness, mentioned in the response above, comes in. So yes. Yes yes yes.
Juan: I'm by no means an expert on Fair Trade, but I like what you wrote, especially that notion of relationship. Thank you. (And welcome to Zaadz. :)
Sanjuro: I've heard a great deal about Fred Kofman, and read a few articles and interviews, but I've yet to pick up his book. I'll put it on the list. Thank you!
Elijah: Brilliant.
MrTeacup: Oh, my. It's wonderful to see you here; long time, no chat. Your response put the biggest grin on my face, I think, just because of how much of my own thought / psychology I recognized in it. I wouldn't ever envy the blind consumer–no more so than I'd envy a dog that had lost sensation in its leg and was happily gnawing away at the limb, not recognizing the self-injury it was inflicting–but I understand what you mean. In any case, I don't see it as an obliteration as emptiness; rather a temporary distraction… and to that extent, I'm with you with the recognition that this current project we're embarking on (this construction of a more palatable and compassionate set of ideologies) is anything more than the same–just at a different level. But it's wonderful, hm? We must imagine Sisyphus happy. :)
Duff: Nice to see you here, too, and that you're willing to hold those questions. I'm a big fan of keeping those doors open.
Jeff: I'm already looking forward to your 'entry,' especially coming on the heels of that retreat. Thank you.
L'el: Agreed. And just sitting with that has already set of a cascade of ideas and feelings. Maybe Julian can put it on the list for another Zymposium.
Indira: You post some wonderful questions, too… so thank you for inspiring the same. Some of them I feel might be unanswerable, or, if not unanswerable, that they have no final answers; it's up to us to create the systems or the reality or the structures to respond to them. And in some cases both can be true: sometimes I feel it's wholly possible for the most 'wealthy' among us to be the most impoverished. Someone once wrote that luxury is artificial poverty. I think there's some truth to that.
Tommy: You've found some wise teachers on your journey. Thank you, deeply, for sharing that.
And finally… Silent Lotus: I'd not known about that piece, but I'll go have a look. Thanks for discovering the connection.
“Conscious Capitalism” is the same as when The Little Prince meets the Business Man and he's “Tending to maters of consequence”.
Okay, i promise to behave myself from here on; besides the zaadzters in this zymposium have hit two grand slams and the crowd is in a frenzy! 17-8…A comeback like this has never been done before in the history of major league ball……
However, i do have a question about the premise that capitalism has been unconscious historically. It seems to me that Ms. Rands' philosophy was anything but unconscious. To me those philosophies were cognizant and intentional and adopted by some of the major players at work in the system today. It seems to me that the decisions made in the boardrooms all over the world are made by highly intelligent people with full cognizance and intentionality! These people are aware of the negative impacts their decisions have on other people and all life-forms. One can only guess at what their underlying motivations might be………..
I guess the other problem i'm having here is the complete dismissal of socialist and communist ideas. Obviously communism has been a dismal failure, but i don't think it's necessarily because of the foundational ideas; i think it's a failure for the same reason capitalism has been so enormouly destructive to life. Because the few and the powerful always seem to horde 90 percent of the wealth (within any system), coupled with the tendency of the human mind to rationalize all-most anything. Why is it that we couldn't transcend and include the best of ideas from all the political and economic ideologies?Wouldn't this be less polarizing and alienating for all the bros and sisters that come from those other systems?Being a canuck, i don't want to see health-care completely de-regulated by the neo-con agenda. I think it's a great socialist value that should be implemented everywhere. And i must say, that for the american elite to pontificate to the rest of the world about how great their system is (and the only one we can work with) while children in their own country go without universal health-care is to me, unconscionable and the height of hypocrisy………….
Ah, now the spirit side of the issue. And sadly, i do have to submit this view from the Judaic-Christian perspective. And please, i would welcome any scholar from those traditions from anywhere in the world to correct me if i'm wrong…..
It seems to me that there has never been a time when the transcendent spirit and universal intelligence has ever been fully immanent within human beings! Prior to the fall into duality there seemed to be some kind of chasm between humans and their source. This chasm was bridged to a certain degree by the Christ but will not be totally done away with until the last few chapters of revelation when there will apparently be no more tears and god will reveal itself and dwell among humans fully and completely….
To me , this is as good an explanation as any as to why humanity seems to be incapable of creating any meaningful equalitarian or sustainable societies……
I know, i'm just so amber!lol
Much love and best wishes for success, andrew
Amber, I mean Andrew, ahem… :)
Not a scholar so I will skip the testaments…
But in a way you answered your own question. Blue and Greens. Highly intelligent though Marx and Engels were, they were limited and partial. Highly intelligent that certain boardrooms have been, they also have been limited and partial… they just tried to repress the opposites… any Jungian will tell you what a bad idea that is!
Anyways, I used to think when I was a kid, how do people vote? This adult is very smart, and so is this one? Why do they argue and seem just to contradict each other? If you want to solve a problem, you brainstorm, um together… and yet, we still live with this ‘opposition’ idea of governments. Very strange if you sit and dwell on that… what happened to higher purpose?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/Stiglitz-t.html?fta=y
Here's a link for ya'all about Naomi Kleins assessment of the oinkers that are still way out in front of the brights……….bleakonomics indeed, and although Naomi disavows any formal conspiracy, she could be wrong………
The Need for Balance.
I think a simple definition of capitalism might help when we appreciate that were talking about an economic SYSTEM of production, whether private or Corporate owned that is operated for profit.
Having been institutionalized through industrialization and now globalization, capitalism creates hegemony for the financial markets and for corporations. The real question is what role does the individual in society that capitalism operates in play? What legitimacy of power and participation does he really have?
David Korten who wrote, “When Corporation Rule the World” breaks it down nicely. Forgive me I overlooked it, but I believe that corporations should be in this dialog somewhere.
Break down the three components that are integral to any healthy society and you have, Civic – Government - Economic.
The civic sector affords the greatest freedom to the individual of the other two in that an individual can act from a sense of inner spiritual connection to his personal life and his communities. You can call the civic sector the conscience of society and the only true hegemony to abuse of power by the Government or the economic sectors.
The Governmental sector is where the civic sector freely gives power and authority to deal with the abusive power of the economic sector if it so chooses to exercise it to deal with monopoly, harmful products or practices. The competence of the Government as an elected body is to reallocate wealth through fair practices and laws that are determined to be fair and equitable in establishing boundaries that are acceptable to the society.
The economic sector who specializes in producing the goods and services adjusts its priorities based upon societies demand to consume those products and services. The economic sector cares about the collective’s needs for environmental needs, poor educational systems, unsafe products are practices only in relation to the civics ability to maintain a governmental sector that enacts laws that regulate, enforce and hold accountable the power of the economic market to begin with.
To have the freedoms of an integrated and healthy society, it must start with the civic sector in determining what is appropriate in balancing the need for the other two sectors in providing the authority to enable the laws necessary to provide safety and protection and the accountability of the government to do so.
But there is a BIG DIFFERENCE in a CAPITALIST economy and a MARKET economy as envisioned by Adam Smith. The capitalized economy is about control, monopoly, deregulation, public subsidies, the concentration and control of the means of production in the hands of the few to the exclusion of the many - Mega-corporations.
A MARKET economy is intended to facilitate the self-organizing processes by which people engage in the production of goods and services to create a sustainable and sound means of providing for families.
The publicly traded, LIMITED LIABILITY Corporation is institutionalized capitalist dream, because it allows for virtually unlimited concentration of power with minimal public accountability or legal liability. This has led to an out of balance state where according to the UN’s 1992 gap report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) the inequity of the world’s wealth is staggering. Of the world’s population, 1/5 of the richest in the world receive 82.7% of the world’s total income. By contrast, the bottom fifth receives 1.4%.
What does conscious capitalism mean to me? It means working towards maintaining an appropriate balance between the three necessary components of a healthy society and re-thinking our current system that hides behind the veil of deception. A big government that renders intelligent people, hard working people ‘deceived by false information and distorted intellectual and moral logic repeated constantly in the corporate media.'
Conscious capitalism would create sustainable society for EVERYONE, not just the few.
To think of conscious capitalism from only the left quadrant, while not taking into account the other three, will only lead to selfishness and incongruity to the society as a whole. A more holistic approach is needed. We are but one “I” in a collective that is blind to the needs and development of others. Oh that we were all in the Turquoise meme of cooperation connected through compassion, but alas, that last I checked, it looks like a Red world to me.
“From the results, on can easily see the whole point of privatization is neither economic efficiency nor improved services to the consumer but simply the transfer of wealth from the public purse – which could redistribute it to even out social inequalities – to private hands.” Susan George
Spiral up and find balance and Go with the FLOW
DEO
Eloquent and compelling, the post and the subsequent discussion. I confess I have not often thought along these lines but the passion you all display has convinced me that I need to correct that oversight. I will think on this. And do. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing this for discussion. I agree with you that it takes responsibility for what we do and how we perceive to really begin creating a more conscious capitalism. Though I will add to that by saying that we, as a society, have lost touch with the simple experience of giving and receiving. Money itself has become more valuable than what it symbolizes. So we have this large gap between the experience of giving and receiving and the all powerful dollar :) In this sense Capitalism has lost its heart, because it is in the giving and receiving, this sharing of energy in co-creation that expresses heart. When you look into someones eyes, and realize that they are an aspects of you, or when you smile in reconition of this aspect of the other, you are creating the experience of giving and receiving on a deeper level, where co-creation and the human being are the ultimate ‘value’. When we act on this level, helping someone else is also heping Ourselves individually and collectively. In our capitalistic society we tend to give value to the product or service rather than the process. So the finished painting has a value, but the creative process does not, except of course for the individual. But in many cases the individual will not find value in this either until the product is finished. This externalization of value also adds to the gap. When money is seen as just another tool for creation and is seen as an aspect of the process of creative manifestation rather than something separate that has more value or what has more meaning making money becomes a creative process itself and in alignment with our purpose, and sharing it becomes as easy as sharing friendship and trading based on your own values rather than an external price tag. In this sense money loses its ‘all powerfulness’ and simply becomes a tool, like a paint brush, with which we can create great works of art co-creatively within the canvas of society, rather than the focus of material consumption. No ethics needed, just awareness, acceptance, and a little heart :) And when people begin to see this, they will realize how easy it is and how good it feels and how powerful it is.
I'd like to interview you on this essay, Siona on a Making It All Click episode with a panelist discussion format :)) ….maybe do a podcast with your other friends in a group teleconference call….whadayathink? Or you could just do that yourself, and I'd tag along…gladly:))
Besides, have so much to learn…