Anti-Capitalism In Five Minutes [Archive]

View Full Version : Anti-Capitalism In Five Minutes

Love As Arson

04/30/07, 12:26 PM

An Unsustainable System
Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes

By ROBERT JENSEN

We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the only possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There's no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant.

How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly -- typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we're told, is simply crazy.

We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the only system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the only option? We're told we shouldn't even think about such things. But we can't help thinking -- is this really the "end of history," in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind?

We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us -- for good reason. Capitalism -- or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives -- will be our death if we don't escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations -- radical politics in five minutes or less -- why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don't, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture.

Here's my shot at the language for this argument.

Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.

In short, either we change or we die -- spiritually, politically, literally.

1. Capitalism is inhuman

There is a theory behind contemporary capitalism. We're told that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, an economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior if we are to thrive economically.

Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We certainly can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity for solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.

Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we're told, that's just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we're told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn't that seem just a bit circular?

2. Capitalism is anti-democratic

This one is easy. Capitalism is a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. Is there any historical example to the contrary?

For all the trappings of formal democracy in the contemporary United States, everyone understands that the wealthy dictates the basic outlines of the public policies that are acceptable to the vast majority of elected officials. People can and do resist, and an occasional politician joins the fight, but such resistance takes extraordinary effort. Those who resist win victories, some of them inspiring, but to date concentrated wealth continues to dominate. Is this any way to run a democracy?

If we understand democracy as a system that gives ordinary people a meaningful way to participate in the formation of public policy, rather than just a role in ratifying decisions made by the powerful, then it's clear that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Let's make this concrete. In our system, we believe that regular elections with the one-person/one-vote rule, along with protections for freedom of speech and association, guarantee political equality. When I go to the polls, I have one vote. When Bill Gates goes the polls, he has one vote. Bill and I both can speak freely and associate with others for political purposes. Therefore, as equal citizens in our fine democracy, Bill and I have equal opportunities for political power. Right?

3. Capitalism is unsustainable

This one is even easier. Capitalism is a system based on the idea of unlimited growth. The last time I checked, this is a finite planet. There are only two ways out of this one. Perhaps we will be hopping to a new planet soon. Or perhaps, because we need to figure out ways to cope with these physical limits, we will invent ever-more complex technologies to transcend those limits.

Both those positions are equally delusional. Delusions may bring temporary comfort, but they don't solve problems. They tend, in fact, to cause more problems. Those problems seem to be piling up.

Capitalism is not, of course, the only unsustainable system that humans have devised, but it is the most obviously unsustainable system, and it's the one in which we are stuck. It's the one that we are told is inevitable and natural, like the air.

A tale of two acronyms: TGIF and TINA

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's famous response to a question about challenges to capitalism was TINA -- There Is No Alternative. If there is no alternative, anyone who questions capitalism is crazy.

Here's another, more common, acronym about life under a predatory corporate capitalism: TGIF -- Thank God It's Friday. It's a phrase that communicates a sad reality for many working in this economy -- the jobs we do are not rewarding, not enjoyable, and fundamentally not worth doing. We do them to survive. Then on Friday we go out and get drunk to forget about that reality, hoping we can find something during the weekend that makes it possible on Monday to, in the words of one songwriter, "get up and do it again."

Remember, an economic system doesn't just produce goods. It produces people as well. Our experience of work shapes us. Our experience of consuming those goods shapes us. Increasingly, we are a nation of unhappy people consuming miles of aisles of cheap consumer goods, hoping to dull the pain of unfulfilling work. Is this who we want to be?

We're told TINA in a TGIF world. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Is there really no alternative to such a world? Of course there is. Anything that is the product of human choices can be chosen differently. We don't need to spell out a new system in all its specifics to realize there always are alternatives. We can encourage the existing institutions that provide a site of resistance (such as labor unions) while we experiment with new forms (such as local cooperatives). But the first step is calling out the system for what it is, without guarantees of what's to come.

Home and abroad

In the First World, we struggle with this alienation and fear. We often don't like the values of the world around us; we often don't like the people we've become; we often are afraid of what's to come of us. But in the First World, most of us eat regularly. That's not the case everywhere. Let's focus not only on the conditions we face within a predatory corporate capitalist system, living in the most affluent country in the history of the world, but also put this in a global context.

Half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. That's more than 3 billion people. Just over half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than $1 a day. That's more than 300 million people.

How about one more statistic: About 500 children in Africa die from poverty-related diseases, and the majority of those deaths could be averted with simple medicines or insecticide-treated nets. That's 500 children -- not every year, or every month or every week. That's not 500 children every day. Poverty-related diseases claim the lives of 500 children an hour in Africa.

When we try to hold onto our humanity, statistics like that can make us crazy. But don't get any crazy ideas about changing this system. Remember TINA: There is no alternative to predatory corporate capitalism.

TGILS: Thank God It's Last Sunday

We have been gathering on Last Sunday precisely to be crazy together. We've come together to give voice to things that we know and feel, even when the dominant culture tells us that to believe and feel such things is crazy. Maybe everyone here is a little crazy. So, let's make sure we're being realistic. It's important to be realistic.

One of the common responses I hear when I critique capitalism is, "Well, that may all be true, but we have to be realistic and do what's possible." By that logic, to be realistic is to accept a system that is inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable. To be realistic we are told we must capitulate to a system that steals our souls, enslaves us to concentrated power, and will someday destroy the planet.

But rejecting and resisting a predatory corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position. Holding onto our humanity is not crazy. Defending democracy is not crazy. And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.

What is truly crazy is falling for the con that an inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable system -- one that leaves half the world's people in abject poverty -- is all that there is, all that there ever can be, all that there ever will be.

If that were true, then soon there will be nothing left, for anyone.

I do not believe it is realistic to accept such a fate. If that's being realistic, I'll take crazy any day of the week, every Sunday of the month.

Love As Arson

04/30/07, 12:53 PM

Love As Arson

04/30/07, 01:04 PM

Socialism as in say Sweden?

or further left than that?
Further left, as in, communal ownership of companies, worker's councils and equal distribution of wealth. Though, to be honest, having a social democracy like that of Sweden would be a welcome change to the US economy.

Love As Arson

04/30/07, 01:27 PM

I would prefer if it were peaceful. However, people with power rarely give it up without a struggle. Have you read Reform Or Revolution? I think it speaks to the topic well.

Love As Arson

04/30/07, 02:15 PM

Ive read bits from it, i think people do give up power without a fight over time, for example look at Britain's transformation from 1900 to 1950. In fifty years we went from essentially allowing the poor to starve to naitonalisation of key industries and a full welfare state.
Then, Thatcher came along, with her free market ideology, and did a great deal of damage to the British economy. That is my problem with reform; that is, it isn't permanent, so, within the confines of the system, the gains may be rolled back at any given time.

cfear

04/30/07, 02:59 PM

Why have a State? States exist as a coercive power. The State is just as bad as its economic system. I really want to type up this rad ass fucking quote right now, but it's too long.

Love As Arson

04/30/07, 03:10 PM

Thats democracy im afraid.

Whether it be direct/representative or any other method. The state should always be subject to the will of the people.
The modern state is a product of capitalism, so it must necessarily service those who benefit the most from the system. It is only when threatened that it conforms to the wishes of the people.

Love As Arson

08/28/10, 11:17 PM

This refusal, or breakdown of phallocentric meaning, Deleuze and Guattari term "deterritorialization." They define this process as the schizophrenic tendency of the capitalist mode of production--that tendency that Marx characterised by the ubiquitous phrase "[a]ll that is solid melts into air" (Marx and Engels 1848, 476). Deterritorialization is thus the sweeping away of all fixed, fast-frozen relations and meanings, the stripping of halos, and a constant revolutionising of production in a truly psychotic fashion, such that, as Lyotard describes it: "[P]roperly speaking, there are no more signs since there is no more code, no reference to an origin, to a norm. . . . [T]here is nothing left but a little price tag, the index of exchangeability" (1972, 20). In counteraction to this breakdown of meanings then, capitalism is forced to recode its materials into that little price tag--exchange value as the only sensible quality recognised. This counter-tendency Deleuze and Guattari term "reterritorialization"--the moment in which capitalism, in order to retain its relations of production and private property, is forced to artificially resurrect all the old meanings; "States, nations, families" (Deleuze and Guattari 1972, 34). Schizophrenia is thus both in and against capitalism; it is that which forms what Marx calls "the powers of the nether world" which the capitalist "sorcerer" is unable to control yet must desperately try to contain (Marx and Engels 1848, 478). Deleuze and Guattari describe the situation thus:

The decoding of flows and the deterritorialization of the socius thus constitutes the most characteristic and most important tendency of capitalism. It continually draws near to its limit, which is a genuinely schizophrenic limit. . . . [T]hrough its process of production, [it] produces an awesome schizophrenic accumulation of energy or charge, against which it brings all its vast powers of repression to bear. . . . [I]t is constantly arresting the schizophrenic process . . . as though it saw in this process the image of its own death coming from within.

http://homepages.tesco.net/~theatre/tezzaland/webstuff/mapping.html

caveBEAR

08/29/10, 03:46 AM

This refusal, or breakdown of phallocentric meaning, Deleuze and Guattari term "deterritorialization." They define this process as the schizophrenic tendency of the capitalist mode of production--that tendency that Marx characterised by the ubiquitous phrase "[a]ll that is solid melts into air" (Marx and Engels 1848, 476). Deterritorialization is thus the sweeping away of all fixed, fast-frozen relations and meanings, the stripping of halos, and a constant revolutionising of production in a truly psychotic fashion, such that, as Lyotard describes it: "[P]roperly speaking, there are no more signs since there is no more code, no reference to an origin, to a norm. . . . [T]here is nothing left but a little price tag, the index of exchangeability" (1972, 20). In counteraction to this breakdown of meanings then, capitalism is forced to recode its materials into that little price tag--exchange value as the only sensible quality recognised. This counter-tendency Deleuze and Guattari term "reterritorialization"--the moment in which capitalism, in order to retain its relations of production and private property, is forced to artificially resurrect all the old meanings; "States, nations, families" (Deleuze and Guattari 1972, 34). Schizophrenia is thus both in and against capitalism; it is that which forms what Marx calls "the powers of the nether world" which the capitalist "sorcerer" is unable to control yet must desperately try to contain (Marx and Engels 1848, 478). Deleuze and Guattari describe the situation thus:

The decoding of flows and the deterritorialization of the socius thus constitutes the most characteristic and most important tendency of capitalism. It continually draws near to its limit, which is a genuinely schizophrenic limit. . . . [T]hrough its process of production, [it] produces an awesome schizophrenic accumulation of energy or charge, against which it brings all its vast powers of repression to bear. . . . [i]t is constantly arresting the schizophrenic process . . . as though it saw in this process the image of its own death coming from within.

http://homepages.tesco.net/~theatre/tezzaland/webstuff/mapping.html

Could you dumb this down for those of us with lesser intelligence? (After all, you're IQ is you're IQ...)

thursday727

08/29/10, 04:33 AM

left say it's capitalism that's the problem , right say it's socialism when the reality it's neither. What we're living in now is Corporatism , the merger of state and corporate powers. The last thing they want is a true free market, if we did most of the "select" corporations would be out of business and replaced by something better.
as the old rockefeller saying goes to them competition is a sin.

TJ Wells

08/29/10, 04:55 AM

Further left, as in, communal ownership of companies, worker's councils and equal distribution of wealth. Though, to be honest, having a social democracy like that of Sweden would be a welcome change to the US economy.
Yes sir.

I have certain family members who would disown me if they knew my views on this, religion and such.

TJ Wells

08/29/10, 08:16 AM

Further left, as in, communal ownership of companies, worker's councils and equal distribution of wealth. Though, to be honest, having a social democracy like that of Sweden would be a welcome change to the US economy.
I'm stealing a couple of your ideas 'cause I like them. Cool?

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 08:27 AM

Could you dumb this down for those of us with lesser intelligence? (After all, you're IQ is you're IQ...)
Capitalism has contradictory currents. On the one hand, it gets rid of all meanings which do not associate with exchange within the market and on the other, brings forth meanings that exist outside of the market to reinforce capitalist relations. The fact that it draws from beyond its limits of the marketplace produces splits within itself, which it tries to repress because those splits in continuity threaten its domination.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 08:28 AM

I'm stealing a couple of your ideas 'cause I like them. Cool?

Go for it.

Check out Anti-Oedipus and The Meaning of Marxism.

caveBEAR

08/29/10, 08:36 AM

Capitalism has contradictory currents. On the one hand, it gets rid of all means which do not associate with exchange within the market and o the other, brings forth meanings that exist outside of the market to reinforce capitalist relations. The fact that it draws from beyond its limits of the marketplace produces splits within itself, which it tries to repress because those splits in continuity threaten its domination.

...

:explode:

I'll have to mull this over more when I'm out of work, ha ha ha.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 08:36 AM

Scrandon

08/29/10, 10:55 AM

Zeran

08/29/10, 11:51 AM

Personally, I thinks socialism is a better alternative. And no, before anyone makes the point that is inevitably made in all of these discussions, the repressive regimes like North Korea, The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. are not socialist/communist countries.

Further left, as in, communal ownership of companies, worker's councils and equal distribution of wealth. Though, to be honest, having a social democracy like that of Sweden would be a welcome change to the US economy.

i agree, in that i think socialism is a great alternative, but i also believe that capitalism can be mixed in with socialism to create a good, viable system for the vast majority of the population. capitalism with a very hefty dose of socialism is what i'd like to see for america, similar to what norway and sweden have.

two questions: what kind of role would a worker's council have in a socialist society? instead of having ceo's and executives, power invested in one person, there'd be a group of workers who get together to decide what is in the best interest of the company?

also, my main problem with the concept of equal distribution of wealth or of a "classless" society is that it doesn't seem to be realistic, as in, i just don't see how it can about it. it seems too idealistic. how would a socialist country go about pursuing this policy?

Zeran

08/29/10, 11:52 AM

I agree on the first two points to some extent, but I'm not sure that capitalism assumes infinite growth. Scarcity of resources is one of the most basic obstacles that capitalism attempts to overcome. As a resource becomes less available, prices surrounding the resource will become more costly and, as a result, demand and consumption of the item will decrease. Therefore, I think that capitalism manages a finite number of resources pretty well.

i don't see that applying to, say, oil. supply of oil decreases daily, yet demand and consumption increase at the same time. something has to give. but big oil companies don't seem to want to do anything that would help find new means of energy.

<*)))><

08/29/10, 12:27 PM

StormSnares

08/29/10, 12:27 PM

Zeran

08/29/10, 12:37 PM

That is what Ceo's, executives and the bored does decide what is the best interest for the company, only different is that they have more at stake then the works.

i understand that.

kofiadrian

08/29/10, 12:38 PM

caveBEAR

08/29/10, 12:46 PM

Hysterical. Is there no reward or incentive to actually do something for yourself in this society? Or should everything just be given to everyone.

It's actually more about making sure you and (more importantly) the person next to you don't go wanting. Half the world lives in abject poverty, and there's no reason for that in 2010.

Of course, you'd have to not be an asshole for any of this to melt that frigid heart you appear to have, which could possibly lead you to have concern for others.

x togepi x

08/29/10, 12:58 PM

AHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH~!!!! !! :-d :-d :-d

This is hilarious. COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP OF COMPANIES?!?! EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?!

Hysterical. Is there no reward or incentive to actually do something for yourself in this society? Or should everything just be given to everyone.

...Commies...

I know you're a dumb troll account but i feel like responding to it anyway since someone with a brain might actually think the same thing as you.

Your piss poor attempt at a criticism here contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism: the entrepreneur. Someone who owns the company has a reward/incentive to actually "do something for themselves" since they would reap the benefits of a successful business, just like how someone who starts their own business does. Even major corporations see this view, which is why they often offer stock options to their employees, giving them a financial incentive to keep working.

redistribution of wealth deals with the forms of inequality BASED ON CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION OF THE POOR. it's not saying "oh, hey lazy fuck, here's a bag of money." In fact, if you look at the history of socialist movements, specifically during the Spanish Civil War, you see that people weren't just handed money for no reason, they were just given the opportunity to not have to exist in an unjust system. Socialist unions weren't just asking for companies to pay everyone money for sitting on their ass, they were fighting how those companies exploited their employees.

StormSnares

08/29/10, 01:01 PM

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7r1g7bxi21qzbwcjo1_500.gif

If you are not going to add any legitimate discussion to any of the threads here, then just leave. You are wasting your time and ours by deliberate trolling like this. Just stop. Please.

i'm sorry. I truly and sincerely found that absolutely hysterical. just wanted to be sure you guys could hear my laughter all the way through the internet...but to add the discussion - that's what I want to know, if you think that what you actually do in the world should merit some degree of reward or if the government should just ensure everyone a cell-block home, with some daily sludge and bread for food, in a government issued car, with a bullshit health-care system that provides minimal assistance to everyone.

It's actually more about making sure you and (more importantly) the person next to you don't go wanting. Half the world lives in abject poverty, and there's no reason for that in 2010.

Of course, you'd have to not be an asshole for any of this to melt that frigid heart you appear to have, which could possibly lead you to have concern for others.

I'm 100% positive the vast majority of americans do not live in "abject poverty". It is capitalism and the free market that has built the majority of the system we have today (though, surely we needed the government to help us build roads and infrastructure), including some of the best products, companies, and brands in the world. We are the richest country in the world, due to this system...If you just break that down, have the government control everything, and give people a fixed living standard - you completely eliminate freedom in society.

That enough legitimate discussion for you?

StormSnares

08/29/10, 01:11 PM

I know you're a dumb troll account but i feel like responding to it anyway since someone with a brain might actually think the same thing as you.

Your piss poor attempt at a criticism here contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism: the entrepreneur. Someone who owns the company has a reward/incentive to actually "do something for themselves" since they would reap the benefits of a successful business, just like how someone who starts their own business does. Even major corporations see this view, which is why they often offer stock options to their employees, giving them a financial incentive to keep working.

redistribution of wealth deals with the forms of inequality BASED ON CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION OF THE POOR. it's not saying "oh, hey lazy fuck, here's a bag of money." In fact, if you look at the history of socialist movements, specifically during the Spanish Civil War, you see that people weren't just handed money for no reason, they were just given the opportunity to not have to exist in an unjust system. Socialist unions weren't just asking for companies to pay everyone money for sitting on their ass, they were fighting how those companies exploited their employees.

I think it's funny everyone thinks i'm a "dumb troll account" just because I disagree with this liberal/communist gang-bang-fest-2010.

HOWEVER,

Capitalist exploitation of the poor?! Capitalism rewards those who go out and earn their living. Let's look at how redistribution of wealth exists today. Recently, congress pushed to extend unemployment benefits past 99 weeks at the cost of $34 billion dollars (where did that money come from??? right, magic).

99 weeks?! That's almost two years. How long does it take guys? I don't care if you don't WANT to work at McDonalds, if you don't have a job, you need to get off your ass and provide for yourself and your family...don't look for the government (i.e. tax money that other people have actually "earned") to pay you $1200 a month to just sit around. It doesn't take 2 years to find a job.

Additionally, the top 25% of American earners pay about 83% of the federal income tax burden. Little ridiculous, don't you think? At the very least, this should be enough of an gap for you to think the one's rewarded by the system (capitalism) are doing more than their fair share to provide for the poor and the rest of the country.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 01:21 PM

i agree, in that i think socialism is a great alternative, but i also believe that capitalism can be mixed in with socialism to create a good, viable system for the vast majority of the population. capitalism with a very hefty dose of socialism is what i'd like to see for america, similar to what norway and sweden have.
The problem, however, is that these reforms are always transient. So, for example, we see now that a lot of countries with social democratic policies are cutting social spending and workers benefits. This is due to the nature of a system in which crises periodically occur and require the state to essentially ensure its profitability; regardless of its social protections, the main goal will always be to place profits first.

two questions: what kind of role would a worker's council have in a socialist society? instead of having ceo's and executives, power invested in one person, there'd be a group of workers who get together to decide what is in the best interest of the company?
Companies as such would not exist; rather, workers councils would democratically decide issues of economic and social need. Instead of making millions of houses for profitability, for example, workers would make the houses necessary for the need at a given point.

also, my main problem with the concept of equal distribution of wealth or of a "classless" society is that it doesn't seem to be realistic, as in, i just don't see how it can about it. it seems too idealistic. how would a socialist country go about pursuing this policy?
It is important to understand class as relations within capitalist production. So, the owner of the means of production would be ruling class, e.g., Bill Gates; there are also small capitalists as well. The individual who sells their labor is working class. Now if there is an abolition of private ownership of production and so on, this necessarily causes a change in relations, in which class, as it exists within the capitalist framework, ceases to exist.

AHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH~!!!! !! :-d :-d :-d

This is hilarious. COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP OF COMPANIES?!?! EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH?!

Hysterical. Is there no reward or incentive to actually do something for yourself in this society? Or should everything just be given to everyone.

...Commies...
Marx addressed this already:

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

I agree on the first two points to some extent, but I'm not sure that capitalism assumes infinite growth. Scarcity of resources is one of the most basic obstacles that capitalism attempts to overcome. As a resource becomes less available, prices surrounding the resource will become more costly and, as a result, demand and consumption of the item will decrease. Therefore, I think that capitalism manages a finite number of resources pretty well.
I think you may misunderstand his point. Capitalism does not produce things on the basis of need, but on the basis of profitability, so it has a tendency to overproduce, even if it is detrimental economically, socially or ecologically. So, let us look at oil, for example, and we see what occurred in the Gulf Coast and understand that inevitably oil will run out. This is not viewed as a systemic issue or one which needs to be readily dealt with. The only goal is to solve that problem, so that we can continue to drill and oil companies can continue to be profitable. Socialists argue that we must understand the limits and the potential risks in a given action, and take the road that is best for the vast majority of the population.

<*)))><

08/29/10, 01:36 PM

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 01:39 PM

i'm sorry. I truly and sincerely found that absolutely hysterical. just wanted to be sure you guys could hear my laughter all the way through the internet...but to add the discussion - that's what I want to know, if you think that what you actually do in the world should merit some degree of reward or if the government should just ensure everyone a cell-block home, with some daily sludge and bread for food, in a government issued car, with a bullshit health-care system that provides minimal assistance to everyone.
Socialism implies the abolition of the current government.

I'm 100% positive the vast majority of americans do not live in "abject poverty".
Just half the world's population.

. It is capitalism and the free market that has built the majority of the system we have today
That is redundant. "Capitalism has ensured that capitalism is the system we have today"

including some of the best products, companies, and brands in the world. We are the richest country in the world, due to this system...If you just break that down, have the government control everything, and give people a fixed living standard - you completely eliminate freedom in society.
In a way, you are correct. What you misunderstand is history. America is a superpower because we were the only country left untouched by WW2, thus providing it with the ability to create an order which best suited its interests. This is not to say that capitalism wasn't revolutionary at one point. The technological advances and its global scope certainly were amazing. This is no longer the case.

Capitalist exploitation of the poor?! Capitalism rewards those who go out and earn their living.
Then, why do we find that most of the wealthy inherited their wealth and why is it concentrated within such a small group of people?

Let's look at how redistribution of wealth exists today. Recently, congress pushed to extend unemployment benefits past 99 weeks at the cost of $34 billion dollars (where did that money come from??? right, magic).
How much has their previous participation in the economy contributed? Consider that they do not receive the full benefits of the work they have, as well as the fact that they consistently were pumping money into the economy.

99 weeks?! That's almost two years. How long does it take guys? I don't care if you don't WANT to work at McDonalds, if you don't have a job, you need to get off your ass and provide for yourself and your family...don't look for the government (i.e. tax money that other people have actually "earned") to pay you $1200 a month to just sit around. It doesn't take 2 years to find a job.
Who gets paid twelve hundred dollars a month? My mother was receiving unemployment and she only got one hundred and twenty-two dollars a week. Anecdotal evidence aside, I find it interesting that this is the position you take. Millions of Americans work at jobs they dislike, and they get laid off and are then told to take similar jobs, with less pay. Meanwhile, the individuals that caused mass unemployment are gaining more profits.

Additionally, the top 25% of American earners pay about 83% of the federal income tax burden. Little ridiculous, don't you think? At the very least, this should be enough of an gap for you to think the one's rewarded by the system (capitalism) are doing more than their fair share to provide for the poor and the rest of the country.
Ten percent of those people own ninety percent of the wealth. The system is engineered to benefit them, such that the progressive tax is the least that could be established in terms of fairness. There are more radical, and equitable, means to try to establish a greater sense of egalitarianism.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 01:41 PM

That whole TGIF thing, wouldn't it still be the same under a socialist ( or any other economy for that matter), so I see that arguement completely false. People will always work and under our current system you have the ability to pick what job you want.
It wouldn't be the same thing, because socialism doesn't require one to sell their labor in order to survive.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 01:41 PM

I'm 100% positive the vast majority of americans do not live in "abject poverty". It is capitalism and the free market that has built the majority of the system we have today (though, surely we needed the government to help us build roads and infrastructure), including some of the best products, companies, and brands in the world. We are the richest country in the world, due to this system...If you just break that down, have the government control everything, and give people a fixed living standard - you completely eliminate freedom in society.

That enough legitimate discussion for you?
He's talking about half of the world that lives on under $2 USD a day. Capitalism in a global economy doesn't just effect Americans, but it also takes a huge toll on the Third World. For example, unregulated capitalism unequivocally results in the formation of Third World exploitation in the form of sweat shops. Capitalism ain't great unless it is very highly regulated.

I think it's funny everyone thinks i'm a "dumb troll account" just because I disagree with this liberal/communist gang-bang-fest-2010.

HOWEVER,

Capitalist exploitation of the poor?! Capitalism rewards those who go out and earn their living. Let's look at how redistribution of wealth exists today. Recently, congress pushed to extend unemployment benefits past 99 weeks at the cost of $34 billion dollars (where did that money come from??? right, magic).

99 weeks?! That's almost two years. How long does it take guys? I don't care if you don't WANT to work at McDonalds, if you don't have a job, you need to get off your ass and provide for yourself and your family...don't look for the government (i.e. tax money that other people have actually "earned") to pay you $1200 a month to just sit around. It doesn't take 2 years to find a job.

Additionally, the top 25% of American earners pay about 83% of the federal income tax burden. Little ridiculous, don't you think? At the very least, this should be enough of an gap for you to think the one's rewarded by the system (capitalism) are doing more than their fair share to provide for the poor and the rest of the country.

You just simultaneously argued that the rich are paying their fair share to help the poor, while bitching that those who need help are receiving it.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 01:45 PM

I think you may misunderstand his point. Capitalism does not produce things on the basis of need, but on the basis of profitability, so it has a tendency to overproduce, even if it is detrimental economically, socially or ecologically. So, let us look at oil, for example, and we see what occurred in the Gulf Coast and understand that inevitably oil will run out. This is not viewed as a systemic issue or one which needs to be readily dealt with. The only goal is to solve that problem, so that we can continue to drill and oil companies can continue to be profitable. Socialists argue that we must understand the limits and the potential risks in a given action, and take the road that is best for the vast majority of the population.

So you're saying that under a socialist system, resources will be managed better. In what way? How?

x togepi x

08/29/10, 01:49 PM

I think it's funny everyone thinks i'm a "dumb troll account" just because I disagree with this liberal/communist gang-bang-fest-2010.

Everybody thinks you're a troll account because you're all over glen beck's dick and when you get called out, you call people mean.

HOWEVER,

Capitalist exploitation of the poor?! Capitalism rewards those who go out and earn their living. Let's look at how redistribution of wealth exists today. Recently, congress pushed to extend unemployment benefits past 99 weeks at the cost of $34 billion dollars (where did that money come from??? right, magic).

if capitalism rewards those who go out and earn their living then why is the gap between the rich and the poor widening? Do you really think poor people just don't want to work? Do you really think all rich people deserve the money they have?

99 weeks?! That's almost two years. How long does it take guys? I don't care if you don't WANT to work at McDonalds, if you don't have a job, you need to get off your ass and provide for yourself and your family...don't look for the government (i.e. tax money that other people have actually "earned") to pay you $1200 a month to just sit around. It doesn't take 2 years to find a job.

Have you ever been on unemployment? You have to jump through hoops just to get it. It's not as simple as "sitting on your ass to get money." Your analysis here is merely classist ignorance.

Poor people work harder than most, the problem is that they're working merely to survive so they don't reap profits for doing so. You act like it's really easy to get a job, and it largely is for someone who's middle class and above, but when you're poor and you're going into an an interview, the whole game is rigged against you. What if you can't afford nice clothes for the interview? You look like trash and don't get hired. What if you can't afford to have a phone? They can't contact you so you won't get a job. Businesses routinely don't hire the poor because they "look shady" or "didn't look like they were giving enough effort towards the interview".

Additionally, the top 25% of American earners pay about 83% of the federal income tax burden. Little ridiculous, don't you think?

They should pay more since they control most of the wealth. The top 1 percent controls 42% of the wealth in this country.

At the very least, this should be enough of an gap for you to think the one's rewarded by the system (capitalism) are doing more than their fair share to provide for the poor and the rest of the country.

Why?

If anything, many of the rich benefit from the status of the poor and have a vested interest in keeping them that way. In this economy, people routinely work for less than they're worth. This keeps costs down so those at the top can reap huge profits.

x togepi x

08/29/10, 01:51 PM

So you're saying that under a socialist system, resources will be managed better. In what way? How?

because there's other incentives governing how one uses resources other than profit. much of the opposition for companies and governments to reform resource use comes from the fact that said reforms could be said to lead to less profit. since we're in a profit driven system, companies have a vested interest in opposing said reforms.

<*)))><

08/29/10, 01:53 PM

It wouldn't be the same thing, because socialism doesn't require one to sell their labor in order to survive.
Then why would anyone work? This is the part I can not fathom.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 01:55 PM

So you're saying that under a socialist system, resources will be managed better. In what way? How?
Because, right now, resources are managed in terms of profitability, not sustainability. For example, oil is profitable, so we continue using it and don't invest much in alternatives.

the market has a distinct inability to solve environmental crises because it can’t adequately value nature. That doesn’t mean great methods and technologies for balancing out the trauma of the biosphere don’t exist—they do. We don’t see more of the solutions that work, including superefficient architecture and transportation systems, as well as biomimicry and service leasing, because as yet these options aren’t profitable enough. Instead of our greater environmental consciousness transforming the way business is done, what we more often see is the market contorting ecological problems so they fit into some sort of profitable framework. To bring about change we must experience ourselves as political actors and not simply shoppers who are supposed to vote with our wallets.

Socialism takes sustainability and environmental issues seriously, since it effects the majority of the people living on this planet. A socialist society would democratically decide on what is needed at a given time, instead of just producing for the sake of production, and would err on the side maintaining an equilibrium, so that we do not adversely effect one another.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 01:57 PM

because there's other incentives governing how one uses resources other than profit. much of the opposition for companies and governments to reform resource use comes from the fact that said reforms could be said to lead to less profit. since we're in a profit driven system, companies have a vested interest in opposing said reforms.

That doesn't require the leap towards socialism to achieve those goals. All that is required is more government regulation of the economy, not the abandonment of the capitalist system, which still manages to do a lot of things efficiently.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 02:01 PM

Then why would anyone work? This is the part I can not fathom.
People are both social and productive. Work would exist, but not in an alienated setting. There would be the means and opportunities, which would not be available to everyone, to do what they actually would want to do. What's more, technology today is used to reduce money spent on human actors, who then must find other jobs or they will starve. Why isn't this technology is being used to reduce the amount of hours people work, so they can engage in creative or whatever other kind of behaviour they choose?

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 02:02 PM

That doesn't require the leap towards socialism to achieve those goals. All that is required is more government regulation of the economy, not the abandonment of the capitalist system, which still manages to do a lot of things efficiently.
The government isn't independent of capitalism. It arises out of it and thus, has a vested interest in maintaining the system.

caveBEAR

08/29/10, 02:02 PM

x togepi x

08/29/10, 02:04 PM

That doesn't require the leap towards socialism to achieve those goals. All that is required is more government regulation of the economy, not the abandonment of the capitalist system, which still manages to do a lot of things efficiently.

Government regulation of the economy is fairly worthless within a capitalist system because corporations have a lot of power over how the government regulates that economy.

<*)))><

08/29/10, 02:08 PM

People are both social and productive. Work would exist, but not in an alienated setting. There would be the means and opportunities, which would not be available to everyone, to do what they actually would want to do. What's more, technology today is used to reduce money spent on human actors, who then must find other jobs or they will starve. Why isn't this technology is being used to reduce the amount of hours people work, so they can engage in creative or whatever other kind of behaviour they choose?

People are also greedy and selfish, they are a lot of things often they go agianst each other. If I do not get something in return for my time I will not do it even if I get something I am not productive. I'm making this post from work where I have not a thing all day but play bumper pool and watch a movie.
Now about technology it isn't taking away human actors is shifting what they do, instead of working in a factory one can now be a doctor, manage stocks, open a business, ect. We can get rid of the jobs that it takes no mind to accomplish but some we can't take away until the robots rule the world. That last part is me joking.

x togepi x

08/29/10, 02:11 PM

People aren't greedy and selfish. That's propaganda.

<*)))><

08/29/10, 02:12 PM

People aren't greedy and selfish. That's propaganda.
Im pretty greedy and selfish.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 02:22 PM

People may not be greedy and selfish, but I do believe that self-interest would overtake altruism any day of the week, and that seems to be a problem.

caveBEAR

08/29/10, 02:23 PM

People may not be greedy and selfish, but I do believe that self-interest would overtake altruism any day of the week, and the seems to be a problem.

When you see a brotha down, you gotta pick him up.
:shrug:

Scrandon

08/29/10, 02:26 PM

When you see a brotha down, you gotta pick him up.
:shrug:

Yeah, trust me, I know it would be nice, but I just don't see it happening unfortunately.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 02:26 PM

People are also greedy and selfish, they are a lot of things often they go agianst each other.

MANY PEOPLE think socialism is impossible—not because the ruling class is too powerful or the world’s resources are too limited, though many people believe this—but because “human nature” will not allow it. They think “people are too lazy,” “too passive,” “too greedy,” “too self-absorbed,” “too violent,” “too ambitious.” They think that people are inherently racist, sexist, and homophobic, that they can’t help but hate people from other countries, cultures, and religions. They think that “people like being told what to do” and “people can’t think for themselves” and “people like to boss other people around.” Nevermind that some of these “inherent” traits are contradictory. Together they work to prevent socialism in the minds of many. And, as if all this weren’t enough, human nature is thought to be not only negative, but permanently fixed: “There will always be good people and evil people” and “You can’t change human nature.”

It is no surprise that people often think this way. Marx once said that the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. The ruling ideas about human nature under capitalism—that it is static, and for the most part awful—greatly benefit the capitalists. On the one hand, they suggest that, because of traits inherent to human beings like greed, ambition, and a tendency towards violence, capitalism—which rewards greed and requires violence—is not only the best and most efficient economic system ever, but also the most natural. On the other hand, such ideas make it possible to blame the enormous inequality and suffering produced by the system on the “natural” defects of certain individuals. If it is natural for some people to claw their way to the top, it is also natural for others to remain stuck in squalor at the bottom..........While the existence of egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies is reassuring, we in the U.S. don’t have to look quite so far to see the tendencies in human beings that make socialism possible. After Hurricane Katrina, in the face of government neglect that created an unnatural disaster, ordinary people right here in the U.S. opened their homes, donated money, collected supplies, and devoted their time to help people they had never met. Those victimized by the storm risked their lives to save others and demonstrated their ability to do what the government wouldn’t—act like human beings. San Francisco paramedics Larry Bradshaw and Lorrie Beth Slonsky were part of a group of visitors and locals trapped in the city who pulled together to try and make it safely out of the city only to be, now famously, stopped by police at the bridge to Gretna. They witnessed countless acts of humanity and self-sacrifice:

What you will not see [in mainstream reports on the disaster], but what we witnessed, were the real heroes and sheroes of the hurricane relief effort: the working class of New Orleans.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/47/wdss-humnature.shtml

If I do not get something in return for my time I will not do it even if I get something I am not productive.
I may contribute my time to a given company, and they may pay me, but is it worth it if the job is unsatisfying, causes anxiety or insecurity? What is being proposed is a society where one receives the benefits of society without having to either oppress a portion of the population or be a part of that oppressed population.

Now about technology it isn't taking away human actors is shifting what they do, instead of working in a factory one can now be a doctor, manage stocks, open a business, ect. We can get rid of the jobs that it takes no mind to accomplish but some we can't take away until the robots rule the world. That last part is me joking.
Even white collar jobs experience alienation. Doctors, for example, may have to turn away patients or do less for them if they have no insurance. There is a chasm between the oath they took and what the system demands. This, of course, assumes that the majority of people have the opportunity to be doctors or lawyers, when this is not the case. A system where potential is actually able to be expressed may produce greater minds than one which has an inherent tendency to reduce people to winners and losers.

Zeran

08/29/10, 03:14 PM

Government regulation of the economy is fairly worthless within a capitalist system because corporations have a lot of power over how the government regulates that economy.

couldn't much of this be solved if there were reforms so as to drastically reduce corporate influence over politics and policies? or did i misunderstand what you're saying?

x togepi x

08/29/10, 03:16 PM

couldn't much of this be solved if there were reforms so as to drastically reduce corporate influence over politics and policies? or did i misunderstand what you're saying?

how do you expect those reforms to even make it to the table when these corporations already have that power? I mean, do you really think they'll let that happen?

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 03:17 PM

So long as the health of nations is determined by the economic health of companies, you cannot reduce corporate influence. And this will always be the case within the capitalist framework.

x togepi x

08/29/10, 03:17 PM

People may not be greedy and selfish, but I do believe that self-interest would overtake altruism any day of the week, and that seems to be a problem.

why do you insist that self interest is the same as selfishness?

It's fairly plausible that people realize that it's in their self interest to do something for the community. Hell, that's a fundamental tenet in egoism.

Zeran

08/29/10, 03:30 PM

how do you expect those reforms to even make it to the table when these corporations already have that power? I mean, do you really think they'll let that happen?

well, i think they'd fight tooth and nail opposing such legislation, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. the state of maine has introduced clean election reforms that have substantially reduced the influence of money in their political scene, and now over 80% of the senators in the state legislature are responsible to their constituents, not corporations or special interests.

So long as the health of nations is determined by the economic health of companies, you cannot reduce corporate influence. And this will always be the case within the capitalist framework.

how can a society change from capitalism to socialism then without some kind of violent uprising? how do those in power lose their power outside of popular revolt?

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 03:35 PM

how can a society change from capitalism to socialism then without some kind of violent uprising? how do those in power lose their power outside of popular revolt?
There is a need for revolution.

macabre

08/29/10, 03:58 PM

There is a need for revolution.

You've stated that social democracy is not viable because reforms and regulations are transient but how exactly does a socialist government insulate itself from the vicissitudes of an largely interconnected, global market?

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 04:00 PM

You've stated that social democracy is not viable because reforms and regulations are transient but how exactly does a socialist government insulate itself from the vicissitudes of an largely interconnected, global market?
The interconnectivity of the mark is what makes socialism possible, in the same way it made it possible for capitalism to break from feudal arrangements. A connected working class, which understands its role, can collectively take control of the levers of the global marketplace.

macabre

08/29/10, 04:19 PM

The interconnectivity of the mark is what makes socialism possible, in the same way it made it possible for capitalism to break from feudal arrangements. A connected working class, which understands its role, can collectively take control of the levers of the global marketplace.

In the past century, the working class has not attained class consciousness despite a myriad of recessions and a few devastating depressions so I am skeptical as to whether we will see a global revolution in our lifetime. Instead, I think it is more probable to expect a few socialist movements springing up here and there in different areas of the world where conditions are unbearable. If this is the case, what should these countries do in order to shield themselves from the global market?

x togepi x

08/29/10, 04:32 PM

well, i think they'd fight tooth and nail opposing such legislation, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. the state of maine has introduced clean election reforms that have substantially reduced the influence of money in their political scene, and now over 80% of the senators in the state legislature are responsible to their constituents, not corporations or special interests.

don't you think corporations would rail more against national legislation than local ones like that?

Zeran

08/29/10, 04:37 PM

don't you think corporations would rail more against national legislation than local ones like that?

yes, but that still doesn't mean it's impossible, just more improbable. perhaps i'm just being excessively optimistic about this, though. it's sort of depressing to think that nothing will change this aspect of our society.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 05:32 PM

why do you insist that self interest is the same as selfishness?

It's fairly plausible that people realize that it's in their self interest to do something for the community. Hell, that's a fundamental tenet in egoism.

I actually separated the two in my post, if you had any reading comprehension.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 05:51 PM

In the past century, the working class has not attained class consciousness despite a myriad of recessions and a few devastating depressions so I am skeptical as to whether we will see a global revolution in our lifetime.
Part of that is revolutionary parties have become reformist, i.e., The Communist Party. The Great Depression did, however, see a radicalising public and numerous strikes. The post-war boom, it can be said, tamped down revolutionary fervor, along with McCarthyism.

Instead, I think it is more probable to expect a few socialist movements springing up here and there in different areas of the world where conditions are unbearable. If this is the case, what should these countries do in order to shield themselves from the global market?
Cut ties with institutions like the IMF and integrate with other, like-minded countries.

macabre

08/29/10, 06:15 PM

Part of that is revolutionary parties have become reformist, i.e., The Communist Party. The Great Depression did, however, see a radicalising public and numerous strikes. The post-war boom, it can be said, tamped down revolutionary fervor, along with McCarthyism.

If radical sentiments among the working class can easily be tamed through appeasement (e.g. social insurance programs) and control, how will we ever see a global revolution?

Cut ties with institutions like the IMF and integrate with other, like-minded countries.

The case of the USSR illustrates that following that prescription still does not prevent you from the effects of the global market though.

x togepi x

08/29/10, 06:29 PM

I actually separated the two in my post, if you had any reading comprehension.

I skipped it because I usually ignore your stupid posts.

but my point still stands.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 06:49 PM

I skipped it because I usually ignore your stupid posts.

but my point still stands.
Nope

x togepi x

08/29/10, 07:04 PM

Nope

The fact that you separated the two does not change the fact that you're implying that people are too self interested to embrace a different system, when in fact, embracing the different system might be the only truly self interested decision.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 07:15 PM

The fact that you separated the two does not change the fact that you're implying that people are too self interested to embrace a different system, when in fact, embracing the different system might be the only truly self interested decision.

I'm all for having factual debates, but I just don't care if you feel like you can predict the future better than me.

x togepi x

08/29/10, 07:22 PM

I'm all for having factual debates, but I just don't care if you feel like you can predict the future better than me.

I'm not predicting the future, I'm pointing out that your narrow perception of humanity is what it is: insanely narrow. At least the anti-capitalist posters on this site offer an alternative to the shitstorm we have right now.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 09:02 PM

If radical sentiments among the working class can easily be tamed through appeasement (e.g. social insurance programs) and control, how will we ever see a global revolution?
Change isn't something which just happens. Quantitative changes turn into qualitative changes.

The case of the USSR illustrates that following that prescription still does not prevent you from the effects of the global market though.
The USSR wasn't socialist.

macabre

08/29/10, 09:19 PM

The USSR wasn't socialist.

I wasn't using it as an example of a socialist state but of a planned economy that was unable to insulate itself from the surrounding global market despite the existence of cooperative economic alliances such as Comecon, for example.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 09:36 PM

I wasn't using it as an example of a socialist state but of a planned economy that was unable to insulate itself from the surrounding global market despite the existence of cooperative economic alliances such as Comecon, for example.
The USSR was a state-capitalist economy. The best way to look at it is whether or not workers controlled the economy, and the USSR did not. Aside from that, socialism in isolation is a myth.

macabre

08/29/10, 10:14 PM

The USSR was a state-capitalist economy. The best way to look at it is whether or not workers controlled the economy, and the USSR did not. Aside from that, socialism in isolation is a myth.

If there are economic controls in place, what difference does it make whether the planning comes from workers or bureaucrats? The USSR pursued autarkic policies, created highly cooperative economic alliances with like-minded states, had a centrally planned economy, and was still incapable of disassociating itself from the international market. Since the collapse of the USSR, globalization has increased at an exponential rate making it even more difficult for states to pursue radical economic reforms at the risk of decreasing capital inflows and investment.

Socialism in isolation may be a myth in Marxist doctrine and I am sure there are normative reasons for that but I am highly skeptical that the working class will attain class consciousness in our lifetime; people are way too wrapped up in racial, religious, and ethnic group identities to consider themselves 'workers' above all.

Love As Arson

08/29/10, 10:29 PM

If there are economic controls in place, what difference does it make whether the planning comes from workers or bureaucrats?
Bureaucrats have different class interests. They were the ruling class in the USSR and they exploited the workers in the country.

The USSR pursued autarkic policies, created highly cooperative economic alliances with like-minded states, had a centrally planned economy, and was still incapable of disassociating itself from the international market.
Because it was still a capitalist state. The state simply took on the role of corporations.

. Since the collapse of the USSR, globalization has increased at an exponential rate, making it even more difficult for states to pursue radical economic reforms at the risk of decreasing capital inflows.
I don't expect states to make radical economic reforms. I expect workers to do so.

Socialism in isolation may be a myth in Marxist doctrine and I am sure there are normative reasons for that but I am highly skeptical that the working class will attain class consciousness in our lifetime; people are way too wrapped up in racial, religious, and ethnic group identities to consider themselves 'workers' above all.
It isn't automatic. Class consciousness requires struggle and it is through struggle that one realizes that class is what actually matters; that class is the drive for racial, religion and ethnic divisions. Many people have drawn the conclusions, they simply see the state of things as universal and unchangeable.

macabre

08/29/10, 10:57 PM

Bureaucrats have different class interests. They were the ruling class in the USSR and they exploited the workers in the country.

Because it was still a capitalist state. The state simply took on the role of corporations.

My argument is that the interdependence of international trade is an obstacle to any state that does not have a traditional market system. Save for typically disastrous autarkic policies, a state cannot entirely provide for itself and even the existence of economic alliances cannot fully supplant the role of an international market.

It isn't automatic. Class consciousness requires struggle and it is through struggle that one realizes that class is what actually matters; that class is the drive for racial, religion and ethnic divisions. Many people have drawn the conclusions, they simply see the state of things as universal and unchangeable.

I understand that's the ideal; I just doubt whether it's realistic, given that we still live and have always lived in such a divided world.

Scrandon

08/29/10, 11:02 PM

That's an interesting point. A country can't simply shut themselves out of a global economy, which is currently dominated by capitalism.

Love As Arson

08/30/10, 06:42 AM

My argument is that the interdependence of international trade is an obstacle to any state that does not have a traditional market system. Save for typically disastrous autarkic policies, a state cannot entirely provide for itself and even the existence of economic alliances cannot fully supplant the role of an international market.
My argument is that interdependence makes coordinating revolution, exchanging ideas, forging alliances, etc., possible. The reason that the Russian revolution failed, in part, is due to its isolation and subsequent invasion by western powers. That is why it is necessary for the fight-back to be global. We have already seen various global struggles which have produced reforms, e.g., Apartheid. Another example would be the bourgeois revolutions which made democratic republics the norm.

I understand that's the ideal; I just doubt whether it's realistic, given that we still live and have always lived in such a divided world.
The divisions have not always been static, however. The oscillate as the times change. It was thought that black and white workers could never struggle together and while those divisions exist to a certain extent, the struggle of the civil rights movement made great strides in making them see one another as comrades instead of enemies. Look at the workers at Republic Windows and Glass.

jawstheme

08/30/10, 09:02 AM

Love As Arson is my favorite person that I've never met.

x togepi x

08/30/10, 10:53 AM

modern interdependence through trade exacerbates the gap between the rich and poor, which could add further bolster anticapitalist movements. the main reason this hasn't happened currently is because of the relative conservative nature of religious movements that have been growing in the global south, but if those movements took a page from liberation theology in central and south america, you could see oppositions to the world order. the problem is that a lot of these new developments are still responses to the atheistic nature of the soviets, which is why conservative ideology, which is furthered by the doctrine of free trade, is so prevalent.

interdependence is not really interdependence. it's hyper-competitiveness on an economic scale. once the luster of globalization wears off, it's feasibly possible that people will realize that this form of globalization is problematic. We've already seen some of this phenomenon in Mexico, which has been losing a lot of its NAFTA-based factories to countries in Central America because Central America can do it cheaper. Once countries like Mexico, which are not really fully developed, start feeling the same effects with regards to outsourcing as 1st World countries, like the US, things could get interesting.

macabre

08/30/10, 06:14 PM

My argument is that interdependence makes coordinating revolution, exchanging ideas, forging alliances, etc., possible. The reason that the Russian revolution failed, in part, is due to its isolation and subsequent invasion by western powers. That is why it is necessary for the fight-back to be global.

I agree that interdependence can improve coordination, communication, and cooperation among socialist movements but those conditions are not sufficient for a global working class revolt to occur. A crisis beyond any we have seen historically, and we have seen some devastating crises, would have to occur and workers would have to realize that their class is their only essential group identification. As this current crisis indicates, however, making this identification salient is difficult when there are many different narratives as to why these crises occur and who exactly is to blame for them.

We have already seen various global struggles which have produced reforms, e.g., Apartheid. Another example would be the bourgeois revolutions which made democratic republics the norm.

The fact that apartheid was shunned by the international community helped promote those reforms. My argument runs parallel, in that a socialist economy would be shunned by a vastly intertwined global market, causing it to either attempt self-sufficiency or conform to the surrounding economic environment.

The latter statement is debatable, I wouldn't classify the bourgeois revolutions as a global movement with a shared ideology or purpose.

The divisions have not always been static, however. The oscillate as the times change. It was thought that black and white workers could never struggle together and while those divisions exist to a certain extent, the struggle of the civil rights movement made great strides in making them see one another as comrades instead of enemies. Look at the workers at Republic Windows and Glass.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western democracies have experienced a surge in radical right movements during economic turmoil. Rather than expressing disaffection with the capitalist system, many workers instead blame an intrusive government as the cause for economic crises. For many workers, the Soviet experiment has delegitimized socialism and neoliberalism is seen as a viable alternative. Moreover, nativism has become more rampant than ever as is evidenced by the anti-immigration sentiment across the West. The problem of a fractured working class has not improved, despite the positive strides made with regard to race relations in this country and elsewhere.

Normatively speaking, I understand why or how revolution should occur, I just doubt whether it's a result we'll see in the real world.

modern interdependence through trade exacerbates the gap between the rich and poor, which could add further bolster anticapitalist movements. the main reason this hasn't happened currently is because of the relative conservative nature of religious movements that have been growing in the global south, but if those movements took a page from liberation theology in central and south america, you could see oppositions to the world order. the problem is that a lot of these new developments are still responses to the atheistic nature of the soviets, which is why conservative ideology, which is furthered by the doctrine of free trade, is so prevalent.

I agree with you. Some of the problems you outlined, namely the growth of conservative ideology, coupled with a rigidly neoliberal global market make it less plausible that a global working class revolution will occur anytime soon.

interdependence is not really interdependence. it's hyper-competitiveness on an economic scale. once the luster of globalization wears off, it's feasibly possible that people will realize that this form of globalization is problematic.

It's definitely possible. I just think the repressive capabilities of governments in collusion are a bit understated in these discussions.

We've already seen some of this phenomenon in Mexico, which has been losing a lot of its NAFTA-based factories to countries in Central America because Central America can do it cheaper. Once countries like Mexico, which are not really fully developed, start feeling the same effects with regards to outsourcing as 1st World countries, like the US, things could get interesting.

See, I think in a situation like that a regional conflict seems more likely to occur than a revolt simply because governments can scapegoat other countries through the use of the media. The current mosque debate is a prime example of how easy it is for elites to inflame prejudices and conflict among religious and racial groups.

x togepi x

08/30/10, 07:35 PM

I agree with you. Some of the problems you outlined, namely the growth of conservative ideology, coupled with a rigidly neoliberal global market make it less plausible that a global working class revolution will occur anytime soon.

i just feel like these problems, especially the ideology, is too entrenched in these systems for anything other than some sort of working class movement, though I do agree that I don't see working class revolution anytime soon.

It's definitely possible. I just think the repressive capabilities of governments in collusion are a bit understated in these discussions.

Oh it's definitely understated, government collusion is why some commentators regard economic development of the third world to be considered a myth, but I think that the greater economic system is heavily influencing this collusion.

See, I think in a situation like that a regional conflict seems more likely to occur than a revolt simply because governments can scapegoat other countries through the use of the media. The current mosque debate is a prime example of how easy it is for elites to inflame prejudices and conflict among religious and racial groups.

Regional conflict is most definitely probable. Part of my problem with classic marxism is its lack of dealing with the media.

Love As Arson

08/30/10, 08:49 PM

I agree that interdependence can improve coordination, communication, and cooperation among socialist movements but those conditions are not sufficient for a global working class revolt to occur. A crisis beyond any we have seen historically, and we have seen some devastating crises, would have to occur and workers would have to realize that their class is their only essential group identification. As this current crisis indicates, however, making this identification salient is difficult when there are many different narratives as to why these crises occur and who exactly is to blame for them.
I agree. That is what Marx argues. The different narratives in times of crisis are shed, insofar as it forces oppressed groups together. It also creates new ideas, so one sees the creation of liberations theology which isn't at all incompatible with the revolutionary politics within other countries.

The fact that apartheid was shunned by the international community helped promote those reforms. My argument runs parallel, in that a socialist economy would be shunned by a vastly intertwined global market, causing it to either attempt self-sufficiency or conform to the surrounding economic environment.
Most western nations tacitly supported Apartheid, including the Reagan administration. In any case, I agree. My point is that, a complete socialist revolution is impossible without solidarity with other revolutionary actions in different countries. The issues that may arise with a socialist revolution in one country can be seen in Russia. In today's society, there are a few countries I think might support it, though. Venezuela for example.

The latter statement is debatable, I wouldn't classify the bourgeois revolutions as a global movement with a shared ideology or purpose.
Obviously, there were purposes. My only point is that, in America, one saw the American revolution, then one sees the Haitian revolution and the French revolution, and so on. Each of these demonstrate the coming to an end of certain economic relations and the rise of bourgeois class. The opposite current exists within various countries, and if they were ever successful, could inspire uprisings elsewhere which would make socialism the norm, in much the same way liberal democracy because a norm.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western democracies have experienced a surge in radical right movements during economic turmoil. Rather than expressing disaffection with the capitalist system, many workers instead blame an intrusive government as the cause for economic crises. For many workers, the Soviet experiment has delegitimized socialism and neoliberalism is seen as a viable alternative. Moreover, nativism has become more rampant than ever as is evidenced by the anti-immigration sentiment across the West. The problem of a fractured working class has not improved, despite the positive strides made with regard to race relations in this country and elsewhere.
That is the great tragedy of the Soviet Union, in my mind. That is why I argue socialists must demonstrate their case. Revolution is not near, but there are struggles, like that of the immigrants, which is based on class and can lead to us finding like-minded people to take part in the cause of building something revolutionary.

Normatively speaking, I understand why or how revolution should occur, I just doubt whether it's a result we'll see in the real world.
It makes me wonder what feudal lords may have thought when someone came to them with the idea of capitalism.

Zeran

08/30/10, 11:01 PM

feudalism lasted for centuries. compared to that, capitalism has just started. how long could it be until capitalism goes away?

Love As Arson

08/30/10, 11:10 PM

feudalism lasted for centuries. compared to that, capitalism has just started. how long could it be until capitalism goes away?
The origins of capitalism go back to at least the sixteenth century. In any case, I can't predict that when it will go away because it depends on the historical circumstances. Although, I think capitalism has entered a stage where it is exceeding reducing the sustainability of itself, both in terms of ecological worries and ideologically.