Why we need Socialism in America, in one picture.

[BotanyBoy]

https://41.media.tumblr.com/f84295aca365efa11b69f8853c625d6d/tumblr_nribjwx3Qf1r3aa23o1_1280.jpg

http://www.shadesofzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/thumbs_we_told_them_the_wealth_would_trickle_down.jpg

 

[hssh345Alt]

Wrong on both counts. Senior Party members were rich in the USSR, as were Chinese Communist Party leaders. Both had standards of living that were hundreds of times more wealthy than the workers.

All that has changed is that some of them can now take their wealth out of their countries.

Whatever the declared political system, there are a few very rich and a majority who are at a basic level. That basic level might be much higher in Western countries, but compared to the really rich the basic level is poor.

I'm glad that you made this comment, as I am keen to push the conversation further.
I believe that people here keep combating the initial theoretical aspect of ideologies (the idealists ie Marx )
- whereas the real problem came a bit further down the road, with those people who put them in practice (the power-hungry ie Stalin, the "Elite" etc.)

I personally like some Marxist concepts - I am referring to those re modern alienation of the wage-worker and many other that are seen reflected in kiterature.

 

[Mike_Yates]

You should hear Herbert Spencer's theory of social darwinism before you immediately start bashing extreme capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FmEjDaWqA4

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Wrong on both counts. Senior Party members were rich in the USSR, as were Chinese Communist Party leaders. Both had standards of living that were hundreds of times more wealthy than the workers.

All that has changed is that some of them can now take their wealth out of their countries.

Whatever the declared political system, there are a few very rich and a majority who are at a basic level. That basic level might be much higher in Western countries, but compared to the really rich the basic level is poor.

Sigh. The first OLIGARCHS appeared during Yeltsin/Gorbachev's period of market liberalization. The oligarchs started from nothing and made use of their connections to Government officials to buy into the voucher-privatization programs going on then. The oligarchs, by definition, were the ones who bought entire infrastructure being sold by the former USSR for a song: such as the oil industry under Gazprom, etc.

China's actual billionaires arose under the same market liberalization conditions. Back before market liberalization, almost nobody over there, if anyone at all, was actually worth a billion, not even in the Party. In China, only four of the top billionaires even had political connections, and two of these four were billionaires before they became politicians: Six were 100% self-made. http://russia-insider.com/en/busine...-oligarchs-versus-chinese-billionaires/ri8567

This article also shows that SIX of Russia's top ten oligarchs were post-privatization. Six.


What they all had in the pre-market liberalization era was actual political power. When the USSR collapsed they would have translated that into connections and great wealth. But only four out of the top ten ever did that in either country. The rest became rich AFTER market liberalization.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You should hear Herbert Spencer's theory of social darwinism before you immediately start bashing extreme capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FmEjDaWqA4

Extreme capitalism IS social darwinism.

You don't want to live under social darwinism.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm glad that you made this comment, as I am keen to push the conversation further.
I believe that people here keep combating the initial theoretical aspect of ideologies (the idealists ie Marx )
- whereas the real problem came a bit further down the road, with those people who put them in practice (the power-hungry ie Stalin, the "Elite" etc.)

I personally like some Marxist concepts - I am referring to those re modern alienation of the wage-worker and many other that are seen reflected in kiterature.

Marxism has never been applied in a country.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Why not?

Because it doesn't work in practice. The leaders of any country want more than the rewards paid to the proletariat, usually much more. The rich tend to maintain their wealth because they still have power or can buy or bribe whatever government is in place.

Even in the French Revolution when Aristocrats were being guillotined, much of their wealth was exported to England, Austria and elsewhere. Individuals might have died. Their wealth didn't.

Even that French wealth in land and property that was confiscated by the government was then sold at reduced prices to the government's friends and supporters until they too faced the guillotine and new rich people took their place, buying at cheap rates from the government.

People want rewards for their skills, their knowledge, their investment. They want more rewards than the basic minimum otherwise why should they bother to exert themselves?

Revolutions are made by the middle classes, the bourgeoisie, if they feel oppressed or exploited by the governing classes. The bourgeoisie have the organisational skills and the resources. Thr proletariat are just cannon fodder for the revolution's leaders and once the revolution is over, the proletariat are still at the bottom of the heap.

"The workers have nothing to lose in this (revolution) but their chains. They have a world to gain."

Sorry Marx. History demonstrates that the workers just end up with new chains. The bourgeois win every time, and a different set of rich people end up with the power. Or even the same set of rich people with new titles.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

http://40.media.tumblr.com/cf5ede006f9c155abc29505773c53fab/tumblr_ndzds2f40q1rxwhblo1_540.png

http://41.media.tumblr.com/7391f3be83ce63dc37766c7bd0554533/tumblr_ndzds2f40q1rxwhblo2_540.png

http://41.media.tumblr.com/6e728faa7bc8da4ad852236078809d53/tumblr_ndzds2f40q1rxwhblo4_540.png

http://41.media.tumblr.com/cf7912d75452f7d592ec2c96039393f8/tumblr_ndzds2f40q1rxwhblo3_540.png

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Marxism has never been applied in a country.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Why not?

Because it doesn't work in practice. The leaders of any country want more than the rewards paid to the proletariat, usually much more. The rich tend to maintain their wealth because they still have power or can buy or bribe whatever government is in place.

Even in the French Revolution when Aristocrats were being guillotined, much of their wealth was exported to England, Austria and elsewhere. Individuals might have died. Their wealth didn't.

Even that French wealth in land and property that was confiscated by the government was then sold at reduced prices to the government's friends and supporters until they too faced the guillotine and new rich people took their place, buying at cheap rates from the government.

People want rewards for their skills, their knowledge, their investment. They want more rewards than the basic minimum otherwise why should they bother to exert themselves?

Revolutions are made by the middle classes, the bourgeoisie, if they feel oppressed or exploited by the governing classes. The bourgeoisie have the organisational skills and the resources. Thr proletariat are just cannon fodder for the revolution's leaders and once the revolution is over, the proletariat are still at the bottom of the heap.

"The workers have nothing to lose in this (revolution) but their chains. They have a world to gain."

Sorry Marx. History demonstrates that the workers just end up with new chains. The bourgeois win every time, and a different set of rich people end up with the power. Or even the same set of rich people with new titles.

Meanwhile, in England, the working class made actual major improvements such as universal health care (which the rich are now trying to dismantle).

After the next world war when the global economy has collapsed and resurrected itself, there will be a basic guaranteed income in several re-emerging first world nations. (That is, if the rich don't, in their moment of political defeat, make the next world war a nuclear affair.)

 

[oggbashan]

Meanwhile, in England, the working class made actual major improvements such as universal health care (which the rich are now trying to dismantle).

After the next world war when the global economy has collapsed and resurrected itself, there will be a basic guaranteed income in several re-emerging first world nations. (That is, if the rich don't, in their moment of political defeat, make the next world war a nuclear affair.)

The working class? No. It was the middle classes who saw their efforts to improve themselves frustrated by unforeseen medical costs. The National Health Service was introduced after a massive majority vote, as was National Insurance.

The rich trying to dismantle the NHS? No. The rich can and do buy their own health care either directly from private hospitals or through health insurance. I have health insurance and I have used our local private hospital for X-rays and tests when needed, paying by debit card. I use a private physiotherapist and my dental care is funded by insurance. I could use the NHS for all that, but if I can afford it, why wait, and why use NHS resources when I don't need to?

The NHS is unsustainable in its current model. It needs to be reorganised and and drastically modified otherwise the costs will outrun any feasible funding. What has happened is that universal health care now encourages unreasonable demands on it.

This week our local hospital has pleaded for people NOT to go to the Accident and Emergency unit for simple problems such as a bee sting, a minor cut or scrape, toothache etc. The numbers using that A&E unit had risen by 30% since the start of this year. That is ridiculous and the majority of those attending unnecessarily hadn't even tried to go to any other form of NHS help which exists locally - doctors' surgeries, chemists, minor accident units etc.

The problem is that the population expects more of the hospital A&E department than they can be resourced to meet.

From January to May as an experiment our local hospital (which doesn't have A&E) provided doctors on site on Saturdays and Sundays. In June the experiment was ended. It hadn't made a difference to the attendance at the A&E department 14 miles away, and the numbers using the experimental service were so few that the doctors spent most of their time catching up with paperwork.

 

[hssh345Alt]

Marxism has never been applied in a country.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Why not?

Because it doesn't work in practice. The leaders of any country want more than the rewards paid to the proletariat, usually much more. The rich tend to maintain their wealth because they still have power or can buy or bribe whatever government is in place.

Even in the French Revolution when Aristocrats were being guillotined, much of their wealth was exported to England, Austria and elsewhere. Individuals might have died. Their wealth didn't.

Even that French wealth in land and property that was confiscated by the government was then sold at reduced prices to the government's friends and supporters until they too faced the guillotine and new rich people took their place, buying at cheap rates from the government.

People want rewards for their skills, their knowledge, their investment. They want more rewards than the basic minimum otherwise why should they bother to exert themselves?

Revolutions are made by the middle classes, the bourgeoisie, if they feel oppressed or exploited by the governing classes. The bourgeoisie have the organisational skills and the resources. Thr proletariat are just cannon fodder for the revolution's leaders and once the revolution is over, the proletariat are still at the bottom of the heap.

"The workers have nothing to lose in this (revolution) but their chains. They have a world to gain."

Sorry Marx. History demonstrates that the workers just end up with new chains. The bourgeois win every time, and a different set of rich people end up with the power. Or even the same set of rich people with new titles.

I might ask you to switch hats for a sec. and to approach things from a writer's perspective :

I was quite fascinated by a couple of books that I read accidentally, for ex. :
- ie Dan Swain's "Alienation; an introduction to Marx's theory"
- Richard Schmidt : "Alienation and freedom"

These books (espec. the last one) are easy to read and brilliant : they illustrate the manner in which Marx drew upon existentialism's too abstract theoretical concepts, and then applied them in practical ways to the day-to-day living.
These books also introduced me to a concept that I find fascinating : "Meaninglessness and man's Alienation in the modern capitalistic society".

Moreover, R. Schmidt also applied these concepts and did a literary analysis of "Madame Bovary" and "The death of Ivan Illich. Emma Bovary" (of course, # times, # docisl systems, but similar issues)

 

[oggbashan]

I might ask you to switch hats for a sec. and to approach things from a writer's perspective :

I was quite fascinated by a couple of books that I read accidentally, for ex. :
- ie Dan Swain's "Alienation; an introduction to Marx's theory"
- Richard Schmidt : "Alienation and freedom"

These books (espec. the last one) are easy to read and brilliant : they illustrate the manner in which Marx drew upon existentialism's too abstract theoretical concepts, and then applied them in practical ways to the day-to-day living.
These books also introduced me to a concept that I find fascinating : "Meaninglessness and man's Alienation in the modern capitalistic society".

Moreover, R. Schmidt also applied these concepts and did a literary analysis of "Madame Bovary" and "The death of Ivan Illich. Emma Bovary" (of course, # times, # docisl systems, but similar issues)

Ask yourself -which were more alienated, peasants in Russia before the revolution, slaves in the USA, French peasants before the French Revolution, or Jews in Medieval Europe?

None of them were alienated by the modern capitalistic society.

 

[hssh345Alt]

Ask yourself -which were more alienated, peasants in Russia before the revolution, slaves in the USA, French peasants before the French Revolution, or Jews in Medieval Europe?

None of them were alienated by the modern capitalistic society.

I do. And many of my co-workers feel the same -alienated-. (or maybe things in Au/Nz might be a bit #).

I sometimes feel that work is no longer an avenue of self-improvement and of paying your due to society.
- It's more about getting a wage and "playing by the game" defensively, in order to avoid negative otcomes. And so much emphasis on "skills" and craft, to the detriment of learning and improving.
- you as an employee are viewed as a commodity, just like businessmen and retailers view the things they are producing and selling

I used to view work as a natural extension of one's own life; but this capitalist compartimentalization between "work"/ "personal" / "leisure. that we are all doing, in order to cope, … is artificial and draining. All aspects of one's life should flow from each other; that's what Marx was trying to say.

Yes, his ideals were applied in a disastruous manber by the others; but "Karl Marx was right" (as per your compatriote, Terry Eagleton)

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

None of them were alienated by the modern capitalistic society.

You're joking, right?

 

[oggbashan]

You're joking, right?

No. If you define 'modern' as Post-Marx.

If you define 'Modern' as post the year 1000, then they might have been.

But so much that has been written about Marx and Marxist theory is nothing but academic bullshitting.

Alienation? When the worker owns a car, a large screen TV, has a modern place to live with heating etc.

Compared with past ages, alienation in Western Democracies is just hot air.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

The working class? No. It was the middle classes who saw their efforts to improve themselves frustrated by unforeseen medical costs. The National Health Service was introduced after a massive majority vote, as was National Insurance.

The larger poor class would have been louder about this than the middle class - their efforts to improve themselves would have suffered an even greater impact. They wouldn't have gone to the hospital at all and died earlier in life - like here in the US.

The middle class face medical bankruptcy - the poor face early death.

The rich trying to dismantle the NHS? No. The rich can and do buy their own health care either directly from private hospitals or through health insurance. I have health insurance and I have used our local private hospital for X-rays and tests when needed, paying by debit card. I use a private physiotherapist and my dental care is funded by insurance. I could use the NHS for all that, but if I can afford it, why wait, and why use NHS resources when I don't need to?

Because eventually those thousands of dollars you're racking up on your debit card are going to bleed you dry?

Even Laurel isn't of the financial means I have at my disposal and I fear what a SINGLE bout of cancer would have done to my hard earned money in America's capitalist economy during the pre-Obamacare years.

My wife and I have many times considered moving to England but we're waiting for the Plutocrats over there to stop trying to re-Americanize your medical care system.

The NHS is unsustainable in its current model. It needs to be reorganised and and drastically modified otherwise the costs will outrun any feasible funding. What has happened is that universal health care now encourages unreasonable demands on it.

I sincerely doubt this assertion. What it really appears to be is they want to put people back on the American-style system.

If the problem really was about trivial crap like bee stings then you could alter the ICD-equivalent codes for bee stings and charge for trivial crap like that. Problem solved. See how simple that is?

Your politicians also see how simple that is. The problem is they want you to believe that the only way out of this is to scrap it and bring back the whole insurance company thing for absolutely everyone. $3,000 per month insurance bills for people with pre-existing conditions, coverage limits to cut off those fighting cancer, people who die because they can't afford liver transplants, and co-pays up the wazoo. That's what is coming for your countrymen if you keep believing these fuckwads.

 

[hssh345Alt]

No. If you define 'modern' as Post-Marx.

If you define 'Modern' as post the year 1000, then they might have been.

But so much that has been written about Marx and Marxist theory is nothing but academic bullshitting.

Alienation? When the worker owns a car, a large screen TV, has a modern place to live with heating etc.

Compared with past ages, alienation in Western Democracies is just hot air.

material-wise, we are doing much better, I agree.

But almost everything now is commodified, viewed as a "brand" or 'product'. Even "higher learning in colleges and universities, or some churches - which are supposed to be about spirituality- have adopted some of these habits.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No. If you define 'modern' as Post-Marx.

If you define 'Modern' as post the year 1000, then they might have been.

But so much that has been written about Marx and Marxist theory is nothing but academic bullshitting.

Alienation? When the worker owns a car, a large screen TV, has a modern place to live with heating etc.

Compared with past ages, alienation in Western Democracies is just hot air.

You're forgetting the homeless folks, a problem which is growing here in the US.

We have something like 14 million vacant homes and 3 million homeless. Capitalism perpetuates this 'starving in a land of plenty' problem. Under Socialism we would have put those homeless people in those empty homes.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

material-wise, we are doing much better, I agree.

But almost everything now is commodified, viewed as a "brand" or 'product'. Even "higher learning in colleges and universities, or some churches - which are supposed to be about spirituality- have adopted some of these habits.

There is no spirituality in colleges - they are all now degree mills and glorified trade schools. EVERYONE is going to college to position themselves for a job.

 

[oggbashan]

I do. And many of my co-workers feel the same -alienated-. (or maybe things in Au/Nz might be a bit #).

...

You can, in theory, change your employer.

You can, in theory, withdraw your labour.

You might think you are 'owned' by your employer but by comparision with those I mentioned above, you are not.

A French peasant before 1789 was owned. His Lord could kill him without any incurring any penalty except loss of that peasant's labour.

A slave in the US was property, owned by the estate. His value could be measured and he and his family could be bought and sold.

A pre-revolution Russian peasant could starve to death and his owner wouldn't necessarily know or care.

A Jew in medieval Europe was a non-person. He could be attacked in the street by a mob and killed, especially if the local Lord owed the Jew money. Magna Carta in England was revolutionary because it established justice for 'all men' - that included Jews, foreigners, serfs, villeins and property owners.

Whether the drafters of Magna Carta really knew what they were saying is a moot point, but the principle was established - all men (which definition included women at that time) - had rights.

French peasants, Russian peasants, US Slaves had nothing. They didn't even own their own bodies, nor their offspring.

 

[hssh345Alt]

There is no spirituality in colleges - they are all now degree mills and glorified trade schools. EVERYONE is going to college to position themselves for a job.

Exactly. I came across some youtube talks by Henry Giroux. - same view.
I'm not denying - students need to learn these craft things, in order to be competent at their job.
But they put too much emphasis on solely this thing : asking students to just memorize the craft and what's given to them. They stifle critical analysis or creative thinking, and they encourage conformity.

 

[hssh345Alt]

You can, in theory, change your employer.

You can, in theory, withdraw your labour.

You might think you are 'owned' by your employer but by comparision with those I mentioned above, you are not.

A French peasant before 1789 was owned. His Lord could kill him without any incurring any penalty except loss of that peasant's labour.

A slave in the US was property, owned by the estate. His value could be measured and he and his family could be bought and sold.

A pre-revolution Russian peasant could starve to death and his owner wouldn't necessarily know or care.

A Jew in medieval Europe was a non-person. He could be attacked in the street by a mob and killed, especially if the local Lord owed the Jew money. Magna Carta in England was revolutionary because it established justice for 'all men' - that included Jews, foreigners, serfs, villeins and property owners.

Whether the drafters of Magna Carta really knew what they were saying is a moot point, but the principle was established - all men (which definition included women at that time) - had rights.

French peasants, Russian peasants, US Slaves had nothing. They didn't even own their own bodies, nor their offspring.

no, I was comparing capitalism to socialism

 

[oggbashan]

You're forgetting the homeless folks, a problem which is growing here in the US.

We have something like 14 million vacant homes and 3 million homeless. Capitalism perpetuates this 'starving in a land of plenty' problem. Under Socialism we would have put those homeless people in those empty homes.

That's a US problem. We don't have shanty towns here, and trailer parks are usually for the retired or as second (holiday) homes.

While we have 'homeless' people in the UK, they are usually homeless because of other issues such as mental health, or addiction, and a refusal to accept assistance. Local authorities have a duty to house the genuinely homeless.

 

[oggbashan]

no, I was comparing capitalism to socialism

Where is there a genuinely socialist state?

I don't know of any. There have been many that claim to be 'socialist', sometimes along with 'democratic'. They are usually neither.

 

[hssh345Alt]

Where is there a genuinely socialist state?

I don't know of any. There have been many that claim to be 'socialist', sometimes along with 'democratic'. They are usually neither.

no, unfortunately. It was applied, as I read - with minor exceptions more Northern Countries - in countries where it shouldn't have.

But I think the so-called capitalist countries who have a higher proportion of socialist provisions would do much better, overall.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Local authorities have a duty to house the genuinely homeless.

That's a part of socialism. Otherwise the private market would be the solution for these indolent bastards*


* sarcasm, of course. Conservatives call all homeless people that.