Tweet
Socialism: of the people, by the people, for the people.
Capitalism: of the capital, by the capital, for the capital.
Socialism too often is seen only as an economic system. It is, more critically, a political system that, to quote the cliche, puts people before profits. It’s really just that simple.
Implicit in any understanding of socialism is the notion that great disparities between the economic classes, by definition, pervert political equality. Democracy, or any semblance thereof, cannot co-exist with capitalism because the great disparities of wealth that capitalism always produces make the ideal of equally-shared power impossible.
Socialism seeks equally-shared power both in government and in the workplace. When “money talks” in the halls of the people’s government, government is corrupted because “equal representation” is not possible in a system that allows representation to be purchased only by those who can afford the fee. When workers are expected to subjugate themselves and sacrifice their liberties or risk losing their paychecks and their livelihood, our system of employment fails to reflect our values and our pursuit of democracy. Fundamental civil liberties and human dignity should never be the bargain for a paycheck.
We have failed to implement broad socialist themes in the US because we have allowed the capital elite to define socialism only as public welfare. We have allowed liberals to blindly define their agenda as the social safety net without recognizing that safety cannot exist without commensurate political equality. When the debate becomes, as it has, over what degree of subsidy to provide to the poor and the middle class (Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Compensation) and over funding for public “goods” (public schools, public parks, libraries, the arts and… Big Bird), socialism dies. The question ultimately becomes “how much must we cut?” This debate focus fights the great battle in our neighborhoods with dire consequences.
The right question is, rather, “how much must be taken from the wealthy elite to neutralize their excess political power?”. To speak of increased taxes on income without speaking of the more critical confiscation of existing wealth fails to address what needs to be done. Liberals refuse to address this issue. A debate that focuses on the abusive, un-democratic concentration of wealth moves the battle to where it rightfully belongs.
There are many means and methods by which socialism can be implemented. We must not allow these details, however, to distract us from the most basic objective of socialism. Without equally-shared power, i.e. socialism, government will serve only those with substantial capital and the dream of “of the people, by the people and for the people” will never be realized.
23 Comments
Rec’d for the simplicity and focus on ‘the people’. I look forward to the coming discussion, WelshT.
And nice to see you again. I do hope you’ll write on your ideas of the ways corporate charters must be changed, too. Some Occupy working groups are also working on new models of those, and new business models for The People as well.
Thanks, wT2. That was thought provoking. I look forward to hearing more. BTW there’s another thread on socialism here on FDL just now introduced by Ohio Barbarian. It’s somewhat more prosaic, but it sure has stirred up a wad of comments.
I’m not sure I agree with you about the sweep of socialism, but maybe that’s just ’cause the Ohio Barbarian has me in thrall.
I get your drift about it being more than economic system, and I’m going to think about that some more.
I get so sick of hearing people call capitalism an economic system that I tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to any use of the word system. Sorry. I was pretty sure that socialism was no more a system, economic or otherwise, than was capitalism, but that may have been mostly from limiting my thinking to an economic framework.
Thanks again.
You might enjoy this essay by James Livingston of Rutgers in one of my favorite new Magazines, Jacobin. http://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/how-the-left-has-won/
He also had an interesting exchange with Tim Barker over at Dissent magazine which is online also.
Very interesting article, Brian. Thanks.
I must tell you that, while I agreed with many arguments it raised, I strongly disagreed with its conclusion.
Socialism is not some kind of metaphysical lullaby sung by an other-worldly left. It is not “a historical reality that saturates our time and place” and it is not “all around us.”
The author seems distracted by civil society’s influence on consumer markets. Does he not see a government increasingly controlled by great wealth? Does he not see the long-term trend of rich-get-richer governance? Does he not understand that identity politics, while necessary, cannot produce freedom under the dark shadows of an umbrella that confuses wealth with speech? On a somewhat more esoteric note, does he not recognize the utter bankruptcy of consumerism itself?
To see the all volunteer army as a jobs program and as an expression of MLK’s dream is truly delusional. Paying the puppets of empire to sacrifice their lives for the material gain of the ruling elite is hardly consistent with the views and values of socialism.
Perhaps the author derives comfort from his faux beliefs that socialism is all around us. The ideals of socialism will not be realized, however, until the obscene concentration of wealth is dissolved… and, that won’t happen until more of us see its necessity.
Ohio Barbarian’s thread is highly recommended.
As for the points you raised about capitalism and socialism as “systems”, I think it’s important not only to look at the values and policies imbued in our economic system, but to go beyond that to determine whether we, the people, are able to claim our rightful voice in determining the policies that affect our lives.
When an economic system caters to profits, rather than to people, we see billions of dollars being spent on lobbying. We see war after war after war. We see the poisoning of our air and water and food. We see capital gains tax discounts for billionaires at tax rates lower than most of us pay on our income. We see jobs exported to the cheapest labor markets. We see workers with no gain in real income while CEO salaries skyrocket. We see workers locked out of their companies or fired because they want to unionize.
The point of all this is not to establish a socialist’s laundry list. The point of all this is to highlight that our economic goals cannot be realized without a commensurate list of political goals. Until we can build an army of those who seek to behead the abuses of concentrated wealth, our socialist laundry will remain unwashed. Less this be perceived as a call for violent revolution, it is not. Only when we have built an army of those who have enlisted in our ideas will we succeed.
Thanks, Wendy.
I’m afraid that rewriting corporate charters may be a little beyond my pay grade. I’ve been following Gar Alperovitz, the Evergreen Coops in Cleveland, and other writings about Mondragon in Spain. It’s interesting stuff.
As guiding principles, corporations need to empower workers and strip voting power from “remote” shareholders. Boards of Directors should be comprised of members of the public and the workers themselves. The charter cannot mandate “profit over all” and must recognize and further societal goals in addition to the interests of those associated with the corporation. Finally, I think a “smaller is better” localization trend needs to be implemented.
How to cook this stew and still remain viable in a competitive marketplace is a recipe I’m not yet prepared to offer.
Concise description of ‘should’, my friend. I apologize; I’d thought from your earlier writing that it was a key issue for you. I think I even bemoaned the fact that you weren’t around to tell us more about it one one or two of my posts.
I put up a thread about American Autumn and some of the parallel movements working around the Machine, and people were working hard to reimagine our present models in many directions, including the various working groups at the New Economics Institute, the folks at Solidarity Economy (Mondragon and more), and a link to R. Wolf and Gar’s Economic Democracy.
Thanks for the good answer, and the post. ;o)
“Until we can build an army of those who seek to behead the abuses of concentrated wealth, our socialist laundry will remain unwashed. Less this be perceived as a call for violent revolution, it is not.”
Well, make up your mind, Polyanna.
Rather than seek to rewrite each individual corporate charter, maybe a return to the history books and a look at our original corporate law structure would be better. Corporations were emphatically not “people”, and were required to be dissolved entirely and completely every fifteen years specifically to keep them from getting too large and acquiring too much power. New corporations were not allowed to have boards that were substantially the same as any previous corporation.
Seems like it would be nice to do that again. And if your corporation really has a good idea – it would be competitive based upon its good idea. The size should have nothing to do with it. These gargantuan-sized corporations don’t compete on ideas – they just buy up all the small companies. That’s not competition.
I really like your post BTW, very thought provoking and informative.
Heark hear. I read someplace they were limited to seven years, but it might have said they’d had to submit their license for review every seven years, and face the question, “What have you done for the State of ______ lately?” ‘Member when FCC used to do something like that to radio station licensees? There the question was specifically in regards to the public interest.
Sorry wT2. I have congenital snarkism. It’s like being a wolfman. I have to hide in a closet during the full moon or I might do that to my family members.
The army I seek to build is an army of those with like values. I believe that an energized 10% or so should be more than sufficient to topple the existing malaise.
Perhaps someday it might be necessary to do battle in the streets but I believe that ultimate power rests in the hearts and minds of the people and that the war we are engaged in is a war of ideas.. and values.
Thanks, lokywoky.
My very vague recollection about the earliest corporations was that they had a “project” focus such as being created to build a bridge. I was not aware that a maximum lifespan was affixed to the corporate charter although that may well have been the case.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable assigning a lifespan to corporations. I liken that to the argument about term limits. It seems to me if we can create socially responsible corporations with the best interests of the public and the workers at their core, we shouldn’t need to dissolve them. While the concern about excessive corporate power is very valid, corporate term limits is too global in its implementation.
I would rather see some type of periodic re-licensing hearing along the lines that RaggMopp suggested: “What have you done for us lately?”
Little Doggie! This is a superb post; one of your best, and you know I’ve read a lot of them over the internets. You have clarified exactly the point that I was trying to make about libraries and other institutions which provide a tangible yet unquantifiable social good. Institutions which do not exist to accrue capital, but exist rather to increase the general welfare.
What good is a government if it does not provide for welfare of its people? In this respect, it does not matter what kind of government it is–tribal, monarchical, oligarchical, dictatorial, or representative–we are talking about. Any people has a fundamental human right to demand that their rulers do good by them. And rulers have an obligation to meet that demand, or else they SHOULD face dire consequences.
Now, any liberals or others to the right, before you start cherry-picking(obviously not you, WT2), when I say “welfare” I mean this:
“The good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being of a child,” etc. ”
I had to go to http://www.dictionary.com for that one. Wikipedia only had references to the “welfare state” and social programs. I find that VERY interesting, and a bit suspicious, but I digress.
You are so right, Welsh. We Americans HAVE allowed the capitalist elite to define socialism as public welfare, as in handouts, as in enabling the poor, as in rewarding the lazy and, just as politically important, the non-white-soon-to-be-majority. Something that should be cut so that those who are miserable can have more company. So they can feel better about themselves and not think about who holds real power over them.
It was a professional, mind-jujitsu power play used by the capitalist elite applying the science of behavioral psychology to the trade of selling, which hybrid they called advertising. The old Bolsheviks were more honest. At least they actually called it propaganda.
And it worked. The terms “socialism” and “welfare” have been totally warped into a dark, twisted shape of their original meanings. I think it’s way past time to remember what they really mean.
As you say, WT2, ultimately it comes down to a question of real political power. Only if everyone, not just the increasingly super-wealthy, has what they consider to be a fair share of real political power can socialism and the Preamble to the United States Constitution become a reality:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Those words have power. Those listed purposes are all equally important. To socialists, anyway. I don’t care what the real intent of the writer of the Preamble was. I care about what it means to me. Those are great goals. Socialism can accomplish those goals. I am an American. I am also a Socialist. As far as I am concerned, there should be no contradiction.
It’s just common sense once you read the Preamble and think about it for a bit. From a non-capitalist perspective. From a real, literal one.
So I was more prosaic, eh? I consider that a compliment. Thanks.
Tax policy? Hell, how about expropriation?
That’s exactly what the wealthy have done to the rest of us since St Ronnie was anointed President, anyway.
More accessible? More down to earth? Less inclined to flights of fancy? Less soaring? That was my intent. Glad you liked it.
Always wondered why Karl Marx decided that communism must be atheistic. Actually Jesus the Nazorean’s basic message was quite compatible with the utopian communist fantasy. And after all, the anti-communist right could finally think of nothing to use as a dis-incentive except that communists don’t believe in God. That’s pitifylly inadequate to anyone with a brain, but it works for fundamentalists. May be the reason why they prosper so, just now.
I hate to admit I had to look it up to be sure, but if I sometimes tell people who rely on Spellcheck too much that “any moron can use a dictionary” then I have to follow my own advice, yes? Not that I find WT2 that soaring here, just general. He’s clearly accurate.
I like your reference to Jesus of Nazareth. If he was anything politically, he was a utopian communist. Marx himself was raised Jewish, I believe, and a lot of revolutionaries and reformers at the time associated Christianity with the State, for good reasons. Maybe he decided communism had to be atheistic because HE was. It doesn’t really matter anymore.
It is ironic indeed that capitalism, which cares nothing about religion or morals, only profits, uses religion as a veil of propaganda to advance itself.
That is really the essence of where we are and where we need to be.
We have been sold the “welfare queen” myth to blind us to the legitimate needs of millions of our citizens that are not being met. School budgets are cut; medical budgets are cut; job opportunities are cut. “Come work in the King’s army; Uncle Sam has a job for you overseas. Come help us build our empire.”
The “Left” has done a miserable job fighting this propaganda battle. Some of that, as you painfully point out, is due to racism. Some of the fault, dear Brutus, lies within ourselves. This is not solely an oppression by the wealthy elite. We are still a racist society.
Of course, what we rarely hear about is the “corporate welfare queen” reality. Corporate lobbying is bribery. Corporations “invest” in lobbying and would not do so if there were no return on their investments. We see massive subsidies to multi-national corporations that have hundreds of millions of dollars in annual earnings. We see jobs and even entire factories exported resulting in economic devastation for entire communities. Companies that do this are traitors but little or nothing is said or done by our government. Let’s ban these companies from receiving federal contracts. Let’s hit them with an “exported jobs” tax. Let’s make them pay unemployment benefits at full pay for up to five years. Maybe then they’ll think about the anti-social, un-American implications of their greed.
The fundamental question we must ask is “How can we effect change in a system where money equals power?”. The wealthy elite empower their political puppets and all the political discourse Americans hear, especially during election season, is just one flavor of the status quo or another and rich-get-richer governance continues unabated. More concentration of wealth results in even more concentration of power.
We need to convince more people that government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy is a dead-end and we need to show them exactly what can be done to effect change.
You answered your own question. Jesus concept was utopian, and Marx excoriated utopianism in the Manifesto.
Also, Marx was a materialist, Jesus was anything but a materialist. However, Marx may well have had sympathy for Jesus, it is organized religion and the metaphysical aspect of religion with which he disagreed, seeing religion as another tool of the elites to delude the proletariat.
Jesus also proclaimed in a statement that was anti-thetical to Marxism, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” meaning that his realm concerned only with the spiritual (IE the Father) and that Christians should not concern themselves with fighting the political authorities. This is somewhat contradictory in that He did lead a rebellion against the local religious/political establishment, the Pharisees, but I believe this was a spiritual war rather than overtly political, although the two concepts were and still are inextricably bound.
The national security state of A-merka set out to establish the fourth reich in order to perpetuate the salvation of humanity. A-merkin Supermen killed Geist. So goes theology.
Marx would certainly have counted ecocide among the contradictions of crapitalism. But can a globalized, immiserated, proletariat be seduced and suppressed still? ‘Tis a challenge, comrades. ‘Tis why Supermen kill education.
It is our fantasy against their nightmare. Berman says that A-merka is such a den of desperate hucksters that the only course for A-merkins is to get out or go monastic. Would the rechtschaffen fury of mad Supermen and their compradors tolerate libertarian communist/socialist enclaves/kibbutzim? Too bad there are no new worlds, comrades.
The choice is not of fantasy or reality but, as Luxemburg presciently said, of socialism or barbarism.
QUOTE — The right question is, rather, “how much must be taken from the wealthy elite to neutralize their excess political power?”. To speak of increased taxes on income without speaking of the more critical confiscation of existing wealth fails to address what needs to be done. Liberals refuse to address this issue. A debate that focuses on the abusive, un-democratic concentration of wealth moves the battle to where it rightfully belongs. UNQUOTE
Think we need an explanation as to WHY “liberals” would would be
refusing to address this issue. Are they really “liberals” would be the first question, imo.
Just as we see that the label “conservative” continues to be applied to any Republican, we also recognize that they are very unlikely conservatives and in fact are more right wing fanatics serving the interests of elites. This misnomer permits the RW to be disguised as
“conservatives” while hiding their true identity.
The same is therefore true of “liberals” who don’t act like liberals.
It’s basically “1984/Newspeak” intended to confuse the public and it succeeds largely.
I’m not saying that we should have labels, but I am saying that we should have TRUTH in labeling.
And that requires not only the sayer but the listener to think about those labels and what information they are being fed by our corporate-press and who benefits from inaccurate political labeling.