I have only been half reading the posts on socialism/Marxism/capitalism, etc. But, isn't the problem with all of these that they have (thus far in our history) been rooted in the same beliefs about nature and the relationship between society and nature? They all (in their "mainstream" forms) have assumed a fundamental separation between the natural and the social systems. "History" refers to the social arena only -- and by extension, the same can be said of economics, politics, etc. This division is, of course, reflected in our academic disciplines. If, on the other hand, we think of the natural system and the social system as two interconnected complex, self-organizing, adaptive systems; we can see that they exchange matter and energy with one another continuously. The industrial revolution in the US was *literally* fueled by a massive transfer of matter/energy from the natural to the social system in the form of charcoal which was made out the eastern forests. Later this was replaced with coal and then oil. This original massive transfer triggered a radical reorganization of society, the economy, etc. If North America had not been blessed with an abundance of forested land, would the US economy and political system have developed along the same lines? In the other direction, we have tended to use the natural world as a sink for our waste products. This, along with our extraction of materials, is what has gotten us to the point where modern societies (*however* they are governed) pose a threat to the natural system. The question IMHO is not which of the previously developed modern, industrial forms of governance and economics is superior -- they all rest on seriously flawed assumptions -- but what kinds of new forms can we create which rest on a clear understanding of the connectedness of the natural and the social systems? How does "doing justice" in our relationship with the earth connect to "doing justice" in our relationships with one another? Jayne
