IS SOCIALISM OUR UNAVOIDABLE FATE?

This discussion has been inspired by Mike and firmed up by the comments made by Yosif, Monty and Dan on the comment wall. Personally, I belileve that this is a topic that is worth our while to delve into more thoroughly.

Thanks for the inspiration Mike.

Monte

Tags: comments, discussion, fate, socialism, unavoidable

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on February 17, 2009 at 2:20pm: I sure hope not :o{; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by William "Leland" Luster on February 17, 2009 at 3:34pm: We have been turned into straw people controlled by straw financial institutions and what ever you call the man with the match, he can't destroy those faithful unto The Eternal Law Of Righteous Love For God And Man. I myself shall continue to Trust Creator/Christ, and choose not to live in fear or hopelessness. Your friend Leland.02-17-09; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lou De Frog on February 17, 2009 at 7:59pm: With a dial up connection Monte you don't get out much. You could join some groups outside of the PP like the energyparty.ning.com and the onlinenap.ning.com and seadog8278.ning.com (SEE) These outside groups are growing. With a large enough network we can use AlertPay ( which everyone can open an account) to transfer a few $ from 1000s of people to one or more persons who can build something to generate electricity or house a family. Socialism can not survive when a community is busy looking after itself.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dan on February 17, 2009 at 8:41pm: OK, I have bit my tongue enough.( I hope your happy Monte, you have pulled me back into the fray.)The level of lack of political understanding is almost beyond pail here. Where to start.

First off, we are in no way heading towards a socialist state. In a true socialist state the government is looking out for the good of the people. This would include such wonderful things like universal health care. Is this a bad thing? IF you feel it is a bad thing I want you to stand up and tell me it is a moral thing for a kid who is born into the world only to die of treatable illnesses, or loose all of his or her teeth from improper nutrition. Goodness knows we wouldn't want to actually prevent illness before it becomes sickness and then death. But this would be socialism you say. Lets look at this from a capitalist stand point. If my employer, a fortune 200 company did not have the massive burden of the health insurance it carries, yes they are self insured, on its books well goodness, it would have more profit. Is this a bad thing? No. so I benefit from having NOT to worry about enrolling in my ever shrinking health care plan each and every year. I would suffer the horrors of knowing even if I lost my job to some third world worker who makes less then a quarter of what I make to do the same job, I would still be able to go to the doctor to look at the weird mole on my back that suddenly took off and grew to 3 times its original size in 2 weeks. AND on top of that, I would NOT have to worry about having to declare bankruptcy Which, for all of you capitalist wanna be's out there is a BIG part of why people declare bankruptcy each year and it in NO way helps out the books of those oh so thrifty banks.

So to answer your question Monte, no we are not heading towards socialism. At least not in the peoples formula of socialism. We are headed to the fascists dream. We are headed toward socialized risk. This is a beautiful dream of the very rich and the very large corporations. What this means is that institutions like banks, for example, and large uncompetitive car companies get the benefit of the public treasure chest to fund their bad choices and or their bad business practices. Then when things turn around, they get the profit. sure they MIGHT pay the money back, but according to the free market capitalism they espoused under Regan, they should/must of out of business. But instead, we are shouldering the burden of risk, and they reap the profit. Far from socialist.

We have given no bid contracts in Iraq to the cronies of the VP. and no one said a thing. Literally pallets of shrink wrapped 100 dollar bills vanished without a trace and no one has said boo. We threw money at the banks and investment firms by the dump truck loads and everyone was happy to do it, it will prevent a economic melt down, wait what? You mean it happened anyway? But we talk about universal health care, like most of the rest of the civilized world already has and it is socialism. We talk about building roads and schools and sewers and water works and the right starts screaming the C and the S word. We pass out tax breaks to the largest corporations and the richest 2% and it is simply doing the right thing and call it the free market. We dismantle the very financial structure which was put into place by the 2 Roosevelt's to prevent EXACTLY what is happening now and it was the great Regan revolution.

If you all had any understanding of history you would realize that the systematic destruction of the financial regulatory system was very deliberate to allow us to go back into a cycle of bank failures and public bail outs that had been the norm before the new deal. We are exactly back there today.

So lets do this. Lets call what we live in for what it is. We live in a republic. not a democracy. And on top of that, it is a republic with very very strong fascist leanings. Don't know what facisim is? Please look at what Duce saw as the solution. Business and government to care a new exciting future for the people, well the right people.

Now I would be worried about government control of everything. Won't work. I am also worried of private control of everything. it has been proven to be a disasters many more times in recent history then the government control. It s just too many of you have drunk the Regan Kool-aid. You have absolutely no understanding of history. Please go to my blog on the disasters of the past banking armed robberies.

I prefer the middle ground. The founding fathers believed in something called the commons. That is that there are certain things that WE as a free people must have to survive as a CIVILIZATION. An example is clean water. With out it you , me, your kids, everyone suffers. This is the rightful job of the government. Provide me with clean water. Another, clean air. Again your dead if it is not. We all can debate the extent that the commons reaches out. This is what WE THE PEOPLE have a right to. So, I propose a change in the tone of this discussion. Let us leave the ignorant political buzz words aside. I won't call this grand republic a fascist leaning republic and you don't start throwing around terms like socialism when talking about the middle ground. It only polarizes the conversation. It would be fine to use the terms if all were educated enough to actually use them properly. (an example, there has NEVER, NEVER EVER been a modern communist country. Russia was not one,Cuba was not one. They were various flavors of dictatorships. When Marx came up with the idea, he was looking at the American Natives who had formed loosely knitted together confederacies to better their lives. Similar to how WE formed our constitutional democracy/republic. Do you really want to go down the road of discussion on this? If you don't know about the founding of the country, are you REALLY an American? Right Pat?)

No what I suggest we do is this. Lets start a discussion on what the COMMONS means. What is it that we as a civilized country need to protect. And when I say protect, I mean protect from EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, most of all greed. So I will take the first shot at this.

1. Water, that means ALL water, taking it in and expelling it. So this would include protecting water from pollution , rivers, lakes, ocean, as well as drinking water. This would mean nationalizing all water. So we as a nation foot the bill for cleaning and protecting. If we take the approach that it is part of the commons, we can't allow a large corporation, like the one I work for or any other company to pollute indiscriminately. We all pitch in to help them clean up their act, thus removing the burden form the company and allowing them to profit more. Do you guys get this? My sewage no longer runs down stream to your faucet.

2. Air. Same concept, no one, I mean NO ONE has a right to spew your waste into MY air. This would mean clean heating and kiss the cozy wood stove good by. What does that mean? Plenty of room for innovation for clean burning. See, by protecting the commons, we do spur economic development.

3. Health. Every person has a RIGHT to the integrity of their body. No one should be able to make an obscene profit off of illness. NO ONE! Every man woman and child has to have the right to go to the dr and stay healthy. Now does that mean you can't go out and get a nose job? No, but it would NOT be covered by the commons. I would argue that first and foremost we must pay for basic health and wellness care for everyone. The deluxe plan is not covered. You want to fix that nose, well the money you would same on the premiums, well fix it yourself. If you could look into the books of every major company and small business you will see the crippling effect of the profiteers in the health insurance industry and pharmaceutical firms raping (Yes I chose this word for maximum effect) of the general public.( Do we really need erection pills for all?)

4. Basic housing. How can a single person in this forum look me straight in the face and tell me is is moral or just to allow someone to freeze to death on the streets or even in their own home? If you can't see the basic human right of shelter for what it is, well I would have to ask you to seriously look at the moral compass by which you guide yourself through life.

5. Basic transportation. Every person has a right to move back and forth to work. Now I am not talking about a free cab ride. But the poorest of all the people use the mass transit systems for the most basic of functions, to and from work, to and from the dr. to the store. Commons. If this was a basic governmental function, we would have a functioning national high speed rail system that anyone could use, not to mention a functioning bus system that would meet the most basic needs of everyone. I once had this debate on the PP and I was advocating using the bus. Several people said they would but there was not bus accessible to them, thus they had to be (here I go again) raped by the oil speculators who artificially drove up the price for profit. This by the way pushed us over the edge into the recession, soon to be called depression we are now in.

6. Energy. Every person has a RIGHT to basic electricity. I am not talking about free power to everyone. But I am talking about if you have electric heating, you should never freeze to death. You should always have a refrigerator. If you need to you should have access to enough electricity to run a few basic appliances, a stove, whatever. basic stuff. So where does this help the civilization? well just spend a few minutes to think about the basics of cooking. Need to refrigerate food and cook it. Come on, this connects to the basic health thing.

7. Food. God knows we all have to be able to eat. No I am not purposing unlimited access to steak and eggs, but I am advocating that there is not reason a person should not have access to good, fresh produce. No again, not grapes in the middle of winter flown in from Chile, basics people, think this through. Process food is at the root of many health problems, fresh produce, carrots, fruit, are the solution. It also ties directly to number 3. Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, 2 of the biggest health problems are directly connected to cheap, unhealthy food. AND they disproportionately affect the poorest. No brainier here. AND we keep local farmers working.

8. Education. real education, not the no child left behind mindless memorization we pass off as education today. But a good old fashion learn how to think type. the dangerous type. the type that keeps governments and corporations and churches honest.

I will stop here. I hope others will take this opportunity to look into your soul, your moral and ethical tool box and ask some simple questions. What is right and just? What do we, as a society, want to hold up as our core values? What do we hold dear? If it is the unfettered greed that has brought this country to its knees, I do not think you are a friend of mine. I can no longer stand by and say it is ok to allow a child, for no reason other then being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, go hungry and be condemned to a life of abject poverty. Look into yourself and ask the simple question, What is right, what is just.

I have been absent since October asking myself these questions. How far do I support the pickens plan and what are the implications of it? As a life long reader and thinker, I was surprised at some of the conclusions I came to. I personally have turned stones in my mind that I had set in mortar many years ago. Concepts that I have held sacred for a very long time have been shifted by these simple questions and if you have not looked at them in a while, I want to encourage you to. (remember courage is the root word there).

Please, add to my list of the commons. Maybe the forest, maybe the pasture lands, the farm lands, maybe art? I don't know. What is it to be a civil society? What is it to be a caring good society? What does it mean to be a good human. remember, human came originally from Humane. Look it up, 18th century. I guess if you made it this far, you realize I am calling you out to justify yourself. Can you argue against any of the above as not being basic human rights, parts of the common, part of what is right.

dan; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on February 18, 2009 at 5:36pm: Bravo, Dan,

You have eloquently stated some of my pet theories/projects and it is a pleasure to read your entry. In my mind, these 'commons' you list also suggest the places where we might profitably invest our time and energies as we try to rebuild a cooperative mindset.

I particularly like this statement:

"I personally have turned stones in my mind that I had set in mortar many years ago. Concepts that I have held sacred for a very long time have been shifted by these simple questions and if you have not looked at them in a while, I want to encourage you to. (remember courage is the root word there)."

To that I would add the quote I have on my business card, to remind myself of this very mindset:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought to be otherwise."
Benjamin Franklin (my birthday twin).

Thank you for your input.

Lu; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Monte Smith on February 17, 2009 at 9:50pm: In view of the topic of this discussion, I am posting the following. And, because of its length, I will probably have to make two entries. What I am posting has been excerpted from Chapter Four in the book, The Unseen Hand - An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History, written by A. Ralph Epperson. First copyrighted (co) in 1985.

..............

As always, my motive is increased understanding that will lead to a better overall condition of survival for EVERYONE

..............

The title of Chapter Four is, Economic Terms.

Consumption Good: goods aquired for consumption purposes (food, drink, etc.)

Capital Good: goods utilized for producing consumption goods

The distinction between these two economic terms can be illustrated by the use of a simple example, such as a primitive tribesman living in a remote jungle. His diet consists of the rabbit (a consumption Good) which first must be caught before it can be consumed. The tribesman quickly learns that the rabbit is exceptionally quick and that catching it for a daily meal is rather difficult. But, by using his intelligence, the tribesman fashions a crude blow gun to assist him in acquiring the Consumption Good. The moment that the tribesman builds the blow-gun, he becomes a Capitalist, because the blow-gun is a Capital Good: it is created to assist the tribesman in acquiring Consumption Goods.

Therefore, it is now possible to define Capitalism as:

Capitalism: any economic system that utilizes Capital Goods in acquiring or producing Consumption Goods

Notice that by this definition even the most primitive economic systems are Capitalist if they choose to utilize Capital Goods in meeting their Consumption Good needs.

It follows logically, then, that the blow-gun is only effective when the tribesman agrees to use it, and that without his efforts the blow-gun is a meaningless wooden tube. The tribesman gives utility to the blow-gun only by using it.

It follows, then, that the acquisition of Consumption Goods is not dependent on Capital Goods alone, but by someone using the Capital Goods. Human effort is the key ingredient in any Capitalistic economy. Without human effort, there will be no Consumption Goods produced.

The ultimate Capitalist society is one, then, where all things become Capital Goods, including the individual efforts of all of the individual workers who comprise the society. the individual himself becomes the ultimate Capital Good, for without his efforts, there will be no consumption Goods produced.

It follows logically for some, unfortunately, that the society has the right to make certain that efforts are made towards the production of Consumption Goods, even if the individual members of the society do not wish to produce any.

.............

Since each society needs Consumption Goods to survive, it follows that the society needs the productive efforts of all members of that society, or it will fail.

There are only two ways by which these goods can be produced: either through the use of force against the producing individuals, or through the creation of an economic environment wherein the individual is encouraged to produce the maximum quantity of Consumption Goods.

All Capitalist societies soon discover that all Capital Goods tend to deteriorate through time and usage and therefore lose their utility. the blow-gun in the primitive society breaks or bends and becomes worthless. When this occurs, the tribesman must discard the useless Capital Good and construct a replacement.

But other Capital Goods, humans themselves, also lose their utility. They grow tired, old or become injured. There are societies today that also discard tired, old and injured human Capital Goods as well as old, tired or broken Capital Goods such as a broken blow-gun. Once such a society is the nation of Russia.

...............

If Capitalism, then, is an economic system that utilizes Capital Goods to produce Consumption Goods, what is the difference between the Communist system and the Capitalist system in the United States? Both systems utilize the same type of Capital Goods: the factories, the railroads, and the other factors of production.

The difference is not in the existence of these Capital Goods, it is the ownership of the goods. In the Communist system, the state owns the Capital Goods, and in the Free Enterprise system, a better name for America's economic system, the individuals own the Capital Goods.

In a Free Enterprise system the Capital Goods are owned and controlled by private owners.

In Communism the Capital Goods are owned and controlled by the state.

Control of the factors of production is equally as important as ownership: of an automobile is meaningless if someone else drives (controls) it.

But there is another economic system not included in the above definitions: the system where the individual private owner owns the factors of production, but the state controls them. This system is called Fascism. It cam be added to the above summary as follows

In a Fascism the Capital Goods are privately owned but controlled by the state.

In a Socialism the Capital Goods are owned and controlled by the state.

...............

Those who advocate that the Capital Goods should be owned or controlled by the state frequently justify their position by declaring that they are doing so in the name of the poor, the workers, the aged, or any other minority deemed to be voiceless in the society and hence unable to be in a position to own any Capital Goods. However, those who lose sight of man's God-given right to own property also fail to see the connection between the right to private property and the right to one's own life. It is the Socialists/Communists who support the state's right to own all Capital Goods. In addition, they also support the right of the state to divide the property between those who have varying amounts of goods. Once this process starts the state must decide who is to receive the society's surplus. It then logically follows that the state has the right to terminate the lives of those that the state feels are not worthy of receiving their share of the surplus.

............

Obviously, this type of government is not popular with the working class, the supposed benefactor of the economic philosophy of Socialism, so the strategy became one of deceiving the worker so that the Socialism that the worker is induced to support in theory is different from the Socialism that the worker would experience once the Socialists came to power. The problem exists in how to conceal this truth from the worker. Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party presidential candidate for about twenty years, and the leading Socialist in the United States prior to his death, said: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

Mr. Thomas was never successful in his quest for the Presidency as an identified Socialist, but he was extremely pleased with Socialist progress nevertheless. The American people were buying his Socialist ideas by electing others not publicly identified as Socialists, but who supported the economic and political ideas of the Socialist Party. Thomas wrote: "...Here in America more measures once praised or denounced as socialist have been adopted than once I should have thought possible short of a socialist victory at the polls." "The United States is making greater strides towards Socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt." Most people would agree that President Roosevelt gave the American government more control over and ownership of the factors of production than any other president, but few would feel that President Eisenhower did more than Roosevelt. Yet the Socialist candidate for President praised the "non-socialist, pro free enterprise" Dwight Eisenhower for his support of socialist programs. This means that socialism has been concealed from the American people. That the American people are being lied to by those who could be called "closet socialists." Someone once described the deception as: "one way they look, another way they steer." the strategy is to promise the American people one thing and to deliver another. Never make it appear that you, the candidate, are supporting socialism or are a Socialist, even though the platforms you will support after your election are indeed socialist in nature. And you must never deliver so much socialism that the American people will discover the exact nature of the game and remove you from office.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a noted historian, outlined the program of giving the American people their socialism in gradual doses: "If socialism is to preserve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law and mutual confidence....There weeks no inherent obstacle in the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of new deals...."

The reason the Socialist must deceive the unsuspecting citizen was made clear by the London, England, Sunday Times which stated that Socialism was defined as: "competition without prizes, boredom without hope, war without victory, and statistics without end."

In other words, most people don't want Socialism and they don't wish to live under the Socialist economy, so the Socailists must resort to trickery and deception, by a series of lies offered to the people by lying politicians.

...........

For the sake of the purist, is there any difference between Socialism and Communism? The absence of any essential differences was explained thus: "There is no economic difference between socialism and communism. Both terms...denote the same system...public control of the means of production as distinct from private control. The two terms, socialism and communism, are synonyms."

This position was confirmed by no less a Communist luminary than Marshal Tito, the now deceased dictator of the Yugoslavian Communist government, who said: "Communism is simply state capitalism in which the state has absolute ownership of everything including all the efforts of the people."; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dan on February 18, 2009 at 5:27am: My dear friend Monte,
a few points. By the flawed definitions you offer for consumption and capitalism, I would just lie to point out something which may have escaped your attention. All like on the planet are consumers in a massive global economic system. Fair enough. We now have grown our discussion into a discussion on the gaia hypothesis. A discussion I would be eager to have to bring in all other species into our scope of consideration regarding economics.
The second part of this would be that by your definition of Capital good, you bring into the scope of the discussion, chimps, gorillas, ravens, crows, octopus, ants, dolphins, and about a dozen other species who have been know to use tools.

Now I point this out not to ridicule you, you know from our many off board discussions that I have great respect for you and consider you a friend. No I bring these points up to state that this definition is politically skewed in a way that will not really unearth the truth that you are looking to find. If you are really looking to find thr truth here you must go to the true roots of the terms you wish to unearth, not the flawed "supposed" attempts at implementing them. I would argue that all "political" systems that have been attempted in the past 5,000 years have not been true forms of those political ideologies. Rather they have been bastardizations of the original ideal. Human greed and corruption has derailed each and every attempt at achieving them and the people who choose not to think and consider the implications of their actions, well they allow the cynical to manipulate the system.
Tito,s reign as you properly point out was a dictatorship. It never came close to a true communistic state. No more then our republic has ever come close to a true democracy, let a lone a fair representational republic. Money, in both cases has unduly influenced the government in a way in which the common man has been pushed into a place of disadvantaged existence.

I would argue that if we could stay away from the jargonistic political blather of the past, and stay focused on the importance of what is right and just, we can bring forth a discussion of what is needed to solve the problems of the day. We need to avoid the traps of linguistically charged terminology that will evoke reactionry responces that will automatically stop people from actually thinking about effective solutions.

I am not friend of looking my rights, hence I find the intrusion of our government into my house, my personal life repugnant. I am also not a friend of loosing my shinny baubles, hence the past taking of my things for the betterment of the state equally repugnant.

there is a middle ground here and neither side can claim it. it is ours to make if we avoid the traps of the past and the present.

dan; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dan on February 18, 2009 at 7:58am: That should be loosing my rights; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dan on February 18, 2009 at 1:06pm: http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_com...

"The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on February 18, 2009 at 5:52pm: Dan,

As a retired herdsman I would posit that a true herdsman works to optimize his gain, not maximise it. Therefore, when you are dealing with a commons situation (or a private situation for that matter) it is counterproductive to disregard actions which you know will be self destructive in the end. True master landsmen are quite aware of the limits of the land under certain conditions. I think, based on my studies, that when there was a true commons, both in land use and community commitment, you did not see the kind of tragedy you suggest. We have become so brainwashed to the notion of everyman for himself we have forgotten, if we ever knew, that communities are the sum of their parts (members) and the plunderer is disciplined to prevent permanent damage to the whole. In fact, I think you alluded to the necessity of protecting those things which are essential to all life in your earlier post.

I think we need to reexamine the term 'freedom' to remove the notion that it means a license to ignore anything or anyone else.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dan on February 18, 2009 at 6:31pm: Here Here Luane. Couldn't have been said better. It is a form of brainwashing.

I have a wonderful book called

"Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching" by Lynn Jacobs published in 1991. It documents the sad state of how the commons have been abused by the ugly cattlemen. I suspect that when it is the commons, many find it OK to over graze. However the real herdsmen are a fading breed.

A movie you might like the movie

http://www.goodfoodthemovie.org/

it has a wonderful section on people like you, good stewards of the land raising cattle. It is a very hopeful movie. I highly recommend it.

dan; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on February 18, 2009 at 6:53pm

Dan,

I have heard all the juve about how the bad old ranchers turned their destructive cattle onto the public lands and ruined them....Yeah, sometimes, just like everything else.

For balance check out the two articles attached.

Allan Savory is dead on, I know, I did what he talks about for 12 years and it works like a charm. His work is implemented on some public lands, where you can get the local government employee to put aside his biases and give it a try.

I'll put up some other interesting implementations of the concept when I have more time.

Then there is Wendell Berry...what can I say except this man is a delight and a treasure. I think, personally, that his work should be required reading in history and sociology as well as English classes.

Enjoy.

Have you read "The World Without Us"? PBS had an hour presentation capturing the highlights back sometime in 2008 I think.

Enjoy

Attachments: