Is there an alternative to capitalism?

[Patty]

There's an alternative to capitalism... but you wouldn't like it ;-D

 

[Ocramed]

As good a note as any to end the year on. From the CBC, Canada's national broadcaster:

The year capitalism became a dirty word in the U.S.

No, it isn't. How are you going to grow the economy with higher taxation and excessive regulation? China, an actual communist country, has a higher GDP rate than the US, at near 10 percent, because it encourages capitalism to fuel its economy.

O.

 

[Ocramed]

Young People More Likely to Favor Socialism Than Capitalism: Pew

That is, until "Young People" have to start paying taxes. Useful idiots, taught by worthless academics, is what they are more likely to be.

O.

 

[Ocramed]

On a final note, this is why I will never accept the premise that socialism, communism or whatever-ism should be considered as an acceptable "alternative":

"It is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. ... Their battle-cry must be: "The Permanent Revolution".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

And this concept was developed by Leon Trotsky himself, when he planned and implemented the October Revolution that created the Soviet Union. And we saw the results of that. And tragic thing is that the fools who today espouses the legacy of Marx and Engels (which includes socialism) will never accept the idea that the philosophy of wealth redistribution is only attainable through the use of coercion (ie. taxation, regulation, use of force), and thus will always be a failure. And as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the problem isn't capitalism; the problem is corporatism, which critics of capitalism tend to ignore in order to maintain the false belief that the US is a capitalistic nation, which is barely the case:

"According to the CIA World Factbook, nine European countries place ahead of the United States in terms of per capita Gross Domestic Product — Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Netherlands — all socialist countries. The United Kingdom, Austria, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany come up close on the heels of the United States.1 Considering the fact that these countries generally have less natural resources than the United States, and they offer extensive government services — free medical care, public transportation for the poor, generous unemployment income, and retirement benefits — are socialist systems better than free-market systems, such as in the United States? And do high doses of socialism boost economic growth?

It would seem so, especially if one factors in the "Gini coefficient," which is a statistical measurement of income distribution by country. It is expressed as a percentage. A Gini coefficient of zero percent would mean that everyone in a country has exactly the same income, and a score of 100 percent means that one person has all of the income, while everyone else has zero income. The United States ranks 73rd at 40.8 percent — of course coming after the European socialist countries. European countries generally range in the low to mid 30s, percentage-wise.

...

Any kudos for socialism also ignore the fact that the United States barely even resembles a free-market economy anymore and that, in fact, the United States is, economically speaking, arguably more socialistic than the European countries with which it is compared. Sounds crazy doesn't it, but it is true."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/643

Ultimately, there is no "one" answer in solving the world economic malaise, let alone the American one, but socialism, communism, Marxism or Trotsky-ism will never be the answer. Why should they, since the application of "theory" is the antithesis of the American promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via entrepreneurship, personal responsibility and liberty.

O.

 

[Pagan]

How are you going to grow the economy with higher taxation and excessive regulation?

O.

I dunno how about we do it the same way we did it in the 30's ,40's and 50's here?

the top tax rate was 90% and corporate taxes accounted for 4-6% of the GDP during the biggest growth period in the history of our economy.

The thing is when you take the top % and then move the bracket down into the middle class to compensate for the loss of revenue (like we've been doing since the 80's) you hit the purchasing sector of the economy.

Combine that with all the "free trade agreements" that have facilitated the off-shoring of jobs and you have a recipe for disaster. Not only that but we borrowed to supplement the loss of revenue because we kept expanding govt. Mostly in the defense sector. (keep in mind medicare and Soc have their own witholdings and if it hadn't been for politicians dipping into those funds they'd have been fine too if they economy hadn't had the pillars destroyed from under it by increased borrowing and trade deficits)

The facts are that not since before the crash of 1929 has the income gap in this country been so wide. Never has taxes on the rich been so low. Never have the largest corporations paid zero taxes and received so much supplement funding.

A billionaire now pays an effective tax rate of about 13%. between capital gains and loopholes they pay less than ever and control more of the country's wealth than ever. Oh sure you hear claims that they pay 40% of the total income tax but that's without the proper context. That plain fact is that half the people in this country make less than they did 30 yrs ago and all the new wealth has went to to top. 400 people in this country have as much wealth as 150 million of us combined.

Those at the top are not the "job creators". Demand creates jobs. And the middle class with money to spend drives demand. Those at the top are money hoarders. And if they do decide to invest it's not in anything that would create jobs here.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I see capitalism the way that Churchill saw democracy: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Sure there are a lot of way to run an economy and they all stink.

 

[dnno1]

I see capitalism the way that Churchill saw democracy: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Sure there are a lot of way to run an economy and they all stink.

This quote was taken out of context. Churchil's exact words were

"We accept in the fullest sense of the word the settled and persistent will of the people. All this idea of a group of supermen and super-planners, such as we see before us, “playing the angel,” as the French call it, and making the masses of the people do what they think is good for them, without any check or correction, is a violation of democracy. Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters. "

He himself was not taking credit for that opinion nor was he downing democracy. Now, for his opinion on capitalism vs. socialism (which I think is what this thread is really about), here is a direct quote from Churchill:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

So you readers decide and choose your poison. I myself believe that the current balance of capitalism and socialism that we have in the United States is working out pretty well and that we just need to protect our democracy from the wealthy aristocrats and artificial persons who want to take control of our government.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

China, an actual communist country, has a higher GDP rate than the US, at near 10 percent, because it encourages capitalism to fuel its economy.

Do you see the contradiction here? China is communist in name only.

On a final note, this is why I will never accept the premise that socialism, communism or whatever-ism should be considered as an acceptable "alternative":

"It is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. ... Their battle-cry must be: "The Permanent Revolution".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

And this concept was developed by Leon Trotsky himself, when he planned and implemented the October Revolution that created the Soviet Union. And we saw the results of that. And tragic thing is that the fools who today espouses the legacy of Marx and Engels (which includes socialism) will never accept the idea that the philosophy of wealth redistribution is only attainable through the use of coercion (ie. taxation, regulation, use of force), and thus will always be a failure. And as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the problem isn't capitalism; the problem is corporatism, which critics of capitalism tend to ignore in order to maintain the false belief that the US is a capitalistic nation, which is barely the case:

"According to the CIA World Factbook, nine European countries place ahead of the United States in terms of per capita Gross Domestic Product — Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Netherlands — all socialist countries. The United Kingdom, Austria, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany come up close on the heels of the United States.1 Considering the fact that these countries generally have less natural resources than the United States, and they offer extensive government services — free medical care, public transportation for the poor, generous unemployment income, and retirement benefits — are socialist systems better than free-market systems, such as in the United States? And do high doses of socialism boost economic growth?

It would seem so, especially if one factors in the "Gini coefficient," which is a statistical measurement of income distribution by country. It is expressed as a percentage. A Gini coefficient of zero percent would mean that everyone in a country has exactly the same income, and a score of 100 percent means that one person has all of the income, while everyone else has zero income. The United States ranks 73rd at 40.8 percent — of course coming after the European socialist countries. European countries generally range in the low to mid 30s, percentage-wise.

...

Any kudos for socialism also ignore the fact that the United States barely even resembles a free-market economy anymore and that, in fact, the United States is, economically speaking, arguably more socialistic than the European countries with which it is compared. Sounds crazy doesn't it, but it is true."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/643

Ultimately, there is no "one" answer in solving the world economic malaise, let alone the American one, but socialism, communism, Marxism or Trotsky-ism will never be the answer. Why should they, since the application of "theory" is the antithesis of the American promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via entrepreneurship, personal responsibility and liberty.

O.

The Declaration of Independence is one of the greatest revolutionary documents of all time, but it's really interesting that it says "the pursuit of happiness". As one cartoonist (I forget his name) joked a long time ago, you're not actually allowed to be happy, you're only allowed to try to be.

Yours is a more intelligent analysis than most of the anti-communist tracts I see on the interwebs. The most important observation you offer is that "the philosophy of wealth redistribution is only attainable through the use of coercion (ie. taxation, regulation, use of force), and thus will always be a failure", but I think it's a mistaken one.

How does necessitating the use of force mean that something is a failure? Slavery was only ended through force; does that mean the abolitionists were morally wrong? The American Revolution used force to break away from the British monarchy; was this a mistake? If you include taxation and regulation in your definition of coercion, I need to point out: no society can function without some coercion to ensure the rule of law. If you murder someone, the police will arrest you. Does the use of coercion imply that arresting murderers is a failed policy?

Your quote from Trotsky doesn't make me see why you're opposed to socialism. It's a good quote. And the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR under Stalin was something that Lenin and Trotsky constantly fought against.

I think the real problem here is that capitalism is not providing the vast majority of the human race with life, liberty or happiness. Everywhere we see poverty and inequality. Capitalism is a philosophy that doesn't live up to its promise. It only works for a small minority of the population.

I myself believe that the current balance of capitalism and socialism that we have in the United States is working out pretty well and that we just need to protect our democracy from the wealthy aristocrats and artificial persons who want to take control of our government.

They have control of the government already. This is the whole problem.

A lot of people think that this isn't "true" capitalism, and want to go back to an idyllic past of small businesses and competition. But we can't go back in time. Capitalism always tends towards monopolies. If you have competition, eventually someone wins that competition.

I also want to point out how inane it is when people describe our current form of government as a "democracy". How? The government pursues policies the people generally don't like. Candidates are pre-selected according to who will best carry out the whims of Big Business. Just look at the Iowa caucuses - as soon as Ron Paul started leading in the polls, out came the corporate media to inform us that the event they had been covering for months was suddenly "irrelevant".

That's why the Marxist term, bourgeois democracy, is ultimately more accurate. We don't really have much of a say in the way society is run. Money rules everything.

 

[Hobgoblin]

So you readers decide and choose your poison. I myself believe that the current balance of capitalism and socialism that we have in the United States is working out pretty well and that we just need to protect our democracy from the wealthy aristocrats and artificial persons who want to take control of our government.

This is what I was trying to say.

 

[Oruku Saki]

That's why the Marxist term, bourgeois democracy, is ultimately more accurate. We don't really have much of a say in the way society is run. Money rules everything.

And that's the true underlying problem. Some people always want power, and when they get it they want more as if they will actually get enough to rule the world one day. Some of the most powerful people in recent history; Stalin; Hitler; and Napoleon couldn't do it. No person EVER will.

We are all part of an ever evolving system. Like the earth itself we ebb and flow. There is a balance in all things. (ie. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) This is fact. All of the negativity going on in the world will bring about it's own destruction in time. The system will implode eventually, and begin anew.

People aren't perfect, therefore they can NEVER create ANY PERFECTION. It's not possible and never will be. This includes economies, governments, policies etc. Like I said before the good thing is that we are still a part of the world and nature; and in nature things have a way of balancing themselves out over time. The problem is that we, as people, assume we are above the natural order. This is untrue. These problems may not be solved in our lifetimes; look at the past and how many slaves there have been in the world and for centuries and centuries, so many generations born into it. I'm rambling i know.

Anyway back to the original point. Money is power in our world economy, therefore it breeds the competition to gain more and more of it; in order to gain more and more power. Competition in business is no different than two wolves fighting over a piece of meat. It's nasty and could leave one wounded or dead. And therein lies a major problem with the system; ie too much competition breeds death and destruction. In everyone's bid to climb over everyone else to reach the top they have forgotten their humanity.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

And that's the true underlying problem. Some people always want power, and when they get it they want more as if they will actually get enough to rule the world one day. Some of the most powerful people in recent history; Stalin; Hitler; and Napoleon couldn't do it. No person EVER will.

We are all part of an ever evolving system. Like the earth itself we ebb and flow. There is a balance in all things. (ie. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) This is fact. All of the negativity going on in the world will bring about it's own destruction in time. The system will implode eventually, and begin anew.

People aren't perfect, therefore they can NEVER create ANY PERFECTION. It's not possible and never will be. This includes economies, governments, policies etc. Like I said before the good thing is that we are still a part of the world and nature; and in nature things have a way of balancing themselves out over time. The problem is that we, as people, assume we are above the natural order. This is untrue. These problems may not be solved in our lifetimes; look at the past and how many slaves there have been in the world and for centuries and centuries, so many generations born into it. I'm rambling i know.

Anyway back to the original point. Money is power in our world economy, therefore it breeds the competition to gain more and more of it; in order to gain more and more power. Competition in business is no different than two wolves fighting over a piece of meat. It's nasty and could leave one wounded or dead. And therein lies a major problem with the system; ie too much competition breeds death and destruction. In everyone's bid to climb over everyone else to reach the top they have forgotten their humanity.

Well-said. The belief that everything is constantly changing is the core of dialectics, which is the philosophical method of Marxism.

I think it's true that as human beings we can never create a perfect world. However, we can certainly make a better one. Capitalism is a system that often rewards people for anti-social behaviour. If you're a CEO and you lay off hundreds of workers, or avoid environmental regulations and pump more pollution into the ecosystem, you're creating human misery, but at the same time you're cutting costs and making your company more profitable, and in the end that's the only thing that matters under capitalism: profit. Everything else that affects people's lives are mere "externalities".

There's no reason we can't have a better system where such sociopathic behaviour would not be regularly rewarded.

 

[8wid]

I think the best way to save the American system is allow everyone to run their own business and to make corporations heavily taxed or all required to be not-for-profit so that they can't maintain political control. Ban lobbying for individuals ever active in a corporation or business entity in Washington and the ability of a political party to sponsor political candidates or to take corporate money. Have an election for a new Congress, Senate, and President ONCE A YEAR, not every four, and make Supreme Court justice and Presidential cabinet positions elected ones. Do this and see a much richer country can start to develop in it.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think the best way to save the American system is allow everyone to run their own business and to make corporations heavily taxed or all required to be not-for-profit so that they can't maintain political control.

Requiring corporations to be not-for-profit? Explain how this would work in a capitalist system.

 

[Pagan]

This is what I was trying to say.

there is a balance that will work. "moderation in everything" is a good rule of thumb to follow in almost everything in life. too much rampant, unfettered capitalism is like a sports game with no rules or referees. eventually it's Calvinball. And you're not Calvin.

too much socialism and you have a state full of dependents. with no incentive to get off their butts.

 

[Pagan]

Requiring corporations to be not-for-profit? Explain how this would work in a capitalist system.

I think what he meant was to limit their capability to bribe legislators. this would of course require total public campaign financing and some rigid rules regarding quid pro quo/in kind contributions/ things like giving jobs to relatives, gifts and other such forms of compensation.

funny how you can't legally bribe a cop or a judge but a politician? Well that's not only legal it's expected.

 

[Hobgoblin]

there is a balance that will work. "moderation in everything" is a good rule of thumb to follow in almost everything in life. too much rampant, unfettered capitalism is like a sports game with no rules or referees. eventually it's Calvinball. And you're not Calvin.

too much socialism and you have a state full of dependents. with no incentive to get off their butts.

But who will be the moderators? The people of themselves? The government?

 

[dnno1]

there is a balance that will work. "moderation in everything" is a good rule of thumb to follow in almost everything in life. too much rampant, unfettered capitalism is like a sports game with no rules or referees. eventually it's Calvinball. And you're not Calvin.

too much socialism and you have a state full of dependents. with no incentive to get off their butts.

Truth, be it told is that you won't find very many capitalists that would be willing to privatize all means of production. That is why we have public roads, and the nuclear power industry underwritten by the federal government.

 

[dnno1]

Requiring corporations to be not-for-profit? Explain how this would work in a capitalist system.

Look up a 501c corporation. They would still make a profit, but the money wouldn't be distributed to the shareholers. Instead it would go back into the organization. I would be all for large corporations paying no income taxes if they were NPO's.

 

[SV Fan]

To late for this now, but you can have capitalism for the most part but have the government run a few for profit "Necessity" companies that nobody else can have access to(hydro, fuel, phones, etc). Any money the country makes off of those could be re-invested in jobs and infrastructure. Also give the Government all the rights to banking infrastructure(run at a state level), if nothing else the American banking infrastructure should have never been allowed to be owned by private citizens.

 

[roach]

I think the best way to save the American system is allow everyone to run their own business and to make corporations heavily taxed or all required to be not-for-profit so that they can't maintain political control. Ban lobbying for individuals ever active in a corporation or business entity in Washington and the ability of a political party to sponsor political candidates or to take corporate money. Have an election for a new Congress, Senate, and President ONCE A YEAR, not every four, and make Supreme Court justice and Presidential cabinet positions elected ones. Do this and see a much richer country can start to develop in it.

Once a year...nothing would get done because everyone would be campaigning

 

[Papa G]

I think people need to essentially educate themselves on economic schools of thought to answer this, because I think that all economic systems have pro's and con's, put simply. The way I think of it is like this: When societies evolve, they usually develop in a more capitalistic fashion due to their abundant natural resources. Agricultural surpluses increase, and other professions begin to arise as a growing population can be fed more easily and all effort is not spent on food production. When society becomes more diverse, a degree of inequality in socioeconomic statuses will occur, and this has always been a marker of capitalism, even when viewed objectively. So there are capitalist trends such as increased and specified production(essentially demand-side ECO) and social inequalities(which aren't always specific to capitalism) that can be evidenced from the history of early societies. So therefore, capitalism is a stage of society, but history will tell if the system changes. One point I always tell people is that all economic systems today are basically hybridized, so maybe it's almost futile to argue for an absolute system, such as Marxist-communism, or laissez faire.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

there is a balance that will work. "moderation in everything" is a good rule of thumb to follow in almost everything in life. too much rampant, unfettered capitalism is like a sports game with no rules or referees. eventually it's Calvinball. And you're not Calvin.

too much socialism and you have a state full of dependents. with no incentive to get off their butts.

It's a logical fallacy that the most rational decision in politics always lies between two extremes. This is the cult of "centrism" we see in the American media and political elite (exemplified best by the would-be King Solomon in the White House). But sometimes you can't split the difference. Sometimes there are hard choices to be made. There's no happy medium between being pro-slavery and anti-slavery; Abraham Lincoln found that out the hard way.

Your view of socialism as a state full of dependents relies on old caricatures of a vast state bureaucracy deciding everything and looking after its own interests. Democratic socialism is about people running their own lives through workers' councils, not through a top-down bureaucracy (the caricature of the "nanny state").

To late for this now, but you can have capitalism for the most part but have the government run a few for profit "Necessity" companies that nobody else can have access to(hydro, fuel, phones, etc). Any money the country makes off of those could be re-invested in jobs and infrastructure. Also give the Government all the rights to banking infrastructure(run at a state level), if nothing else the American banking infrastructure should have never been allowed to be owned by private citizens.

Look up a 501c corporation. They would still make a profit, but the money wouldn't be distributed to the shareholers. Instead it would go back into the organization. I would be all for large corporations paying no income taxes if they were NPO's.

I think what he meant was to limit their capability to bribe legislators. this would of course require total public campaign financing and some rigid rules regarding quid pro quo/in kind contributions/ things like giving jobs to relatives, gifts and other such forms of compensation.

The downside of all these ideas is they don't get to the root of the problem. Capitalism isn't harmful only because the anarchy of the free market inevitably leads to crisis and periodic economic downturns. It's because the system of wage labour is fundamentally exploitative.

A capitalist by definition is seeking profit. Where does that profit come from? By taking the wealth that the workers produce and skimming some off the top for him/herself. This American communist cartoon from the 1920s explains it pretty well:

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Great article about "Theory and Practice in Occupy". I don't think the author is a necessarily a Marxist, but he's certainly a revolutionary and provides an excellent class analysis here, one that puts Occupy Wall Street into the context of the U.S. government's war on socialism throughout the 20th century:

The youth who built Occupy were born as the Berlin Wall was falling; "communism" had failed. Mass disillusion followed the loss of a socialist movement that had inspired dozens of revolutions in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe when half the globe declared itself for "socialism.” Many socialist-leaning countries inflicted heavy damage on capitalism while a few had crushed it outright.

The United States spent the 20th century fighting these movements: the Korean and Vietnam wars, the failed invasion of Cuba, the dirty wars in Central America, countless CIA coups in South America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere (the history of the CIA is a history of fighting "socialism" by any means necessary). A U.S. domestic war was waged by the FBI and police against socialists and other left activists during McCarthy's Red Scare of the 1950s. Nuclear war against the USSR and China was a button push away during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All of this madness was in the name of fighting socialism and revolution.

The U.S. wars against these socialist movements was not irrational. A very real fear existed that capitalism was in danger — that corporations would instead be run in the public interest. In some countries capitalism was destroyed. But what replaced it seemed no better, and in some cases worse. Why?

It addresses common ruling class responses to anti-capitalist arguments:

The popular (corporate) explanation is that any break from capitalism equals "authoritarianism.” Another popular argument is that without rich people running the economy it would cease to run; there is no alternative to capitalism, we were told.

This analysis is biased, shallow, and stupid. The truth makes far more sense anyway.

How close wealthy countries have come to non-capitalist governments:

To this day no wealthy country has had a successful socialist revolution. Many have come close, especially several European countries before and after WWI and WWII. The 1968 general strike in France pinned capitalism to the floor, but its life was spared; corporations were allowed to continue to run social life, the super-rich remained so.

How socialism requires material wealth:

Real socialism cannot exist in a poor country. If Haiti implemented a "socialist" economy tomorrow it would still suffer under post-earthquake rubble, mass homelessness and life-sucking poverty. A "healthy democracy" cannot exist in these conditions. A socialist economy cannot transform mud into gold.

But capitalism took centuries to transform poor countries into rich ones, and even today a tiny minority of rich countries dominate a hundred plus poor capitalist nations. Poor capitalist countries — like their poor socialist counterparts — suffer from a chronic democracy deficit, forever destined to remain poor.

Valuable lessons from historical successes:

Occupy is right not to embrace the fake socialism of the past, undemocratic as it was. But past socialist experiments contained progressive elements that shouldn't be forgotten.

For example, revolutionaries learned that they could not let a tiny group of super-rich shareholders own and run giant corporations that employed thousands of workers and made socially useful goods. Instead, these companies could be made into public utilities, run by the workers, engineers, and office staff that already do all the work for the benefit of society in general.

Revolutionaries also learned that organization and collective action was instrumental in overcoming the organized opposition of the rich. Capitalism can only be overthrown by a real revolution that draws into action the majority of working people, using the tactics of mass demonstrations, mass strikes, mass civil disobedience, and other mass actions that help to give shape, organization, and unity to working people. Once a powerful and united movement emerges, it must ultimately challenge the corporate elite nationally, which means wresting the levers of state power from their hands and using new organizational methods to make the post-revolutionary country more democratic.

And some of the problems with Occupy, which has taken "decentralization" to an extreme and thus become anti-democratic and inneffectual:

How have these lessons been ignored by Occupy?

In reaction to the non-democratic USSR, Occupy eschews "centralization" in favor of "decentralization.” Instead of decentralization simply meaning "democracy,” in practice it often means "disorganization” and extreme individualism. Any powerful social movement must inevitably be organized; and although Occupy seems to realize this with its useful experiments in direct democracy, the movement as a whole remains incredibly disorganized and uncoordinated.

This is important insofar as disorganization prevents collective action. The Pre-Occupy Movement — what little there was — consisted of "issue-based activism,” i.e., different groups working disconnectedly towards various goals. Occupy has the power to change this, to create real power for working people. Initially, Occupy had united all the various left groups while bringing in new blood. But the old habits of issue-based, fragmented activism were hard to break.

The need for leaders, who will necessarily arise regardless of "leaderless movement" concepts:

One reason that Occupy is fearful of centralization (organization) is because being organized inevitably creates leaders. And since much of Occupy is "anti-authoritarian" (again in response to the failed USSR), "leaders" are not welcome. But leaders exist within Occupy regardless of intentions; saying that Occupy is a "leaderless movement" does not make it so.

The inevitable leaders of Occupy are those who dedicate their time to the movement, organize events, are spokespeople, those who help set agendas for meetings or actions, those who set up and run web pages, etc. In reality there already exists a spectrum of leadership that is essential to keeping the movement functioning.

Occupy needs both leaders and organization while still operating entirely democratically. It already has leaders who refuse to accept the title as such, much like Noam Chomsky does, the famous anti-authoritarian and leader of the anarchist left, who thinks that by saying he is "not a leader,” he ceases to be one. In reality his massive authority continues to exist outside of his humble intentions.

Occupy seems, at times, so fearful of power or creating leaders that many Occupiers would focus on neutering the movement, so as to prevent Occupy from ever having real power, and therefore preventing the movement from ever making real change. The left has long suffered from the self-induced fear that, if we have actual power, we'll become like our oppressors, since "absolute power corrupts absolutely" (a hangover from yet another shallow analysis of past socialist experiments).

How this originates in an understandable fear of being co-opted:

In Occupy, this expresses itself by a fanatical fear of the movement being co-opted. Yes, Occupy should be wary of Democratic Party representatives in sheep's clothing, but this fear has infected and has spread throughout Occupy and now includes internal finger pointing and accusations of "co-opting,” creating more unnecessary divisiveness.

It is a healthy impulse to strive towards greater democracy and away from charisma-based leadership, but any idea taken to its extreme can become nonsense. To denounce real organization and leadership "on principle" is to vastly oversimplify the real processes of movement building while erecting unnecessary barriers in Occupy's path to real power. To self-mutilate a movement because of leader-paranoia is similar to euthanize a puppy because of its potentially dangerous sharp teeth. In fact, true leaders can only emerge in the context of real democracy; both need the other.

And the need to draw upon lessons from the revolutionary movements of the past.

There is no blueprint for movement building, but general principles can be erected based on the revolutionary experiences of the past. The key strategies of Occupy should be based on those ideas that unify and promote collective action against the 1%.

 

[Oruku Saki]

I think we should treat the electing of Govt like this. Remove the financial influence altogether. We allow twelve individuals selected at random to make decisions on life or death in the judicial system. Why not elect Senators and Representatives on a random selection process every (2) or (4) years. This would completely get rid of the need for campaigns and the one sidedness of whoever has the most money gets the most exposure and therefore has a much better chance of winning an election. No more lobbyists; period. The people can make their needs/wants without lobbying groups throwing money around.

More than just "rich" people would be able to serve in office and make a wonderful wage for a change as well as having people from different classes working together to make decisions instead of only wealthy making decisions for everyone, which is basically Plutocracy (which, by the way, almost was initiated in the US when FDR was in office). A random sampling of 535 people every (2) or (4) years should mean a mixture of classes in office. Would they work together? Well, could it be any worse than it is now with the "two" party system; which actually is really "one" party for the most part controlled by the Plutocracy. This doesn't take into account the "outliers"; which would be the few senators/representatives here or there that actually are trying to exact positive change in the system but have too few numbers to follow through.

The President of the US could still be voted into office, BUT all candidates would be given equal money from the same fund. Therefore they would get equal exposure from the beginning, thereby giving people a better chance of seeing all of them for what they stand for; not just the two richest of the group.

The idea that we can get rid of all socialism is ridiculous. Our economy has NEVER been good enough to have 100% employment, 100% nourishment, and frankly never will be. Do we really not care about human life so much that we would let people die of starvation? I don't get why Republicans (who by far and away most call themselves Christian) want to let people "flourish or die", not to mention how ready they are to take lives in relentless ongoing wars.

The idea that we only need socialism is also ridiculous. Frankly, we could never support the entire country through the Federal Government. Hell, the Federal Govt. can't even work on a budget for themselves. States should be given power to govern their people, but to take away power from the Fed Govt. and give it to the states would mean less taxes to the Fed but more to the states because they are just as bad at budgeting, if not worse.

to be continued...

 

[Oruku Saki]

Most states get money from the Fed Govt., which basically is a socialist practice because that money comes from the U.S. as a whole. Without it they wouldn't be able to function for the most part.

So, what's the solution? I'm really not sure what will work in the long run; and guess what; nobody is. There has NEVER been a country like the U.S.A. in all of history. We are basically breaking new ground every day. We ARE a post industrialized nation. What now? Basically nobody knows. Everything is just a guess.

My thoughts on what would help the current economy? We need to start a Moon and Mars race all over again. Ever heard of Lewis Black's "Big F***in Thing" project. That's what we need to put people back to work; one common long term goal that cannot be accomplished completely in many generations. We have built a nation; the nation building is now over. It's time to move on to building something else.

A project to get large-scale Moon bases and serious manned flights to Mars on such a massive scale as to need lots of manufacturing of goods, parts. So massive that it would need 100 million + workers for the foreseeable future to work. This could breed massive competition around the globe just like in the 60's. Sadly, the only thing that will probably make this possible is if some fossil fuel-like energy source was located on Mars. Just my thoughts on a few things I've been pondering on for a while.

I, personally believe that we are headed for a major revolution in the next 15+ years, especially if the classes continue to move away from one another. I also believe it could be diverted if we would look toward a "global" sized project/problem/issue that needs us all to come together to explore/fix.

Wait, I think I just heard on CNN that there is possibly water and an "energy" source better than oil on Mars....pass it on.