Why I Am a Socialist

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Why I Am a Socialist

By Chris Hedges

December 30, 2008 "Truth Dig" --- The corporate forces that are looting the Treasury and have plunged us into a depression will not be contained by the two main political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties have become little more than squalid clubs of privilege and wealth, whores to money and corporate interests, hostage to a massive arms industry, and so adept at deception and self-delusion they no longer know truth from lies. We will either find our way out of this mess by embracing an uncompromising democratic socialism—one that will insist on massive government relief and work programs, the nationalization of electricity and gas companies, a universal, not-for-profit government health care program, the outlawing of hedge funds, a radical reduction of our bloated military budget and an end to imperial wars—or we will continue to be fleeced and impoverished by our bankrupt elite and shackled and chained by our surveillance state.

The free market and globalization, promised as the route to worldwide prosperity, have been exposed as a con game. But this does not mean our corporate masters will disappear. Totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out, is not so much an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. “A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial,” Orwell wrote, “that is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.” Force and fraud are all they have left. They will use both.

There is a political shift in Europe toward an open confrontation with the corporate state. Germany has seen a surge of support for Die Linke (The Left), a political grouping formed 18 months ago. It is co-led by the veteran socialist “Red” Oskar Lafontaine, who has built his career on attacking big business. Two-thirds of Germans in public opinion polls say they agree with all or some of Die Linke’s platform. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands is on the verge of overtaking the Labor Party as the main opposition party on the left. Greece, beset with street protests and violence by disaffected youths, has seen the rapid rise of the Coalition of the Radical Left. In Spain and Norway socialists are in power. Resurgence is not universal, especially in France and Britain, but the shifts toward socialism are significant.

Corporations have intruded into every facet of life. We eat corporate food. We buy corporate clothes. We drive corporate cars. We buy our vehicular fuel and our heating oil from corporations. We borrow from corporate banks. We invest our retirement savings with corporations. We are entertained, informed and branded by corporations. We work for corporations. The creation of a mercenary army, the privatization of public utilities and our disgusting for-profit health care system are all legacies of the corporate state. These corporations have no loyalty to America or the American worker. They are not tied to nation states. They are vampires.

<snip>

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081229_why_i_am_a_socialist/

[mdmc]

1. r

solidarity

[Altean Wanderer]

5. Great article by Chris Hedges n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. Why Socialism?

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).



Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

<snip>

http://monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

[mdmc]

7. I remember this very well

:toast:

[robinlynne]

10. wow. just wow.

[bertman]

19. Powerful stuff from a potent thinker. Many thanks Orwellian_Ghost. Recced.

[defendandprotect]

57. "Economic anarchy of capitalist society ...real source of the evil..."

And even in 1949, Einstein could see thru and beyond caitalism . . .

Legislation protecting corporations vs workers
Huge CEO salaries and a lack of profit-sharing
Lack of "full employment" guidelines --
Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" System
Capitalism is about killing the competition -- monopoly

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."

"...the education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

and . . . in 1949 . . . censorship ....

"...under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service"

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

A five-hour workday would ensure full employment --

And, as called for in the 1960 Democratic Platform which JFK ran on, we should NATIONALIZE

the nation's oil industry. And all other national resources.

[bjobotts]

120. There's a huge disconnect between our elected leaders and we the people.

[bjobotts]

121. The leaders of both parties belong to the "money party" whose purpose is

[bjobotts]

122. to protect the holdings and the business of the wealthy and multinational corporations

[bjobotts]

123. who would turn us all to slaves while wrecking the planet. The wealthy

[bjobotts]

124. always think they are protected and will suffer no consequences if our economy fails.

[bjobotts]

125. They also feel they are wealthy enough to protect themselves from our environment

[bjobotts]

126. The wealthy are against democratic socialism..the only answer to world survival.

[defendandprotect]

207. Agree, completely ---

[BelgianMadCow]

2. r

solidarity!

And I sure hope the analysis of Europe is right.

Die Linke mmm I like it.

[Steepler0t]

3. Albert Einstein put it well also in "Why Socialism"

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

I hope Chris Hedges is right in his view on things. (or is that Left?) ;-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. -snippety-doo-dah-

“By now the revolution has deprived the mass of consumers of any independent access to the staples of life: clothing, shelter, food, even water,” Wendell Berry wrote in “The Unsettling of America.” “Air remains the only necessity that the average user can still get for himself, and the revolution had imposed a heavy tax on that by way of pollution. Commercial conquest is far more thorough and final than military defeat.”

...

“Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones,” Albert Einstein wrote in 1949 in the Monthly Review in explaining why he was a socialist. “The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.”

[leftchick]

8. as usual

Chris is spot on. I may move to Germany.

[Greyhound]

9. K&R from another pinko.

"Facts are troublesome things".
:kick: & R

[robinlynne]

11. I like this OP.

[Echo In Light]

12. K&R

[el_bryanto]

13. I get stymied by what actually is meant by socialism

If socialism means a well regulated market system, with strong environmental protections and workers rights, and a secure safety net, well, that sounds great. If socialism is moving away from a market system to a centrally controlled economy, well, I'm not as keen on that.

Bryant

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. You are probably against socialism then

Too bad about that.

Then again you may want to investigate some more I could be wrong.

The Market and socialism are incompatible. There are also many myths of the well-regulated market which is in and of itself an impossibility but if you have any historical examples of such I'd be interested.

The Market is the oppression of us all. It is no more than gussied up feudalism so the idea of it being "well regulated" is only acceptable, in fact preferred, for the gentry. In that way the chains which are upon the majority of people can be disguised.

[DrCory]

22. You May Count Me...

As "against" your interpretation of socialism also. State central planning is little better than the corporate controlled market. And why must it always be a choice between these failed systems? The trend SHOULD be toward globally-linked local markets and more local control. Devolution of both state and/or corporate power is our future, not more unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies and/or board rooms.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

28. Hello?

Please show me where I said anything about State central planning.

The fact that you somehow heard such a thing when there wasn't even a whisper of such suggests extraordinary conditioning and reactionary tendencies.

You might want to expound upon how these "local markets" are "globally linked" and what serves to adhere the two concepts. Will they be "globally linked" through a common currency, through military leverage, through...?

I'm all for elimination of the bureaucracies and board room robber barons. Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other here.

[el_bryanto]

32. What happens when you get rid of bureaucracies and board room robber barons?

How does the economic system proceed?

Bryant

[Orwellian_Ghost]

38. By regular folks

They are called workers. They do all the work. They are far more competent than the suits and ties that steal us blind and mismanage.

I think what you are calling economic system you have mistaken for financial arrangements.

"Economy" means 'household management' not the managing of finances nor is it "management of scarce resources" as the first year Econ students are brainwashed into thinking.

Your question is interesting only so far as it baffles me how people may be unable to imagine a world running well without the very same bureaucracies that have a proven track record of destruction, incoherence and grand larceny.

[el_bryanto]

39. If only everybody were as wise as you.

Are these workers the same or different from the dolts that sent Bush to the White House twice?

Bryant

[MajorChode]

41. The same?

One would have to assume they are the same, unless you had a bureaucracy sorting out those on the right and left side of the bell curve, no?

[balantz]

47. The White House was stolen twice.

And the corporations spend massive amounts trying to keep "the dolts" in line.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

55. Don't hold to that theory

Sorry but you are twisted in knots here. If the people are such dolts as you seem to believe are they to be ruled by the "superior intellects" such as the criminals who currently reside on Wall St. and in the board rooms of K Street? Are the people not dumbed down by the same apparatus that you defend?

Isn't that the mess we are already facing? And you are proposing a solution that operates from the same idea that brought us this mess. I believe that is a form of insanity. Of course it is also possible you are okay with the way things are.

[MajorChode]

68. The problem I have with socialists is...

The same problem I have with libertarians. They provide a few anecdotal accounts, claim everything is just like that, and then claim the only solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a false dichotomy. Interestingly enough libertarians are just as passionate about their solutions and they use some of the same fallacious rhetoric. Even though the two are on opposite sides of the economic theory spectrum, they are cut from the same cloth.

[bperci108]

73. Well that was a blanket dismissal devoid of any facts.

So you dislike socialists and libertarians with equal loathing. Okay.

They make you feel bad. Fine.

So what part of Socialism is based on "fallacious rhetoric"?

Please be specific.

[MajorChode]

97. I didn't say I disliked them

In fact, I love them.

They provide a source of endless entertainment for me. I'd rather listen to one go on and on than watch 3 stooges reruns. I'm serious. They really are funny and there's rarely a dry eye in the house when you get one going. I try to encourage them at every opportunity.

I didn't say socialism is based on "fallacious rhetoric", I said those who advocate socialism use it in a failed attempt to validate their beliefs.

If you want a specific example, see the original article and my explanation why on post #86.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

86. Nonsense

Your sweeping generalizations aside you could not have selected a more ridiculous assertion by comparing Libertarians and Socialists and suggesting they have anything in common.

Libertarians are the natural expression of liberalism and hold to the essentially same ideas as most liberals on capitalism with only a few carps about the details.

Should we just keep piling up the bodies before we accept the fact that their is murder all around us?

Yes there are many who will simply walk around the bodies whilst attempting to regulate the mafia.

[MajorChode]

91. Are you capable of....

...reading anything past the first sentence of what someone posts?

You should try it sometime. You never know when someone is going to say something useful 3 or 4 sentences later.

I know very much what a libertarian and a socialist is, and I don't need to have it explained by someone who uses silly graphics to express their rampant paranoid beliefs.

I said the methods that many socialists use to get their point across are the same as many libertarians. Chris Hedges proved that brilliantly. He uses hasty generalizations, then proposes his own solution as the only solution that will work. It's ridiculous false logic intended for a small minded audience. I can see why you like him so much.

[anaxarchos]

103. Except...

...that Socialists are those against whom the entire machinery of the state: politics, propaganda, the military, police, etc. have been turned against for at least a century and Libertarians are those who have never had any following whatever but whose "ideas" are adopted whole by the ruling class (until Wall St. goes bust of course). Except for that they are nearly "identical", no?.

How lucky for you that you are above all that... obviously too intelligent to be taken in by such "false dichotomy". You, of course can tell the difference between "baby" and "bath water". And, how was that again?

And if you repeat some totally trite, banal bullshit here, which I fully suspect you will... how the hell do you derive such confidence in repeating such unbelievably empty slogans?

[bperci108]

104. Is it just me?

Or is the stench of Freeptardville emanating from some of the more contentious low-count posters?


Hmmm...... ;)

[anaxarchos]

106. There is one below...

... that claims that ALL political systems are corrupt because "people are imperfect", yadda, yadda. And the poster has risen above it all... how?

I HOPE you are right about Freeptardville because otherwise, Internet Kindergarten let out really early.

[bperci108]

109. I suspect a disruptor from RimJob's cesspool.

But a very slick one. :)

Just enough camouflage but the wingnuttery still peeks through.

Once upon a time I was a DittoBot. (A long, long time ago...)

As a result, I can smell them like a fart in a car. :puke:


Time will tell.


Let's play with him and see if the facade begins to crack. :evilgrin:

[MajorChode]

113. Do you have any other tunes you can dance to?

That one was quite old the first time you used it, and I thought we already covered this subject.

Perhaps you feel that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky must be a wingnut. It must really suck to be so paranoid.

But why am I complaining, eh? That's the best part of what I really love about socialists and libertarians. By all means keep up the good work.

[bperci108]

159. Was I talking to you? Or even about you? Hmmm.....

No; no one mentioned you by name..... ;)

(But thanks for rising to the bait.)


Enjoy your stay here at DU. :hi:

[maryf]

162. Those who play with fire get burned...

sometimes people don't say anything unless what they have to say is truly pertinent; too many here speak only to see their words...hhhmmm, just to be obnoxious, let me add: socialists tend not to be that way, as they aren't concerned merely for their own well-being or vanity...

[Naturyl]

188. It's not just you.

If they aren't Freepers, a couple of them should consider becoming such.

[MajorChode]

111. Do all socialists go through the same school to learn their rhetoric?

I'm just curious, because I've counted at least three posters here who use the exact same tactics, with perhaps only the style being slightly different.

Each of you keep wanting to say I claimed socialists and libertarians have the same ideology. You even lie by putting the word "identical" in quotes when I never used the word. In fact, I said they are on opposite ends of the economic theory spectrum. Why you keep wanting to claim this is beyond my understanding. Perhaps you like to read your own posts which you think are quite clever. Perhaps you have comprehension problems. Perhaps you feel the only way to score points against those you don't agree is to build strawmen to burn down and maybe I just won't notice. Whatever it is, you might want to figure out why and let your buddies know as I suspect the reason is the same for all of you.

It's not that I can or can't tell the difference between the baby and the bathwater. It's that I know there is a difference and that both exist. For socialists and libertarians (at least those who are inept at making their arguments) there isn't a difference. It's all bathwater. That's why I love to hear their rants.

I did rather enjoy your explanation of "Socialists". I actually did shed a tear and first I thought it was out of sympathy, but then I realized it was because I was laughing so hard. Please continue those thoughts on future posts as the last ones were real knee slappers.

[anaxarchos]

118. Laugh away, "major".

But you ain't said jack yet. And you've done it with certainty. Your presentation has not yet hit the level of banal or trite. Maybe it qualifies that you dislike both extremes because they are "all bathwater". And you made this up, yourself? You didn't get it from 10th grade Civics class? Funny, that's where I heard it.

The floor is yours, MajorCertainty. Say something of substance if you can stop laughing. Start with the part where you can't tell the difference between babies and bathwater but you know that one exists... and you know that Socialists and Libertarians can't tell the difference either... but, they don't know it exists... and that is why you don't even bother to disguise your obvious superiority on such questions, and so forth. And perhaps you can give some meat to "baby" or "bathwater", just for more yucks.

[MajorChode]

128. Still laughing

First you say I am repeating "banal" and "trite", then you say I'm not. Did you mean to contradict yourself, or do you just really really like using those words?

Perhaps I did pick up baby and bathwater from 10th grade civics class. I can't say because it's been so many years ago I can't even remember if I took Civics in 10th grade. What I can tell you is I do remember hearing a lot of socialist banal back in my college days and it did seem trite and even more so today. It seemed like every person who thought themselves an intellectual was a socialist back then. I suppose I was only smart enough to be a liberal and a capitalist. The funny thing was after a few years, all of my socialist associates eventually became the biggest capitalist you could imagine, and quite a few of them routinely vote Republican today and can't understand why I'm still a liberal. I guess I'm just not smart enough to be a Republican either.

As far as the floor goes. If I wished it, I would start my own thread on why I'm whatever I am. I have no desire to hijack this one, nor do I have any real desire to engage in any serious debate on the subject with someone who is so convinced they are right. I figure most socialists and libertarians grow out of it eventually, and those that don't are little more convincing than street corner preachers. I have no more illusions about convincing them of anything than I do about convincing religious fanatics of anything. I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the entertainment. There are a few socialist I do enjoy reading purely for the intellectual value, but I can assure you nobody who contributes to this thread falls into that category.

So I really don't feel superior, regardless of what you think. I've lived long enough to realize I don't have all the answers. If it makes you feel better (and I'm sure it will), I'll be glad to admit you're completely right and I'm all wrong, so long as you'll still let me pull your chain every now and then without any hard feelings. I'm just here for the yucks.

[anaxarchos]

133. Still nothin'...

A good deal of baiting... A good bit of contempt... but substantially... nada. Come on, CaptainCourageous (yes, you've been demoted), you can tell us just a little bit? What is it that those extreme Socialists don't get in their haste to throw out the bathwater? What is it that must be defended against their religious fanaticism?

So far... all hat, no cattle.

[MajorChode]

136. Who is baiting whom?

It really bothers you that I won't debate your favorite subject, doesn't it? Don't worry, I know it does. It always does.

You'll really have to do a better job of baiting than that. I'm sure you can. What happened to all that whit you previously displayed?

[anaxarchos]

147. My dear fellow....

I am helping you to achieve a post count, without having to say zilch. That was your objective, was it not, LieutenantLaughter? What else could you want? Contempt can be enjoyed in silence.

"You fanatics are funny."

"Why?"

"I'm not sayin'."

Come on, Sarge... the guy below, talkin' shit about self-improvement, was better than that.

Do let me know if you ever really get around to talking about anything...

[HughBeaumont]

152. Specific examples of what is bad about socialism, please.

Versus, of course, survival of the most privileged Friedman economics, which has failed miserably (well, except if you're already well-monied) every place it's been tried. How are citizens benefits bad? How are strong social safety nets bad? How is no-pre-existing-condition, non-employer, non-insurance-controlled health care bad?

[MajorChode]

154. Thank you for asking direct intelligent questions...

...which seems to be the exception in this thread.

It appears to me that you assume that if one rejects outright socialism, they must think the answer can only be found at the extreme other side of the economic spectrum. If that is your assumption, I reject that.

The thing about it is, I don't even think that outright socialism is inherently bad. I can't imagine how the Chinese would be able to feed billions of people without some form of it. I also reject the notion that Friedman, who has been discredited by all but the most fanatical libertarians, represents capitalism just as I reject the notion that Lenin represents the whole of socialism.

I do believe that if you're going to consider the places where capitalism has failed, you should also consider the places where socialism has failed. Then you should consider the most successful economies are those that are mixed. There you will find the highest standards of living and the greatest quality of life. I don't think any of the things you mentioned are bad. In fact I'm all for every single one of them, but I don't believe one has to embrace the whole of socialism in order to be for social reforms.

I also reject the notion that the means of production have to be either completely centrally controlled or completely privately controlled. I don't believe that property owners own the natural resources beneath them any more than they own the air above them. I can think of other examples as well.

[conscious evolution]

88. The US Supreme Court justices

are not workers.
They are bought and paid for protectors of the status quo.

[bjobotts]

129. Cynical. Sometimes it's not what you're doing but who you're doing it with.

[bjobotts]

130. We know how to do things we just have to get the right people in.

[bjobotts]

131. 1st get the $ out of running for office and we'd get more 'dedicated' reps.

[bjobotts]

138. Stop the multibillion campaign profiteering by the media. We do have the answers.

We are just now gaining real power after 12 yrs of republican and money party corruption and take overs including our own DINOs and blue dog's conservatives.
Conservatism has been tried and has been a proven failure telling us these people are not to be listened to...it's like denazifying the government...next comes the guillotines.

It's no longer a democracy when the majority of the people are powerless to control the actions of it's government. The people are clear about what they want and the direction we should head in...now we are engaged because of the necessity to survive the wrecking of America by the Bush gang and their supporters. Change will happen one way and one direction or the other...but it will happen now.
It's too late for those whose minds have been invaded by Paliens...they remain willfully ignorant, full of fear, hatred and anger...that is not what our country is about...they are the destroyers of democracy and live in TV reality and this is not a game show or a reality show. Those possessed by the Paliens are incapable of discussion or caring about the good of the country so it does no good to try to make them see the light...their eyes have been turned inward only on themselves alone. They do not want to know anything that doesn't already fit into their preconceived notions and opinions fed and cultivated to them by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume and the most pathetic Linsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. The environment, the people, and the world conditions will stand against them for they have done everything wrong. They are failure, we are the future...worry less and just know...If you know who you are, you will know what to do when it is time.

[anaxarchos]

198. Well, since nobody has risen...

...to defend the dreaded "Central Planning", let me. Every war calls forth "Central Planning", every economic crisis, every important economic change - all based on Central Planning. What is the basis of the call for "regulation", for "Government investment", for "National Priorities" except a call for "Central Planning"? What is the response to the Economic Crisis in 2008, in every country, by every political party - right or left, by the Bush regime as well as by the Democrats, except "Central Planning"? What is the cause of "Climate Change", "De-industrialization", the Food Crisis, the "Energy Crisis", the "Real Estate Bubble", or the "Bank Crisis of 2008" except for the lack of "Central Planning" and where is the "solution" to all of the above that is not exactly equivalent to Central Planning?

Those who attack Central Planning have one of two gripes: 1) They are for "competent" Central Planning (an implicit criticism of what came before)... no problem. That is precisely the story (accurate or not) of a recent election in an obscure North American nation-state. 2) They disagree with whose benefit "Central Planning" is intended, or perhaps they disagree on when or if Central Planning is to be suspended in order to return to sheer, anarchic money-making.

[DrCory]

203. Your Reply to Post 13...

el_bryanto (192 posts) Wed Dec-31-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. I get stymied by what actually is meant by socialism
If socialism means a well regulated market system, with strong environmental protections and workers rights, and a secure safety net, well, that sounds great. If socialism is moving away from a market system to a centrally controlled economy, well, I'm not as keen on that.

Orwellian_Ghost (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-31-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. You are probably against socialism then...

You did not repudiate the central planning model of socialism mentioned by the OP, but instead issued the simple statement: "You are probably against socialism then". Thus, you are inferring that central planning is inherent to your definition of socialism by not specifying it isn't.

[el_bryanto]

27. I totally disagree with your assessment

And I find it baffling with the history of the Soviet Union and Communist China that you can favor state run economies as more Democratic or fair to the majority of the people.

Bryant

[Orwellian_Ghost]

30. Again

Where did you see "State Controlled" in any thing I said. Can you quote this?

Also if you are referring to the Soviet Union or China as examples of socialism you are completely lost at sea as far as the history and understanding of political systems and national governments go.

Your conflation of the Soviet Union and socialism is rather odd. Pro forma misrepresentation.

[el_bryanto]

33. Which nations practice Socialism as you define it? n/t

[Two Americas]

60. it isn't a religion

This has nothing to do with believing in anything or practicing anything.

"Nations" is a meaningless thing in this context. How do you define "nations?" The people or the rulers? If by nations you mean the rulers, then of course none are "practicing socialism." If by nations you mean the people, there is an age old and ongoing struggle by the people everywhere to resist the assaults by the predatory and exploitative few.

This is a common error - unconsciously identifying strongly with the rulers, the leaders, in every situation, and asking people to accept as a given that we need to decide which authoritarian figure or group to submit to. The assumption then is that all discussions are about which brand of authoritarianism we prefer - that of the Republican party, or that of the Democratic party? That of socialism or that of capitalism?

Those "at least they are better than the Republicans!" argument is an example of this. What goes unspoken in that statement is "given that our only choice is to pick a team to be loyal to, and choose leaders to obey, and given that the rulers will have all power, at least the Democrats are better than the Republicans." Given that we are servants, given that we will be oppressed and exploited, goiven that we will have no power, in other words.

The same pattern holds in the socialism versus capitalism arguments.

[jwirr]

92. Communism is not socialism. What about the "socialist" European

nations? It seems to be working pretty well there when they try it.

[bjobotts]

140. It's not "state run" FOR the people but BY the people.Difference is We are the state

[bjobotts]

141. China and Russia were totalitarian States. We are democratic states

[bjobotts]

142. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Not so with China/Russia state run government

[bjobotts]

144. It's not just socialism but democratic socialism which makes it more efficient and workable

[eridani]

43. I don't agree. I think that socialism applies to public goods

What the market is for is a way for people to deal with discretionary income once basic needs are met. We potentially could want everything, but can't afford it. The market priotizes wants.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Western Europe particularly France has a well regulated market system

With a good social safety net. They have mixed many aspects of socialism with a market system.

[FreeJoe]

212. Examples

I've seen a lot of examples of well regulated market countries that do an OK job. They are far from perfect, but they seem to do better than the alternatives. Can you give some examples of countries that don't rely on the market for allocating resources that are successful?

[leftstreet]

16. Here's an overall picture of well regulated Capitalism

[readmoreoften]

23. Who would be the people in charge of regulating capitalism?

The politicians who depend on capitalists for campaign financing?

[el_bryanto]

25. History shows that those who rise to power in a state controled economic system

Don't end up being all that much more moral.

Bryant

[bperci108]

62. Again....Nobody is talking about "State Central Planning"...

...except you.

You are seemingly mired in Repuke-speak and Repuke-think.

You're attacking a strawman.


(edit: sp)

[MajorChode]

69. Hogwash

Now maybe you're a Marxist, or a Leninist, or a Bolshevik-Leninist, or a Trotskyist, or a Proletarianist, or an Anarchist with socialist tendencies, or a whateverist. I don't really care. But if all you tell me is that you're a socialist then I'm going to assume you favor a system where the government owns and controls the means of production under a planned economy because that's the only way socialism has ever existed on this earth to any large degree. If you have something else in mind you need to be more specific.

There's nothing wrong with my receiver. Check your transmitter.

[bperci108]

76. Transmitter here is fine. Your receiver is tuned to Rush Limbaugh, apparently.

"Now maybe you're a Marxist, or a Leninist, or a Bolshevik-Leninist, or a Trotskyist, or a Proletarianist, or an Anarchist with socialist tendencies, or a whateverist. I don't really care..."

Yes you do.


"...But if all you tell me is that you're a socialist then I'm going to assume you favor a system where the government owns and controls the means of production under a planned economy because that's the only way socialism has ever existed on this earth to any large degree..."

No that's not what I'm in favor of, and neither is Orwellian Ghost or Chris Hedges for that matter...

But that's the strawman some here, like you, are determined to attack nonetheless.


"...If you have something else in mind you need to be more specific..."


Okay, if you must have bullet points and short soundbites for the attention-span impaired:

1. Labor is entitled to all it creates.
2. A living minimum wage.
3. A maximum wage.
4. A progressive income tax that prevents financial royalism.
5. Worker ownership and control of business- (i.e. No more Investor Class.)
6. Revocation of Corporate Personhood
7. Public financing of ALL elections.
8. Defense of the Commons.
9. National healthcare.
10. Public education at no cost from Kindergarten through Ph.D. (i.e. If you can make the grades; you get in.)

And that's just a start. If you would read the OP's posted article you might have an idea what I and others are talking about.

"...There's nothing wrong with my receiver. Check your transmitter..."

Apparently your receiver is tuned to Rush or Hannity.

[MajorChode]

89. More evidence your transmitter is hosed

No, I really don't care how you chose to classify yourself as so far you haven't convinced me that you're interesting enough to be worthy of that much thought. I just find it amusing that you would get so offended at someone making a perfectly legitimate association and claim nobody was talking about something that was clearly and concisely mentioned in the OP's article. Chris Hedges very much does advocate state central planning, yet you continue to insist nobody is talking about that, then you insist all I need to do is read the OP's article to find out what you're talking about. Now tell me again how your transmitter is fine.

You have a completely closed mind which is why you'll never be successful in getting your point across to anyone besides those few who think exactly like you. For those who don't agree, you simply label them as far right. In that regard you're cut from the same cloth as the close minded loons on the right like Rush or Hannity who ignorantly label everyone to the left of the John Birch Society as communists. That's why I said your transmitter is broke, and you proved my point brilliantly just as I suspected you would.

Very few of the things you listed have much to do with socialism, btw, and grouped together they are really more indicative of a welfare state. All of them have and do exist under mixed economies.

As far as the OP's posted article, I did read it. I don't find Chris Hedges to be particularly convincing and I've read far better material from advocates of socialism. If he's the one you've chosen to quantify your ideas, then good luck on convincing anyone of anything.

[bperci108]

108. The evasion continues...

"...You have a completely closed mind which is why you'll never be successful in getting your point across to anyone besides those few who think exactly like you. For those who don't agree, you simply label them as far right. In that regard you're cut from the same cloth as the close minded loons on the right like Rush or Hannity who ignorantly label everyone to the left of the John Birch Society as communists. That's why I said your transmitter is broke, and you proved my point brilliantly just as I suspected you would...."

I'm so happy you have been entertained and your narrative has been reinforced. :)

Now...

So far, all we've seen from you is insults and distortions but zero substance.

Did you have a point?

[MajorChode]

114. Where's the insults and distortions?

Let's see. I've been called a wingnut, a freeper, and a disrupter, but I don't recall using any insults myself. Perhaps you feel as if you've been distorted, but I'd have to say that's a pretty biased observation. How do you know it's a distortion? Are you really that good at self observation?

Can you back up your accusations, or will you just attempt to come back with something clever as usual? I think I already know the answer. I can read you pretty well. All style and no substance, and so far the style really sucks so you might want to try going the other route.

I've already made my point, and so far I haven't seen anything I'd classify as a counter to it, but I really didn't expect one and you didn't disappoint.

[Two Americas]

119. here

"They provide a source of endless entertainment for me."

"I'd rather listen to one go on and on than watch 3 stooges reruns."

"...express their rampant paranoid beliefs."

"It must really suck to be so paranoid."

"...the last ones were real knee slappers."

"You haven't convinced me that you're interesting enough to be worthy of that much thought."

"You have a completely closed mind which is why you'll never be successful in getting your point across to anyone besides those few who think exactly like you."

"All style and no substance, and so far the style really sucks so you might want to try going the other route."

[MajorChode]

135. Do you even know what an insult is?

I see a lot of statements of fact about myself and some opinions, but no insults. You might want to get some help on that one.

Now if I had called you or him an asshole, or a moron, or a wingnut, or something else that was clearly intended to be contemptuously pejorative, that would be an insult. Does that help?

BTW, since you're now speaking for bperci108, does that mean his hand is up your back, or your hand is up his back?

I'm guessing the former. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Two Americas]

137. ROFL

Uh, duh, no I don't know what an insult is. I am too stupid, as you just insultingly implied. How about you keep insulting me until I catch on?

[MajorChode]

156. Do you know the difference between stupid and ignorant?

I would describe my responses as perhaps antipathetic, brutally honest, and/or aggressively antagonistic at times, but I've always preferred brutally honest to politely deceitful. Rarely do I feel the need to be insulting or even disdainful to get my point across as others in this thread who feel the need for obvious insults and name calling.

If you feel you've been insulted by me, then I'm not sure why. Perhaps you're extremely thin skinned. Perhaps you have a poor command of the English language. Perhaps you're only capable of thinking in extremes. Whatever it is, you should try and figure it out.

While you're at it, you might want to figure out why you have such a problem with what you incorrectly infer are insults on my part, yet you completely ignore obvious insults and name calling by others. Perhaps you feel the need to harshly judge those who you may disagree with philosophically and ignore far worse behavior by those in which you do agree.

Something to think about anyway, no?

[Two Americas]

169. no

When you promote reactionary and conservative points of view here you run the risk of being accused of promoting reactionary and conservative points of view. Sorry if that insults you.

I don't think calling people names is a good debate tactic, but I don't think it would matter with you. I don't think you really feel insulted - you are expressing arrogance and self-righteousness in response to the supposed insults, and claiming that your point of view is vindicated by that.

You, and no one else, have tried to shift the discussion over to be an exchange of insults.

I mean, seriously, let's look at this bizarre paragraph -

"If you feel you've been insulted by me, then I'm not sure why. Perhaps you're extremely thin skinned. Perhaps you have a poor command of the English language. Perhaps you're only capable of thinking in extremes. Whatever it is, you should try and figure it out."

You say you can't understand why I would feel insulted - I don't, by the way, "feel insulted," rather I am saying that you are being insulting - and then go on to throw more insults - "perhaps you're extremely thin skinned. Perhaps you have a poor command of the English language. Perhaps you're only capable of thinking in extremes. Whatever it is, you should try and figure it out."

Anyway, I think it is your goal here to bait people into insulting you back so that the discussion can be trashed out and sabotaged.

[MajorChode]

179. You do a lot of thinking, but not much valid reasoning

I don't really care if people want to throw around insults. It speaks volumes about the invalidity of their arguments. I only mentioned it to point out yours and others hypocrisy for accusing me of the exact behavior demonstrated by others. And if you do want to accuse me of the same behavior, then you should be able to support your accusations, and so far the very best you can do is talk in circles rather than admit you were way off base.

I don't really care if you feel insulted or not. I didn't insult you or anyone else. An insult is only an insult if a reasonable person would take it as an insult. You're not even a reasonable person in that regard and you still don't take it as an insult, yet you still think I insulted you. Do you even realize how asinine that is? And then you want to accuse me of bizarre behavior? Look in the mirror sometime, if you dare.

At any rate, unless you can come up with something that approaches valid reasoning on a worthwhile topic, I don't care to respond to you again. I have limits on how far I'm willing to go on a meaningless tangential discussion with someone who has very little in the way of debate skills and you've far exceeded your quota. Feel free to have the last word as I have no interest or desire for it.

[Two Americas]

190. hah

Do you think that I even began to debate anything with you?

[ImOnlySleeping]

112. workers

"where the workers own and controls the means of production"
fixed that for ya.

[MajorChode]

115. You didn't fix anything.

I meant what was posted the first time.

Thanks for the attempt though. If I ever feel the burning need to be misquoted and misrepresented, I'll let you know. Fair enough?

[conscious evolution]

87. As if corporate central planning is

any better.
Thats been my responce to freepers when they start blabbering on about central planning.It just blows me away that they are so fucking stupid that they do not realize that central planning is already here.

[MajorChode]

161. Well, words have meaning to some

Central planning means extensive government control over the means of production.

"corporate central planning" is an oxymoron. Since you choose to invent your own terms, it comes as no surprise that you would think of everything else as blabber, but whose fault is that?

[conscious evolution]

168. No,its reality.

Why else can I find the exact same hamburger in different cities.One that is sold out of a building that looks just like the one in my town?
Why is it there is a hummer dealership in LA that has the same building design as the one in Knoxville?
Why is it that the planes I fly on have the same paint job as every other plane in that airlines fleet?Why is it that the PEP Boys I take my vehicle to for service looks a lot like the Pep Boys inLA or Seattle or Chicago?
Why is it that the grocery store chain I go to have the same layout as every other grocery store in the same chain?

I'll give you a hint.It's not because a bunch of architects,enginners and other planners all had the same exact idea as all of the rest of them.No.The widespread uniformity found in almost every aspect of our lives is the result of corporate central planning.

[MajorChode]

180. None of what you mentioned is central planning

You're using the plain English definition of "central" and "planning" separately in order to define "central planning". The term "central planning" has a completely different connotation than the one you're incorrectly assuming and it has nothing to do with uniformity.

If you had a firm handle on what "central planning" meant, you would understand that almost everything you just posted trying to explain your oxymoron was babble, and would go a long way towards explaining why you think everyone else is talking babble.

Remember, if you've been divorced 5 times, maybe you're the problem. You shouldn't just assume it's everyone else.

[bjobotts]

145. History has no record of "state run" economies where the people are the state

[bjobotts]

146. We get close but there's never been a democratic socialism but we are set up for one

Regulating greed is the hardest part.

[Ken Burch]

44. We can shape socialism, as we can shape virtually any other concept

to our liking

I think it needs a huge component of democracy, more democracy in fact than we have now. There needs to be democratic decision-making on economic issues, and ways to make the process of decision as inclusive and positive as possible.

It also needs to have ways of allowing people to find their own sense of fulfillment, since the accumulation of great personal wealth would no longer be even the theoretical possibility it is now. There needs to be ways to incorporate creativity and personal validation within the processes of production. That's using a lot of fifty cent words to say whatever we build to replace the dying economic model we have now needs, as much as anything else, to make people feel like they matter, that they aren't just "cogs in the wheel".

[maryf]

14. Kick for common sense, nt

[Prepostericity]

17. Hellen Keller Was Also

But it's not like that ever gets much print. Oh no, her claim to fame was overcoming being blind, deaf, and mute.

Sure, that in itself was remarkable. But what about her contributions to social justice?



Think about how Orwell is presented in America. It seems like Animal Farm gets a lot of attention, and it should. But does 1984 get the same attention? I don't think so. George Orwell was a socialist.

There's a lot of propaganda in this world and it behooves us to move to the left. The triangulation idea is rubbish. Make sure every vote counts, and I bet we truly won't stop thinking about tomorrow.

[bperci108]

63. Here's some more info on Keller:

http://www.iww.org/culture/articles/hkeller1.shtml


She was also a Wobbly. Too cool, eh?

Funny how she is so sanitized by the Establishment schools and history books...


Coincidence? Hmmmm....I don't know. ;)

[kath]

74. Have you (or Prepostericity) read James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me"?

He also makes the point of how much Helen Keller is sanitized in all the textbooks, etc.

[bperci108]

79. Yes, it's a great book.

But I already knew Helen Keller's radical history. It was one of the reasons I became a Wobbly too.

A brilliant woman, she was.

[Fire1]

84. Yes, I bought it for my son, years ago. Interesting.

[bperci108]

77. I'm glad you posted that.

I love how Right-wingers throw Orwell around and every one of them is completely ignorant of the fact that George Orwell was a Socialist.

Bravo for reminding us. :yourock:

[TheKentuckian]

18. I can't believe people still think capitalisim is workable

Maybe some heavily socialist hybrid but the thought that some new rules will fix everything is far fetched to me. Another bandaid before a larger collapse in a generation or two is all that can be done. We've rebooted a few times now with similar crashes. Its time to move on.

[readmoreoften]

26. It's "workable" if you're one of the 1%. Or one of the 5% who makes a living advocating for them.

The other 94% of the world are just collateral damage.

[MajorChode]

117. So you don't think there are any mixed economies that are "workable"?

Nothing like the all or none approach, I always say.

[jwirr]

93. And there are a few outside influences coming down the pipes that

will further shake faith in capitalism: global warming and oil depletion (cheap oil). Capitalism in the future is best observed in developing nations with few or no resources. It does not work under those situations. At least not for most of the people.

[Medusa]

101. I still can't believe people here

think that socialism or communism are things to be admired and to strive for. :eyes:

Is there no Socialist Underground or Commie Underground to go post on or what? :rofl:

[Two Americas]

20. How I Became a Socialist

How I Became a Socialist

It is quite fair to say that I became a Socialist in a fashion somewhat similar to the way in which the Teutonic pagans became Christians--it was hammered into me. Not only was I not looking for Socialism at the time of my conversion, but I was fighting it. I was very young and callow, did not know much of anything, and though I had never even heard of a school called "Individualism," I sang the paean of the strong with all my heart.

This was because I was strong myself. By strong I mean that I had good health and hard muscles, both of which possessions are easily accounted for. I had lived my childhood on California ranches, my boyhood hustling newspapers on the streets of a healthy Western city, and my youth on the ozone-laden waters of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. I loved life in the open, and I toiled in the open, at the hardest kinds of work. Learning no trade, but drifting along from job to job, I looked on the world and called it good, every bit of it. Let me repeat, this optimism was because I was healthy and strong, bothered with neither aches nor weaknesses, never turned down by the boss because I did not look fit, able always to get a job at shovelling coal, sailorizing, or manual labor of some sort.

And because of all this, exulting in my young life, able to hold my own at work or fight, I was a rampant individualist. It was very natural. I was a winner. Wherefore I called the game, as I saw it played, or thought I saw it played, a very proper game for MEN. To be a MAN was to write man in large capitals on my heart. To adventure like a man, and fight like a man, and do a man's work (even for a boy's pay)--these were things that reached right in and gripped hold of me as no other thing could. And I looked ahead into long vistas of a hazy and interminable future, into which, playing what I conceived to be MAN'S game, I should continue to travel with unfailing health, without accidents, and with muscles ever vigorous. As I say, this future was interminable. I could see myself only raging through life without end like one of Nietzsche's BLOND- BEASTS, lustfully roving and conquering by sheer superiority and strength.

As for the unfortunates, the sick, and ailing, and old, and maimed, I must confess I hardly thought of them at all, save that I vaguely felt that they, barring accidents, could be as good as I if they wanted to real hard, and could work just as well. Accidents? Well, they represented FATE, also spelled out in capitals, and there was no getting around FATE. Napoleon had had an accident at Waterloo, but that did not dampen my desire to be another and later Napoleon. Further, the optimism bred of a stomach which could digest scrap iron and a body which flourished on hardships did not permit me to consider accidents as even remotely related to my glorious personality.

I hope I have made it clear that I was proud to be one of Nature's strong-armed noblemen. The dignity of labor was to me the most impressive thing in the world. Without having read Carlyle, or Kipling, I formulated a gospel of work which put theirs in the shade. Work was everything. It was sanctification and salvation. The pride I took in a hard day's work well done would be inconceivable to you. It is almost inconceivable to me as I look back upon it. I was as faithful a wage slave as ever capitalist exploited. To shirk or malinger on the man who paid me my wages was a sin, first, against myself, and second, against him. I considered it a crime second only to treason and just about as bad.

In short, my joyous individualism was dominated by the orthodox bourgeois ethics. I read the bourgeois papers, listened to the bourgeois preachers, and shouted at the sonorous platitudes of the bourgeois politicians. And I doubt not, if other events had not changed my career, that I should have evolved into a professional strike-breaker, (one of President Eliot's American heroes), and had my head and my earning power irrevocably smashed by a club in the hands of some militant trades-unionist.

Just about this time, returning from a seven months' voyage before the mast, and just turned eighteen, I took it into my head to go tramping. On rods and blind baggages I fought my way from the open West where men bucked big and the job hunted the man, to the congested labor centres of the East, where men were small potatoes and hunted the job for all they were worth. And on this new BLOND- BEAST adventure I found myself looking upon life from a new and totally different angle. I had dropped down from the proletariat into what sociologists love to call the "submerged tenth," and I was startled to discover the way in which that submerged tenth was recruited.

I found there all sorts of men, many of whom had once been as good as myself and just as BLOND-BEAST; sailor-men, soldier-men, labor- men, all wrenched and distorted and twisted out of shape by toil and hardship and accident, and cast adrift by their masters like so many old horses. I battered on the drag and slammed back gates with them, or shivered with them in box cars and city parks, listening the while to life-histories which began under auspices as fair as mine, with digestions and bodies equal to and better than mine, and which ended there before my eyes in the shambles at the bottom of the Social Pit.

And as I listened my brain began to work. The woman of the streets and the man of the gutter drew very close to me. I saw the picture of the Social Pit as vividly as though it were a concrete thing, and at the bottom of the Pit I saw them, myself above them, not far, and hanging on to the slippery wall by main strength and sweat. And I confess a terror seized me. What when my strength failed? when I should be unable to work shoulder to shoulder with the strong men who were as yet babes unborn? And there and then I swore a great oath. It ran something like this: ALL MY DAYS I HAVE WORKED HARD WITH MY BODY, AND ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DAYS I HAVE WORKED, BY JUST THAT MUCH AM I NEARER THE BOTTOM OF THE PIT. I SHALL CLIMB OUT OF THE PIT, BUT NOT BY THE MUSCLES OF MY BODY SHALL I CLIMB OUT. I SHALL DO NO MORE HARD WORK, AND MAY GOD STRIKE ME DEAD IF I DO ANOTHER DAY'S HARD WORK WITH MY BODY MORE THAN I ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO. And I have been busy ever since running away from hard work.

Incidentally, while tramping some ten thousand miles through the United States and Canada, I strayed into Niagara Falls, was nabbed by a fee-hunting constable, denied the right to plead guilty or not guilty, sentenced out of hand to thirty days' imprisonment for having no fixed abode and no visible means of support, handcuffed and chained to a bunch of men similarly circumstanced, carted down country to Buffalo, registered at the Erie County Penitentiary, had my head clipped and my budding mustache shaved, was dressed in convict stripes, compulsorily vaccinated by a medical student who practised on such as we, made to march the lock-step, and put to work under the eyes of guards armed with Winchester rifles--all for adventuring in BLOND-BEASTLY fashion. Concerning further details deponent sayeth not, though he may hint that some of his plethoric national patriotism simmered down and leaked out of the bottom of his soul somewhere--at least, since that experience he finds that he cares more for men and women and little children than for imaginary geographical lines.

To return to my conversion. I think it is apparent that my rampant individualism was pretty effectively hammered out of me, and something else as effectively hammered in. But, just as I had been an individualist without knowing it, I was now a Socialist without knowing it, withal, an unscientific one. I had been reborn, but not renamed, and I was running around to find out what manner of thing I was. I ran back to California and opened the books. I do not remember which ones I opened first. It is an unimportant detail anyway. I was already It, whatever It was, and by aid of the books I discovered that It was a Socialist. Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism affects me as profoundly and convincingly as I was affected on the day when I first saw the walls of the Social Pit rise around me and felt myself slipping down, down, into the shambles at the bottom.


Jack London

(this essay is in the public domain)

[jaksavage]

24. dAmn ! nt

[Naturyl]

71. London was a great writer and a fine man.

Thanks for that.

[ChiciB1]

181. Woo Hoo... Very Good! Superb Even! I Sing With The Choir! n/t

[leftofthedial]

21. capitalism is crime.

we are ruled by criminals.

[Mudoria]

29. Thanks I'll pass on that.

Socialism and capitalism combined with a healthy dose of each is much better than a government composed of one or the other solely. Proclaiming the the socialist are advancing in Europe is a misnomer as well. The electoral results of the last few years points instead to a more centrist direction than a vaildation of either the left or the right.

[Sandrine for you]

31. I assist. nt.

[blindpig]

34. Third Way Jive

There is no co-existence with capitalism and socialism. Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism and it's successor. Attempting to find some 'happy medium' results in capitalists domination, witness the fate of the New Deal.

[JuniperLea]

35. Bingo

Everytime capitalism runs off the tracks, socialism is brought in to save the day.

[blindpig]

36. Why the fuck not?

[defendandprotect]

53. Agree ---

and unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime ---

[stuntcat]

37. k,r

k, r

[roamer65]

40. bump from another pinko democratic socialist

[unkachuck]

42. K&R....n/t

[MazeRat7]

45. Maybe you should consider some where else, like say China ?

Please tell me you just omitted the :sarcasm: tag from your post....

Peace,
MZr7

[bperci108]

64. I think the op by OG is dead serious.

I know I am and I'm also a Socialist. :patriot:

(And China isn't Socialist or Marxist, they are a CAPITALIST dictatorship. Their economic model of millions of slaves serving the interests of the few while being subjugated by a military-industrial complex is a Neo-con Republican's wet-dream. Why move to China when China's coming here?)

[depakid]

46. Those are reasons for regulation- not revolution

[Two Americas]

59. are those the choices?

"Regulation" is a safe place to hide. There will always be regulations, no matter what, it isn't a choice let alone one of two and only two choices. Holding it up as an alternative is saying that there is an easy way out, that we need not think about any of this. It says that there is nothing fundamentally wrong that a little patch here and there will not fix. It is a defense of the status quo.

"Revolution" is a word to use to fear monger. Violent, scary, chaotic. Any time anyone makes any sort of rigorous analysis of our situation, anything that challenges the status quo, we hear "but you are advocating revolution!!" This frightens people away from considering anything.

Presenting this discussion as though we had a choice between either "regulation" and "revolution" is just a clever way to promote a very reactionary and right wing political point of view.

[depakid]

75. Regulation - changes to the law and implentation & enforcement of the laws

requires considerable thought and aren't easy ways out at all.

Anti-trust laws for example. Since Reagan, they've been largely unenforced and watered down to the point of being ineffective. The results both in the states and abroad have been dysfunctional for ordinary people- to society at large and (as we've seen) even to the oligopolists themselves.

Or the matter of the "accepted" dicta Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad re: corporate personhood:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection/summary.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1211-01.htm

Most people when they're confronted with problems can understand that something needs to be done, but are time constrained and don't always think the implications through.

Calling "for revolution" in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre">Robespierre-ian way we see on message boards is as often as not a bit like venting; it tends to reflect emotional or inflexible reactions to events (as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">confirmation bias as opposed to critical thought.

But of course, that's the nature of these sorts of message boards!

They're more for fun and venting- and organizing than for grinding through communicating complicated ideas.

Hopefully, in the coming year, with a new and much more rational administration in place in America, some of the concerns on this thread will get more attention- though it sure does pay to recall the old Beatles song.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know....

http://www.lyricsfire.com/viewlyrics/Beatles/Revolution-lyrics.htm

[Two Americas]

80. huh?

No one is advocating revolution.

No one is rejecting regulations.

[depakid]

81. No, but quite a few are over the top

which is why I quoted Lennon/McCartney.

[Two Americas]

82. people always do

That line told people that if they were interested in politics - called "wanting a revolution" - that they wouldn't get laid. That idea replaced politics, but guess what? Politics came back and but us all in the ass, didn't it?

[balantz]

48. K&R n/t

[juno jones]

49. Wm S Burrough's favorite book:

"You Can't Win" by Jack Black.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Cant-Win-Jack-Black/dp/9562915093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230788744&sr=1-1

Just a little taste of the unregulated 'good old days' that some people seem to fantasize about and testament to what working men and women have survived in this country.

[chill_wind]

50. Dead ON. K & R.

Marking these words well:

“A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial,” Orwell wrote, “that is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.” Force and fraud are all they have left. They will use both.

(...)


"It will ensure, if this does not soon change, a ruthless totalitarian capitalism."

[Career Prole]

52. K & R? Oh, hell yeah!

There's your legacy, dumbya. Who says lame ducks can't accomplish anything? That dope has helped kindle a revolution of sorts. I'll have some of that.

[anaxarchos]

54. It is obvious...

Without "Socialism", there is nowhere for the bulk of the people to go... no possibility of a "solution" at all. Everything else is bankrupt. "Regulation", "Libertarianism", "Globalization"? "Well they haven't really been tried you know." Bullshit. What substitutes is a "faith in leaders", some utopian fantasies, and a whole lot of depressed, cynical talk.

People were disarmed in the McCarthy era, and since, in a way that is astonishing. Time to turn that around.

[Two Americas]

170. "nowhere to go"

Nowhere to go. We have nowhere to go.

Does everyone understand that? We have nowhere to go. The "places" we are trying to go are all an illusion.

We are all homeless, we are all out of work, we are all illegal aliens. We have nowhere to go.

You can hope to get lucky, you can step on others to save yourself, you can grovel and beg. Those are the "choices." But you still have nowhere to go.

[earth mom]

56. Too late to recommend, but count me in!

:applause:

[JitterbugPerfume]

58. discussions like this

is why I joined DU so many years ago . It warms my socialist heart!

[trthnd4jstc]

61. I am a socialist, because exploitation of people and resources for private gain is evil.

The world is not a vacuum. There are effects from the high profit taking that those at the top make from the overall economy.
There are limited resources, and life has its fragilities. Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Humanity, is superior to Free Market Capitalism.
Free Market Capitalism allows the few to dominate the rest. That is a stupid and unjust scenario.

[bperci108]

65. A big atheist AMEN! here, OG.

And thanks for reminding me why I still come here to DU.

:patriot: :woohoo: :yourock: :headbang:

The Revolution starts now.

[Raksha]

66. WOW!!! Now that's telling it like it is!

I haven't read the whole article yet, but I agree with every word in it so far.

[Nederland]

67. Yawn -- Get Over It

Pure Socialism has been rejected by the vast majority of people on the planet.

Pure Capitalism has been rejected by the vast majority of people on the planet.

This debate is over except for a handful of Socialists and Libertarians hashing it out on Internet forums. Well here is the message since you seem to have not gotten it: Capitalism lost, Socialism lost, Mixed Economies won. Get it?

[Bombs Over Paradise]

70. YAWN -- Get Over You

If you close your eyes, clench your fists, grimace until it hurts, and wish with all your heart..

..you still won't have the power to re-write history to your own liking, substitute what you belief for what millions and billions of people all over the globe experience and think. Your insistence that the "debate" is over will still be nothing but you futilely hashing out your own transparent biases and agenda on Internet forums.

The message will continue to stubbornly refuse to bend to your will as it spreads to "the vast majority of people of the planet"

But most of all, you still won't get it

[JitterbugPerfume]

72. welcome to DU

BOP:hi: :thumbsup:

[Fire1]

85. Don't be so sure. Shrub has laid the ground work for

Capitalism over the last eight years. This economy has all of the earmarks.

[Unsane]

78. I appreciate your post, and may be inclined to agree with it. But I'd love an example

of a purely run socialist economy that is currently successful.

[Two Americas]

127. that can't be answered

This is not really a question, since it is designed in such a way - the only way - that it cannot be answered and that leads the reader to only one possible conclusion - reject socialism out of hand. It is a statement disguised as a question - "there are no examples of a purely run socialist economy that is currently successful" is the statement hidden there, and that is supposed to then invalidate socialism.

Even if true, that is not relevant.

There are no examples of a purely run non-socialist economy that are currently successful.

Of course it would depend upon what you mean when you say "economy" and "successful." In the United States, "economy" is used to mean "the relative degree of well-being of the wealthy and powerful few" and "successful" means when that same wealthy and powerful few are happy. If that is the goal, then you should be happy with things the way they are.

[dbmk]

151. First I would like for you to list the purely run socialist economies?

[lutherj]

83. Socialism is the only decent way out of our predicament.

With increasing constraints limiting economic growth - energy reserves, fresh water scarcity, climate change and CO2 emissions, etc. - we will need to move to a zero-growth economy. If we don't redistribute wealth and reallocate resources, then society will be frozen into permanent economic strata, which is the equivalent of feudalism or a caste system. The pretense of "a rising tide lifts all boats" will no longer convince anyone. We will either live in a kind of eco-socialism, or we will live under fascism.

[jwirr]

98. And under fascism the haves will live with the anger if not the hate

of the have-nots. That type of status quo does not last for long.

[Kitty Herder]

90. Kick!

[greengestalt]

94. Why I am a socialist

I started out in the optomistic, pro-capitalist 90's a young college student into science and computers. I was d-mn smart and innovative, unafraid to do hard work and put in long hours and never sweat. I had straight "A"s too.


And I've been struggling to survive most of this time.


I'd save a company's best client US$8 million by quick thinking, then I'd be laid off the next week. Why? Because someone else went to the same church group they did, or the same out of state college. And that someone else had lost half the clients by bad-mouthing too many people on the phone he was supposed to help.


And this happened again and again and again.


Losing jobs to nepotism and religious prejudice. Not getting promotions or hired due to nepotism or religious prejudice. Tried the police and lawyers, they only care about bankruptcy, mild injury lawsuits and traffic violations.


In short, my optomism that I could make my own fortune by "Hard work and dedication and intelligence" were totally crushed by simply put our "Free market" system being a big lie and far bigger "Welfare communism" than anything Marx could have imagined in his worst nightmare, except its set up for a few elites and their hereditary lackeys.


But, I don't let self-pity bring me down.
If anything, this has been an educational experience.


What does man really need?

Food, shelter, companionship.

Beyond that, a purpose in life. A place in society. A reason to exist.


Nowhere in this is excessive wealth needed. Indeed excessive wealth can be just as damaging to the soul as dire poverty. I use the current rich elite as proof of this. Look at how they deliberately bankrupt companies and then scream and threaten the government that they need even more money. They can simply put never have enough. Give them a dozen mansions and ten yachts they'll still cut a few more jobs, send them overseas at a loss, have "corporate welfare" turn the loss into a profit so they can get their eleventh yacht and thirteenth mansion.


Excessive wealth does no good for society. Those that struggle and work get bashed down. Their inventions are stolen from them. Their labor taken to feed the less-producing sons of the elite. Their wages are cut, the prices they pay go up. But those that have money get to have more money and when they squander or waste it all, they get it right back if they remain in good favor of their peers. They dangle the carrot in front of us, but they'll never give it to us. Eventually we see our society as nothing but a machine to feed the elite our labors, the laws to protect them from us, and the ideals a fraud and a lie.


I don't want to "Take the rich's wealth" I want to stop there ever being a truly "Rich" person. I say we implement "Wealth caps". We can even set them high, for now, at levels most of us would consider very wealthy, like 5 or 10 million in wealth. But anything above that is instantly taken, any attempt to hide the wealth 100% is taken right to the clothes off one's back. To be reasonable, I would let someone (say who got well off by inventing a good product) have a strong say in where his excess money is spent; (science education, poverty reduction, public transport) etc. Most scientists and engineers would love such a system and continue to invent to help mankind, their rewards being public and professional recognition for their achievements.


I point to the "Zeitgeist" movie and it's sequel. It proposes a socialist technocracy, based on technology being used to free man from labor and lifetime education. Its no 'welfare paradise' we'd all work, but we'd be rewarded for our labors, never need fear for food and shelter and most of us would by far feel much richer.

[trthnd4jstc]

95. Thanks for your Reply. I appreciate the Post! n/t

[Raksha]

107. Great post and great thread! There's a lot to think about here.

[mcg]

182. I can relate to what you wrote,

I graduated second in my class with a B.S. in Mathematics from the university ranked 10th in the U.S. in math. I was easily the best math student in my graduating class. Instead of going further, I got into programming. I thought I would do well in the business world.

Long ago at GEICO, I came up with a design that was like a data warehouse. The team voted for my design over my manager's design. She didn't like that. I coded the budget reporting system I designed in an different language in 2 weeks to provide test data (it took several man months in COBOL). I found an erroneous accounting practice in the payroll department. They never thanked me. I coded, tested, and debugged well in COBOL.

I got a "needs improvement" on my performance appraisal.

I transferred to another group in IT. Years later her boss became my boss's boss again. The boss wanted to bring in a buddy from his prior company. They found excuses (everyone makes mistakes) to put my on probation, put me through the ringer, then fired me.

I helped moved a few data centers for a bank, saving them millions. I had been given 30K as a bonus for staying on for a few months to do this, but that was knowing they would then lay me off after having been there for years, and I had to work my ass off, often at night and on the weekends. We did what IBM said couldn't be done. Some executives came to our office to "thank" us. This jerk gave me a plastic company pen. I had to shake his hand.

On a contract an ex-IBM guy and I got a disaster recovery test to work for the first time. I worked 30 hours straight. I don't think I even got paid for all those hours. However, because I had previously made a slightly critical remark about the speed of a system, not knowing the big boss was at the lunch table, he set out to humiliate me. They promoted an ex-clerk instead of me. They set up a meeting to take away a project from me in front of everyone. Then they didn't renew my or the other guy's contract.

At another job I had to share a one person desk even though there were empty desks.

It goes on and on like that.

Many of the people ruling the business world are sociopathic idiots.

[JanMichael]

96. just a kick. nt

[w00master]

99. Why I am NOT a Socialist, Capitalist, Communist, Facist, Libertarian, so on and so forth

Why?

Because these are all human created contrivances. ALL systems can fail because the ENGINE that drives ALL of these systems is:

Human Beings.

And here in lies the problem, all of these systems (as Homer Simpson says) can work "in theory," but because Human Beings are intelligent as WELL as greedy and evil. They will inherently figure away to USE the system to his or her advantage and hurt others financially, physically, etc.

We don't live in a utopia. We live in the "real world."

The only way to truly enact change in society is for people to change. This is hard and won't happen just because we (or another country) chooses to go with a Socialist system (or any other system).

In the end, we all have to work with EACH OTHER in order to form a more "perfect union."

THAT'S REALITY.

[Medusa]

102. Reality doesn't do too well here these days at DU

your post for example made way too much sense. common sense around here is in very short supply it seems.

It seems to me that the wealthy are stealing from the wealthy these days, not just the middle and lower classes. The people who voice this grand myth that socialism would make everything better seem to have personal anger toward those who have thrived or at least survived under capitalism. I get the anger of not being able to find a job or struggling to pay bills-been there, done that, but it's never once occured to me to become either a communist or a socialist. Ideas are great, it's the implementation of them that's sticky.

[LeftyMom]

105. That actually works better as an argument against Capitalism.

We need a system that's structured to protect against the darker human impulses, not one that's driven by and rewards them.

[IMPERIUM V]

149. Ooh, ooh! I know

Religion.

[LeftyMom]

150. I do hope you're joking.

Religion is a the oldest con going.

[w00master]

160. It seems that way because...

right now "capitalism" rules the roost. Are you saying that greedy people would suddenly disappear once Socialism is instituted? Greedy/Evil/etc. people will figure out a way to GAME the system REGARDLESS whether we are under a Socialist, Capitalist, Communist, Libertarian, etc. system. If you don't believe this and honestly believe that Socialism will "solve everything." Then I'd LOVE to be smoking what you are.

The ONLY thing that will TRULY solve the problems in our society and world is for PEOPLE TO CHANGE. Political/economic systems don't mean CRAP.

[anaxarchos]

110. Brilliant.

That slogan is only a hair less common than "the Socialists will take your goat and divide it up amongst your neighbors." Damn... all politics is just wrong. We should go for self improvement instead.

That's "REALITY"? That is some seriously contrived shit. "Might as well leave the corrupt monstrous system in place 'cause they are all like that..."

You are certainly not a Socialist, Capitalist, Communist, so on and so forth. You are at "another level".

Careful of the butterfly nets, Monsieur Bonaparte.

[w00master]

183. Riiiight... Socialism is the answer to All our problems. Boy, that's a reality. (rolleyes) - EOM

[leftstreet]

116. Jesus Christ I hate that Latte Liberal claptrap!

The only way to truly enact change in society is for people to change

That's right, we're just not enlightened enough.

:eyes:

Nice try, but your Purpose Drive Bootstrap is still a bootstrap.

[Two Americas]

134. we need to see the bee we want to change

It is time that the New Agers see the bee they want to change -

http://www.electionfraudnews.com/Articles/Bees.htm

Excerpt -

The drones assemble in groups and hum querulously as they convey to one another discomforting reports on the sterility of the surrounding meadows and still more discomforting opinions of the starvation they can expect in the circumstances.

"We are the privileged estate," one of them exclaims, proudly preening his wings, "we enjoy the high favors of our gracious sovereign. The workers must show concern for our situation. That is their explicit duty; during the summer they collected a large quantity of honey, and we should have our share of it. We have by birth the right to profit by the wealth of society. Now, most unfortunately, we see how the uneducated mob doubts our right. The worker bees think the stock belongs to them alone, because they alone gathered it and stored it in the cells. They are obviously turning the very foundations of logic and right upside down. Those stocks belong to society, and our bee state has the right to dispose of them according to its discretion to cover its essential needs. And must not the maintenance of our life and welfare always be considered an essential requirement of the state? Can a hive exist without drones, with out a governing estate? The stocks are ours, ours first and fore most. Once our existence is guaranteed we shall be willing to give part of the excess to the poor hungry workers, but we must first appease our hunger and assure ourselves food for the f u hire. Let us go to the queen, expound our wishes to her and submit our declaration of rights to her consideration."

The enterprising orator's speech pleases the audience: it conforms to the needs of the time, it provides a satisfactory settlement for the terrible problem set by circumstances: to eat or not to eat? and it consequently meets unanimous support.

The deputies from the noble estate of drones go to the queen and she, far from devouring them as the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands devoured the European parliamentarians, is very gracious towards them and listens to their most humble petition with great attention. Then she answers in such a strain that the lord drones could wish for no better.

"I have always been convinced," she says, casting a glance of good-will on all present, "that the stability and prosperity of the state requires that there should be a hereditary estate of peers; if that estate is eliminated, all the governmental foundations of society will fall to ruin. You have served me faithfully, you have shown devotion to my person, and your valor fully entitles you to a reward. There can be no doubt that you, be fore anybody else, have a right to enjoy the stores that have been accumulated. As your sovereign, I give you my word of honor: your interests will in no way suffer from the calamity that has befallen us. Do not heed the murmurs of the worker bees; their function is to work, and as long as they carry out their duty with the appropriate assiduity I shall maintain my gracious attitude towards them. But you, my peers, must not he concerned about your food; you have a higher and more noble calling; do not forget that; leave the petty worry about your daily bread to the lower beings who are less ennobled than you by the gifts of nature. To conclude I express my sincere gratitude to you, my lords, for applying with such confidence to your queen."

The drones jubilate and glorify the grandeur, magnanimity and statesmanship of their sovereign.

Meanwhile the proletarians, alarmed by the withering flowers, likewise gather in groups to confer.

[leftstreet]

143. Thanks for that link!

I've read excerpts but couldn't think of the author's name to 'google.'

:thumbsup:

Thanks.

[w00master]

184. And... what you just said is any more "enlightened?" Give me a break.

If you TRULY believe that Socialism will "solve all your problems" then you are smoking something.

You really believe that people won't figure out how to take advantage of the less advantage in a Socialistic system? Really, are you THAT GULLIBLE?

Give me a break.

[Two Americas]

132. you are talking religion

Religion is concerned with improving the individual, and with seeing that as the only way to improve society. Adam sinned, we are all exiled from the garden of eden as a result - man's sinful fallen nature - and only through personal spiritual transformation can society be changed. "We are all sinners, and that is why we have so many social problems - can I get an amen!" What you are expressing is the latest incarnation of the long American tradition of moral awakening and tent revival movements. Add a feature from another American tradition - the snake oil salesman - and you have described much of modern liberalism - a New Age spiritual movement masquerading as a political movement.

Religion focuses on spiritually transforming the individual as the only path to improving conditions. Politics is concerned with changing the social conditions, so that people can them improve their own lives, or not, as they see fit.

I have no problem with people pursuing New Age spirituality. However, I think religion should be kept out of politics.

[blindpig]

153. Stop blaming the people.

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. -Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

You got it backwards, and to state that we must wait until people are 'improved' for there to be social justice is to say we must suffer injustice ad infinitum. This suits the ruling class very much. Rather, we must restructure society that people might enjoy their full potential.

[Solon]

100. Another kick, and a thumbsup...

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

139. hey Salon

A couple posts back there is a link to Dimitri Pisarev's essay "Bees." Have been meaning to pass that along to you for a while, and now here you are.

[Solon]

172. A link to an excellent essay, thanks!

:hi:

[IMPERIUM V]

148. I think a homegrown socialism is less likely in the USA

than socialism East Germany style...

Anything less than the military defeat and carving-up of US territory amongst the subjugated, nonwhite nations that reside within N. America, and anything less than the most astronomical reparations to the various third world countries that the US has robbed, raped and left for dead through our whole wicked history (and all in our name!) — anything less than that would just be white-proud social-democracy with some radical rhetoric thrown in.

If your aim is simply to raise the standard of living of US workers and their families, you're probably better off working/voting for Democrats.

Nobody's asking, and nobody cares, but that's what I think. Happy new year! :hi:

[Two Americas]

174. we aren't in a college classroom

This is not an academic exercise, it is life and death.

The task is not to puff on our pipe, stare off into space, sip our brandy and muse on what might be the ideal system.

We are not in charge of what is "practical" or "realistic" nor is it our job to merely come up with a good answer, put it on the test form and wait for the professor's approval and a good grade.

"If your aim is simply to raise the standard of living of US workers and their families" is a highly reactionary argument. Who does NOT have that aim?

"You're probably better off working/voting for Democrats" - better off than doing what? You are representing "working/voting for Democrats" as something other than, as an alternative to fighting, as an alternative to what is needed. That is revealing, is it not? I agree with you - "working/voting for Democrats," as an all-encompassing solution, is in opposition to what needs to be done.

I am asking and I do care. Happy New Year to you as well.

[Madison knows]

155. The problem with socialism is the same as the problem with capitalism.

Human nature.

[blindpig]

157. And how do you view 'human nature'?

I suspect it will be a rather dim view.

[Madison knows]

158. I believe that good humans tend to be corrupted by power.

And that they quickly catch up with the bad ones as they amass more power.

A dim view? Yes.

But a view that is clearly supported by the facts of reality.

[blindpig]

163. Supported by the 'facts' of capitalism, perhaps.

A very self serving view for the capitalists to propagate. "You would do the same if you were me." Well, maybe, the trick is to have a society in which no one has that kind of power. That is the one thing they fear, so they deny that it is possible.

[Madison knows]

166. Many have tried to shape the nature of human beings over the course of history.

And they have all have failed.

The fact is, no matter the political or economic system, some will always have more power than others.

[Two Americas]

175. that is religion

Religion is concerned with shaping the nature of human beings.

Politics is concerned with changing material conditions.

"Some will always have more power that others" is a nonsensical and misleading argument. Some will always die in accidents, but that does not mean that we respond with passivity or resignation, or see any efforts at preventing accidents as useless or futile and to be mocked and ridiculed and dismissed.

[Madison knows]

192. No, politics is concerned with the acquisition of power.

[Two Americas]

200. of course

Who says otherwise? The struggle is for power over others and resources, for the purpose of controlling wealth.

[Two Americas]

176. duplicate n/t

...

[anaxarchos]

178. Really?

Well then, "greed" and "jealousy" must be fundamental to your dim view of "human nature". The problem is that for a million years of human history, neither private property nor pairing marriage existed. How then could "greed" or "jealousy" exist? Your human nature must be only 5000 to 10000 years old.... a baby. Where did it come from? Obviously "human nature" has changed dramatically and quite recently.

As for the rest of what you write: "no matter the political or economic system, some will always have more power than others", that is so weak that it might or might not be true depending on a very small tweaking of your very ambiguous terms. Do you mean that "no matter what the economic or political system", classes will exist in society... that some will earn everything and work at nothing, and some will work and earn nothing? Are you talking about slaves and slaveholders, lords and serfs, owners and workers? If so: 5000 years... tops.

[defendandprotect]

186. Exactly . . . .

and how lucky patriarchy/organized patriarchal religions were around to

invent capitalism and the dollar bill so that we could buy Manhattan for

$24 --- !!!

:sarcasm:

By the way, I don't know if you saw it but Howard Zinn recently wrote an

article about this private property thing and concept of "borders."

Nice post by you -- !!!

[anaxarchos]

197. Thanks D&P...

You say it exactly right: "this private property thing" - that is all it is... some dumb-ass "thing".

[Madison knows]

193. Perhaps, but then again, I have never been tested by the attainment of power over others.

And you do not have to look back 5000 or 10,000 years to discover that we cannot depend on the absolute good nature of human beings. Because the world, prior to the age of reason, was a world where "might makes right." But when John Locke put forth the argument that one had the natural right to the fruits of one's own labor, the concept of property rights was born. Since socialism annuls that concept, socialism is a backward step in the process of evolution. So, while capitalism is by no means perfect, it is the only economic system that is respectful of property rights and that makes it the only economic system that is compatible with freedom.

[anaxarchos]

196. A fundamental "nature" that goes back only to 1% of the time...

...that humans have been on the planet ain't "fundamental" and it ain't "nature" either. You are describing "Philistine nature", the revision of history by Philistines. It is an "innovation" and a hiccup. John Locke is it? Well, Mr. "Rights of Man and of Merchant" had anything but a monopoly on the Age of Reason. To paraphrase Rousseau: The first man who enclosed the common land, put a fence around that which for all time had been shared in common, and declared, "This land is mine", and found enough of his fellows stupid enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of Civil Society. That is what the "Nobel Savage" is all about, ambiguous and romantic though that concept may have been. It was about what had been lost (not gained) by the adoption of class society and "private property" as you call it. And private property was never about the right to one's own labor but to that of the labor of others.

Those of the Enlightenment had no need to go back to pre-history, either. Not just Greek history (for one) but Greek drama and philosophy are nothing but a chronicle of the loss of innocence which accompanied your "private property", first and foremost in the form of slavery: the dissolution of the Greek gens, the overthrow of the Matriarchy as the first "benefit" of the generalization of slaves, the transformation of the Doric tribes which had been legendary in their egalitarianism into a sick stew in which every newly-created "citizen" with "rights" was maintained by 32 slaves and non-status persons who had no rights whatever, the spread over the lands of the Greek free-holders of mortgage columns so thick that they made a forest, until Solon pushed them back... and so on.

It is an amazing story you tell and it is religious as Two Americas says above... it is the one point of agreement on which liberals and fundamentalists seem to agree - the earth is only 5000 years old. And, whether, the "nature" that supposedly characterizes that abridged "age" is the highest expression of humanity as the conservatives would have it, or it is a sad recognition of the imperfection of humanity which prevents "real" political change, as is in the Liberal narrative, nevertheless it is still an explanation held in common as to why most work and have nothing, while a few don't work and have everything.

The funny thing about both ends of the spectrum is that those who most stridently claim to understand "human nature" are also those who are most afraid of humans. Will that "terrible nature" come for you in the middle of some night?

Boo...

[Two Americas]

208. who stole the common from the goose?

What conservatives are describing as "human nature" is a remarkably recent development.

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.

They hang the man and flog the woman,
Who steals the goose from off the common,
Yet let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.

— Seventeenth-century English protest rhymes

More from Rousseau:

“Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

In English economic history, 'enclosure' (or 'inclosure') was the name given to the process by which land which had previously been considered commons -- with rights of access and use by all, was fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to a single private owner, who was to enjoy the possession and fruits of the land at the exclusion of all others. This conversion from public to private lands was accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed.

The enclosure movement was a keystone in the beginning of the notion of private property, corporations, and intellectual property law.

There were two main waves of enclosure. Enclosures during the Tudor period largely resulted in conversion of land use from arable to pasture – usually sheep farming. These enclosures were often undertaken unilaterally by the landowner. Later, "parliamentary" enclosures (in the 18th and 19th centuries) saw strips in the open fields consolidated into more compact units surrounded by hedges. Tudor enclosures were often accompanied by a loss of grazing rights and could result in the destruction of whole villages.
Parliamentary enclosures usually provided villagers with some compensation for the loss of grazing rights, although the land received for common rights may not have been sufficient.

...

Enclosure faced a great deal of popular resistance because of its effects on the household economies of smallholders and landless labourers. Common rights had included not just the right of cattle or sheep grazing, but also the grazing of geese, foraging for pigs, gleaning, berrying, and fuel gathering. Many people who had previously been able to live off the land, now were forced into the cities where they became labourers in the Industrial Revolution.

http://tripatlas.com/Enclosure

There had been some enclosure of the common land a hundred years before, but across England at the turn of the 17 th Century more and more shared common land was being enclosed to allow the landowners to graze sheep and thus maximise their returns. This led to depopulation of the countryside as the ordinary people lost their common arable land from which they fed themselves and grazed their livestock. Nationally, this marked the moment of transformation from an agrarian economy to the emergence of industrial capitalism. The process was already set to roll for the next 400 years. In time the labels ‘Levellers’ and ‘Diggers’ which originated around the time of the Midlands Revolt of 1607 became associated with social equality and radical political thought, and the enclosures a symbol of all this, but at the time their complaints were simply against those who were enclosing land …”neyther for ye benefit of ye Communalty, but onely for theyr owne private gaine…” And they were grievously concerned about the price of grain (which rose partly as a result of the land being enclosed, partly on account of poor harvests) and their ability to feed their families.

The peasants who cultivated the land of England in 1650 were descendants of those who had occupied it since time immemorial. By any normally accepted standard of morality, it was their property in every sense of the word. The armies of William the Conqueror, by no right other than force, had compelled these peasant proprietors to pay rent on their own land.

...

Still another form of expropriation was the enclosure of commons--in which, again, the peasants communally had as absolute a right of property as any defended by today's "property rights" advocates. Enclosures occurred in two large waves: the first, becoming a mighty surge under the Tudors and slowing to a trickle under the Stuarts, was enclosure of land for sheep pasturage. The second, which we will consider below, was the enclosure of open fields for large-scale capitalist farming.

...

Even after the expropriations of the Tudor and Stuart periods, the dispossession of the peasantry was still incomplete. A significant amount of land still remained in peasant hands under customary forms of ownership, and continued to provide a margin of independence for some. After the Tudor expropriations, many vagabonds migrated into "such open-field villages as would allow them to squat precariously on the edge of common or waste." One seventeenth century pamphleteer noted that "in all or most towns where the fields lie open and are used in common there is a new brood of upstart intruders as inmates, and the inhabitants of lawful cottages erected contrary to law...." He referred to the common complaint of employers, that they were "loyterers who will not usually be got to work unless they may have such excessive wages as they themselves desire."30 Hence, the final expropriation of even these last remaining peasant lands was vital to the full development of capitalism.

The second wave of enclosures, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was therefore closely connected with the process of industrialization. Not counting enclosures before 1700, the Hammonds estimated total enclosures in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries at between a sixth and a fifth of the arable land in England. E. J. Hobsbawm and George Rudé, less conservatively, estimated enclosures between 1750 and 1850 alone as transforming "something like one quarter of the cultivated acreage from open field, common land, meadow or waste into private fields...." Dobb estimated it as high as a quarter or half of land in the fourteen counties most affected. Of 4000 Private Acts of Enclosure from the early eighteenth century through 1845, two-thirds involved "open fields belonging to cottagers," and the other third involved common woodland and heath.

http://www.mutualist.org/id61.html

If to the city sped - What waits him there?
To see profusion that he must not share;
To see ten thousand baneful arts combin'd
To pamper luxury, and thin mankind;
To see those joys the sons of pleasure know
Extorted from his fellow creature's woe.
Here, while the courtier glitters in brocade,
There the pale artist plies the sickly trade;
Here, while the proud their long-drawn pomps display,
There the black gibbet glooms beside the way.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

185. Yes . . . if the few among us who want power over others continue their violence . . .

[Orwellian_Ghost]

164. There is no such thing

as "human nature" meaning it cannot be said to be one thing. Noone is inherently greedy or altruistic meaning we have bits and pieces of all these things and our social circumstances will determine which of our characteristics are brought to the fore or diminished. Hence the need for socialism. Should I give an example? There are millions of daily examples all around the world.

[Madison knows]

165. Unfortunately, there are (socialism).

And it is clear that capitalism (with all of its problems) has created the most prosperous and advanced civilization in the history of the world.

I have no problem with you and those who agree with you forming your own little commune. All I ask for the right to opt out and live my life as I see fit.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

167. Your life as you see fit?

Does that then mean that you will be doing all the necessary work to buttress such a life or will others do that for you? And by that I mean all of the work that goes into the "prosperity and advancement" which you speak of?

Upon whose back was that prosperity built? Exactly what kind of prosperity is that which you refer to?

And how "civilized" is such a place which does not take care of the least among it's citizens?

Do we need to go through all the statistical facts to put your lie about "most prosperous and advanced" to the test? Let alone defining what those terms mean.

[defendandprotect]

187. Capitalism has created Global Warming and polluted the planet --- OOPS!!

Capitalism has crashed more times than we can count and has always walked

away with the $$$$$$$$$$$ --- just like now!!

Properity and enrichment of societies/communities is not based on acquisition --

nor would we ever rejoice the "values" of capitalism which is simply concerned

with increasing capital. There is no conscience involved, no acknowledgment

of humanity nor human interest.

We have swapped the planet for trash offered by capitalists -- !!!

All I ask for the right to opt out and live my life as I see fit.

Let's see you do that without a planet . . . !!!

[Madison knows]

194. Relax and take a deep breath,

capitalism will take you to the next world.

[defendandprotect]

205. Take a deep breath . . .

and wake up --

Global Warming has been an issue since the late 1950's when the oil industry began

its campaign of propaganda to distort and disinform the public.

The planet has been totally polluted --- as well as our air and water ---

and, in fact, capitalists are chasing down seeds, food itself, and water.

Global Warming is in a crisis stage -- it's is pretty much too late.

And, you have capitalism to thank for that!

[anaxarchos]

213. You know...

... that your sig line quotes Madison briefly enough to make him just a run-of-the-mill purveyor of platitudes. The real guy adopted positions quite the opposite of yours. On the original Bill of Rights, for example, which he thought leaned far too heavily towards property, Madison wrote that it erred:

"… By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase
the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an
unmerited accumulation of riches; by the silent operation of laws,
which, without violating the laws of property, reduce extreme
wealth to a state of mediocrity, and raise indigence toward a
state of comfort."

Just for the record, it ain't James Madison you are representin'. Perhaps Guy Madison?

[blindpig]

217. Yes, indeed.

[Fire This Time]

201. I puzzled over this

until I realized it was a verbatim quote of Joe Friday, meant in jest

That's a good one, much like your username..

[Two Americas]

211. imagine

Imagine if murder were justified as being merely "human nature."

I suppose we could say that the problem with humans is "human nature." But what does that have to do with this discussion?

Politics is about changing the conditions under which people live. If you want to reform human nature, you need to be a preacher or guru. If you think human nature precludes changing the conditions under which people live, you are not refuting socialism, you are dismissing politics. The dismissal of politics is not really apolitical, since it is an effective political argument for promoting and defending the interests of the wealthy and powerful few. It is reactionary, and not just slightly reactionary, but rather it is the core foundational position that underlies reactionary and conservative political thought.

[Two Americas]

171. I will have the mixed salad, please

We have a new mantra emerging recently - "mixed systems work best!" Of course the people attacking the Left with that argument now never pestered the right, the libertarians, with that argument before. It is interesting to watch the various rear guard actions, the new positions taken by the conservatives on their retreat. They hope to rally the people against the Left, and can no longer praise capitalism since recent events have precluded anyone rallying to that position with them. So now we have the "mixed system" nonsense.

Of course, we have no way of knowing if "mixed systems work best" since any and all "systems" could be described as "mixed." The hidden and dishonest argument there is this - since we supposedly have a "mixed system," that means that praising "mixed systems" is in practical effect a defense of the way things are. When a defense of the way things are is used in response to those who are saying that things must change we have, by definition, a conservative argument, no matter how cleverly disguised it may be.

But let's say for the sake of argument that "mixed systems" do "work best." You could never arrive at a mixed system by advocating a mixed system. A mixed system would presumably be something in between two poles - some compromise between the two that would be arrived at after a struggle between the two. (It should be obvious that we can not merely wish some system into existence, and it should also be obvious that there is powerful opposition to any such mixed system, to anything that is even slightly to the Left politically.) We have powerful forces advocating, fighting for, the one extreme - unregulated capitalism. We could never achieve a mixed system if there is no one advocating, fighting for the opposite position. That means that if people truly thought that a mixed system worked best, truly desired this mixed system, they would be compelled to see that the problem, the barrier, is the almost complete absence of a strong political Left. People who promote the idea of a mixed system while ignoring that - worse, who promote a mixed system as an attack on the political Left - are not arguing for a mixed system at all. They are defending and promoting the political right, and doing that in a manipulative and dishonest fashion.

[Raksha]

173. Very good point and very well expressed...thank you!!!

Re But let's say for the sake of argument that "mixed systems" do "work best." You could never arrive at a mixed system by advocating a mixed system. A mixed system would presumably be something in between two poles - some compromise between the two that would be arrived at after a struggle between the two. (It should be obvious that we can not merely wish some system into existence, and it should also be obvious that there is powerful opposition to any such mixed system, to anything that is even slightly to the Left politically.) We have powerful forces advocating, fighting for, the one extreme - unregulated capitalism. We could never achieve a mixed system if there is no one advocating, fighting for the opposite position. That means that if people truly thought that a mixed system worked best, truly desired this mixed system, they would be compelled to see that the problem, the barrier, is the almost complete absence of a strong political Left. People who promote the idea of a mixed system while ignoring that - worse, who promote a mixed system as an attack on the political Left - are not arguing for a mixed system at all. They are defending and promoting the political right, and doing that in a manipulative and dishonest fashion.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

177. Perfectly stated

Ultimately it is clear that the folks who call for this mixed system are defenders of the status quo.

One realization I have arrived at is that many folks who call themselves liberals/progressives per se are far more closely allied in ideology and in practice with the ruling classes and in so many ways identify themselves and express themselves with these oppressive and often this is done consciously but just as often it is done in a sort of reflexive subconscious manner. It is as if the very nature of the ruling classes has been imprinted into their psyches preventing them from seeing the bodies that are strewn about.

[bperci108]

189. I concur.

Once you see the world through the lens of Class, the picture becomes really clear.

The Working Class folks who populate the ranks of the GOP are laboring under the delusion that they have something in common with their wealthy masters. If they just work hard enough and play by the rules, they will one day be one of those ruling elites. :eyes:


As George Carlin put it: "They call it "the American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it..."

Just a quick look up and down the board here shows who the Scissor-bills are. Maybe they will get it one day; maybe they won't.


Thanks for a great OP, OG. :patriot:

[Two Americas]

191. I don't worry about them too much

The working class folks who have been voting for the GOP have a much shorter path to go than most of the people here at DU and in the activist community in general. The blue collar Republican voters are moving dramatically to the Left now, while the "liberals" and "progressives" are still stubbornly resistant and sounding more and more reactionary every day.

The liberal and progressive activist community is dominated by those from the upper 10% income bracket. They think and act as though they were part of the ruling class. That identification with the ruling class, and the privilege and status they enjoy and wish to protect, runs much deeper than the GOP hold on blue collar workers ever did. Blue collar people will quickly and effortlessly start seeing things through the lens of class. The liberal aristocracy is fighting a desperate and sophisticated rear guard action against class analysis and class srtuggle, and that will escalate in the days to come.

[Madison knows]

195. Yes, those who lust for power always have the answers.

But they they are not concerned whether or not they have the right answers. They are only concerned with the answers that enhance their power.

[anaxarchos]

199. That would be you... Monsieur Madison.

The Socialists have no power whatsoever and their "lust" is necessary imaginary as a result. Those whom you defend have all the power, and reviewing your answers throughout this thread - by, golly you are right: your narrative is "...not concerned whether or not they have the right answers. They are only concerned with the answers that enhance their power."

I'm glad we could agree on one thing...

[L0oniX]

204. To quote Howard Zinn "We were socialists in the past".

[defendandprotect]

206. Love Howard Zinn -- and all of his writings -- !!!

[anonymous171]

209. I'm more of a Social Capitalist. nt

[leftstreet]

210. How does that work?

:shrug:

[anaxarchos]

214. That's the one...

...about which various "reformers" prattle endlessly - about the need to "teach social responsibility" to capitalism, about regulation, about the introduction of "social objectives" and so on. In the meantime, there has never been any measure except profit by which any capitalist enterprise has ever been evaluated, no mechanism or precedent exists for such an evaluation, and if some feverish capitalist were to to try it, they would instantly be sued into the ground by irate shareholders...

Other than that, it's a great idea.

[leftstreet]

215. Oh. It's when they serve us the correct wine with our cake

Got it.

:-)

[LWolf]

216. Too late to recommend, but I'll give it a

:kick:

Thanks.

:hi: