Some Thoughts About Socialism

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Some thoughts about socialism

April 5, 2009

“History is littered with post-crisis regulations. If there are undue restrictions on the operations of businesses, they may view it to be their job to get around them, and you sow the seeds of the next crisis.“

- Liz Ann Sonders, chief investment analyst, CharlesSchwab & Co., a leading US provider of investment services.1

And so it goes. Corporations, whether financial or not, strive to maximize profit as inevitably as water seeks its own level. We’ve been trying to “regulate” them since the 19th century. Or is it the 18th? Nothing helps for long. You close one loophole and the slime oozes out of another hole. Wall Street has not only an army of lawyers and accountants, but a horde of mathematicians with advanced degrees searching for the perfect equations to separate people from their money. After all the stimulus money has come and gone, after all the speeches by our leaders condemning greed and swearing to reforms, after the last congressional hearing deploring the corporate executives to their faces, the boys of Wall Street, shrugging off a few bruises, will resume churning out their assortment of financial entities, documents, and packages that go by names like hedge funds, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, index funds, credit default swaps, structured investment vehicles, subprime mortgages, and many other pieces of paper with exotic names, for which, it must be kept in mind, there had been no public need or strident demand. Speculation, bonuses, and scotch will flow again, and the boys will be all the wiser, perhaps shaken a bit that they’re so reviled, but knowing better now what to flaunt and what to disguise.

This is another reminder that communism or socialism have almost always been given just one chance to work, if that much, while capitalism has been given numerous chances to do so following its perennial fiascos. Ralph Nader has observed: “Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out.”

In the West, one of the most unfortunate results of the Cold War was that 70 years of anti-communist education and media stamped in people’s minds a lasting association between socialism and what the Soviet Union called communism. Socialism meant a dictatorship, it meant Stalinist repression, a suffocating “command economy”, no freedom of enterprise, no freedom to change jobs, few avenues for personal expression, and other similar truths and untruths. This is a set of beliefs clung to even amongst many Americans opposed to US foreign policy. No matter how bad the economy is, Americans think, the only alternative available is something called “communism”, and they know how awful that is.



Many Americans cannot go along with the notion of a planned, centralized society. To some extent it’s the terminology that bothers them because they were raised to equate a planned society with the worst excesses of Stalinism. Okay, let’s forget the scary labels; let’s describe it as people sitting down to discuss a particular serious societal problem, what the available options there are to solve the problem, and what institutions and forces in the society have the best access, experience, and assets to deliver those options. So, the idea is to prepare these institutions and forces to deal with the problem in a highly organized, rational manner without having to worry about which corporation’s profits might be adversely affected, without relying on “the magic of the marketplace”. Now it happens that all this is usually called “planning” and if the organization and planning stem from a government body it can be called “centralized”. There’s no reason to assume that this has to result in some kind of very authoritarian regime. All of us over a certain age -individually and collectively - have learned a lot about such things from the past. We know the warning signs; that’s why the Bush administration’s authoritarianism was so early and so strongly condemned.

The overwhelming majority of people in the United States work for a salary. They don’t need to be motivated by the quest for profit. It’s not in our genes. Virtually everybody, if given the choice, would prefer to work at jobs where the main motivations are to produce goods and services that improve the quality of life of the society, to help others, and to provide themselves with meaningful and satisfying work. It’s not natural to be primarily motivated by trying to win or steal “customers” from other people, no holds barred, survival of the fittest or the most ruthless.

http://novakeo.com/?p=3679

[TBF]

1. K&R n/t

[PeaceNikki]

2. Here's more on socialism:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=438913&mesg_id=438913

[Democracyinkind]

3. Make a visit to Europe mandatory for all Americans. LOL

.. The things you've posted, though I agree, will never be fairly adressed in the US.

My biggest hope in that direction would be that Americans learn about "Social Democracies" first - you know, the kind of democracy Europe predominantly implements on a national level (before the EU kills it all).

As for a unbiased assesment of Socialism.. I think the cold warriors will have to die before that's possible - not in the "so let's kill them sense", rather in the "wait for our generations turn" sense.

[rurallib]

7. Half of Americans would bitch because they all spoke foreign languages.

[Democracyinkind]

11. Agreed, but about 60% of the Eropeans speak at least rudimentary English.

Western Eruopeans that is.

Is rudimentary the right word? like basic?

[rurallib]

12. More likely they do better with english than freepers

Im series!111!!

[Democracyinkind]

16. School can do wonders for a scoiety

I love your signature.

[LWolf]

4. K & R nt

[blindpig]

5. Socialism for sustainibility.

Given it's mandate of continual growth, Capitalism cannot help but destroy this planet. As stated in the OP regulation is futile, the bastards always come back for more. This is intolerable, nature, of which we are a part, is up against the wall. A rational, planned economy is our only chance to escape barbarism.

K&R

[Orwellian_Ghost]

18. ECOLOGY AGAINST CAPITALISM

by John Bellamy Foster


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Ecology Against Capitalism is a fine and well timed book. The boom is over, the earth is warming, the fundamental questions are coming again to the fore. Foster fortunately answers, as only he can, in a voice both balanced and clear headed.”
— TOM ATHANASIOU,co-founder of EcoEquity and author of Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor

“Foster has written another extremely valuable book. Anyone who wants to understand our current environmental problems and what we need to do to solve them should read .”
— INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST REVIEW

In recent years John Bellamy Foster has emerged as a leading theorist of the Marxist perspective on ecology. His seminal book Marx’s Ecology (Monthly Review Press, 2000) discusses the place of ecological issues within the intellectual history of Marxism and on the philosophical foundations of a Marxist ecology, and has become a major point of reference in ecological debates. This historical and philosophical focus is now supplemented by more direct political engagement in his new book, Ecology Against Capitalism. In a broad-ranging treatment of contemporary ecological politics, Foster deals with such issues as pollution, sustainable development, technological responses to environmental crisis, population growth, soil fertility, the preservation of ancient forests, and the "new economy" of the Internet age.




Within these debates on the politics of ecology, Foster's work develops an important and distinctive perspective. Where many of these debates assume a basic divergence of "red" and "green" issues, and are concerned with the exact terms of a trade-off between them, Foster argues that Marxism—properly understood—already provides the framework within which ecological questions are best approached. This perspective is advanced here in accessible and concrete form, taking account of the major positions in contemporary ecological debate.

Foster's introduction sets out the unifying themes of these essays to present a consolidated approach to a rapidly-expanding field of debate which is of critical importance in our time.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/books/ecologyvcapitalism.php

[blindpig]

19. Funny you should mention that...

I'm currently reading it. The essay on Malthus was highly enlightening.

Highly recommended.

[Union Yes]

6. Rec'd. Capitalism is a failure.

What more proof do we need then to simply open our eyes and take a look around?

[patrice]

8. Solidarity, OG!

The focus NEEDS to be Local in order to pry people FREE from the false dichotomies that you mention, so that they CAN see at least this one single fact and KNOW all other constructs to be rubbish:

Virtually everybody, if given the choice, would prefer to work at jobs where the main motivations are to produce goods and services that improve the quality of life of the society, to help others, and to provide themselves with meaningful and satisfying work.

We need to go out into our own Communities and LEARN what "The Deal", OUR OWN Deal, COULD be.

[endarkenment]

9. Socialism does not require a planned centralized economic system

Both capitalism and state socialism suffer from a related problem: they produce corrupt governments that operate for the benefit of an entrenched elite.

[readmoreoften]

29. Actually, it does. A federation of medieval communes aren't possible in the 21st century.

Technology and population are game changers. The problem is that socialism can't exist in one state because it necessarily must be a military state that defends itself against imperialism. Just as capitalism is a global system, so is socialism. However, capitalism fares well on a war economy and socialism fares poorly. Any anarchist model that hopes "we'll be socialist and cooperative over here" and "you'll go do your thing over there" is suicidal. That's exactly what the Paris Commune did. Such a model makes no room for the very real phenomenon of counterrevolutionary forces.

But there is nothing inherently "authoritarian" about a planned, centralized economy in a democratic system. There is no reason why people can't come together and vote and plan without "the magic hand of the market", which is really religious hoo-ha covering authoritarian intent. The fact that Stalin perverted the Bolshevik revolution does not mean that every system will somehow become authoritarian.

[endarkenment]

31. Actually it doesn't.

But then again "a federation of medieval communes" is not the only alternative to marxist-leninist state socialism.

[scarletwoman]

10. k&r -- thank you for this post!

the boys of Wall Street, shrugging off a few bruises, will resume churning out their assortment of financial entities, documents, and packages that go by names like hedge funds, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, index funds, credit default swaps, structured investment vehicles, subprime mortgages, and many other pieces of paper with exotic names, for which, it must be kept in mind, there had been no public need or strident demand.

It's not just that there's no "public need", it's that so much wealth has been sucked up into these activities which produce NOTHING. Money has been funnelled out of the pockets of the many into the pockets of the few who have used it for personally accumulating MORE money while producing NOTHING. There's absolutely NO benefit to the rest of society in this.

If someone wants to defend capitalism as an economic system that best provides widespread prosperity, then they absolutely can NOT defend these sorts of activites.

sw

[Vidar]

13. A year in Europe to see a better way followed by a year in

nightmarish Texas converted me from a right wing Republican to socialist 30 years ago.

[paulsby]

21. and i've spent plenty of time

in socialist countries, and that, along with study, proved to me that socialism is clearly the wrong path.

capitalism is the way to go.

[blindpig]

22. Care to explain?

Or should we just take your word for it?

[paulsby]

23. explain what?

i see a "ra ra socialism" thread, and i feel compelled to offer my opposing viewpoint.

socialism would be a terrible mistake in the US, and capitalism is clearly a better system.

what exactly do i need to explain? i disagree that socialism is a worthy system.

[blindpig]

24. So we are to take your word for it?

I think not.

Only the wealthy and the beguiled could think such a thing.

[paulsby]

25. again, what's your question

i am offering an opposing viewpoint to ra ra socialism.

what exactly are you asking?

[blindpig]

26. Why do you think capitalism is superior to socialism?

Specifics.

[paulsby]

27. among other things

it creates more wealth
it creates more opportunity
it allows more freedom
it allows more choice

etc.

[blindpig]

28. fail

"it creates more wealth" - What good is that when that wealth, the product of labor, is concentrated in the hands of the few capitalists? Suppose that's fine if you approve of gross injustice.

"it creates more opportunity" - Really? Opportunity for what? The chance to join the capitalists class? Good luck at that, upward social mobility is at an all time low.

"it allows more freedom" - Yes, freedom to starve, to be homeless, to die of a treatable disease. Freedom to bust your ass while someone else benefits from your labor.

"it allows more choice" - What sort of choice? Consumer choice? To have a plethora of goods virtually identical except for superficial bullshit and advertising. The choice of gadgets and gewgaws? For this we should endure the hideous injustice and tolerate ecocide?

[Stuart G]

14. Hell, most people in this country don't even know what it is..

let alone capable of discussing it intelligently.
The pukes know most knowledge of it is old soviet style communism. Fuck the PUKES.

[anaxarchos]

15. It is not so much about "Socialism"...

... as it is about Capitalism. In many ways, Socialism is an empty vessel, defined by the overthrow of capitalism (locally, and to one degree or another) and the local conditions it finds itself in when that occurs. Well before there was a "theory" of socialism, there were many political movements of "socialists", formed in opposition to the social conditions imposed by Capitalism.

The problem in a nutshell is that Capitalism always and everywhere eventually creates the opposite of what it claims.

Regulation... how is that possible? When was corruption so rampant that it was thought to have completely undermined the possibility of Popular Democracy? That was under U.S. Grant, nearly 150 years ago. When were the Trusts out of control? The robber barons? The monopolies? When was the muckraking era? How long ago was the pattern of "Wall Street speculation" first evident? How often has the end of world poverty, of middle class prosperity, of worldwide "democratic" harmony, and of an "end to ideology" been declared since?

What has changed that could possibly overturn such powerful social forces?

Today it is more money, more concentration, more corruption, more integration of Capital with politics and governments. The only thing that is in short supply is memory...

[Echo In Light]

17. Thanks for posting. K&R

[blindpig]

20. kick n/t

[blindpig]

30. kick n/t