Socialism is missing an historic opportunity

[BelgianMadCow]

Financial companies create "derivative" products that allow for totally over-leveraged speculation an a housing market they helped booming through way too loose lending. (Note: it was Bush* who lifted the maximum on leverage - the degree to which you can speculate with borrowed money. The derivatives market (at 600 trillion, 10 times world GDP) has ballooned since then. Deregulation - unregulated capitalism...)

The Rating Agencies peddle this bullshit to the whole wide world in giving these products a triple A rating.

Once one card in that house falls, the entire house goes down - for one reason only: the thieves cannot trust the liars anymore. That's called "inter-banking lending is freezing"...

Both in the US and in the EU, they get bailouts (actually, some of the major bailouts in Europe were done by the US taxpayers as well, through AIG). Besides the widely publicized numbers like the overt 700 billion stimulus, there is also covert "quantitative easing" on both sides of the pond, to the tune of (tens of) trillions of dollars. That is in essence printing money, which STILL is stuck at the banks who hoard it. Once that avalanche is released, the resulting inflation will present the covert bill to the taxpayer as well. Mind you, the entire recession in the "real" economy that has resulted may take us through a deflationary period first.

By now, governments (so, peoples) have raked up debt, obviously. Unfortunately, not through creating New Deals - just Backroom Deals.

And now, the SAME rating agencies get to say that countries are no longer credit worthy, which necessitates austerity measures the PEOPLE have to bear AGAIN?

That in this kind of context socialism isn't booming, rampant, on the rise, everywhere,
that the barricades are largely unmanned,
that the total and obvious failure of neoliberalism leads to cuts in SOCIAL programmes of all things,
means socialism is missing an historic opportunity, should it remain so. If ever there was a time for socialism, it is now.

The common non-greek person says the common Greek is living large (since that's how the media portray it) and has rightfully "austerity measures" coming his way - when BOTH have been going BACKWARDS at the mercy of corporatism, and neither of them is to blame.

We are missing an historic opportunity, and I don't understand it. Have we all been tamed? Have I?

:rant:

[EmeraldCityGrl]

1. Can we continue to rely on government to do

anything different? I think not. The only change that is going to come will come from the bottom up.

There is a movement to transition communities to prepare for peak oil, climate change, economic collapse.

Take a look. Maybe there are some answers here. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/

[BelgianMadCow]

11. that transition network is a good link, thanks. May help me channel

some positive energy. I also believe that local action is the only likely route to success. Let's see if I can sell it to some people. I have been looking into a kind of bartering network as well, to find out on DU this too exists :-)

When you think about it, what we want in part is to go back to the days of our grandparents - when families were tightly knit, lived all close to one another and stayed in the same town for a long time, and when helping out your neighbour in say building his house would be typical (and reciprocated) (ok, maybe I have rose-colored glasses on)

In such a community, much of the behaviour becomes sustainable automatically - you're not gonna soil your own nest, or that of your family, of that of the community.
If a lot of the products are local as well, that will mean you will support decent wages / working conditions - the kind of abuse that goes on unseen to us in China, we won't tolerate when forced upon your own.

I'm not advocating turning back the clock ofc - many things we've achieved ought to stay. Us being able to talk about this now, for example :-)

:hi:

[EmeraldCityGrl]

18. You sound like the perfect person to launch

this is your community. We started with a simple pea patch and it has evolved from there.
The wonderful part for Democrats is, you can still work for the party but transition to a more
local approach. We have to take back our power and this seems from all I've considered the most
logical and fun way to do it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. In the states people are not angry enough

and Europe is showing historic fissures...

Americans need to be much angrier and change will come from the bottom... perhaps

[Greyhound]

3. Oh it will come, that is the only certainty in this whole mess.

Unfortunately as you know, history doesn't give us very good odds for the change to be positive, at least in the short-term.

[BelgianMadCow]

15. The fissures Europe is showing have really disappointed me tbh

this (in my mind pseudo) "european debt crisis" was the occasion to show the value of the Union. There have been good things, like Merkel saying "we need our own rating agency" - I thought well there are people who DO get it. But the answer was a German + French answer, and not bold enough.

Why didn't we say in Greece: okay speculation on the bonds is suspended - like the US suspended naked shorting after Lehman?

There is anger here - it just hasn't found it's channel yet. People don't see yet that a big part of the social programs that make this such a great place are gonna take a major hit. But when it does dawn, there will probably be some action, as we have already seen in Greece, France and Spain. Whether that action brings something...the the money will have to come from things like a windfall profits tax - and that is gonna require serious pressure. However, the multiple sounds we get about instating a banking tax are encouraging.

[socialist_n_TN]

4. Well, I've got a stake in this and I've done a LOT

of thinking about what to do. I've asked questions of other anti capitalists on here and I've come to a few basic conclusions.

Firstly, we STILL can't call ourselves "socialist" at least here in the USA. That's not quite true, but it's close. It's still a poisoned word here that takes away from the MESSAGE that we're trying to get across. Ergo, advocate socialist positions WITHOUT calling them socialist. If somebody CALLS the positions "socialist", then ask what they MEAN when they call being on the side of the average person, "socialist". Turn it around and ask what THEY would do about the problems and exactly HOW those RW solutions help ANYBODY, other the rich. You KNOW that a capitalist or a stooge will NOT be able to show that capitalism benefits the people rather than the rich. There are more examples of capitalist oppression by big business than we can use in any ordinary conversation. MoveOn had a list in an email today that listed at least TEN things that capitalists have done to screw the people AND THAT'S JUST IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. The examples are numerous. I guess it boils down to being unabashedly and LOUDLY on the side of PEOPLE rather than corporations (capitalists), WITHOUT USING THE BUZZ WORDS THAT WE (including myself) ARE SO FOND OF.

Secondly, it seems like we've got to do it one person at a time or in small groups. I'm all for "taking it to the streets" for a cause, but it seems a lot of people think that it doesn't do any good. Maybe a "socialist" club in the local Democratic Party? Small groups who form coalitions around specific issues, locally and nationally?

Thirdly, step it up a little. EVERYBODY get a little MORE involved. I recently made a visit to Bob Corker's office with a MoveOn position statement about getting corporations our of government. While I was there I talked to a staffer about that damn Social Security commission and making changes that won't benefit ANYBODY, but Wall Street. I'm going to do MORE as I can. Corker is a MAJOR Republican and I don't expect to get anything out of it OTHER THAN LETTING HIM KNOW THAT THERE ARE TENNESSEANS WHO ARE NOT TEABAGGERS. For now, that'll have to be enough.

Fourthly, I would like to see a NATIONWIDE coalition of left wing groups who support each other. We're leftists and we ALL tend to be "purists" when it comes to our primary issues, but that doesn't mean we can't support each other. My primary focus as a socialist is economic equality and worker's rights, but by God, if there's a LGBT problem that I can help address, I'm going to do it. Same with ecological problems. Or Latino issues, or black or women's issues. And I want them to help when they can with worker's rights issues.


Finally, I'm open to ANY other ideas. Got any?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Yes try to get Bernie Sanders

who is an UNABASHED SOCIAL DEMOCRAT.

And of course, please do review the 1950s economic system, which was a hybrid system...

Oh and please do not tell me we live in a capitalist economy, because we don't. What we live in has little in common with actual capitalism... but hey... this is something that will also have to be broken, since it is part of the MYTH.

:hi:

And myths are like critical to break.

[socialist_n_TN]

7. Ah, but there's a GREAT talking point for us

because it's TRUE.

Capitalism is what it's proponents SAY it is. If they get back into power, the capitalists of today will put into place the SAME THING THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE REAGAN. Because THAT'S what capitalism IS to these people. And they're the ones who will put into place the POLICIES that denote what capitalism IS.

It can also be argued that what we have today IS truly capitalism carried to it's logical conclusion, but that's probably a pointless argument. We're facing the REALITY of capitalism in practice, NOT a textbook definition of same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Nah we are facing a corporate form of command economy

Yes recent economic thinking on this.

The reason why I think it is critical to debunk this is a capitalist system is... well quite frankly ... Smith was for LIVING WAGES and destroying all those monopolies. He dedicated chapters in the Wealth to that.

And don't get me started on Marx. The whole argument between Marx and Smith was over labor.

But both mistrusted what Marx called capitalists. Hell, to paraphrase Smith, if you let them be together, they will fix wages (as low as possible) and prices, (sky's the limit)

This is why people need to start talking about not what we mythically have, but what we have. And capitalism is not...

[socialist_n_TN]

10. I sense an "agree to disagree" moment..............

I look at capitalism in REALITY, AS IT'S PROPONENTS SAY IT IS. Call it de facto. You have a textbook definition of capitalism that even the proponents of capitalism call "socialism". Is that de jure? I'm not enough of a lawyer to know the correct term, but I do know that we have to deal with the REALITY of capitalism in 2010, NOT what Adam Smith thought it was.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Which is, they use the word

to hide the real system. Corporate command economy with some government shall we cooperation to maintain the system.

We call that, in poli sci, Fascism.

When people scream is it fascism yet? By the economic definition of it I can even date it to oh 1981 and PATCO. And this is why the myth has to be taken apart.

[izzybeans]

6. I think the mantra of democratizing the economy is the

route to go. No one likes bureaucracy. Our economy and government are run through bureaucratic institutions that alienate employees and citizens.It is bureaucratic structures that allow our economy to be a siphon on labor and increase the income inequality between the front office and the shop floor. Yet they are necessary for the orchestration of production and distribution. Democratize the bureaucracies as far as possible. It is far easier to run companies through democratic structures than it is to run a republic of 300 million citizens. Some liberal arts colleges are run this way, the executive administration are figure heads that preside over faculty led decisions governed by Robert's Rules of Order. YOu can run meetings off the clock, whomever shows up gets a say.

There is no legal reason why an employee run company couldn't create ownership structures to give every employee a piece of the pie and a seat at the decision making table. Ditch the attempt to do away with private property and distribute ownership throughout the means of production. Socialism can work in a market economy; in fact it must.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Yeah, I like this idea too

I'd LOVE to see a LOT more worker owned companies. Unfortunately, the problem you run into is start up capital. That's why I'd like to see government step in and capitalize companies that have been shut down. ESPECIALLY the ones that actually were profitable, just not profitable enough.

I'd also like to see more direct governmental loans in housing and small businesses. A lot of people don't realize that FHA has different rules for home loans than the actual banks that service those loans. It's a pretty tight market now and if the government would make DIRECT loans to consumers it would free up a LOT of that private money that's now being horded and kept out of the economy. Simply because the private would have to compete.

[izzybeans]

23. That is the problem.

Like any social change, it has to begin with like minded allies from the top of the food chain.

However, the government already operates a pretty hefty Small Business Innovation Research program that funds all sorts of startups on a competitive basis. They are targeted to specific needs defined by them, but I work with companies that win them all the time. I just don't work for a company that takes democracy seriously. They don't ask about your business structure, they only care about whether your idea is feasible and market worthy.

[LooseWilly]

19. "democratizing the economy," does that mean the public can vote on prices?...

If not... I don't think your choice of words is anything more than an attempt to curry favor for something to be defined later by shoehorning a bunch of words with positive connotations into a tag-line to later be used as a marketing label for... whatever the label will be affixed to at some point in the future.

"No one likes bureaucracy." Ok... insightful as that comment is, what does it really mean? Alienation of employees and citizens?... Are we talking about corporate bureaucracies? governmental bureaucracies? court system bureaucracies? You use the term as a generic evil with an apparent presumption that the connotation will carry your assertions past any critical thinking... but a bureaucracy is simply the apparatus required to process the paperwork that goes along with regulation and taxation... are you really advocating the elimination of both regulation and taxation? I think... erhhmm... that would make you a Libertarian... just, FYI.

"There is no legal reason why an employee run company couldn't create ownership structures to give every employee a piece of the pie and a seat at the decision making table." ... ok... there's also no legal reason why a company couldn't pay it's receptionists $7 million/year, while paying it's CEO $8/hour... and said fictional company could also offer stock to the mailroom guys/girls so that they have a say in stockholder meetings... I don't see what the point of this could do talk is... as no company is liable to do any of these things without some very good reason being forced upon them.

Why bother to "Ditch the attempt to do away with private property and distribute ownership throughout the means of production."?... your arguments are weak, vague, and liable to require as much "revolution" as full private property re-distribution... so I would argue that the "revolution" might as well go "all the way", rather than settle for "second base" (to mix metaphors gracefully).

Ohh, and I'd like to hear the argument, rather than merely the assertion, for why socialism "must" work in a market economy...

[izzybeans]

22. uh no.

democratizing the workplace, how bout that. Look up leaderless organizations.

speaking of vague assertions...tell me why getting rid of overpaid figure heads is so troubling to you?

As to why a market economy? Have you read Marx? Or at least bought anything, ever? I'm sure you have. Markets are just places of exchange. The rules are human made. There is no God governing them. The word "Law" in relationship to the economy is just a carry over word from an era where natural philosophers couldn't decide between whether there was omniscient being setting forth creeds or not. Our current "free market will correct itself" ideology is a hold over from that era. It's time to evolve. However it is a mistake to ignore the fact that real markets exist and are necessary for the distribution of goods and services. It's just a euphemism for where people buy and sell shit. We have to set the rules for what is fair and just. It's not hard at all, philosophically. Politically? that's another story. We run up against some strong mythologies. The reality is, humans have needs, our economy is structured so that we are all interdependent on each other's skills to provide for those needs (social scientists call this 'the division of labor'), thus markets have to exist for the satisfaction of those needs. The question is do we organize our economy in hierarchical structures defined by authoritarian principles or do we organize it in the only institution that humans have created (thus far) that guarantees a modicum of freedom - democracy. Don't confuse the term with a state run government, it's merely an organizing principle designed to give as many people as much input as possible in decision-making. ...tis' all. You can have democracy in the political sphere, the economic sphere, and the private sphere. We currently only have it in a rough form in the political sphere (because the sheer size of it makes pure democracy impossible). However, in each organization we work in, the majority of them are of adequate size to work efficiently with out a little lord farquad, sitting up on his horse in his little codpiece, dictating to the rest of us what we have to do. We can decide what's best for a company democratically. Family matters are another story. No one likes an authoritarian; however constitutionally we must put up with them. Constitutionally speaking we do not have to put up with little lord farquad, or his codpiece, in our work life. The only thing truly American, is democracy. We currently do not have that in our economy.

[BelgianMadCow]

17. I know I'm lucky - we will likely have a gay Socialist as next prime minister

:-)

Thanks for your post - food for thought, but off to bed.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Socialism has been demonized since Pierre Leroux coined the term in 1834

Here in the U.S.A. the word socialism causes an automatic gag response in a majority of Americans. But even those that do not gag have been tamed by consumerism. But that is OK, globalism is killing the consumerist goose. As the misery index rises, more and more people will be amenable to pulling it out of the dust bin of history.

[BelgianMadCow]

12. yeah I noticed some heavily debated threads about the definition on DU

as well. Here, I can call myself a socialist - that stands for social democrat - and means more or less "for the working people" and progressive.

I have read about the gag reflex. I just hope people on DU don't have that.

Consumerism is central to the taming, that's a good observation. Never mind that we don't have proper time for our kids if we need two full-time jobs to try and keep up with our parents' (or even worse, overinflated) living standards - we got a big flatscreen so all is well.

Of course, we can speak of globalization and lay blame there. Much of it lies in our own behaviour as well - and we DO have options there. Which is why advertising tries to manipulate our behaviour - the Century of the Self is an excellent BBC documentary you can find online on that subject. Eye-opening to me.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. Most of the people here like a number of programs inspired by socialist ideas...

But a century and a half of disinformation is hard to overcome. The misery index in this country is not high enough. Too many people are still tied to their TV sets for anything like a real citizens movement to take affect as it has in Greece.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Well the Left in Greece is organizing.

Are you talking about here in the US? We don't have a Left here. It was tamed, suppressed, suborned...you name it. Billions of dollars go into making sure that people have a "gag reflex" at the word socialism. We shouldn't try to cede the word though. No matter what we do to create a movement it will be called socialism anyway. Why waste energy on gentrified things like branding? People dislike feeling they are being sold a program like that because it is phony.


We need to find people, and talk to them about what is going on. Find people who can see the destruction that is being visited at every level, everywhere in the world. Show how it is not a series of "causes", but symptoms of the whole problem.

[unkachuck]

20. K&R....n/t

[jgraz]

24. Just don't call it Socialism and everyone will agree with you.

Most people want higher taxes on the rich, more controls on corporations and more of a safety net from government. They agree with the socialists on most issues, even though they call themselves moderates or conservatives.

[mkultra]

25. its "a historic" not "an historic"

the H is not silent.

[Imajika]

26. If by socialism you mean...

...the classic, pure definition that the government owns the means of production then no, it is not missing a historic opportunity considering it has failed everywhere it has ever been tried.

If you mean some shade of socialism where the government regulates more industries and we have a more mixed economy than we have now, then yes I think you are correct.

The problem is, the government running everything leaves us no better off than corporations running everything. There is no black and white economic model that is going to work. Mixed economies work, pure socialist economies fail miserably and pure capitalist economies are a disaster as well. You can say, "yes, but if the government owns it then the people really own it", but that just isn't how it works out in reality. Go ask the Cuban people how they feel about their ownership in any government enterprise - I can assure you they don't feel any more like an owner than some small time American shareholder with a handful of shares in GE. At least somebody with a few shares of corporate stock can sell it. You can't sell your mandatory, collective ownership of government enterprises.

Change is coming. The current order appears to be crumbling and quite honestly none of us knows what will fill the void. I am concerned we are ceding the historic opportunity you speak of to the far right. I am not just concerned actually, I am increasingly downright worried.