Six months of the Biden administration—A balance sheet
Blotched pandemic control, regime violence protested, a laughable account of economic recovery, Wall Street/super-rich influence over state affairs, an emerging Insurrection Party -- the ground shakes beneath the feet of the US ruling class.
Martin's piece invites many lines of response. Yet his 'balance sheet' also speaks more truth than some participants will care to hear.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
July 20, 2021
Six months ago, Joseph Biden was inaugurated president of the United States, under conditions of unprecedented crisis of US capitalism and the entire social and political order.
His predecessor, Donald Trump, did not attend the ceremony, signaling his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election. Only two weeks before, on January 6, Trump’s supporters had stormed the Capitol and temporarily halted the congressional certification of state electoral votes. The aim of the attempted coup was to stop the transfer of power and establish a personalist dictatorship. In the words of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, it was Trump’s “Reichstag moment.”
When Biden took office, 400,000 people were dead from the COVID-19 pandemic, while millions were unemployed. Just months earlier, every city, town, and village in America had seen protests in opposition to police violence.
Biden marked the six-month anniversary with brief remarks presenting American society in glowing terms. “For all those predictions of doom and gloom six months in, here’s where things stand,” he said. “Record growth, record job creation, workers getting hard-earned breaks.” He added, “Put simply: Our economy is on the move, and we have COVID-19 on the run.”
Summing up his prognosis, the US president proclaimed: “It turns out capitalism is alive and very well.” The truth is that the policies of the Biden administration have entirely failed to resolve the social crisis in America and they cannot, because they are based on the framework of American capitalism.
The pandemic, far from being “on the run,” is undergoing a new resurgence. Since Biden took office, an additional 225,000 people have died from the pandemic. All indications are that by the winter, with the new surge accompanying the spread of the Delta variant, the death toll under Biden will have exceeded that under Trump.
The policies of the Biden administration have been driven by the interests of Wall Street and the super-rich. This is why, despite occasional criticisms of Trump’s callous and anti-scientific response to the coronavirus pandemic, Biden has pursued the same policy of restoring corporate profit-making by forcing workers back to work and children back to school as quickly as possible, regardless of the dangers to their lives and health.
Trump’s response to the economic depression that accompanied the onset of the pandemic was to pour trillions into bolstering the banks, hedge funds and corporations, with bipartisan bills like the CARES Act. Biden pursues essentially the same policy, although with less support from the Republicans than the Democrats gave Trump. He boasts of success on the economic front, although seven million fewer workers have jobs today than before the pandemic began, and millions face wage cuts, poverty, eviction and foreclosure.
Only in foreign policy is there a significant shift from Trump to Biden, and this in tactics only, not strategy. Biden has placed more emphasis on the US utilization of NATO and the “Quad,” a de facto alliance with Japan, Australia and India. Significant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus backed Biden against Trump because they sought a more effective mobilization of US power against Russia and China.
And if Biden’s statement that “capitalism is alive and very well” were true, it begs the question: Why is there a mounting fascist threat to American democracy?
In the six months since Biden’s inauguration, the Republican Party has maintained its intransigent opposition to any serious investigation into the events of January 6. Half-hearted Democratic proposals, first for an “independent” bipartisan commission to investigate the attack, then for a bipartisan congressional investigation, have been blocked outright or endlessly delayed.
Meanwhile, evidence continues to emerge of the central role played by Trump and his allies in Congress in seeking to carry out a political coup d’état to overturn the results of the election and maintain himself in office. But neither Trump nor his accomplices have even been questioned, let alone tried, convicted and jailed.
Instead, Trump has renewed his agitation against the election, seeking to transform the Republican Party into an openly fascistic movement subordinated to his personal authority. And his supporters in the Republican Party are using their control of state legislatures to enact unprecedented and sweeping attacks on the right to vote.
Biden himself acknowledged something of the reality of the crisis of American capitalism in a speech last week in Philadelphia, when he declared “We are facing the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.” But he offered no way forward, except to appeal to “my Republican friends in the Congress, states and cities and counties to stand up” against this assault—although they are the very ones carrying it out.
In an effort to prop up illusions in the Democratic Party, the representatives of its “left” wing, portray Biden’s policies in extravagant terms. Last week Senator Bernie Sanders claimed that Biden’s “reconciliation” bill on social spending amounted to “the most consequential piece of legislation for working families since the 1930s.” Or, like Bhaskar Sunkara of Jacobin, affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, they express disappointment in what has been achieved so far, but express the hope that “Biden has shown a willingness to think big,” and that additional pressure should be brought to bear on congressional Democrats.
For his part, Biden uses every possible occasion to make clear he has no intention of implementing any measures that challenge the interests of the financial oligarchy, declaring last weekend, “Communism is a failed system, universally failed system. I don’t see socialism as a very useful substitute.”
The truth is that the Biden administration is based on Wall Street and the military, mobilizing behind it sections of the upper middle class through the utilization of identity politics. Well aware of the explosive social conditions developing in America, moreover, the administration supports the union “organization” campaign at Amazon and the PRO Act, to make it easier to install unions at work locations where they otherwise would have difficulty convincing workers to pay dues for the privilege of having their wages and benefits cut.
It is telling that when workers engage in genuine anti-corporate struggles, like the strikes waged by autoworkers against Volvo Trucks in Dublin, Virginia, the supposedly “pro-labor” president falls completely silent. Biden is for the unions, not for the workers, because he correctly sees the unions as an instrument of the US ruling class in policing the working class.
Workers must draw the lessons of six months of the Biden administration. None of the problems confronting the working class, from the disastrous pandemic response to unparalleled levels of social inequality, to the danger of imperialist world war and fascist dictatorship, can be addressed without breaking the grip of the financial oligarchy over every aspect of society.
This means breaking with both the Democratic and Republican parties and building a new, mass political party of working people, based on a socialist program. All those who seek to reorganize society to meet human need and not the demands of Wall Street should make the decision to join the Socialist Equality Party today.
There is plenty to address here. Cite the paragraph to which you wish to respond; then reply.
Ex:
'...if Biden’s statement that “capitalism is alive and very well” were true, it begs the question: Why is there a mounting fascist threat to American democracy?'
I agree/disagree with this statement because ...
Fascist threat?
More like Socialist/Communist threat
From the article: "This means breaking with both the Democratic and Republican parties and building a new, mass political party of working people, based on a socialist program. All those who seek to reorganize society to meet human need and not the demands of Wall Street should make the decision to join the Socialist Equality Party today."
I disagree. Socialism has never worked anywhere, and never will.
The critique of Biden is spot on.
On the other hand, Democratic Socialism has been very successful.
On the other hand Sanders is full of shit trying to equate economic models like Sweden to the USA.
The geopolitics and demographics alone blow that little pipe dream out of the water. The US would need to relinquish it's "world police" position for it to have a prayer. Perhaps Sweden can take our spot as world cop since they are so successful according to the Bern right? Right!
The three Scandinavian countries the Bern likes to highlight have a population roughly equivalent to NYC and over time have developed a much higher level of social trust in the government, a strong work ethic and a social harmony than will never be possible with the diversity differences between the US and them. NYC city dwellers getting along? Forget about it!
I could go on but i'm sure it's wasted on you. Sounds like you've bought the Bern, hook line and sinker
Wow, you do like to skew off topic. Don't you?
Never let it be said that you refuse to agree with Biden on anything.
'Sanders is full of *^#!@$'
Sanders is no socialist.
Lol .... alrighty then .....
You brought up the "off" topic ..... are you equally surprised at yourself?
Would you care to show me where I even mentioned Bernie? Or anything close to your response?
My comment did not speak to any person, country or ideology. It merely pointed out that a subset of "socialism" is very successful.
You fist, would you care to show me where the article discussed Democratic Socialism?
Your comment was merely a "primary set" of off topic. You are throw big rocks, in all glass houses. Nothing more .....
You got nothing Sparty. I replied to Greg's statement that was fully on topic. Then you jumped in with a total dumbass, off topic, spam email worthy statement. And are now unwilling to just slink away licking your wounds. Bye bye.
Lol ... yeah, you keep telling yourself all that ozz .... hilarious!
Just a procedural note... I really like that format/framework. That's a good idea, and in theory, should get people discussing issues with some degree of intellectual investment.
In. Theory.
Alas.
It's incredibly unlikely to actually work, given the characters in question, but it was worth a shot.
'It's incredibly unlikely to actually work...'
Alas! I think you're right -- as usual!
"The truth is"
I don't see any evidence of that 'here'
Glad to know that Russia and China have a direct in to the US now.
Haven't you heard? The leftist media is praising Biden's handling of Covid 19. Those 225,000 additional dead are all anit-vaxxer, conservative, and alt right. It is their own fault they are dead.
Quick someone tell the Teacher's Union. Yes, the second largest union finally backed everyone going back to school full time in May; but there is going to be a major payoff coming from Biden in return for it. They didn't change their tune because Biden and the Dems twisted their arms. Democrats aren't pro super rich; they are pro whomever pays them the most in terms of campaign contributions and free perks; and that includes large powerful lobbying groups. Which makes them no different than Republicans.
Leave out the fact that there are far more jobs available than there are people wanting to fill them. Of course that is what you get when you make unemployment far more profitable than actually getting a job. Once the unemployment ends, then so does the high number of unemployed. As for the Democrats supporting Trump on anything.
That only could have been written by someone that was asleep for the last 5 plus years.
The left wouldn't know an insurrection if it hit them, as several were going on around them for the last 5 years plus. Of course those were their insurrectionists; and getting rid of Trump was too important of a task to actually upholding the law.
The left's and never Trumper's most fervent reoccurring wet dream. It will never happen no matter how many times they try. Of course if they do bring charges against Trump; the next heads on the chopping block will be every Democrat that backed and encouraged BLM and Antifa riots. I don't give a shit about Trump; so watching prominent Democrats have to answer for their actions would be well worth seeing.
The left sees fascists every time they look in the mirror; but can never seem to identify them. Since they know they aren't fascists, then everyone else must be!
Somehow the article seems to miss the biggest threat the US; which is the southern border with illegal immigrants streaming across it in record numbers. Democrats sounded the dinner bell long and loud during their Presidential primaries. Biden ended Trump policies which had greatly slowed the flow. Amnesty is next on the to do list of the Democrats. It is the only way they can ensure they stay in power forever. Of course not all illegal immigrants are getting the warm welcome; just ask the Cubans. Of course the Cubans that come here don't vote Democrat; as they have first hand experience with Communism/Socialism.
'The leftist media is praising Biden's handling of Covid 19.'
Which shows there is nothing 'left' or 'progressive' with said media.
'Trump insisted that schools reopen. Biden insists that schools reopen.'
See the difference?
'...someone tell the Teacher's Union. Yes, the second largest union finally backed everyone going back to school full time.'
See?
'Democrats aren't pro super rich;'
Democrats are a party of Wall Street. The Democratic Party is the party of the Next 9% after the 1%.
'[Democrats] ... are pro whomever pays them the most in terms of campaign contributions and free perks; and that includes large powerful lobbying groups.'
Very much like the GOP.
'Which makes them no different than Republicans.'
That's what I've been saying.
'...there are far more jobs available than there are people wanting to fill them.'
Well ... you did post the smiley.
'As for the Democrats supporting Trump on anything. That only could have been written by someone that was asleep for the last 5 plus years.'
Except when you point out where they are one and the same.
'The left wouldn't know an insurrection if it hit them...'
But then you think that the Democratic Party is a party of the left.
'...getting rid of Trump was too important of a task to actually upholding the law.'
The Democratic Party is committed to its social class -- the petty-bourgeoisie, the Next 9% after the 1%.
'The left's and never Trumper's most fervent reoccurring wet dream.'
You keep saying 'left' as if you actually have a clue as to what it means.
'It will never happen no matter how many times they try.'
But they're not trying. Why is that? It's because the social position of the Next 9% is tied to the 1%. If the 1% falls, so does the Next 9%.
'Of course if they do bring charges against Trump;'
But they won't. For the reason I just explained.
'...the next heads on the chopping block will be every Democrat that backed and encouraged BLM and Antifa riots.'
Democratic Party heads that refuse to fall into line will go regardless to the chopping -- should the next coup prove successful.
'I don't give a shit about Trump;'
And at least half as much about anything else?
'...watching prominent Democrats have to answer for their actions would be well worth seeing.'
Ditto for both sections of the ruling class.
'The left sees fascists every time they look in the mirror; but can never seem to identify them. Since they know they aren't fascists, then everyone else must be!'
When one class section openly discusses the chopping block as the means of disposing of political opponents, you see the gist of fascism.
'Somehow the article seems to miss the biggest threat the US; which is the southern border with illegal immigrants streaming across it in record numbers.'
The greatest threat to the US ruling class is the ruling class itself!
'Democrats sounded the dinner bell long and loud during their Presidential primaries. Biden ended Trump policies which had greatly slowed the flow. Amnesty is next on the to do list of the Democrats.'
You seem to fixate on Democrats. You must be of the opinion that people need to believe that these partisan dynamics actually matter.
'It is the only way they can ensure they stay in power forever.'
Not possible. But the ruling class is committed to the premise that there will always be SOME ruling class.
'Cubans that come here don't vote Democrat;'
Voting is an idiot's errand. Please tell me you're not that stupid.
'they have first hand experience with Communism/Socialism.'
No. They don't. Cuba isn't socialist. It certainly isn't communist. Castor's 'revolution' was a petty-bourgeoisie tendency. That line is maintained by 1% bourgeoisie supporters as a hedge to guard against the rise of the real thing.
I would start with standardised definitions of political ideologies and systems, bipolarized definitions have already forced the center to wander to and fro and when the center shifts its mass pushes those to the left or the right of it to partisan amplitudes of cacophony. Nowhere is this more apparent than on sites such as this and in the media's muddled musings that now swamp orchestrated op-eds.
(Sorry if I broke the rules, but I still hold to a degree of Libertarianism [not its economic B.S.] when it comes to my keyboard or my studio.)
'...forced the center to wander to and fro...'
Well I don't see many others keeping the rule. But you -- you make a vitally important point. What you are saying is that the 'center' is disillusioned and disoriented.
I agree. I would add that you describe an unstable and dangerous situation. People who don't know which end is up can't do solid analysis and therefore cannot make good decisions.
It is such matters as you raise Hallux, that ought to [and must] be recognized and discussed. This is why I spoke recently of the endless stream of 'man-bites-dog' articles which flog the same talking points under every title.
Unless or until we are actually positioned on a stable basis, we cannot begin to sort through the continual stream of propaganda, to filter the racket, and to make sense of public life.
There are people -- a few are on NT -- who understand this. The last thing they want is for the 'center' [which I take to be largely working class] to start understanding events and making sense of their meaning. The noise machine [the endless racket of gibberish stories] is a deliberate strategy to keep the public at large in a state of disorientation. When people are in this way weakened, they can be manipulated.
We should not take the 'speak our mindlessness' bait. I think the more rational of us ought to select with some care the pieces that we seed, and we should probably spend less time engaging the 'nonsense' articles. When we do, it ought to be to bring a more sober perspective to bear on things that matter.
Thank you for your reply. And do check out the World Socialist Web Site from time to time.
Take care!
I'm afraid my spots are moving around to fast too change them "this late in my career."
Straight talk; no chaser.
President Biden is a creature of Washington, D.C. politics. You can see it threaded through every fiber of his being. (I am accenting the positive here.) You can see it in the 'thrill' this President demonstrates in his "open-arm reach" to those in the rooms he enters.
Biden is familiar with pomp and circumstance. Like a see-faring admiral or starred general, Biden has been bred to respect duty, display esprit de corp, and lead from the front of the pack. As a result, he is equipped to work as an institutionalist in support of institutions.
Biden has professional relationships with power-players and private intimacies with titans across the spectrum of government befitting a man of his training and achievements. That said, his behavior and actions do allow us to see a man who has a dream of capitalists and capitalism being persuaded to support the workers who strife within.
Something very telling and very "new" occurred this morning. Jeff Bezos, the world's richest man, upon returning to Earth from a flight that makes him an astronaut, announced the gifting of 200 million dollars to two (deserving) men: 1. Van Jones, a black professional, and supporter of many social causes. 2. Andrés is the founder of the World Central Kitchen
(See story below.)
No strings attached. Now that is a new capitalist thing! Unheard of.
The two recipients will do 'potent' things with this money - even as they are made 'extraordinary millionaires' without any strings attached. Capitalism meets Socialism in a smash-up.
Something so amazing has happened. Do we really know how to talk about it?
'giving away $200 million'
'Something so amazing has happened. Do we really know how to talk about it?'
Here;s a thought. He should exploiting the many employees upon whose sacrifices and broken backs his fortune is made.
He earned nearly 750,000 dollars during his 10 minute space flight. Not counting all the hype, just his regular business.
Correction:
He should stop exploiting ...
Sorry!
Making lemonade out of lemons. And I don't know (for a fact) that Mr. Bezos exploited his employees at all. At-known to excess. Looking at this self-worth does not mean abuse of business relations. It would help if you had some information (data) or articles stating "exploitation" expressly. After all, my understanding is he built a striving and extraordinary business model from scratch and it pay off in spades.
Also, that 200 million dollars to two remarkable men (instant wealth) is a starter on his new Courage and Civility Award program which will continue to seek out worthy rank and file "doers."
Again it is making lemonade out of lemons-at the worst. At its best, it is a lift up to common men, women, boys, and girls-because technically he does not not have to cut 'checks' for anybody who does not provide him contract services.
One last thing. I am open-minded about the criticism of Bezos, but it is the role of Congress to fix and bolster our tax codes. In lieu of Congress doing its taxation properly - Bezos seems to have found his own innovative "work-around" Courage and Civility Award program.
Amazon.com is an amazing 'place.' I see their trucks running like clock-work AM-NOON-PM on my very street-I mean it is extraordinary the amount of buying and selling that is happening on my block being put on display by these trucks! Multiply this across the country and it speaks to the service, the workers, and the fortunes out there to be made (and shared).
I gleaned your meaning and point! Thank you, nevertheless. One other thing, "broken backs" as a metaphor hearkens back to images of slave times: Did you really mean to "exploit" Amazon.com in this manner?
Amazon fulfillment centers are filled with reasonably well compensated employees
that were not discriminated against during the hiring process
for tattoos, piercings, strange hair color.
Oh, and Amazon doesn't test for THC. That's huge.
As the democratic and republican parties are fracturing each others aspirations and themselves, the door to hearts and minds is wide-open and yearning for a change to come. I liked to understand the socialist timeline for making this "working people" party a reality. . . in the U. S. A.
'I liked to understand the socialist timeline for making this "working people" party a reality...'
As I see it, this requires a transition to socialism.
Socialism transition timeline? Surely this collective has a clear strategic 'working' timeline. Eh?
People have to work, (engage) in some form or fashion to eat. Is it proper for an administration offering policies from the right 'vein' to be blamed for the "people's house and senate oppositions sides (and allies) are doing?
What is the role of the masses in taking care to push administration policy prescriptions? Nearly half of our voter 'mass' is rooting for the other guy.
Biden can't power through that. No one can.
'People have to work, (engage) in some form or fashion to eat. Is it proper for an administration offering policies from the right 'vein' to be blamed for the "people's house and senate oppositions sides (and allies) are doing?'
CB: People do need to eat and the answer to that is to expropriate the expropriators.
To date, the response to the novel coronavirus has answered solely to the ruling class demand for profit. Pandemic fortunes have been made aided by its spread. That was facilitated by policies ranging from malign neglect to intentional malfeasance encouraging spread. To this day, roughly 1% of Africans have been fully inoculated. Think of that -- 1%. These conditions, with the purely ad hoc nature of the response, will allow continued pandemic spread and mutation of variants which propagate ever more successfully.
Pandemic is perpetuated by our refusal to make vaccine available, or to release patents to other nations which could produce their own vaccine. However many lives are lost because of this, absolutely everything is determined by the profit motive. Prime Minister Boris Johnson best expressed the ruling class attitude with his demand that the bodies be piled high.
These are criminal policies. Our so-called 'world leaders' are implementing policies which constitute crimes against humanity. They have demonstrated that they will not lead, and they will not do what is right by their own people, or what is needed by the people of earth. The virus respects no borders or laws. And as the pandemic is global in character, a uniform, science-based, global response required. An essential part of this must include a mandated, universal inoculation program.
It should be evident by now that I have no interest in partisanship. I whip and flog all capitalist parties without discrimination. You know that. The pandemic will be reigned in when the working class everywhere takes relieves so-called 'leaders' of the task and itself implements the universal program based on the best information from trusted scientists. The world has absolutely the means to stop COVID-19. We absolutely have the scientific know-how, the technology and the resources to do this.
I'm done with parties, political systems, regimes, rationales, excuses, problems and issues which hinder what needs to be done. My allegiance is due solely to those who will do right and work for what is right for all. Do that -- or no support for anyone. Do it now. That isn't a request. This is a life-and-death matter for millions, particularly in impoverished regions of earth.
That you must even ask about those 'rooting for the other guy' demonstrates the inability of the regime to do what is necessitated. Push administrations? It is their abandonment of their respective populations around the earth which require that those regimes be sidestepped. As you yourself said, 'no one can.' And that is entirely correct. Under capitalism [which you recently claimed works quite well], there never will be a 'way.' Regimes themselves admit this, saying that people must 'live' [meaning die] with the virus.
No.
The ruling class had its chance. It failed. And it has shown that it refuses to do otherwise. Those false masters must spend their days in prison for abandoning their peoples, and for their crimes against humanity. Around the world, it falls to the whole working class -- the 90% in every nation -- see that this is so.
Point blank: Africa has to fix Africa. By engaging the world and itself. Our minds are 'fully' engaged in our own national crises resolutions.
As to U.S. A COVID-19 response: It's health, social, science, cultural, racial, tribal, and financial dynamics colliding into one another. (Fortunately or unfortunately, fortunes can be made this way!)
And, it's Causes and Effects at play. That is, we have extraordinary dissent over sickness, vaccines, and virus therapies (which we hear/read less about).
It is not the fault of the administration, that congress can't 'cope.' Let's be clear of the villain/s in this. Some of the "masses" are dumbly sitting on their hands with their arms 'covered' not getting the cure/s offered. That is notable in itself.
Again, you will have to pick your opponent. England has to fix its 'kingdom.' By engaging the world and itself. Our minds are 'fully' engaged in our own national crises resolutions. Our current president is not a selfish man or leader. Do you have other thoughts on this president of our country U.S. A.? If there are self-interests afoot-pinpoint the associations and not use a blanket effect, please.
Your scope is too broad. Nations have borders and "independent" leaders, dictators, tyrants, etceteras. And mandates, in the U. S. A. are hard to enforce (the whole 'herding' cats' (with 'guns' metaphor)!
Are 'universal' mandates acceptable in a socialist working people's party model?
Tall order. I am not trying to be glib with that. We like to think that the bulk of our national government is trying to work properly. There are just so many 'stakes' driven deeply into the intellect, religion, and spirits of the citizenry that is an ever shifting dynamic for which it is hard to find constants.
Now then, what real points do you have that 'pure' socialism can solve (all) ills of governance? Is socialism constant? That is lacking in the ups and downs and 'blockages' we currently find our nation plagued? Speak to the solution you offer (us) for a moment.
Where did you get that number? From everything I can see currently 9% of all vaccinations went to black Americans and roughly 25% of black Americans have had their first dose of vaccine and about 10% have had their second dose.
"More than 20 states not ordering all available doses as COVID-19 vaccinations slow"
The vaccine is available, it's the reluctance of primarily conservative Republicans and other anti-vaccers to get the vaccine that has created this new surge we're seeing.
"Republicans refusing to get vaccinated are owning no one but themselves"
"A third of White conservatives refuse to get vaccinated — a refusal shown in polling and the real world"
My friend, I understood Trotsky's Spectre to literally mean Africa, the continent. Though I did not verify his percentage/s.
Well that makes more sense, I misread his claim and immediately thought "that can't possibly be true". But even in the new context, is it really supply that is keeping even African countries from vaccinating their populations? I would think simple access to the population that is often spread out over wide distances in remote villages would be a far larger deterrent than not having enough vaccine.
Yes. Even Africans need to get their collective shit together for Africa's sake. Our own nation is in the throbs of some dangerous internal conflicts. We can hardly spare the time to glance in the direction of worldwide bull patty. We literally have citizens here who won't participate, engage, or venture supporting vaccination at home and its going to kill a great many of. . . us. . . before and over the fall months!
In the midst of a crisis which unites all peoples of the earth, you remain wielded to a nasty little nationalistic vision, fixated on OUR national crises -- as if our state alone is beset by these crises. You can't resolve this or any other crisis nationally. As I said, a virus doesn't conform to laws or visa requirements. ONLY a global strategy can resolve a global pandemic.
I cited Johnson as a most blatant example of the same, ruling class attitude/strategy which is operates worldwide. Note again -- all states contribute to these conditions.
You tell us that Africa must fix Africa. Translation -- they're on their own! Other than enormous vaccine profits, what would be lost if the patent was lifted? What would be lost if we shared with the world the process by which this vaccine is produced?
The forced reopening of schools is the central pillar of the ruling class drive to reopen the economy at any cost [to the working class]. During his opening remarks in the second presidential debate, did candidate Biden say or did he not say:
“220,000 Americans dead ... Anyone ... responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America ... I will take care of this. I will end this.”
And since Biden's inauguration, have 196,000 died or not died of COVID-19? Is Biden about to resign? If Biden does not believe his words, why should he be believed by the rest of us -- to say nothing of the the tens of millions who voted with the expectation that he would implement measures to stop the pandemic?
Humanity is no closer to ending this accursed pandemic than it was 18 months ago. Meanwhile, a president who pledged to follow science turns aside from it to do the bidding of a fiscal oligarchy which has massively enriched itself as hundreds of thousands died.
You put it best when I first landed on this forum. You said words to the effect that some of us are doing quite well and are not eager to upset this arrangement as it has proven quite profitable to us. You still echo those same sentiments as you speak in glowing terms of the wealth to be made and shared. The petty-bourgeoisie typically wants to be perceived as 'progressive;' in fact, your nationalistic vision is shared by the previous reichadistration which promoted the same vaccine nationalism.
Do well enough and at some point it will occur to you that more conservative policies might advance you further still. The GOP may become more than slightly attractive to you. The working class has seen many betrayals. Better than you or I have done this.
See here on Africa generally, and here on Nigeria in particular, Africa's most densely populated country.
And there you have it, good people! With US daily infections increasing 250% over a month, the gentleman proposes discussion of the resolution of all ills of governance. How long do you suppose that would take? And maybe that's the point.
That's the thing, CB. Talk until our planet's sun burns out, but for the love of all that's holy -- DON'T effect a mass mobilization of the global working class to implement emergency measures to stop a global pandemic. And above even that, DON'T hand the bill to America's billionaires who profited tremendously from the very catastrophe the ruling class blithely allowed to unfold through a policy of intentional malign neglect. Maintain the profitable [for the petty-bourgeoisie] status at all cost!
CB: you just made me recall something I haven't thought of in years!
What I explained to you "in the beginning" was this is not the time or space for such activities as tearing down the country and building new institutions or words to that effect. Our Congress and its capital was sitting before the start of this new administration and it was besieged. It barely survived and the stench and reeling from the outrage committed on its person/persons is still concerning.
Also, I told you I would hear you out, but that does not mean that I am resolved to socialist ideas, it simply means I am not openly against them either. I am keeping an open-mind.
Our congress is 'wacked.' They have opened the door for this 'attitude' you bring up. Otherwise, I doubt it could be taken seriously.
We are fighting figuratively and literally a political war of wills right now. I for my part am about to write that Speaker Nancy Pelosi should take off her 'gloves' with Minority Leader McCarthy who is treating her like some prissy female he can control with a 'bitch-slap.' Forgive my language all and its intensity there. But it is what it is in D.C. and its time to call it so.
Trotsky's S, like every opportunity that knocks, this is probably the best and the worse of times for socialism to rise up and demand an audience. We'll see.
What I am confident that this is not is a time for the U.S. A to be trying to go "deep" headlong into reconstituting capitalism while convincing Africans to strive for their own betterment under COVID-19. This time, we all can see, we are in dire straits of our own!
Let Africans rise up and fix Africa for the time being.
Is this how you communicate? You inform me of your socialist policy stance/s why accusing me of rejecting them outright as you do so? That is a lot of work there, Trotsky's S.!
America's billionaires are only part of the problem you face; trying to uproot capitalism which has dug itself down-down into the bedrock of the streams of 'Americana' and "America-think" with a socialism replacement even for the U.S.A alone or its allies or for the good of all mankind is another set of long-term issues.
What is the socialist timeline and strategy to tackle this monumental shift and undertaking?
CB:
It occurs to me that perhaps we're like two ships passing in the night, passengers on each vessel unaware that the other is there.
There is no socialist timeline. The socialist 'strategy' if you wish to call it that socialism is implemented only when conditions require it. This is understood by socialist, and unlike some Christian eschatologists, we know better than to try to set dates. It's foolish, and it's contrary to Marxian theory.
What I've been saying about the pandemic holds true regardless of what one believes about political economy. Social isolation, rigorous contact tracing, vaccination and closure schools and of all non-essential businesses is an imperative. It was a major defeat of working people that they did not DEMAND and REFUSE to resume schooling and work until this virus was contained. Had we done right early in 2020, this pandemic would have be contained and largely beaten already. But we didn't.
That error worsens our position grievously. A very successful variant now becomes the dominant strain. 'Breakthrough' cases are emerging in which fully vaccinated persons are sickening and dying. This comes at a time as schools are set to reopen, remote learning is set to end, and other precautions are being abandoned. If the winter of 20-21 was difficult, 21-22 threatens to be catastrophic. The working class can no longer afford the luxury of maintaining the privilege of the ruling oligarchy.
The ruling class is absolutely adamant that measures recommended by trusted scientists NOT be followed. It insists that the masses be herded back into workplaces to make ever more wealth for the 1%. The ruling oligarchy demands that the state implement those policies on their behalf AGAINST the 90%, whether they live or die.
This cannot wait for the resolution of questions of systems of governance; however those questions and their resolution will begin to arise as necessary to implement the required anti-pandemic measures. For example: people DO [as you say] have to eat. The very wealth which was expropriated FROM workers to enrich a bloated oligarchy during a pandemic must in turn be expropriated by for the working class. Other contradictions must also be addressed. We must face the irony of maintaining an utterly massive military budget which bleeds us white -- as if to say that far too few people are dying from pandemic. This is a monstrous absurdity. It is time that the US economy began to benefit the working class which produces the wealth of society.
I thought that you were dragging your heels because the implications of socialism came too close to home for you. Also, there is another side to Amazon of which many are not aware. They also have their rank-and-file committee, and more than a little unrest resides in those fulfillment centers. I confess that I was in a foul mood after reading about the wonderful job Amazon does. My bad. I also thought the 'Africa must fix Africa' line uncharacteristically cavalier.
One last matter. Socialism in one country [as the US] was the essence of Stalinism. Socialism is internationalism by definition. Workers of the world -- UNITE! The notion of a 'socialist country' is an impossibility in Marxian theory and practice.
It's time to quit for tonight. Take care.
I remember when you 'blazed' in arrival here: there was an avatar in use of a dancing elephant partnering with a dancing donkey - on four feet. It was followed by election images in commentary of planes falling and burning buildings. . .indicative of your (group?) seizing on an opportunity. I asked for a "socialism timeline" because there is immediacy and single-mindedness in every comment you make here. Little to nothing is wasted even when written at-length.
If there is no urgency, 'breathe.'
I agree with this sentiment. However, obliquely , but in a similar setting (change the 'object') had this come down to a boycott, picket line, or walk-out this is something of a push-back challenge we can hear -again it is oblique likeness:
So Trotsky S, what do you do when the activists are not 'meet' for the fight? In this case, the 'refusal, demand' did not occur. The aforementioned proposals received push-back ! This set of activists continue to favor finding capitalistic expressions to solving problems and not toppling its financial infrastructure--even while on its 'back-leg' or "down and out."
What is a 'working' solution, please?
How feasible is that? Who and in what numbers has the power or influence to compel nuclear states to develop and implement whole new systems? Surely you are aware that some countries are in experimental stages of democracy - they are not in any way, form, or attitude, ready to 'fight the powers that be.'
Much like libertarianism, socialism is a utopia. You would never get the great majority of Americans to agree to have a libertarian society, and you will never get them to agree to have a socialist society.
We have a hybrid of capitalism with a social welfare state, that is to say people are allowed to make as much money as they can as long as there remains in place a system for the government to redistribute some of the proceeds of capitalism back to the lower classes in form of "social safety net". So far this is the best our society has been able to come up with. Biden is not the guy to rock this particular boat.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom in terms of wages. An employer that does not pay his employees the lowest wage possible is not a good capitalist. Companies that have shares in the form of stock are much more interested in the price of the stock than they are in the wages of their employees.
As long as Americans believe that it is better for them to get rich in the stock market than it is for everyone to be paid a decent wage there is not much hope for change in income inequality. This is hardly Biden's fault. He is only trying to keep the boat afloat after Trump spent four years drilling holes in it so the water could pour in.
I don't think there has ever been a complete socialist society or government.
There has never been a society which implemented Socialism as defined by Marx. And since Marx defined Communism as the utopic end-state of the transition from Capitalism (with Socialism as the interim phase), there has never been a society which implemented Communism as defined by Marx.
However, those words are overloaded. Probably the most common alternate definition of ' Socialism ' is taken as ' whatever the former USSR did '. Marx, absolutely, would have been against brutal rule by an authoritarian state; his view of Socialism/Communism was democratic rule by the people (the workers ... the proletariat). Anyone who claims that the USSR implemented Marxian Socialism/Communism must answer where they found the people of the USSR democratically controlling their economy . The USSR was the polar opposite of that central Marxian theme.
Another common alternate definition of Socialism has been popularized by folks akin to Bernie Sanders. Sanders, et. al., use the term ' Socialism ' to refer to the Social Democracies of the Nordic nations and others in Europe. This too is not Marxian. Social Democracies are capitalist economies wherein the capitalist engine is regulated (and taxed) to fund social programs. Marx was an anti-capitalist (in the extreme) and while Social Democracies are certainly closer to what he envisioned than that of the former USSR, it is a misrepresentation to label Social Democracies as ' Socialism per Marx' .
USA citizens tend to use the term ' Socialism ' to refer to big government and massive spending on social programs. This usage is a variant of Social Democracy. Those opposed to big government / spending label this ' Socialism ' (bringing in the Social Democracy usage) but then criticize it as if it were ' Socialism ' per the USSR, Red China, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. (bringing in the brutal authoritarian rule).
This is intellectually dishonest (but who cares, right, because the end justifies the means).
Funny how so many are unable or unwilling to understand, much less accept that. They're usually the ones that complain the loudest about communism/socialism and view it in black & white terms only.
Given millions of people are running about claiming that Trump actually won the 2020 election, I can better accept how so many can be so confused about socialism.
To wit, if someone is so gullible and so full of wishful thinking to actually promote the notion that Trump won, then they could believe / promote anything. Accepting the slogan-level definitions of socialism is nothing compared to believing Trump's big lie.
It does put it into perspective when you consider the millions of dumb fuck morons who believe in such demonstrably false conspiracy theories. When you have these same idiots claiming socialism is the same as communism or fascism it doesn't make sense until you realize they're so fucking dumb they believe 2 + 2 = banana, Democrats eat babies, airplane contrails are controlling people minds and the earth is flat. It doesn't make it any less infuriating trying to debate with such folks, but it does help one to realize that no matter how many facts you use to support your premise, facts simply don't matter to conspiracy theory nut jobs, right wing bigots and religious conservatives who refuse to accept reality, facts and evidence. They believe what they believe because they want to believe it, facts and reality have no power over their them.
You're better than I am. I can't really accept peoples stupidity, no matter what form it takes.
It's like religion, just wishful thinking.
A very articulate and communicative posting. Emphatically.
It is 'exquisite' the way you explained "big government" propaganda.
Emphatically. And these folks 'swear' liberals are emotionally-driven (only). Yet, it is these very folks who try to persuade people to accept a thing through compelling, 'push,' and fraudulent actions/activities.
Thanks, unfortunately I suspect that my analysis is correct. It is all just ugly, lying partisan politics.
That's what it always seems to come down to.
What did it for me was when I learned of a poll in which 18% of US respondents indicated believing that the lunar landing was filmed in the Nevada desert.
You just can't make up this stuff ...
I think Capitalism is fine. It is unfettered capitalism and trickle down that is a problem.
From what I have learned from TiG, social safety nets is in itself not socialism.
I'm not sure capitalism is fine , but it seems to have worked better than anything else. Socialism where the means of production are owned by the state would probably lead to a lack of incentives for innovation and invention and also lead to considerable low level corruption.
There is a reason socialism is a utopia.
Capitalism is inherently unfair though, and creates poverty. That is why, as you say, it must be "fettered" or regulated.
From what I gather it wouldn't be owned by the state. It would technically be owned by the workers.
But yeah, it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it ever will.
In practice, those are one and the same.
Any system would have to have a hierarchy.
I would go along with that. Although trickle-down can work, it just takes longer.
I would add that Americans usually don't recognize trickle-down when they see it.
Exactly.
In the end, who owns something is less important than who makes the decisions on it. That's going to end up being the state in a socialist environment.
Yeah I know what I can but usually end up getting lost. Haha
TiG has a good grasp on socialism and how it is suppose to work.
Oh there is. Barack Obama's was the ultimate trickle down presidency. Trillions of dollars poured into banks and Wall Street, but eventually made it's way down to the sweater folders at WalMart.
'It is unfettered capitalism and trickle down that is a problem.'
Alternatively, that huge, sucking 'WHOOSHing' noise is a vast flood of worker-created wealth being sucked upward.
'...the usual cast of characters that promote class warfare.'
I'm not sure about this, but that may say more than you want. Remember that Marx didn't actually create class warfare as such; instead he explained how this had been happening all along. As some have put it -- 'it becomes class warfare ONLY when the proletarian class organizes to stop it.'
Nonsense.
Exactly. Every major society on the planet has social programs. If the defining characteristic of 'Socialism' was 'the presence of a social program / safety net' then every major society on the planet would ipso facto be 'Socialist'.
In practice the ownership has always been by the state or a combination of state/royalty and lords / private sector capitalists (aristocracy). No modern (past few centuries) nation has ever created a socio-economic/political system where the productive resources of the economy were collectively OWNED and thus CONTROLLED by the people at large (the demos).
Note, to refresh your memory, I am not arguing that democratic, collective control of the economy is necessarily a good thing (or that it is even possible to accomplish). I am simply stating the fact that it has never existed and thus the common practice of labeling any extant practice as 'Socialism per Marx' is incorrect.
I'd pretty much agree with all of that.
I wonder if "Socialism per Marx" doesn't sort of belong in the same category as physics theories based on things like "a perfect sphere in a vacuum".
It's sort of like "sounds ok...in theory.... and as soon as we find the combination of a perfect sphere in a vacuum somewhere in nature we'll let you know how it goes...."
Interesting.
Or if it's poorly regulated.
There is no doubt in my mind that Marx was an idealist. His theories are predicated on the notion that a society can largely run effectively with the demos daily calling the shots with heavy democracy. (Not pure direct democracy, but substantially more than what we are used to.) Even ancient Athens did not have the level of hands-on democracy as required (it would seem) by Marx.
Then, again, just because something has not been done does not mean that in the future, after much societal evolution, some form of Marxian system might indeed manifest. I am confident that none of us will live to see something like that.
What do you think Marxism is? That is, what are the defining characteristics of Marxism as you understand the term?
People are not going to burn down the structures that work reasonably well for the overwhelming majority of Americans simply so Communists/Socialists can ride off on their delusional grand experiment.
Eh, I think the two ruling parties are becoming a detriment.
There has to be something said for the idea of the workers having a stake in the company.
A sense of ownership and wanting it to succeed, plus the profits and benefits could be more equally spread.
Of course. That's not new. But it's kinda like how we always bitch about "cleaning out the swamp" and then usually re-elect our incumbent. We want all those people in OTHER places to elect somebody new. We're going to keep our same person. Same thing applies here. We'll expect all those OTHER people to see the light and join a new party.
Absolutely, and our current system allows for that in a myriad of ways. We're just not very well educated, so we have no idea they exist. For example: Did you know we have a tax code provision where an owner can sell shares to his employees and not pay capital gains taxes? That's been around for decades.
In short, I could not agree with you more, and I think you're just touching the surface of the idea.
But the old Henry Ford/Andrew Carnegie industrialist version of capitalism is all but dead and has been replaced by a newer, more relevant reality.
You can now start your own corporation for a couple hundred bucks.
Technology is creating a massive democratization of ownership and opportunity. Look at all the people making money on everything from Instagram to Youtube to TikTok to OnlyFans. All you need is a camera and a good idea. That doesn't count things like Wordpress or Etsy or Ebay.
You can sit in your apartment and sell insurance all over the country. Don't laugh, you can make a shitload of money and own the business. You can do tax returns, or web design, or medical billing.
IMO, what we need to break is this idea that a job working to make somebody else wealthy is anything more than that. It just isn't. The sooner we get more people to pursue and embrace ownership, the more prosperous we all will be.
I am an outlier in my district...
The only thing I can disagree a little with is I don't see these influencers as any long term career path.
I imagine it won't be for most, but a few will probably hang on, don't you think?
Some yeah. Some may make enough money for life. I think most though will realize fame is fickle.
I had a woman on the phone the other day (medical) all the sudden I heard all these dogs barking, drowned her out. She said sorry, I have eight puppies.
So, the propaganda in the first sentence attempts to frame the entire screed? For those who haven't gotten the memo, the United States is confronting an unprecedented crisis of democracy. It's a political crisis and not an economic crisis. Which isn't unprecedented, by the way. What is happening in the United States has little to do with capitalism; much to the chagrin of revolutionary Socialists.
Working people rose up against the government of the United States. But they were the wrong kind of people rising up for the wrong reasons according to neo-liberals, social liberals, and Socialists. So, now neo-liberals, social liberals, and Socialists must rewrite history and shift the narrative of their propaganda because someone held a revolution and it was insurrection.
How did the U.S. government stop that coup attempt? What did the U.S. government do to stop the insurrection? The insurrectionists (or Fascists or whatever label fits the occasion) stormed, occupied, and held the Capitol. Yet the Senate performed its ceremonial political function in the Senate chamber the same day. So the insurrection was stopped somehow. There has been a lot of reporting on how the insurrection started. But there hasn't been any reporting on how the insurrection ended. Why is that?
Did Gen. Mark Milley defend democracy against a coup? Or was he awaiting orders? Orders from who? Milley is playing politics, in a political setting, to avoid blame for standing by and doing nothing while political figures were threatened. The security of the U.S. government was threatened and the military wasn't there. The Reichstag burned; the Capitol still stands. And the military had absolutely nothing to do with why the Capitol still stands. Why is that?
That is just partisan out of touchness. And its shameful.
If some of y'all can see this far into the heart of the problem, then damn it you can see how to "box" and unlock a straight path out of it. What ever became of SHAME?!
Some of us do see how to 'box' and unlock a straight path out of it. But there is an obstacle of neo-liberal, social liberal, and Socialist resistance blocking the path. So, it's necessary to either remove that obstacle for find a way around that obstacle.
In that case, do you agree with this below?
There is a straight path carved out there. The theme: Calling things what they are. . . in truth. I would like if you could just communicate truth without diversions and name-calling distractions.
So, neo-liberal, social liberal, and Socialist resistance is nothing more than pursuit of a more perfect Socialism? Socialism in practice may be imperfect but more refined technocratic central planning of collectivized society will make Socialism more perfect?
Claiming that Socialism has not been practiced according to the idealized model of Karl Marx does not alter the core requirements of central planning and collectivizing society.
Imperfect Socialism is based on the same philosophical theories of collectivization as perfect Socialism. Pleading imperfection won't overcome the fundamental nature of neo-liberalism, social liberalism, and Socialism. Those philosophical theories of collectivization do not advocate for opportunity to empower an individual to make their own future through their own efforts.
Get this wording right. There was a question asked:
Call Socialism what it is first and do so consistently. Call other 'isms' what they are properly. And you will make sense to a larger number of readers. Otherwise, you are investing in esoteric means of expression and others can too readily misunderstand and labor to communicate with you!
Hard to respond without knowing what you mean by 'collectivizing society'. I might agree or disagree depending on what you actually mean.
Central planning is not a core requirement of Marxism. Right now, central planning of an economy is foolish. We are far from improving on the natural balance achieved by a market-based economy. But, in the future, I expect humankind will indeed have the computational sophistication to achieve greater effectiveness than our current market-based economy using cyber-based distributed optimization technology (a bit more sophisticated than the notion of 'central planning').
Yeah, I have no idea how you define 'collectivization'. Not even going to try to guess. I suspect another Nerm-generated definition.
Nerm_L: You're continually referring to Stalinism as socialism. If you can't get past that, you're saying little that requires a response.
'Socialism in practice may be imperfect but more refined technocratic central planning of collectivized society will make Socialism more perfect? '
You can't find a genuine socialist on this planet who speaks in such terms.
If anything can be reduced to a 'core requirement' it is that the means of production and distribution of goods and services are owned and operated by workers themselves. As for planning -- of course planning happens. No corporation produces anything without studying demographics, material and labor supplies, marketing, etc., and planning on that basis. And unlike Capitalism, the planning aims to answer the need of all, not the greed of a few.
Kapital can't plan anything without profit. Without profit, nothing moves. If a global pandemic were to hit, Kapital couldn't stop it. If uglier and ever more successful variants developed so that the planet was engulfed with wave after wave after wave after wave after wave of pandemic, Kapital couldn't respond without profit. If vaccine was developed, Kapital would be incapable of making it available to the world, because most of the world under Kapital couldn't make it profitable.
The inability of Kapital to stop the spread of pandemic would make clear the utter incompatibility of Kapitalism with societal social need. The struggle to save human lives in a pandemic would thus become inseparable from the struggle for socialism.
Socialism doesn't face a 'profit roadblock.' Socialism would allow the global scientific community to share their research and make better vaccines available sooner. In a socialist world, patents would not be an obstacle some regions to receive vaccine. Vaccine nationalism would be no issue.
Whereas this is not a socialist world, and whereas a pandemic disease is ripping through workplaces, workers both are forming and will continue to form rank-and-file committees to demand the closure of non-essential production and the enforcement of critical safety guidelines. This includes teachers who must and who will resist the efforts to reopen schools for in-person learning under conditions in which the pandemic is still spreading.
This pandemic has been mismanaged at every stage, and in every country on the planet. At this point of late stage Kapital, no other options are available.
The traditional 19th century definition is to "organize (something) on the basis of ownership by the people or the state, abolishing private ownership or involvement."
That definition depends upon ownership to exert the rights of ownership. The owner has the right to manage. But it is no longer necessary to hold title or deed of ownership to exert rights of ownership.
A 401k, mutual fund, or hedge fund concentrates privately owned capital into a fund managed by a financial firm. The financial firm manages the fund as owner of the fund. That has not abolished private ownership by individual investors but has transferred the rights of ownership to the financial firm. Any stocks or financial instruments purchased with that fund is owned by the financial firm and not owned by the individual investors. That financial firm has collectivized investors by organizing capital into a fund that the financial firm owns and manages.
Workers owning the means of production is just private ownership. The state owning the means of production doesn't change the fact that workers still own their own labor and can exchange that labor for property.
Under perfect or idealized Socialism/Communism, central planning is about organizing capital, resources, and labor to avoid natural evolution of a class structure through market competition. As long as workers can exert rights of ownership to manage their own means of production and their own labor, natural market competition will result in a class structure.
Central planning is a core requirement of Socialism to avoid the emergence of a class structure through natural market competition.
I am referring to Stalinism as imperfect Socialism. The minimum requirement is for the state to own, organize, and manage the means of production which the Soviet Republic certainly did. The idealized or perfect form of Socialism means the state owns, organizes, and manages the means of production for the benefit of workers. But few Socialists describe Socialism in that manner; the generally stated purpose of the state owning, organizing, and managing the means of production is for the benefit of the collective.
Under Socialism workers cannot be allowed to exert ownership rights over their own labor. A worker can exchange their labor for property. Workers exchanging their own labor for property results in the natural emergence of a class system.
Central planning is necessary to avoid the natural emergence of a class system. Socialism cannot work without central planning.
That's true. Capitalism (in its perfect form) doesn't involve itself in social organization. Capitalism is based upon a philosophical premise that private ownership allows individuals to manage their Kapital in their own best interest. The ideal is that people would take necessary measures in their own best interest.
Throughout the pandemic the majority of people were taking necessary measures in their own best interest. Attention was focused on the minority that did not.
The firm owns the mechanism for managing individual ownership by the investors. Using this as an analogy, under mature socialism the state would 'own' the mechanism for administering resources owned by the people; however, unlike the analogy, the people retain control over the decision making. This would be akin to the investors democratically making the investment decisions and having the administration of the fund simply execute their collective directions.
No. Wrong. The means of production (e.g. land, facilities, equipment, natural resources, ....) are collectively owned by society. Individual companies lease their usage of the MoP. The lease costs are used to maintain the inventory of MoP. The decisions on how to use resources (e.g. does a particular area choose to allow wind turbines locally) are made collectively. The collective decisions would be compartmentalized (nation ⇢ region ⇢ city ⇢ town ⇢ ...) but ultimately democratic. The people (the demos) would indeed have shared ownership and control over resources and would direct usage of same as they see fit.
You just made that up. Marx never specified central planning as a defining characteristic of socialism or his utopic communism. Market competition does not necessitate capitalism. A market-based economy, at its core, manages the demand (and thus supply) of resources dynamically with people voting with their pocketbooks. This would work if every company in the society were 100% owned and operated by the workers.
You are implicitly defining an egalitarian society where people are 'kept equal' by force of a state. That is not what Marx described. And it would be highly undesirable and artificial ... it would likely require authoritarian rule to implement.
And this is where you go horribly wrong. It is like referring to religion as imperfect science. Stalinism was brutal authoritarian rule by a dictator who exploited the resources (and people) of the nation to build and maintain the power of the state.
Show me how the people of the former USSR had control over their economy. The people had no control ... not even over their lives. Many lived in community housing where they shared bathrooms (and their bathroom time was scheduled ... yeah, got this from elderly locals while visiting St. Petersburg).
Anyone who compares Stalinism to Socialism in terms of actual concepts and methods (not just labels) does not understand what Marx described.
Yes, as I point out with my example, mature Socialism (as you call it) would function in a similar manner to a hedge fund. The state would concentrate and organize private ownership into a new entity, such as infrastructure, that the state owns and manages. And the state would create a bureaucracy of unelected public servants to make the decisions on how to manage that entity.
The individual voters may or may not have a voice in determining broad goals for management of the entity (the hedge fund or infrastructure) but will not have a voice in planning and decision making to achieve the broad goals.
You are not addressing the entirety of what I wrote. You are taking one piece out of the whole to make an argument that adds confusion and fails to address the point I made.
What you are describing is privately owned resources being organized into a new entity that is directed by the original private owners for their own benefit. What you are describing is a syndicate.
No, I didn't just make it up. What is the point of Socialism if Socialism does not curtail the disparities of a class system? Marx did not create Socialism to just be a system of redistribution.
Workers can trade their labor for resources or property. Workers who are more skilled, talented, or efficient can trade their labor for more resources or property than can a worker that is less skilled, talented, or efficient. That is a disparity that results in a class structure. Without central planning, a class structure would naturally reestablish itself.
I already addressed this. Repeating yourself is pointless. Your hedge fund analogy is wrong.
You specified a class system being curtailed by force of state. Marx envisioned a society where fundamental class disparity would not (in theory) naturally exist. Two entirely different things.
Probably, Marx was a dreamer. But central planning is not going to address that. Central planning in the USSR was part of a major league class system. Also, there will always be 'class' differences. There will be those who are more successful and those who are less. These minor differences are not what Marx saw. He focused on major differences that fundamentally enabled the higher class bourgeoisie to leverage their resources and perpetually exploit the lower class proletariat. That is, he did not seek an egalitarian society but rather one with near equal opportunity.
You are applying moral judgements. Did Karl Marx establish a moral authority for Socialism? Where did Karl Marx place that moral authority in the Socialist system? Does that moral authority have the authority to influence how the state manages state owned property and resources?
Supposedly the people of the Soviet Republic had control over their economy through the state. Isn't that how Socialism is supposed to work? The Soviet Republic held elections. The electoral process of the Soviet Republic was established in the constitution. The people had a voice in directing the state through an electoral process.
The Soviet Republic was founded by the people to pursue the broad goal of a classless system. The Soviet Republic was not founded to create as much economic profit as possible and then equitably redistribute that profit. The Soviet Republic was not founded to allow workers to exchange their labor for as much resources and property as they could. The Soviet Republic was not founded to allow people to do whatever they wished, whenever they wished and the state would pay the bills.
There is no way to deny that the Soviet Republic was a Socialist/Communist state.
Refer to the antecedent posts and you will see that 'collectivizing society' was your terminology, not mine. That is why the sentence was indented, italicized and placed in quotation.
'Workers owning the means of production is just private ownership.'
Do workers own the profits accruing from their labor? No. So they don't own the means of production. Moreover, workers don't exchange labor for property. The commodity which workers sell to the capitalist is not labor but labor power, the capacity to work, and for which they receive a wage.
Like every other commodity on the market, the value of labor power is determined by the value of the commodities needed to reproduce it. The value of labor power is the value of the commodities needed to keep the individual worker and his/her family alive in order to ensure a continual supply of wage workers.
Under socialism, production is planned on the basis of social need within and by the locality to be served. No central authority has the knowledge or expertise which is available locally in the community served.
If you want to contend that the development of three antagonistically aligned social classes are the product of natural evolution, go ahead and knock yourself out. I will reply that the development of working class resistance is the natural, evolutionary product of end-game capitalism.
'I am referring to Stalinism as imperfect Socialism.'
Stalinism isn't imperfect socialism. Stalinism isn't socialism.
'Under Socialism workers cannot be allowed to exert ownership rights over their own labor.'
Under Kapital, workers relinquish ownership rights over their labor power [not labor] in exchange for a wage. The owners of productive means also determine whose labor to buy, and on what terms it will be bought. These arrangements afford little to workers in terms of 'rights' understood in anything.
'Central planning is necessary to avoid the natural emergence of a class system. Socialism cannot work without central planning.'
I've already addressed this. System-wide planning is required in matters of system-wide import. We do that already under Capital. Other matters are delegated to individual states, and still others to counties and cities. The difference in planning under Kapital and under socialism is that the first is profit driven and the second will be driven by social need.
'Capitalism (in its perfect form) doesn't involve itself in social organization.'
Capitalism is a design for social organization. All peoples are organized into one of three groups depending on their relationship to the productive system.
'Capitalism is based upon a philosophical premise that private ownership allows individuals to manage their Kapital in their own best interest.'
Kapital is a system in which owners and investors alone have Kapital TO manage.
'The ideal is that people would take necessary measures in their own best interest.'
Which is called 'social revolution.' It is also why rank-and-file committees are developing in more sectors all the time.
You are deflecting with bullshit Nerm.
Look, if you think the people of the former USSR had control over their economy then there is no point in anyone talking to you ... you are living in a dreamworld.
The former USSR starting with Stalin did the exact opposite of what Marx called for. You do not understand what Marx wrote.
But what is happening is a collectivizing of society. Private ownership is being organized and concentrated to create a new entity owned and managed by a central authority. Public healthcare, public infrastructure, public education, public environment, etc., are all created entities owned and controlled by the state. A utility may be privately owned but is part of public infrastructure that is owned and managed by the state.
Yes, workers do own profits from their labor. Independent tradesmen do make a profit. Independent truckers do make a profit.
A worker's labor is not a cost for the worker. Workers exchanging labor for resources and property is profit for the worker. The problem is how to independently, rather than subjectively, value labor.
Attempts to understand (and address) economic disparities wasn't invented by Karl Marx. Marx utilized work that had preceded him.
The general conclusion of economic thinking prior to Marx is that economic disparities is a result of imbalances between wages (on the supply side of the marketplace) and prices (on the demand side of the marketplace). In a production/consumption based economy wages and prices are naturally connected to each other; wages affects the price that can be paid. Lower wages exerts pressure to lower prices.
Finance and usury disrupts the natural interrelationship between wages and prices. Prices becomes less dependent upon wages as credit becomes available. And concentrating capital in finance can create artificial scarcity or self-serving inflation (particularly when the value of capital is based upon a metal reserve). Finance does not need to expend labor to make profit (as workers do); finance only needs to own capital that is available for credit. With the advent of fractional banking it isn't even necessary to own the capital that is available for credit.
Prior to the industrial revolution (and the growth of bourgeois affluence) the preferred means of addressing economic disparity was to outlaw usury. But that was an unworkable solution for monarchies and exceptions were created (which is why Jews are stereotyped as money grubbers). Increasing middle-class affluence allowed the middle-class to directly provide credit; they could sell what that had produced on the promise of future payment. And the availability of credit made prices less dependent upon wages or income. Manufacturers and retailers could set prices based upon what consumers were willing to borrow.
Karl Marx was addressing the issue that owning capital does not require expenditure of labor to make profit; particularly when the value of capital was based upon metal reserves.
'...what is happening is a collectivizing of society.'
What is happening is the privatization of society. Health care, education, parks, etc. have been subjected to brutal cuts. Roads and prisons are also being privatized. Police and fire protection services -- even garbage collection -- have been proposed for privatization. Trump had intentions for the privatization of the US postal service. The direction is entirely opposite to what you represent it to be.
'...workers do own profits from their labor. Independent tradesmen do make a profit. Independent truckers do make a profit.'
Between labor/investment/ownership, small areas of overlap do exist. But it is erroneous to deduce from this a general principle such as you lay down by fiat -- workers own the profits from their labor. For the overwhelming majority of workers around the world, this does not apply. The evidence of this is seen in that the worker must sell her/his labor power to the capitalist. The worker gets a wage [usually], and the capitalist gets the finished product produced by the labor power sold as we discussed.
'Workers exchanging labor for resources and property is profit for the worker.'
No, Nerm_L. Workers exchange labor power for a wage. The resources are the property of the Capitalist. The miner who operates the drill owns neither the machine that drills, the electrical power which runs it, nor the ore which it digs from the earth. Mine/factory/field/forest/etc., all belongs to the Capitalist. Whatever is produced is also the property of the Capitalist. The Volvo truck worker does not own the trailer cab he builds. That cab belongs to Volvo. The worker takes a wage and goes home.
'Attempts to understand (and address) economic disparities wasn't invented by Karl Marx.'
The economic disparities were there all along. What Marx did was to identify the role that productive process has played in all societies in such disparity.
'Marx utilized work that had preceded him.'
Well of course. Marx opened his manifesto with the declaration that his work was based on the process of production in all previous societies. What's more, Marx was a classically trained economist. He was well versed in Smith, Ricardo and others.
'...economic disparities is a result of imbalances between wages...'
Wages/prices etc. have their place in economic discourse. But Marx' explanation of social class was based on relationship to the productive means in any given society.
I have a meeting coming up in a few minutes and have to quit here.
Take care!
Yes. The privatization of public services began under President Bill Clinton over 30 years ago. A lot of public services at the Federal level is GOCO (government owned, contractor operated). But a private contractor performing the tasks involved in delivering public services doesn't remove those public services from government. Modern politicians call that a public/private partnership.
What has happened, especially since Ronald Reagan was President, has been a blurring of the division between private sector and government. And a new type of ownership has been introduced into management of both public and private entities; the concept of managing resources and property as if owned. Organizing and managing resources and property has become a contracted service performed by middlemen.
In the United States both the supply-side and demand-side of the economy are privately owned. But the marketplace, itself, is owned by the government. The marketplace is public space owned collectively by the public and regulated and managed by the state.
How does Socialism do things differently than the American economic system?
Workers own the profits they earn. The economics for workers is the same as the economics for the business. The problem is how to independently and more objectively value labor so that workers obtain a larger share of the collective profits.
In the United States there are Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP) businesses which provide workers an owning interest in the business where they work. Some workers really can become millionaires as their ESOP shares increase in value. But those ESOP shares aren't wages.
I presume that workers in a Socialist system are provided some means of obtaining resources and property. At the least, workers need to obtain food, clothing, and shelter. How does Socialism provide the means for workers to obtain resources and property they need if not through wages?
I thought the state owned everything under Socialism. And if management of that state owned property is done through a democratic process then only the majority of workers manages that state owned property; not all workers. And workers won't own what they produce; the state owns what is produced. So, how does that make Socialism function differently than the American system?
Yes, that is the flaw with the economic theories of Karl Marx and Socialism. Marx theorized that disparities could be addressed on only one side of the economy.
Economic disparities emerge because of an imbalance between wages AND prices. Economic disparities are not the result of wages alone and cannot be fixed by addressing wages alone. The problem of economic disparities affects workers AND buyers.
Marx's one-sided approach is why Socialism can never achieve what is being promised.
Am I deflecting? You've claimed that Stalinism (if that is a distinct thing) was bad, wrong, evil. Those aren't objective measures. And conclusions based upon good/evil really are moral judgements. Falsely accusing me of deflecting doesn't answer the questions. Do you have any answers?
Did Karl Marx establish a moral authority for Socialism? Where did Karl Marx place that moral authority in the Socialist system? Does that moral authority have the authority to influence how the state manages state owned property and resources?
How does Socialism address issues of good and evil?
I didn't set the standard. Recent events in the United States have clarified that a democratic process is how the people exert control over the government, the economy, and social organization. The constitution of the Soviet Republic established just such a democratic process. The Soviet Republic held elections.
Are you suggesting that the capacity of a democratic process to allow people control over government, economy, and social organization has been overstated? Are you suggesting elections are not as important as has been touted?
Tread carefully in answering. Claiming that elections in the Soviet Republic were rigged invites comparison with our own elections.
Karl Marx never put any of his theories into practice. So, Marx's theories are all abstractions that weren't tested by Marx. As an abstraction, Marx's theories can become anything with nothing more than intellectual speculation.
The USSR is (was) an objective fact directly observed in reality. The Soviet Republic was real world application of Marx's abstract theories. The Bolshevik Revolution put Marx's abstract theories into practice; the Bolshevik Revolution was what Marx prescribed.
What you are suggesting is that, somewhere between the Bolshevik Revolution and Stalin, Marx's theories fell apart. Socialism did not evolve according to Marx's theories. Isn't it possible that Karl Marx's theories were flawed and the Soviet Republican was a natural, predictable cause/effect result?
Not going to play your stupid game Nerm.
Again, you deflect. Do you think the people of the former USSR had control over their economy? The answer better be 'no'; if not, you are either lying or in a dreamworld. Either way, you can talk to yourself.
Correct.
Incorrect. No point repeating my explanation.
That would be possible if his theories were applied; they were not. It is incredible that so many people are so stubbornly clueless about what Marx wrote as to actually believe Marx sought to replace capitalism (which he criticized as unfair and exploitative) with a brutal authoritarian rule where the people are exploited by the state for the benefit of the state. The inception of any application of Marxism is control by the proletariat. Without proletariat control of the means of production and distribution of an established industrial society, the implementation is not Marxism.
I have come to the conclusion that people have their preconceived notions and will not stray from them.
Absolutely. And those who play games to stubbornly cling to wrong ideas do not deserve much time (or respect).
That narrative completely ignores the protests, uprisings, and attempted worker revolts for more than a decade before the Bolshevik Revolution. That narrative ignores that the Bolshevik Revolution was a worker revolt. That narrative ignores the decade of leadership by Vladimir Lenin following the Revolution.
Socialism did not spring up in Russia overnight. The Russian Communist Party began as the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party; a worker's party calling for Socialist revolution according to Karl Marx's theories. Are you attempting to suggest that the October Revolution did not conform to Marx's theories? Are you attempting to suggest that Vladimir Lenin was not Socialist?
Are you attempting to suggest that the Soviet Republic created by military mutinies, worker revolts, and the capture and killing of Tsar Nicholas II and the royal family was completely helpless against Joseph Stalin?
The proletariat rose up, decapitated the monarchy, and established its own revolutionary council to seize the means of production and implement Socialism. The Soviet Republic was created by the proletariat. That's the true and accurate history. Where does that history stray from Karl Marx's theories?
So you now imply that revolts by the people is a defining characteristic of Marxism and that anything that results is ipso facto Marxism. Nerm, I am truly sick of your games.
I have focused on Stalin, not Lenin. Now you are shifting to an entirely different discussion. Lenin, in contrast to Stalin, did (I believe) intend to implement Marxism in the former USSR. Trouble is, he violated a fundamental tenet of Marxism right off the bat. He tried to take a largely pre-industrial society (versus a fully mature capitalistic industrial base which Marx held as the necessary foundation) and somehow achieve Marx's dreams. Lenin quickly realized that he could not do this and resorted to authoritarian rule. Later (two years before his death) he realized that the only way to achieve his dream of socialism was to first establish a mature industrial society based on capitalism. That never got started since Lenin died and Stalin took over and began his brutal authoritarian regime.
Two extremely critical factors:
You're actually arguing that industrial capitalism is a necessary prerequisite for Socialism? That's rather amazing. First of all, that argument suggests that Socialism can only work in an industrial economy. Secondly, that argument suggests that the state is not capable of organizing and managing the means of production to innovate and meet the needs of a growing population or growing affluence.
Those seem to be rather large flaws in Karl Marx's theories.
Who squashed the proletariat? The wealthy were no longer wealthy. The ruling class no longer had the power to rule. The established government was gone. The military had joined the proletariat. The October Revolution wiped away every institution that could squash the proletariat. How could Lenin assume authoritarian power without the support of the proletariat?
Doesn't that suggest another flaw in Karl Marx's theories?
I am not arguing that; I am stating that this is a fundamental tenet for socialism per Marx. Socialism per Marx, by definition, is the transition from a mature capitalist society where the class differences have become so stark that the system destabilized. If, under those conditions, the proletariat gain control (by the way, another tenet is that the proletariat had achieved class consciousness ... which was not true in Russia) then the stage of transition from capitalism to communism (per Marx) would be in process. Marx defined socialism as the transition from capitalism to communism (a utopic, democratic, decentralized, stateless society) and that transition was controlled by the proletariat exploiting the production capabilities of an established industrial system.
Just shows how little you know of Marx. Socialism per Marx is defined as the transition from a mature capitalist industrial society. Without the means of production and distribution sufficient to support the needs of the society, the proletariat would not be able to sustain their process. This is part of what Lenin realized. Thus, it is absolutely by definition that socialism proceeds from an industrial economy based on capitalism. And, again, these were not the conditions in Russia in 1917.
If the state is controlling things then, again, this is NOT socialism per Marx. If the proletariat are not in control, you do not have socialism per Marx.
There are plenty of flaws in Marx's theories. That is not the point. The point is the meaning of what Marx wrote. If one is going to attribute something to Marx (e.g. claiming the former USSR is an implementation of Marx' theories) then one should understand what Marx wrote.
Lenin. I was quite clear. He did it by assuming authoritarian control.
First, the proletariat supported Lenin. He spoke all the right words of socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat and soviets and equal opportunity etc. While saying all the right words he formed an authoritarian rule. Second, you do understand how that works, right? Do you think dictators rally support by telling the people what they are really up to? Have you forgotten examples such as Hitler?
Do you think, somehow, that I have been defending Marx' theories?? I have, as always, been correcting a false 'understanding' of what Marx wrote. Anyone who thinks that the former USSR was an implementation of socialism per Marx does not understand Marx. If they did understand Marx then they would realize that Marx was all about the proletariat securing decentralized, democratic control over the economy. The poor people of the former USSR (outside of high-ranking party members) were oppressed, abused and exploited to further the power of the state. They had no real power; they were one step above slaves. This is the polar opposite of Marxism. It does not matter if Marx' theories are right or wrong, the mischaracterization of 'Marxism' that takes place so prevalently in the USA is wrong.
Marx or Engels? Engels described that as a withering away of the state.
Perhaps Marx's theories are being mischaracterized by Socialist. Global stateless communism isn't Socialism. Presenting stateless communism as Marx's theories of economic and social organization ignores all the messy fiddly bits of Socialism that are necessary before a stateless society can emerge. The theorized natural transition to a stateless society makes Socialism obsolete because Socialism is irrevocably tied to the state.
Karl Marx theorized that Socialism would make class, government, and economic competition obsolete through unilateral political power by the proletariat. Marx did not theorize that the proletariat seizing unilateral political power would allow everyone to sit around the campfire and sing folk songs.
Karl Marx theorized that it was necessary for the proletariat to take unilateral control of the state and establish dictatorial (or totalitarian) power over the state. The proletariat needed dictatorial authority to prevent counter revolution. The proletariat would use the state to seize the means of production and eliminate economic competition (which Marx claimed was the root cause of a class system). The proletariat would use the state to instill a collective mindset into the population and root out those advocating counter revolutionary economic competition.
Socialism requires an autocratic, dictatorial state to eliminate counter revolutionary ideas and prevent the reemergence of economic competition and a class system. That's what Karl Marx theorized as Socialism. Those are the messy fiddly bits that Socialists want to sweep under the rug. Global stateless communism can only emerge after all counter revolutionary ideas have been eliminated; that's a messy process.
That's simply not true. The state controlling things IS Socialism. Socialism requires the state to prevent counter revolutionary ideas regaining power. As long as the state must control things then Communism has not been achieved. Stateless communism can only be achieved when counter revolutionary ideas have been eliminated and state control no longer serves a purpose.
The unilateral political power of the proletariat is not democratic and cannot be democratic. Imposing a Capitalist interpretation of democracy onto Marx misrepresents the meaning of democracy under Socialism.
Under Capitalism, economic competition determines what to produce and how much to produce. But economic competition allows a class system to establish itself. Preventing a class structure establishing itself in the economy requires eliminating economic competition. Economic competition is a counter revolutionary idea. How does a Socialist economy determine what and how much to produce without economic competition? Marx envisioned replacing economic competition with a democratic process to determine what and how much to produce. That democratic process was not about the proletariat controlling the economy (the state controlled the economy) but was about organizing the economy to identify demands and supply those demands.
Engels continued Marx' work. Engels funded Marx' work and brought it to a state of completion after Marx' death. It is all considered the work of Marx. I certainly am not making a distinction.
Sure, but it is a fact that people refer to Marx' intermediate stage as 'Socialism' and they call Leninism and Stalinism forms of 'socialism' and Marxism. The overloading of the language here is the key problem. It is the overloading that causes me to comment on this topic. I have stated many times that people should not even use the term 'socialism' or 'socialist' because the words have been so etymologically polluted as to become meaningless.
Correct. Did someone suggest otherwise?
The dictatorship of the proletariat means collective control over the productive resources of the economy. It does not mean to elevate a new individual to be dictator.
Marx envisioned a transition from capitalism to communism and during that transition the proletariat would have collective control. Now, at what point in time did the proletariat of Russia / former USSR have such control?
Nerm, why is it that you cannot comprehend that if the state is controlling the productive resources of society then the people as a collective are not?
It is either a minority of officials controlling or it is the people as a whole doing the controlling.
Marx did not seek to replace one ruling authority (the bourgeoisie) with another (state officials). The state would persist (until mature communism) but it would be an administrative tool for the collective; it would not be in control.
We just talked about the overloading of terms. Here you contribute to the pollution of semantics by refusing to acknowledge even profound semantic distinctions.
Where have I strayed from that definition? What I'm not doing is attempting to impose a Western Capitalist interpretation onto that definition. I'm not trying to fit Socialism into Western Capitalist expectations.
Read this part:
When you say socialism is state control, that strays from the definition...
That's doublespeak. The overloading of language is the result of attempting to present Socialism as some sort of improved type of Capitalism.
That conclusion is based upon superimposing Western Capitalist concepts onto Marx's theories. Western democracy is based upon economic competition and a class system. Western democracy is not the same as Socialist democracy.
Voting in your own best interest is a counter revolutionary idea that must be eliminated from the economy and society. The ideal of Communism is both stateless and selfless. Individual lifestyle is subordinate to the welfare of the collective. As long as people think in terms of personal benefit then the intermediate stage of Socialism will be necessary.
Where is what we have that much different than most countries in Europe?
The only main difference I can see is universal healthcare.
So I would say we do have a form of 'social democracy'.
I fail to see how people having a working collective would in any way diminish any social aspects.
I do not know why I bother with you. You seem to be driven to find new ways to misconstrue points.
You are superimposing a Capitalist definition of 'state' onto Socialism. A Capitalist example would be the United Nations. The United Nations is a state but is not a geopolitical entity based upon property and does not derive authority from owning property.
The state is the collective and derives its authority from the collective. The state is not defined by property and does not derive its authority from owning property. The state is not a country, as is the case under Capitalism.
I am going by definition. Simple, period.
And where did Karl Marx talk about community? The definition is an interpretation of Marx using Capitalist language that is published in a Capitalist dictionary.
A community under Capitalism isn't the same thing as the collective under Socialism.
To understand Socialism it is necessary to eliminate the Capitalist concepts of individualism and personal benefit. Thinking in terms of the individual fosters competition for personal benefit that results in disparities of class.
The identity of the individual is the collective. Socialism is not intended to provide individual benefit; individuals share collective benefit.
Claiming that community ownership improves individual lives portrays Socialism as an improved type of Capitalism. That's not Socialism.
There are valid arguments for community ownership. There are valid arguments for government safety nets. There are valid arguments for European models of using government to deliver services. But that would be better labeled Democratic Capitalism than Democratic Socialism.
'...the United States is confronting an unprecedented crisis of democracy. It's a political crisis and not an economic crisis.'
Yet immediately, you begin to flail the proletarian class [people who actually create the wealth by working for a living].
Let me guess. The problem is that some people just don't get that the market system is rooted in the laws of nature itself, which makes the market both necessary and eternal. Unlike earlier systems of production such as feudalism, the market system is the pinnacle of productive and economic development. Crises may come, but they are never the product of the Crapitalist social system itself. Economic crises arise from 'market imperfections,' or some other external, unforeseen or accidental development.
Nerm_L, I'm wondering if you perceive the world rather as did Medieval priests. So long as Capitalism behaves as textbooks tell it to, any economic 'crises' which arise simply cannot be endemic to the system. It looks to me as if you view Capitalism's textbooks rather as Medievalists used Scripture to rationalize the socio-economic order of their day.
Then one day, the profit system collided with reality.
February 2018 saw the biggest market crises since '08. This means that NONE of the underlying contradictions which exploded into view at that time had been resolved a decade later. And yet that breakdown reduced the living standards of billions, while creating unprecedented wealth for a razor thin layer of Capitalist oligarchs at the very peak of society.
Or to cite Marx -- the accumulation of wealth at one pole means poverty, misery and degradation at the other. This means that in the final analysis, the 'success' of Kapital depends on the reduction and impoverishment of the working class.
No matter how you try to explain or otherwise make it go away, the February '18 fiscal upset demonstrated that a Capitalist economic meltdown remains an ongoing threat. That threat of economic collapse hangs over the world's working masses like Damocles' Sword. It is destined to fall. If it does not fall in this crisis, it will fall in others yet to come.
In fact the most striking thing about 2018 is that said crisis was NOT the product of recession; it was sparked rather by news of an economic uptick. The IMF had it that the economy was enjoying the best period of global growth since 2009. And that was the problem. In the US, wages had their largest, annual rise since 2009.
You may recall Trump pouting that in past days, the report of 'good news' saw the market rise, but when good news is reported today, it falls. That led to his 'big mistake' comment. In fact the very rise in worker wages brought with it the threat that 'the wrong kind of people' [your term for working people] may not surrender their gains to companies and stock holders easily.
But even Trump can't say everything in a Tweet. And what his tweet DIDN'T mention is that the recovery he mentioned was actually the weakest since WW II. Nor did Trump say that said 'recovery' was sustained SOLELY by the ongoing flow of super-cheap money from the Federal Reserve Incorporated and other major central banks.
That policy was supposed to be temporary. Then something happened. The uber-wealthy became very quickly and deeply addicted to this source of ultra-cheap money. And now there is no way that ANY regime can return to earlier policy without working market ruination. Even to mention interest rates and whether the state is prepared to use them to punish the working class for its impudence can send the market into gyrations like a planet wobbling on its axis.
Ironically, the very remedy which was supposed to fix the earlier market fit threatens to become the cause of the next and even deeper convulsion.
Chinese people are quite intelligent, Nerm_L. They have this clever saying that the man who has a tiger by the tail had better not let go. Yet the situation is inherently untenable. You may not be Chinese; but I think you're sufficiently bright to see the point. Damocles' Sword hangs over the proletarian class by a thread. Deny the crisis if you will, it will fall.
The S&P 500 was down 3.89% for the month of February 2018. That hardly seems like a crisis.
It was up 5.62% for the month of January, 2018. What are we calling that if 3.89% represents a "crisis"?
Why is it surprising that Joe Biden favors Wall Street interests? Joe Biden was one of a cohort of neo-liberal politicians that gained political power in the late 1970s and 1980s. Those neo-liberal politicians shifted domestic policy to favor creation of a service economy made up of financial middle-men. That neo-liberal shift toward a service economy required changing the social structure of the United States. The Protestant work ethic was out; collective social and economic organization of society was in.
The neo-liberal politicians of the 1970s and 1980s redefined the role of government to perform pro-active central planning to manage collective social and economic organization of society. The neo-liberal role of government was to actively shape society according to theories of collectivization. Neo-liberals introduced Socialist/Communist (or Fascist) collective philosophy into the role and function government.
Whether the neo-liberal dominated government of the United States is Socialist or Fascist is really quite unimportant. The role and function of government under Socialism or Fascism are almost identical; the distinctions between the two are rather superficial.
I wouldn't go there, Nerm_L. Those who have read of their interrelated struggles and betrayals are apt to think that you are rather superficial.
Trump bailed out banks, hedge, funds, and corporations? Really? That's an odd colored sky for reality.
Where did the relief checks (with Trump's signature) come from? Where did enhanced unemployment benefits come from? Where did the small business loan program that included provisions for debt forgiveness come from? Who is paying for the vaccines?
Naturally the Socialist/Fascist proclivities of our centrally planned, government constructed neo-liberal economy abused and exploited those relief efforts. That's what financial middle-men do; that's how financial middle-men make their money.
As I understand it, your question really asks from where the money comes. The answer is that the horribly misnamed 'CARES Act' is paid for by the working class.
Funds can be 'allocated' for various purposes. But figures on the books are meaningless until they are given real value. This comes in the form of attacks on the working class through cuts to programs on one hand, and cuts to worker benefits [wages/retirement/health/etc.] on the other hand. The real question re: vaccines is not who pays but who profits.
You really should give up the 'socialist/fascist' nonsense. It just looks ridiculous. I've already pointed out that so-called 'national socialism' isn't socialism because socialism is by definition internationalism. Hitler moved early against socialists, and Stalin murdered socialists in numbers that could have made Hitler blush.
Joe is correct.
And if you expected anything different from him, you haven't really been paying attention.
Wait ... What? Wasn't the threat to US capitalism? Now the threat is to American democracy? You mean US capitalism and American democracy coexist and support each other?
The propaganda message is that people rose up against the US government in an insurrection to stage a coup. That coup attempt threatened US capitalism and American democracy. So, people rising up against the system is actually insurrection and not revolution. Whether it's called a Fascist insurrection or Socialist insurrection is superficial.
Begging the question proves that liberals have chosen the side of the status quo; the conventional wisdom of a neo-liberal collectivization of society for the benefit of governmental technocracy and globalized business.
The United States has already become a Socialist/Fascist country through neo-liberal collectivization of society. Neo-liberals, social liberals, and Socialists aren't going to change that. The United States is living the dream of collectivization.
Yup. It's called MAGA. And MAGA is reshaping both the Democratic and Republican Parties. The priorities of MAGA are straightforward but apparently not obvious to neo-liberals, social liberals, or Socialists. The priorities of MAGA empowers the people.
Political organizations like the Socialist Equality Party make bubble gum promises; fill the bubble of expectation with hot air but the bubble is too fragile to withstand practical application.
MAGA isn't anything new. MAGA is built upon the real history of opportunity in the United States; not a contrived history of disadvantage. And that history of opportunity in the United States is replete with examples of people overcoming adversity. It's true that providing opportunity in the past sometimes required enormous sacrifice. And sometimes the effort to provide opportunity did not succeed. The promise and possibility of opportunity always gave hope.
MAGA is a renewal of the United States' original insurrection that empowered the people. While other political movements offer many things; the most important promise of MAGA is hope. People can accomplish amazing things if they have the opportunity to do so. MAGA is a fight for opportunity.
You called it an "insurrection" and January 6 was an assault on the sitting government: an insurrection. MAGA is aspiration and panting after the days of robber barons and the freedom to compete and take everything for oneself or one's interests leaving 'residue' behind for the masses. MAGA is Trump; the embodiment of "catch me as I steal, take, and control all that I lay my sights on."
The American Revolution was an insurrection that empowered the people. An 'orange man bad' screed won't change the facts or truth of the original insurrection that resulted in founding of the United States by a free people empowered to govern themselves and make their own future.
Seriously? An assault on the Capitol building is an assault on the people, collectively the, "citizenry." Analyzing and assessing blame comes 'Next.'
I could tell you something here, but discipline requires me to temper my wording.
Donald J. Trump is a selfish, lying, deceitful, thief who has for lack of a more fitting word, "charm" to make some of the masses see the world through his (unique) worldview. I do not "orange man bad" Donald J. Trump, because that would be to downplay or dilute him. And one thing Donald is "potent."
This country was founded by Whites from England expecting to be a home for Whites thrown out of England! After that fact, the thinking was "we" can be free Whites from England. We can be free to live as we see fit apart from English authority. Which led to a revolution and a constitution that was more aspiration than some Whites actually wanted for the country. That is, there were actually Whites here who did not then (and do not now) want anybody to be here as citizens but Whites "classified" as Whites.
To that point, such Whites do not acknowledge and can be dismissive to anybody who is not a "White" classified. That is, when such persons use words like, "free people" they are not addressing everybody in this nation. But are speaking ('whistling') to their own Whites.
I know this, we know this, and you should know it too - and if you did not before - well, you do now.
As the saying goes, 'Blacks' were imported here. 'Others' were invited here. And so the dream of a separate "White homeland" is gone up in smoke. So how about that future 'together' empowering all of us for a change?!
You're jumping topics - 'ships'. . . I am confident AOC is in therapy for her purposes. What does that have to do with "six months of the Biden Adminstration A Balance Sheet"? And let me be clear, only a foolish person would try to equate attacking the sitting seat of governmental power forthright as comparable to a battle on the public streets of this country. Distinctions Matter.
I could be that is the problem here. Discipline in expressing oneself has become lapsed. Time to call issues, matters, questions, comments, and situations what they are and not lazily give in to poorly expressed characterizations!
Pretty much.
That's the history.
Now you've drifted off into a narrative of perpetual disadvantage that offers no opportunity or hope. Because the United States is white, there isn't opportunity for anyone that isn't white. But even a cursory scan of the news stories for today demonstrates that narrative of perpetual disadvantage is completely and utterly false.
If the United States was not a land of opportunity, then Blacks would not be immigrating to the country and seeking citizenship. In fact, the number of immigrants have increased so much that the African-American community became the Black community to accommodate the shift in non-African Black demographics.
So, the narrative of perpetuate disadvantage is not reflected in reality. Are we to believe that black and brown people are immigrating to the United States because they want to experience racism? They're seeking disadvantage? Really?
The narrative of perpetual disadvantage seems to be bigger obstacle to opportunity than the white population of the United States. The government has bought into that narrative of perpetual disadvantage to justify technocratic central planning for a collectivized Black population. A Black individual is defined by the collective and not by their own accomplishments and achievements that were possible by opportunity to make their own future.
Do, using my quote above, point out SPECIFICALLY where it is I 'drifted' into anything stating "perpetual disadvantage-ment" of groups of Others. I did not do it. You introduced the narrative and then proceeded to label it: False.
The African-American community became 'black' because it was in search of a displaced identity in the U. S. A. We were / are from Africa back in time, but we have no idea of what shore, township, tribe - it all being wiped from our "collective" history by Masters and slave 'essentials.' After all, at the time of record-keeping, who really cared what/when/where human 'property' (beasts of the field) considered as 'background'? Thus, Africans immigrate. 'Blacks' were imported here. And we became black Americans as a derivative.
Black Americans remain in the U. S. A because it is "Home." For similar reasons, Blacks run for office-to ease racial tensions and stresses on society. That we continue to strive for better and more equality means we are 'in the struggle' against conservative forces that do not see our proper value. Brown people can speak for themselves as to why they come here (if they are on NT).
Ever the opportunist, you do yourself no favor when you try to make "inventive" statements on the Black African experience in the U. S. A.
You do not know what you are talking about or you simply are trying to justify why some Whites can't cope with Blacks who want to see less oppression and repression in this country. Which?
Anybody can spin a tale for a tale sake about anybody else or anything. We have great storytellers in this world. And 'banks' of expert damage control spin-doctors.
I have already done so in @14.1.7. No need to repeat.
And that new identity has been shaped by immigration increasing the diversity of the Black population.
Supposedly we are all from Africa back in time. We only need go back far enough in time for everyone in the United States to be African-American. But that's not how it works, is it?
But that does not address Black people immigrating to the United States today. Are Black people immigrating to the United States today because they want to experience racism or are seeking disadvantage? You are ignoring 150 years of immigration to the United States by Black people.
Yeah, you're full of it.
That's a fact, Nerm. You can try to deflect, but I won't permit it - not this time.
There are some whites who did (and do) but not all whites did (and do). There is only a disadvantage where some whites are involved. Not a disadvantage where all whites are involved.
You are attempting to appropriate common language, such as 'free people', used by all whites to associate that common language with disadvantage where some whites are involved. By associating common language with disadvantage then common language becomes perpetual disadvantage.
You're being argumentative. For starters where do you get this idea Africans immigrating from Africa self-identify as , "Black people"? (It could be true, I have not been to Africa in many, many years and when there it never crossed by mind to ask them if they were listed as anything other than African.)
No. That's not how it works. Although I can not see you in person, you highly probably are not self-labeling in the real world as "(supposedly) African-American." So, why waste our time going there?
Is the United States a slave state that foreign born Africans must avoid at any and all cost?
You are being tedious as it must serve your purposes to be so. So let me slow walk with you (and I will as slowly as you care to go) and get through why foreign born Africans and Others immigrate to the United States.
Do not let the imperfect be the enemy of the Good.
The people of this world do not hate the United States. The "States" are (were) aspiring to higher ideas than 'far-away' places in this world where tribalism and lack of diversity (sameness) exist. Of course, the United States is striving to be better than its own sordid past - but that simply points to how much tragedy and sorrow exist in our planet's history that our "experiment" in diversity is the best model of liberty the world may have.
To be clear, I am not saying the United States is not solving its societal problems, but I am saying that we digress and suffer frequent self-setbacks!
One more 'swing' at your charge: I resent your question quoted above, on the grounds that whatever foreign born nationals immigrating to the United States are coming here for it is not to be lied, cheated, mistreated, or dominated by one obsessively burdensome political party. They arrive for the good 'parts' of the lore, history, and diversity.
Similarly, foreign-born conservatives immigrate to the United States today, and they are coming despite liberalizing 'parts' of our society.
Nerm, nobody immigrates here for bull patty this nation disses out. To say that we have less nuanced bull patty than some, most, other parts of the world, and that depends on perspective is one thing; to imply that we are "pristine" and have need of nothing to change about our nation character - frankly, you know better than that. So why go there?
"Such" qualifies a condition in discussion. Had I meant to imply or state all Whites I would not have used a qualifier, Nerm_L.!
When such persons "do it", Nerm, they do not concern themselves with what the rest of "everybody" hear.
And yes, I am taking time to make this distinction about the 'whistling' because it is happening routinely. And its not 'enveloping' us all as a diverse population of the United States.
This is basically like people saying "Antifa means anti-facist".
No, it fuckin' doesn't, and nobody with any brains at all believes any of this bullshit.
Which bullshit? I'm confused.
'Work hard, play by the rules, get ahead' is an idea. Does that idea emphasize disadvantage? Does that idea suggest getting ahead depends upon the whims of a collective democratic majority? Or does that idea empower an individual hope of getting ahead through their own efforts?
Why doesn't the idea of 'work hard, play by the rules, get ahead' offer hope any longer? It's a good idea; isn't it worth fighting for that good idea?
Are you though? You're a pretty sharp guy.
It's a great idea. It just has zero to do with "MAGA", like anti-fascim has zero to do with Antifa.
The MAGA idea started with the visceral, angry rejection of basically everything Hillary Clinton embodies. It was about being fed up with the smug, shitheaded, educated yet unwise elite on both sides of the aisle who can barely bring themselves to condescend to "little" people who are obviously inferior because they have to wear steel-toed boots to work. Those poor ignorant worker bees couldn't possibly understand that it's obviously better for everyone that their jobs got shipped to Mexico.
So far, so good. Objection to that is warranted. Hillary and the entire Pantsuit Nation can fuck right off and go look down their noses at somebody else in between sips of their $9 double whip, non-fat, triple student loan, caramel lattes.
But the problem occurs when the MAGA guys take those hardhats off and leave their brains in the hatband, and the MAGA movement degenerates into the Cult of Trump. Guys that by day can calculate complex electrical loads for a construction project or figure airflow needs for an HVAC system are suddenly reduced to three word morons who can't manage anything smarter than "lock her up" or "build a wall".
The entire MAGA concept has always been all anger and no brains.
"Work hard? ...play by the rules?"... so naturally the person to lead such a program is.... Donald....Trump???? What exactly are we smoking and in what universe are we smoking it?
This is on the same shelf with the Bernie Madoff Business Ethics workshop or Bill Clinton's Collected Writings on Abstinence.
You can talk about hard work and playing by the rules all you want, and those are wonderful things. But MAGA = Trump, and trying to pretend that has anything to do with hard work or playing by the rules is complete bullshit.
I agree. The original attraction and appeal was rejection of Hillary Clinton (and what Clinton represented).
And that ignores that Donald Trump fought the establishment of the Republican Party. Unlike Clinton, Trump was challenged by a broad, diverse field of Republican candidates. And that field of Republican candidates represented either the Reagan legacy, the Gingrich revolution, or the TEA Party insurgency within the Republican Party. Republican primary voters rejected the establishment politics of the Republican Party.
Trump did not win the Republican nomination with charisma, promises to strengthen Reagan's global influence, promises to starve government, or promises to cut taxes. Trump railed against and lambasted globalization, finance, the rich, the influencers, and the connected. Trump did not campaign as an apologist for Wall Street, Free Trade, multinational corporations, military overreach, nation building, or Cold War fear mongering.
Yes, MAGA includes a primal outpouring of anger. But that anger is not without cause or justification. And the Republican establishment has felt the wrath of Trump's base of support. Being Republican doesn't provide cover from the anger of today's Republican base, as Mike Pence found out.
Yeah, yeah. Orange man bad.
MAGA is a grass roots movement. Trump only recognized the anger in the Republican base; Trump did not create that anger. Trump isn't that charismatic.
Interesting and refreshing. Makes me sit up and take notice. Hmmm.
Do clear up this one thing: Above, are you telling NT, Trump 'works' for the grass roots movement? Trump is a "worker-bee"?
"Includes" would imply it contains something else. It doesn't. Anger by itself is brainless.
'MAGA is built upon the real history of opportunity in the United States.'
The 'real history' of the United States reads like the illustrated version of Marx' manifesto. No nation has seen more worker blood shed than the United States. This land was defiled by the slaying of workers, and then cleansed by shed worker blood. When [not if] workers again refuse to be retained as hostages to the ruling class, it will happen again.
Your 'Work/Nationalism/Order/etc. list? That's been seen already.
The SEP studies the Marxist system of analysis, integrates this with worker history, and uses the lessons of those defeats and successes as the basis for framing a way forward.
The SEP doesn't deal with bourgeoisie currency. Promises are the currency of your bourgeoisie parties.
Crickets, crickets, crickets abound. Defenders of the inane utter no sound.
In this case, it seems, silence and fury signify nothing.
I'm sorry, Nerm_L! Was something overlooked?