The Bolsheviks are being robbed of their ideas. What the Western Hypocrisies are doing now, nationalization of banks and insurance companies (is that just a start?), is a theft of the copyrights from the Bolsheviks. However today

Peter, excellent article. But I have to smile at your headline: Democratic Capitalism. It

What about the old rule of thumb that if it happened on your watch it must be your fault? A financial summit is OK, but the old leadership should drop out, or else attend without a vote. Passing the torch is the name of the game.

Peter, you are only scratching the surface. These measures, as broad as they are, are NOT a paradigm shift. Something more fundamental is staring us in the face, but the centuries of colonial and post-colonial truimphalism is standing in the way of grasping it. Bush believes that the word "democracy" is a tallisman to protect him from the merciless economic forces he no longer understands. The key change, staring us in the face, is the rethinking of PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE capital. In the West, the public capital has always served the priviledged and the well connected. You can go back to the days of agricultural England, when the priviledged classes lived of their estates and the income they generated. As the colonial trade and then industrialization became new sources of income, the offspring of the priviledged were there to get the choice colonial posts and emerged as industry captains. That some ordinary folk also got a chance to make fortune in the expanding pie was the result of the colonial resources and market expansion, not an inherent advantage of the system. GLOBALISM by itself is not the cause of the paradigm shift, for globalism that West is pursuing through World Bank and IMF, is but a new, fancier name for condominium style colonialism. What is causing a paradigm shift is the redefinition of CAPTIAL in China and Russia. Public capital is being equalized in the value with the private capital. In the West, PRIVATE CAPITAL is until today treated as the priviledged sector of the economy, and public capital is there to grease it. Just look at how the PUBLIC money, that is, TAXPAYERS total assets, are being spent. In US, taxpayers money (and other non-monetary assets), are generally GIVEN AWAY to enrich the PRIVATE CAPITAL. This is so normal, that most people do not even think of the money that government "spends" as CAPITAL. But that is exactly what brought this "democratic captialism" to its knees. By GIVING the money, land, drilling rights, airwaves, tax benefits (federal, state and local) to corporations for "goods and services", the PUBLIC became poorer and poorer, while the corporate profits disappeared in the ever so fancier financial "instruments" schemas. The profits that we, the taxpayers, have ENABLED, went into the unregulated financial sector to produce more wealth for the few. What we see is the Holland's famous "tulip bulb" economic collapse, engulfing the financial market based on the "tulip bulb" mentality of "sure" profits. If there is anything China and Russia learned from their gigantic planned economy excercise, is the value of public capital. And they have early on concluded that the globalization is a good thing, provided that each country first protects its PUBLIC capital, and then let the market forces do the rest. Why is that so? Because in the global economy there is no guarantee that the PRIVATE profits will recycle into the national economy, and thereby assure funds for basic needs, from education, health care and the retirement of the workforce to the national infrastructure and defence. This is a nineteen century concept of nation-based CAPITALISM pursued in global economy. While the gobbling up of Eastern Europe provided a little more time to stave off the collapse, the dead end is assured. Take for example what US is doing now by buying the shares of selected Banks. First, it is getting a lousy return on investment. At the same time Warren Buffet is getting 10% return for his investment in Goldman Saks, US Government is asking for 5%. Also, US Government, as the representative of our PUBLIC capital, did not ask for ANY seats on the Board. It is not asking that the practices of those Banks be examined, and books opened for an audit. In fact, we the public, are to TRUST the politicians now to manage this investment! The respect for PUBLIC capital would have dictated that a PUBLIC CORPORATION is formed, charged with the management of that investment. The negotiations between the Public Corporation and the bank(s), should have defined the oversight, profits, and future disposition of these shares. This would consign politicians to appointing the members of the Public Corporation Board, but not politicizing the Bank. This is how China does it, and successfully. And not just with Banks, but with a whole range of corporations that benefit from PUBLIC money, whether it is a locality built road, water and sewer system for the new private sector factory, or a right-of-way public land grant for a privately built railroad. And what happens in the US? We just GIVE AWAY through "contracts" the money, land, tax writeoffs, etc. to corporations who run jails, produce everything from weapons to submarines, explore public land for oil, and so on. And then we have corrupted federal government officials unable even to collect the pathetic royalties that are due to Joe Public. Joe Public is due billions of dollars return on investment, as those coroporations earn billions worldwide by SELLING products and services developed by our, taxpayers, money. No corporations would do business with each other in this manner, without defining the respective investments, responsibilities, risks and profits. The "democratic" capitalism that consists of TAKING the money from Joe Public, and GIVING IT AWAY to the selected few, has run the system into the ground. Few economists have analyzed Chinese or Russian models of public-private partnerships. And even those that did, had to use obligatory condescending remarks about "state" interference, or "state" ownership, etc. Little did they notice the sophistication and the transparency of such public-private partnerships. They have deliberately belittled such public-private financial and business management, by emphasizing the lack of transparency in SPENDING THE PROFITS BY THE STATE, but neglected to tell us about the FULL TRANSPARENCY of the public coroporations that manage public investments. The paradigm shift must include recognition of the evolving and more mature nature of Chinese and Russian style public corporations. The management of those corporations is just as professional as in the private sector. The profits of such public money has been put into gold and monetary reserves, as well as into development projects. Thousands of miles of new roads, railroads, airports, housing projects, schools and libraries are built weekly. The economic depression worldwide will, without a doubt, restructure the export-oriented economies. They will have to diversify into domestic development and consumption, and the continuing growth of exports to Africa and South America. So, while the money-making machine of many export-oriented countries will slow down, those that managed their PUBLIC capital wisely will move on. Those who treated PUBLIC capital as the ownership of a sovereign (most Middle East oil producers), may get in trouble if they invested these riches into the "financial instruments" on Wall Street. Those who have succumbed to the theories of liberal capitalism, have only VERY EMPTY coffers, and a mountain of debt to show for it. To save those, will the "new and improved" Word Bank and IMF be the salvation? I believe not. The West is not prepared to cede the control of these institions, just wants China and others to fund it. The level of freedom of any country in the future will be measured by its freedom to borrow from alternative funds, not just World Bank, and not having to accept the economy-destroying IMF conditions. I do not expect any type of real agreement any time soon. What the West wants is the concession by the creditor nations towards the debtor nations. In Russia, and I suspect in China as well, the crisis is an opportunity to better leverage PUBLIC capital through investing in private banks and other corporations. It is being done by lending money to coroprations that have taken on too much foreign debt, or private banks that are undercapitalized. Those that have the needs that exceed the guideline ($2.5 billion), may have to be fully renationalized. In Russia, for example, the demand for cars is not going to abate much. Russia is becoming the largest European market for cars, and will remain Europe's largest supplier of energy. This will keep Russia's car manufacturing plants humming, producing income to Europe, China, Japan, Korea and even US. And even more importantly, "democratic capitalism" has shown its limitatiions in foreign policy. Take the example of energy rich Central Asia. Their initial enthusiasm for doing business with the Western energy majors, has evaporated. Why? Because the agreements that such governments sign with any Western country are not worth the paper they are printed on. Lobbyist for oil companies work their majic through US Congress and the Presidency, to foment "color revolutions", and other means of pressure to change the initial terms of contracts in their favour, and to eventually take over their natural resources. Agreements with Russia and China, on the other hand, are safe. Why? Governments have their own capital at the disposal, and are not subject to political manipulation of their private corporations. This gives contracting a sound basis for moving forward, with both the revenues and costs being understood. It also eliminates the motive for constant undermining of governments through NGOs and other foreign-funded movements. For optimists, this crisis represents an opportunity for people all over the world, including in the West. The rapacious spending for military and geopolitical spending may end up being refocused on improving the quality of life. It is not the riches that an average American wants, but a less stressed lifestyle and more time with the family. And the workers and farmers of Russia and China can actually see the increase in their standard of living, as the export driven production realigns itself with the less profitable, but more voluminous production for less afluent consumers, primarily their own. I leave it up to pesimists to think of an alternative.

how about a global ban on stock exchange and fully private banking (ie: partial or full nationalization)? Too much to ask?

*The new economic order can no longer be determined by a small number of Western countries and led by one. Today Russia, India, China, Brazil and other countries need to be part of regulating the global financial regime.*Oh No ...We dont have to invite Russia,and others...We can still do it our way or (for Russians) the highway.

The end of democratic capitalism? Peter, did you, by any chance, read some Lenin's work recently? For example, this one - his letter to M.Gorky (1911). "No Octobrist[liberal] capitalism left in Western Europe; practically all capitalism is democratic... And democratic capitalism - the last of its kind. It has no next stage to go on to. The next stage is its death." :) Or this one (1908). "The recent financial crisis in America and appalling increase of unemployment all over Europe, to say nothing of the impeding industrial crisis to which many symptoms are pointing - all this has resulted in the recent "theories" of the revisionists have been forgotten by everybody." Those "theories" he was referring to - a) attempts to influence the public by "new data on economic development"; b) "enable" capitalism [e.g. remove regulations] to eliminate the crisis; ... :)

Bianca Susak, thank you for your analysis on Public versus Private capital. It is a huge topic and I don

Russian not being allowed a place at the table is what has kept it partially shielded from the mass ramafications that the West is, and will contine experiencing. While noble, reaching to save a drowning man can end up in you being taken down as well. Maybe Russia should sit this one out for a while.

The system is intentionally fundamentally flawed. THE CRISIS TODAY PAYS DIVIDENDS TO ITS AUTHORS. No proposal for reform coming from the US is capable of leading people to the better. On my personal hitlist is the trade in bogus assets like financial derivatives. These should be abolished and transactions in them should be subject to criminal penalties. They have no underlying assets and are merely speculative instruments with fundamental impact on trade in stock. Also, the Stock Exchange should not be a part of the social security program like in the US. Among other evil things, this fact forced these poor Americans to put their money in the gamble leaving them with no livable option, as 144(k) is a non-affordable dream with meaningless earnings. In sum, the gamblers should be gambling only with their own money. Foreing exchange regulation should be strengthened, and some barriers to free trade should be reintroduced. Permitting real estate mortgages to cover consumer debt (like in the US) alludes to policy-maker's perversion, and from the consumer's perspective is on borderline between stupidity and lack of education.

Bush says that any reforms must be in tune with democratic capitalism, which is a code word for 'Whatever reforms are made must ensure that US pet economic theories continue to be followed and that the US remain the global free market leader.' What the US wants is for world governments to bail out the banks and then continue on with business as usual. THis is wrong. It is clear that the US does not want to change. It is hell-bent on staying on top even technically it no longer is. The global financial and economic system cannot remain in control of the US, because clearly the US ways of doing things have failed. Other world economies need to be brought in to share the leadership positions. They have good ideas and much to offer. The US now must listen to fresh ideas from others instead of stubbornly clinging to its stale economic theories.

Echoing Bianca Susak and M E Janssen... -- About a year ago, I was watching the interview with Bill Clinton, where he was asked about his

The world economy is in reality in limbo.Today's crisis stands on the basis of past irresponsible and insincere decisions made by those authorities who are unable to flex their muscles through their mental ability in the interest of the human race.They prioritise wrongly and are found to be very myopic in their dealings with volatile events of the day.Theories are all meant to be our guides and not masters to make effective and efficient decisions that will bear fruits for all in the future.There are good theoretical framework for everything but greed,insincerity and emotional pride drift the world apart.Today the only solution is to increase liquidity in order to regulate the heart beat of the slowing down of the world economy but how long it withstand the pressure will need further evaluation because for sure the cushioning of such a problem is only for a short while. The beginning of the end of democratic capitalism is underway and the evolution of democratic democracy will soon be evident world wide. Until foolish emotional pride is destroyed the world stability would be like a city on the top of a volcano. The world need to come together and any foreign policy that goes against such a concept must be eliminated as soon as possible. It is a common knowledge what is ignored at micro level at any point in time can cumulatively be reinforced to breed calamity tomorrow for which the heritage would be only accessed by the unborn participants and witnessed by the living generation. The living must boost up their activities positively over time and practice democracy as peacefully as possible and then we shall reap the blessing of our sincere actions.