But didn't Marx say that the proletariat should use the capitalistic institutions within capitalism to defeat capitalism?
Yes, he did. Which is why pigs ended up on two feet instead of four, as George Orwell explained in "Animal Farm".
Why the left is losing the war.
Thu, 2010-10-14 01:58
#102
Thu, 2010-10-14 02:06
#103
But if you can't use the institutions that currently exist, what institutions can you use?
Thu, 2010-10-14 03:16
#104
The truth is that there was a cold war. Lots of propaganda from both sides.
Billions of people were lied to. One side told biggest lies about middle class prosperity based on consumerism. Scientists today suggest that globalization of this leftover cold war era lie can never happen. It really was a colossal lie.
Meanwhile the other side of the cold war never made any such promises except for really simple things, like health care and education for all. A roof over their heads and whatever they could barter for with COMECON countries - about a third of the world at the height of things. The other side's propaganda made this reality out to be dull and grey and not very desirable compared to all the bells and whistles in an illusory world of ... the big and shiny lie illuminated by a nuclear-powered disco ball.
Today's problem:
There are still far too many people who believe they can achieve the impossible ie.: two cars in the driveway of a home resembling a miniature version of Chatsworth House - summer cottage - and 2.8 short people to leave behind as a personal legacy and gift to the world.
The problem with globalizing that big lie is that scientists now suggest we would strip the earth's resources bare in nothing flat and choke on the pollution.
It will take some time before people realize that co-operation and real democracy is the way out of this mess. Many more people than now will have to realize that the lie was, in fact, a most terrible lie that must be abandoned if homo sapiens are to avoid ending ourselves prematurely.
Thu, 2010-10-14 07:46
#105
Sean, I find this premise completely believable. Essentially, you're saying that the Conservatives are trying to spend us so far into debt that we won't be able to afford social programmes in the future? I was just curious whether you have sources for this.
In Canada today I think the left is losing the war because it is not understanding what the war is about.
The left supposes that the battle is about the control of the government of Canada. It isn't. The Cons are not trying to control the government; they are trying to destroy it. Their purpose is not to turn the economic power of the government to their own ends (in spite of the huge defence spending announcements); their purpose is to render the economic power of the government as impotent.
Only once the left understand that the captain of this ship wants to sink rather than control it, will they understand either what needs to be done or how to do it.
The left is playing a whole game behind this government-- they are fighting for the policies of today when the government could not care less about them. The real battle is over the policies of tomorrow. The right wing are intent on changing the landscape so much that future governments will not be able to make sovereign decisions. As I have said elsewhere what is happening is a coup against future elected governments. Until they realize this and what the end-game is, they will be playing a whole game behind the Cons and irrelevant with every step.
Harper had done a lot of Damage before 2008 and was prepared to hand over a broken government to the coalition and seriously considered doing just that it turns out (Harperland). Instead a new opportunity to break further the economy came through the stimulus program and the opposition missed it until it was too late. Spent properly the stimulus money could have made investments in infrastructure Canada needed and taken a public initiative. Spent cleverly with sabotage in mind not only does that not happen but the money is gone not available for future governments to spend. Our current situation is one in which the government is singing restraint in some areas but wildly spending out of existence as much federal fiscal capacity as it can -- new tax-cuts, long-term military procurement contracts-- anything to get the money out of the hands of the next government.
The left is too busy fighting this current government's battles to realize that the whole war is happening over the next government's choices. The left would have been smarter to realize this and let the cons play restraint games in 2008 and defeat the government rather than let it have a chance at taking even more precious money out of play for the next government.
The left is losing the war because it does not know where the current battle is.
Thu, 2010-10-14 09:10
#106
Wow, lots of talk going on here. What I see is a lot of people talking about left wing socialist this and right wing capitalist that and the notion of going back to some golden era.
wrongwrongwrong
The answer here is so obvious it hurts.
We want a just society, a balanced economy, etc. Free Market capitalism doesn't work. And socialism/communism doesn't work. They are both prone to the same ills, and that is that they tend to favor the minority over the majority. What was to be a communist state devolved into totalinarianism and the same is happening to capitalism.
It isn't a matter of one over the other. It is a matter of making the two work together. Extremist thinking doesn't work. As an example take this analogy of a teeter-totter.On one end is socialism and the other end is capitalism. Left on their own they would probably balance out. But add in the human equation, the third element on this seesaw and the best place for him to be to maintain the balance is in the middle and not on either end.
Capitalism is not evil and socialism is not a knight in shining armour. Too much of these discussions tend to be about last centuries isms. As in a car, if you want to go forward you don't keep your eyes glued to where you were. Keep your eyes looking forward and be aware of what is behind you. Those who want to rehash 100 yr old ideologies as a means to lead society forward have got it wrong. We need new ideas to move forward. Old ideas will only take us backwards.
nuff said
Thu, 2010-10-14 09:33
#107
If the experience of Latin America the region that I am most familiar with proves anything, seizing the government is not enough. There has to be a dual power...power of the government united with the power in the streets. This is a kind of populism to be sure but what it also speaks to is the need for a kind of communion with the people that simply does not exist the other parts of North America save in the parties of the Right since the advent of the Welfare State. For what it seems to me, is that there is a cult of the professional or the expert on these parties rather than trusting the people. For a long time, I have watched the NDP and rabble/babble talk about changing this but rarely do we see activism by that strata that seems to make the most difference - in creating of institutions. Feminism gave a good kick in the pants to established parties but rather than fostering it, they incorporated it. What seems to be lacking is any sort of movement - as the NDP (even the different intitatives that have formed over the years that I have seen in Canada) perpetually get stalled because of the grind of the electorial machine which measure success in the number of seats won rather the ideas/institutions that it creates to create an alternative social space.
It is not a question of rich and poor and middle classes but a question of how to create a people. I also see the failure of revolution in these Northern countries to take root because of the strength of repressive agencies in discipling people into a bland conformity. Take the recent protests of the G20...where was the NDP...where are the NDP in asking that all charges be summarily dismissed...articulating this in the Parliament...rather than raising a demostration on the Parliament to make it so. This so-called respect for the Rule of Law - will tarnish activism for years to come - yet the NDP and other parts of the Left in Canada remain silent.
Yes, it is a risk. But, you cannot avoid risk in politics, as Stephen Harper knows, he constantly recklessly bullies his position - and does get results, as measured by that fickle of instruments - polls. Essentially, the Left has left the small man/woman at the mercy of the Right by adopting an approach akin to managing the society rather than merging society with governing.
Thu, 2010-10-14 10:35
#108
Wow, lots of talk going on here. What I see is a lot of people talking about left wing socialist this and right wing capitalist that and the notion of going back to some golden era.
Not all. In fact, hardly any. But, in planning for the future, one needs to recall the past - victories as well as losses, strategy that worked before may work again - after all, the stage may have been reset, but the players are stock.
The answer here is so obvious it hurts.
obvious in theory; hurts in real time.
.... It is a matter of making the two work together. Extremist thinking doesn't work.
While this may be true, in the past 30 years, there has been too much convergence, and all of it toward the right, so that what's seen as 'extremist' now was only a bit left of center in 1967. We need to take a much harder line, waaay over there.
....Capitalism is not evil
With respect, capitalism is not merely evil but criminally insane. Industry doesn't have to be evil. Enterprise doesn't have to be evil. Those things can coexist with a decent social system. Capitalism - especially as an economic fiction that's swallowed up democracy and become a new a philosophy/ ethos/ culture/ lifestyle/ national identity - is about as evil as you can get.
....and socialism is not a knight in shining armour.
No; it's a political system that works for most people instead of a small minority.
There is no reverse gear on this car. But then, there is no future in this car.... or cars....
Thu, 2010-10-14 12:39
#109
....We need new ideas to move forward. Old ideas will only take us backwards.
- sounds like you're ready for Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html ....
Thu, 2010-10-14 18:49
#110
Admittedly I am a high-school dropout and a self-educated individual . But at least I am trying to think for myself. And respectfully, I do not quote out of context. That is something the right wing fascists love to do.
What is socialism? Was russia socialist? Is China communist? I don't think so but when you talk about those 'isms' that is what most people conjure in their minds. Media manipulation by neo-cons.Sure, but is that any different than absentia quoting me out of context? Not really.
Would you say knives kill people? No. People kill people. Knives are just a tool that can be used for many different things. Ergo capitalism is not evil, it is what has been done with it has been evil.Free market capitalism is certainly evil.The Chicago School of Friedmanites are evil, but capitalism on its own is just an 'ism', that can be molded and manipulated into any shape we want. Many here speak of the success of the Nordic countries with their socialist agenda . But wait a minute they are also capitalist countries. Or perhaps social-capitalists.
I appreciate siamdave here trying to show me the way and sharing links (by the way I went right there and read a great deal thanx dave, it did open my eyes and confirm much of what I already had suspected). What I don't appreciate is absentia taking my comments out of context. It is not conducive to what I think the majority of us here are trying to do. Create a just and fair society. To do so we have to treat each other as justly and fairly otherwise we lose before we even start.
Peace
Thu, 2010-10-14 19:01
#111
"We cannot permit the extreme in the environmental movement to shut down the United States. We cannot shut down the lives of many Americans by going to the extreme on the environment."
George Bush"We have ...drawn a line in the sand." George H. W. Bush
This is at the heart of the problem today. In the 1950s, US State Dept. and military war planners decided that the US economy would be based on conspicuous consumption of the world's raw materials and energy. The economic central planners and military strategists were of one mind and ideology. It's why the US Military and shadow government planners have had to resort to cold war era strategies for false flag terrorism and occupying countries illegally. It's all because of the military dictatorship that tookover America in 1947. They have not taken the time to develop a sustainable national energy policy, and it's because they were never interested in restraining their own consumption levels. Americans would buy into the imperialism if it meant living the big lie if only for a few decades more. Eventually they'll have to kill everyone and the planet to sustain the military dictatorship and the very fascist economic central planning gone awry.
Thu, 2010-10-14 23:06
#112
......
Would you say knives kill people? No. People kill people. Knives are just a tool that can be used for many different things. Ergo capitalism is not evil, it is what has been done with it has been evil.Free market capitalism is certainly evil.The Chicago School of Friedmanites are evil, but capitalism on its own is just an 'ism', that can be molded and manipulated into any shape we want. Many here speak of the success of the Nordic countries with their socialist agenda . But wait a minute they are also capitalist countries. Or perhaps social-capitalists.
I think you are mistaken to say 'isms' are harmless in themselves, like tools - people do indeed kill people, not knives, but a knife or other tool does not have a philosophy, like an ism does - and a philosophy can be benign, or good, or evil. Would you really call, for instance, Nazi-ism or fascism benign?
I would disagree with you about capitalism being evil - I do think it is, by its very definition. It's like, to me, a cancer which has infected our body politic. The thing about capitalism is - it posits as its very basis a small group of people - capitalists - controlling the 'means of production', and claiming all of the wealth produced through that production (the 'capital') - and a very large group of powerless workers producing that wealth. In short, a master-slave society. We might posit another type of arrangement, where there were no 'owners of production' other than the people who actually produced the wealth themselves, using that excess wealth for whatever they wanted - what we call 'social programs', or saving the money in some form for future wealth, or whatever - but without the capitalist 'masters' and capitalist 'work-slaves', it would not be capitalism. In my view.
The nordic countries you mention are countries in which, I think, the people have been strong enough to control the wouldbe-capitalists in their midst, whilst here in Canada, the capitalists have won, following their takeover in the 70s which I wrote of elsewhere (What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html ), probably due to our much closer contact with the home of capitalism to the south of us, where the neocon revolution began in the 70s. Myself, I would still think the nordic countries at risk - we see even now the capitalists and their rightwing politics constantly pushing to increase their power - and more capitalist means less democracy, less of everything for 'we the people', as like any cancer, the first goal of capitalism is to claim as much as possible of the available resources for its own personal use.
- just thoughts for your mix
I appreciate siamdave here trying to show me the way and sharing links (by the way I went right there and read a great deal thanx dave, it did open my eyes and confirm much of what I already had suspected). What I don't appreciate is absentia taking my comments out of context. It is not conducive to what I think the majority of us here are trying to do. Create a just and fair society. To do so we have to treat each other as justly and fairly otherwise we lose before we even start.
Peace
- glad you found something of interest on Green Island - I have been thinking about how our society works for a long time, and trying to understand it and share that understanding with others - and one thing I have concluded is as you have, we do need to treat each other justly and fairly, and with peace. (values which seem completely inimical to capitalism ... )
Good luck in your continuing search.
Fri, 2010-10-15 00:42
#113
@ DaemonNice
A few things here.
1- Socialism/Communism has never been achieved.
2- Bits and pieces of socilist idea have been tried and for the most part are what has brought the best in society to date.
For example:
- The assemble line. A very socialist idea were everyone works together to produce a single outcome.
- National Heath Care
- Public Education
- Wikipedia
- information gatherd on Rabble
- Globalized production
- The USA green back used as a defacto world currency
- The United States of America
- Canada, with all of the Provinces working together to make one country.
- the EU
- The United Nations
These are many examples of how things are better when people work together. That's Socialism.
How about a factory? It has central palnning, production in many places, raw matterial from many places, all brought together by variuos people from variuos places to make one product.
Right winger Capitalisst always want to tell you that people are greedy and individuals. We are not individuals, we are all part of a larger community.
only when you are pushed into a corner do you display any form of singlmindedness.
At all other times, you are influenced by your social group. To prove my point, you tell me something that you have done that was never done by someone else. Those pants you wear, those are individual? No, you never invented pants and you never made the matterial to make those pants and you probaly bought those pants at a store designed by someone else for you.
So Capitalism, with its ethose of individualism and class segragation is in fact anti-social so it can be thought of as evil.
Socialism with its tenants of collaboration and unity, is in fact the knight in shining army, ready to rescue us from the perils of capitalism.
Fri, 2010-10-15 01:40
#114
Word, trippie, word. 
Viva la revolucion!
Fri, 2010-10-15 07:51
#115
Democratic socialism allows unlike communism an understanding that capitalism and capitalists have a role in accumulating capital wealth needed for social goals-- although they cannot regulate and cannot distribute that wealth effectively or fairly.
If you accept each element of society as having a role and function (Hello Emile), and you balance these with appropriate justice then some wealth goes to those who accumulate it but that this wealth is not an exclusive private good but a shared public and private one with a multitude of interests, mixed with accountability you are on track for a democratic socialist system.
Socialism also understands that there are certain functions in society that must be within the control of the public and accountable to the public. From time to time the list may change but it exists-- health care, education, banking are some.
Socialism is not an economic system-- it presumes there to be one. Socialism is about the principle of justice and fairness and that the objective of society is the good of the people who live in it not either an externalized group from another society (exploitation) or just a few who have managed to make off with the public goods.
Socialism is also a goal that may never be completely achievable but must always be the guiding objective if governments are to serve the people. I would go so far as to say a government that is not socialist is also not democratic-- the leap is not far when you realize what the principles actually are behind these terms.
Fri, 2010-10-15 08:40
#116
Maysie
Closing, long thread.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3