The trouble with socialism: Understanding
I have no problem with people being scornful of socialism – it is par for the course when you look upon what those who scorn it know through propaganda to be socialism. Tyranny at its best; some would think. Though, those who do know socialism would see it as the opposite, rightly, to that tyranny. But after years and decades of socialism being dragged unmercifully through the mud – some of it sticks. So then, what do we do to change that?
Changing people’s mind isn’t that hard to do – especially once you have the right amount of money being thrown at the problem. The American Tea-Party is abject proof of that. Add to that particular vile mix Murdoch press, Koch and you have a very powerful concoction. Yet – is it simply a matter of throwing enough money at the sparkly new socialism? We could ask the local multi-billionaire to help out – I just don’t think that this would work. Billionaires haven’t become billionaires by way of a socialist mindset. Is it, then, a matter that you have a new way of thinking about socialism? To me the answer is simple, and a no, to boot.
In the UK The Labour Party is supposed to be the party of the left, quite, quite laughable really. Though its past you would have believed it but today, and throughout the Blair/Brown years – not so much. New Labour embraced liberalism and Toryisms. Policies from both centre-right ideologies – which were supposed to united all and bring about something akin to all being middle-class and worshipping the almighty dollar. All New Labour did was carry on right-wing dogma that grew as the party took power election after election. In 1997 the majority that New Labour had could have changed the nation, it didn’t.
Now we have Maurice Glasman. His vision is a “Blue Labour” vision. New – blue, at least they rhyme.
Hats off to Maurice Glasman for trying to re-acquaint the Labour party with the imperative to think via the much-misunderstood creed of Blue Labour, but he cuts a very lonely figure.
So he should. If you have people such as Hazel Blears, James Purnell in any of the mix whereby The Labour Party are thought of, you are on to a loser. If you want a party of the left then right-wingers should not be calling the shots within that party. Left-wingers, both soft and hard should be at it. Left-wing politics are not, nor ever will be, easy. But, as we see with so many politicians – an easy life will I have. This is why you do not have more Dennis Skinner’s – Tony Benn’s. They, like most, are not duped by politieratti! Nice shot of wife/mother/girlfriend shopping at the local shop struggling to get by while wearing a Gucci or some other unpronounceable expensive brand produced in a sweatshop.
Capitalism has failed for most. Certainly not for the richest in society – they can call for greater tax cuts for themselves because so many have bought into the propaganda they spew. Worse still is that you have ‘thinkers’ trying to say that moving ever further to the right will be the end to all the worlds ills – it won’t, as proof I offer you the last 40 years.
To understand, then, what socialism is. Tell people. Say it out loud and be proud of it. If they wish to argue the premise that socialism is all about tyranny and Stalin, show them that it isn’t. People will believe propaganda for as long as an alternative is not out there making it look as ridiculous as it really is. Understanding comes from education. Education comes from speaking about something that is possible. People are crying out for that alternative – stand up and give it to them and they will listen.
Socialism’s important aspect: Democracy
As the world – on a minor level – watches how the USA moves further into the days, the dark days and hopefully the latter days of a short lived feudal system, earmarked by its latest row over nothing except who owns the power in that nation, we have to look at what socialism can bring in reference to democracy.
Socialism is based on a wider democratic field. One where each and all who are affected by the system has an equal say in it. The current capitalist system does not – far, far from it. If we were all to be history buffs – those who take more than an imperial glance at what our nations history actually is, we can go back slightly further and see what happened in the days of yore. A simple, yet, in my opinion, search of good old wiki shows us what can be seen to correlate with today:
Feudalism was a set of political and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for ordering society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.
We, as a whole democratic make-up, are encouraged to elect one or another king/queen/nobleman/woman of whatever hue. Yet – as has been said to me on so many occasions: “They all piss in the same pot”: “They are all the same”. This, if we were to be truly honest with ourselves, is correct – and why wouldn’t it be? The nobleman wants power over the masses. You can, if you so wish, read where the nobility lay. What is more important is that you look at what that nobility does – and how it is effective in countries such as the US. In most western nations where capitalism has come to where it should be called corporatism, where those who have the most money have the most say is there for you to see in open writings.
Democracy today is a sham! An elite is there literally running every show on earth. They have the most power because they have the most wealth and they can pull almost any string they want to make many-a-politician sing their song. But is this new? The answer to that is a simple and conclusive, no! Yet, what was it before that held back the corporations from doing what they liked, when they liked, and to whom they liked? It didn’t. It is now that we see a public that is much, much better informed than it once was. The greatest invention, bar none, in my eyes, is this medium you are using now – and that is the fundamental reason that politicians and corporatists want to take full and unabashed control over it. Socialism on the other hand does not.
Under a socialist system, whether one purely of political nature or both economic and political the information that is needed by the people to make a judged and informed decision is freely available. When I say free, I mean free, no fees or draconian rules to follow – but free. That is the first step in socialist democracy. The dumbing down of society will stop. Socialism is not simply about economic planning though that can be an important part. It is about the very empowerment an emancipation that the population so yearn. How this is achieved is, again, quite simple in both logistic and financial terms. You are using the very media that can bring this about at virtual no cost.
We see today that the politicians that want the status quo to continue will use Twitter and facebook. If they can use that to alleviate you of a vote they do not deserve then why cannot it not be used to bring forth more information of their true intentions? It is, but most will not look for this on so-called ‘social media’ because, still, today it is too difficult for the ‘common man/woman’ to find. Because socialism, at its heart, believes that those who want to ‘rule’ should do so through merit, you should show that merit for all to see so they can make that judged and informed decision. Can this be said for those who are running for office now or have in the past? Look into current ongoing elections and you will find many stories of those who were apart of the elite who has a somewhat “shady” past offering advice in the ear of the sitting baron or lord.
In and of socialism YOU are the person who calls the shots – if any say they believe in socialism and that there should be a power elite then they are not socialist.
Socialist birth
A friend of mind asked a very pertinent question: “How will socialism come about?”
Firstly, and part of my reply, was that socialism is here – it is all about us, all you have to do is scratch the surface and you will see it. An odd thing to look for is how, in corporate terms, socialism serves corporations but only on the financial level. You see public funds paying for a wide variety of social and socialist programs. Many of those social programs now given over to private companies to exploit – and some in our communities willingly see their hard earned cash go to support this exploitation – even of themselves. Generally those who see themselves as ‘conservative’. The conservative sees that a private company can, and does, use efficiency to get the best bang for the buck – irrelevant that this is not the case.
Corporations want profit – it is as simple as that. What is more simple, other than those politicians who advocate such, is that corporations want easy profit. Of course they will tell, and lobby, politicians that they can run a service much better and at less cost – it is in their interests to do so. A public service is not built from the ground up. It is there, to be exploited by any business that can convince politicians that it is ripe for take over, but it is there because the governments over many years have used public funds to build it to where it is today. It is, as we know, costly to run a public service. So where is it that the logic dictates that because it is taken over by a corporation – spending any amount of cash – the corporation will do it on the cheap? There isn’t. All corporations will do is say they need more money – and will get it because the contract has been signed and that service needs to be supplied.
So what has that to do with the birth of socialism? Part one is that we, all of us, must begin to see the flawed logic of corporations running public services. They cannot run them any better than the way they are run now. What they can do is strip the service to the core, run it for a profit and care little about the results that they attain – they are not answerable to the public; only to those who provide the funding, ironically that funding comes from the public purse. Eliminating the middleman has produced many more, each one wanting a bigger piece of the pie. This, in turn, removes what was once a public service until it has to be taken over by the public once again – the cycle begins again. How much, then, has the corporation saved us in cash terms? Taxes have not come down in any dramatic fashion, other than for the corporation. Taxes and prices have gone up for the majority of us. Where is the capital ethos now? It isn’t there nor, I would argue, was it ever.
This brings us onto the foundation of a socialist society – one of equality.
The Soviet Union quickly emphasised the need for a strong state and minimal rights. In Britain the Fabian Society has long been a centre for authoritarian socialism. It is notable that while the rhetoric talks of equality it does not really mean it. The Soviet Union and Britain under old Labour were less unequal than their countries’ previous regimes but that is all. Neither of them moved towards equality in a serious way.
[...] They treat us as formally equal in an unequal society. They assume that life is divided between the state taking care of our public role and a private sphere which is principally there for private profit. Society needs to overcome the public/private breach. Only then can people relate to each other on a human basis.
The real birth of a socialist society will build upon a foundation of collapsed capitalism. It cannot, no matter how much we wish it to be, build upon a society that is divided by mere wealth and power – power and wealth that is held in the hands of so few. That is not a revolutionary concept. It is a matter that the world is moving in that direction. Capitalism seems to be making many wealthy so most stick with the devil they know. Yet we can see the very bedrock of capitalism breaking under its own weight. That weight is not you or I at the very bottom of this current feeding trough. But by those who want more and more wealth, easy wealth brought about by failed implementation and upkeep of socialist ideals. People freeze because they cannot pay the power bill – the corporation want your money, if they don’t get it then they cut off your supply. Conservatives tell us that is our fault because we did not save enough to pay for that need. Does that cost of such needs have to be so high? Yes, the corporation tells us – “we have to make a profit”. Billions on the back of utter misery? This can be said for many other aspects of our capitalist society today. This is how capitalism is slowly floundering and imploding. It is not a fast action, nor should it be. Capitalism wants inequality and advocates it. It has to. It has to, to feed upon the psyche the inequality is the human form, way. It isn’t. We see that this is the case on many levels where human seeks out to help others because they need help. The real birth of socialism has been here as long as we have. The corrupting influence has been the embodiment of wealth creation to the detriment of human worth.
Socialists see all as an equal. It is not a hard concept. Socialists do not see borders. Socialists see humanity, with all its flaws, accepts them, tolerates them and works to eradicate what divides us. Capitalists, on the other hand, have found their way into perpetual war to keep the body alive. Now, as we see around the world, capitalists gain the greatest profit from the great war machine. In the US look at how much is spent on their military alone. Am I advocating that all military spending be dropped? No. What I am saying is that if there is to be the bordered nation then look at the people to defend it but not to the detriment of those who cannot heat, light or feed themselves and their household/family.
Socialism has been born in other words. It is growing up. But for it to come of age we have to see, and hurt through, the collapse of its older, darker twin, capitalism. It is that hurt, or fear of, that makes us perpetuate capitalism. Once we see that we do not need it any more and protest into its face – we will be at its mercy. That is the fear that the capitalist has – that we, the majority finally wake up. That we tell them that their time is done. We are not armed with guns, tanks and military aircraft, nor do we need to be. What we need is knowledge, education and teaching. Again, this is why we see the attack on educating the ‘masses’. Capitalists do not, nor ever really have, wanted that.
Once the populace is educated enough the tide will finally shift. When that will come I have no idea – but it will come.
Socialism Vs Anarchism
Some say that socialism would lead to anarchism within any country that truly adopted it. Socialism is of the left-wing of politics. But is anarchism? Some would say yes it is. But what we see, and it is one of those times when something is so obvious you are blind to it – anarchy is just around the corner for some countries such as the UK and the USA. Is this the case for Canada? It is a possibility if people do not begin to take a much more active role in the political arena.
Libertarians are, to me, pulling this world apart. They, in my opinion, do not care for anyone other than themselves. To them this is a virtue – me, I think it is a vice – one that is growing more and more powerful, and, in fact, may have already stepped over the cliff.
Socialism isn’t the end-game. Communism is. And we are not even in the realms of observing a stateless world, one where we all are seen as equal and work, play educate ourselves for the benefit of all, not simply ourselves. Socialism is about the people seeing that this, communism, is possible in a long off future. But before that time can come in a democratic manner, when the people of the world, or indeed the individual State, see their borders fall because we as people decide it to be so.
Today we are seeing a rise of what can be said to be a new form of libertarianism – one wild with ideology that seems, on the surface at least, to be the answer to all prayers. David Cameron calls it “The Big Society” – I call it madness, yet there are those who do support it. A cover to fight the evils that they see within socialism. Socialism offers what they say they will offer – so what is fundamentally different?
[...] this latest development is a sad sign of the power imbalance in American politics that has accrued over the last 30 years – during which time overall union membership has gone from about 25% of the workforce to barely 11%, and the richest 1% have seen their pre-tax incomes nearly quadruple while median earners have stayed flat.
Were the Democrats cleverer and braver, citizens would broadly know these facts. But most Americans have no idea of the massive class war – stealing from the bottom and the middle and giving to the very top – that has been waged over the last three decades.
The difference is how the wealthy have accrued that wealth and how they are manipulating how they are going to keep it to the detriment of everyone else. Earnings for the so-called middle-class in the USA has fallen since the 1980′s.
Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).
This new anarchy isn’t anything to do with left-wing politics either. It is fully in the province of right-wing, ultra right-wing and extreme right-wing – yet, and this is the kicker in it all, as it benefits the capitalist then they go along with it with consummate glee, jingling their new found wealth in over-laden pockets.
What we have, and there is a name for it, is Anarcho-capitalism. Seems a nouveau-speak phenomenon, it isn’t. See from the wiki introduction:
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”[1] or “market anarchism”[2] or “free market anarchism”[3]) is a libertarian[4][5] and individualist anarchist[6] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term.[7][8] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and “state capitalism” is the difference between “peaceful, voluntary exchange” and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[12] “Capitalism,” as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein natural market incentives and disincentives are skewed by state intervention.[13] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists that view capitalism and its market as just another authority. Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms.[14]
Look around you today, this very day and see what is happening in a wider world, even the world outside your own windows. In the UK the PM is trying this fatal experiment with the citizens of the country as a whole. With the assistance of what can be loosely termed coalition government. We also see today that the US president is in his own battle against these anarchists – but added to that some of the people who would normally have supported him many decades ago. The deregulation of the banks, the whole world coming close to complete financial meltdown wasn’t, and isn’t because of socialism, but because of anarcho-capitalists buying power and more wealth right in front of your eyes – and you are letting it happen.
I am not using this as an argument for all to follow socialism, I cannot do that and do not presume to do so, either. Socialism will come about after these nouveau-anarchists-riche/old rich have had their fill and pretty much destroyed the world as we know it. Certainly not in apocalyptic senses, but almost certainly financial ones. The very thing they love so much will, to me, come about to bite them so hard it is beyond our imagination at present.
Socialism is an alternative – certainly not the only one, but one to take a close look at. One that cannot be forced upon the people. But one that can be put forward.
Our world is changing, not for the better for most.
Socialism and technology
It is odd to be told that me, as a socialist, hates technology. That socialism would bring us back to the dark ages of peasantry and feudalism. That socialism would not, nor could not – because we socialists don’t believe in people being rich – ever nurture new technology. We would still be breaking our backs in coal mines and steel mills to make sure that the unions were running the country to the detriment of the middle and upper-class.
To be told that, well, I looked upon the person and said that they really had no idea what the world looked like today – let alone how a world, a socialist world, could ever look like. They play the lottery 3 times a week in the hope of becoming part of the social élite, to holiday in the Cayman Isles, and drive a Ferrari. They are, at present, a wage slave, as much of us are, and want to get out of the drudge of working for a living. They denounce those who are on ‘welfare’, have 2 kids going to a state school, pay too much tax drive a car financed by a bank loan and a mortgage that will pay off their ‘investment’ in another 12 years. So, a pretty average person I would say.
What is wrong is that fact that, as a working person – this person does understand that for people to live with more leisure time we have to have something in place that will do our graft for us while we are out doing other things. That would be, obviously, technology. The difference in motivation in and on the technological base would be that any, or most, innovation and invention would be to make the workers life a lot easier. It would not solely be about bringing greater profit to the business owner as it is today. The technology brought in replaces workers and so the spiral down toward diminished wages and unemployment begins ad infinitum.
If a robot can do a ‘man’s’ work – then use it. The robot could cost in excess of a million, but that in a capitalist society is fine, because it brings profit due to the robot never tiring 2/7 – never having to take a break for a pee or, in fact, having to get a wage to pay for the capitalist society around it. Isn’t that irony? Bringing in a robot to do something so you don’t have to pay someone to produce what you need to sell to buy more robots?
Capitalists tell us that this frees up the worker to be employed somewhere else. Breeds innovation in another sector of the economy so the worker has to be flexible to go get that job. Yet – we see time and time again that the period between all this moving around the country to a time without much cash to do the moving let alone living. It also means that the next capitalist is trying to get a robot to do that job so the cycle can begin again. If a fast-food restaurant could get a robot to serve those fries and burger with a happy face, they would. That is the nature of the beast that is capitalism. To create wealth for the few.
In socialism it is entirely possible that we would not have such things as iPods. Though, if the demand was there for such a thing to make live easier, and not worthless, then they would be invented and used as widely as they are now. Innovation in the business sector would be no less than it is now – I would say that it would be more. Research and development in a socialist society would be very high on the shelf of valued skills and employment, add to that (killing another myth about socialism) it would be one of the highest paid jobs out there. Technology would be innovated to help the R&D worker as well as the man or woman who worked in a factory. More free time and more money can be achieved under socialism but not under capitalism. Wages for your valued work would be paid by what you put into society.
while upper stage communism is based on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”; the upper stage becoming possible only after the socialist stage further develops economic efficiency and the automation of production has led to a superabundance of goods and services
[wiki]
THAT’S Communism! Socialism is and comes before communism – so can you imagine how far technology would advance in a socialist economy?
The days of the capitalist theorem of a fair days pay for a fair days work is dead. It has been for decades. Now the capitalist wants a fair days pay for a fair months work.
Technological advancement is very fast today. It is based on what can be sold, not what can be utilised to make life easier for the employee. Capitalists, or conservatives, believe that the employee must work ever harder for lesser pay. With socialism that is not the case, it is quite opposite. The harder you work the more pay that you get, the easier we will make it for you to do that job. The advancement of technology under socialism would be greater because both employee and employer would ask for that technology and entrepreneurs would work harder and more efficiently to offer it.
Socialists love technology with a passion.
Socialism and the ‘house wife’ shopping basket – the economy
Capitalism, and capitalists, insist that the government should do as you do – at home, and look after their budget as you do. You have to save for a rainy day – so should they. You have to watch your bills as they come in, pay only for what you can, when you can. So should they. You have a wage, or wages, coming in so you have to think about what you spend it on.
Good thing that capitalists have a hefty line of credit to pay for stock, wages, salaries and a plethora of other things that they have to pay for – else their creditors would go under – but wait, shouldn’t they save for the things they need so they can pay for them? Shouldn’t business make sure that they have money, cash money, ready to pay for the labour they employ? Should businesses really have to wait until they are paid before they can invest in their company so they can do what they need to do to expand? Simple questions – but if capitalists say that the common man should do this – then why not they? Odd, really.
But a country’s economy is not like the ‘house wife’s’ shopping basket – it is way, way more complicated than that.
Firstly we can look at those things that cost money – vast amounts of money, and things we are willing to pay for without the bat of an eyelid. Do you, as a person who shops for your weekly groceries have to think about how you will pay for your generals, police commissioners, teachers, the road you are about to drive on? No I would hazard to guess.
Do you have a family member that is so wealthy that he/she hold 50% or more of the household wealth. Say, for arguments sake, that family member is 1% of the family unit? I would hazard another guess that you would think twice if that family member called all the shots about how you pay for something, where you pay for it and that you must buy it from their friend on the other side of the city – even if you know you could get it cheaper next door.
Some, wrongly, say that socialism is a closed and planned economy – planned from the core of the State and that you can only buy what the State allows you to buy and you must pay what the State says so. Odd then, that in our economy, we have a corporation(s) doing just that. Capitalists insist that we are living within a free market and the market has not let us down – so why try socialism. socialism is evil.
Try being the corporation that wants to take on the multi-national who sell just about anything with prices always falling. Or the petroleum corporation that sells from one arm of its company to another so you pay through the nose for your fuel. Try being the small business that is just about to get big and compete with a large corporation – only to be under-cut so you have to sell to them or you go under – that is capitalism at its rawest. How then, is that similar to how you fill your weekly shop? How is it that the same people who will ruthlessly destroy all competition tell you that you have to tighten your belt because they cannot come anywhere near to reducing prices below their profit margin. All for the betterment of their shareholders, of course. I would, if I were you, see who those investors really are – you’d be surprised.
You don’t know the difference between macro and micro economics – and that is how those in power want it to stay, why would they want a well educated population?
Macro [from wiki]:
Macroeconomists study aggregated indicators such as GDP, unemployment rates, and price indices to understand how the whole economy functions. Macroeconomists develop models that explain the relationship between such factors as national income, output, consumption, unemployment, inflation, savings, investment, international trade and international finance. In contrast, microeconomics is primarily focused on the actions of individual agents, such as firms and consumers, and how their behavior determines prices and quantities in specific markets.
While macroeconomics is a broad field of study, there are two areas of research that are emblematic of the discipline: the attempt to understand the causes and consequences of short-run fluctuations in national income (the business cycle), and the attempt to understand the determinants of long-run economic growth (increases in national income).
Macroeconomic models and their forecasts are used by both governments and large corporations to assist in the development and evaluation of economic policy and business strategy.
Micro [from wiki]:
(from Greek prefix micro- meaning “small” + “economics”) is a branch of economics that studies the behavior of how the individual modern household and firms make decisions to allocate limited resources.[1] Typically, it applies to markets where goods or services are being bought and sold. Microeconomics examines how these decisions and behaviours affect the supply and demand for goods and services, which determines prices, and how prices, in turn, determine the quantity supplied and quantity demanded of goods and services.[2][3]
This is a contrast to macroeconomics, which involves the “sum total of economic activity, dealing with the issues of growth, inflation, and unemployment.[2] Microeconomics also deals with the effects of national economic policies (such as changing taxation levels) on the before mentioned aspects of the economy.[4] Particularly in the wake of the Lucas critique, much of modern macroeconomic theory has been built upon ‘microfoundations’ — i.e. based upon basic assumptions about micro-level behavior.
You, on the other hand, have very limited funds and resources – a country’s economy doesn’t (simplistically). Capitalists and capitalist politicians can, so far, pull the wool over your eyes because they are trying to blind you with science. A country cannot do as you do at home because it is not a home, it is a massive base of moveable objects that slide so slowly watching it do so would drive you insane.
Socialist economy [from wiki]:
A socialist economy is a system of production where goods and services are produced directly for use, in contrast to a capitalist economic system, where goods and services are produced to generate profit.[4] Goods and services would be produced for their physical utility and use-value, eliminating the need for market-induced needs to ensure a sufficient amount of demand for products to be sold at a profit. Production in a socialist economy is therefore “planned” or “coordinated”, and does not suffer from the business cycle inherent to capitalism. In most socialist theories, economic planning only applies to the factors of production and not to the allocation of goods and services produced for consumption, which would be distributed through a market.
In a socialist economy – who would be asking you to tighten your belt – especially when all goods and services are produced to offset immediate demand and are, in fact, a utility?
Socialism and you
Over the past 30 to 40 years we have had a constant stream of individualism. Almost, one may add, ending with the culmination of out and out Libertarianism. Libertarian ideals whereby the individual is an island of his/her own and there is no, unless asking your fellow man/woman to fight a war for you (because you wouldn’t do this yourself, of course), government involvement in a person’s life. We see this with Cameron’s defence of his Big Society in The Guardian.
Personally I believe him to be a spiv, one who will sell what he can to achieve just about nothing very quickly, yet – and I am sure, he has a good heart somewhere.
The first objection is that it is too vague. I reject that. True, it doesn’t follow some grand plan or central design. But that’s because the whole approach of building a bigger, stronger, more active society involves something of a revolt against the top-down, statist approach of recent years. And neither is it about just one thing. Rather, it combines three clear methods to bring people together to improve their lives and the lives of others: devolving power to the lowest level so neighbourhoods take control of their destiny
Interestingly, Cameron states, quite clearly, that his Big Society is, in fact, vague. It isn’t about planning and it is about the lowest of the low taking control of the local post office and such. “Devolving power to the lowest level”: Now think about that.
You would have thought that having a big society would be a socialist ideal – from what you have read and been misinformed about it anyway. But Cameron, like many of his fellow faux-libertarians, wants you to believe the idea that a society that is working together for the betterment of all is one that the right-wing have had. It isn’t. It isn’t now, nor will it ever be. Simply look at where the tax cuts are going. It is a sham – and people, thankfully, are seeing through it. The British people did not vote for a conservative government – they voted, wrongly in my opinion, for a coalition.
So what would happen in a socialist society? I have mentioned before that within a socialist society everybody works. Can the right say that this is the case? They will tell you they are getting the ‘benefit scroungers’ of the welfare – but, as so many have asked, where are the jobs to fill? So many are now unemployed it is, literally, beyond a joke – even a Tory one. Corporations do not want full employment – it would mean higher wages for those whom Cameron wants to devolve power to.
For too long socialism has been seen as Stalinist – tyrannical government putting the higher educated in gulags. Socialism is the big society, but with a significant difference. It is a system whereby people are educated to the best of their abilities, trained constantly on the job to give back to society what they are receiving from it. Cameron’s big society is about giving tax cuts to the rich and sod the little guy.
Socialism is about devolved power. It is about allowing the local community bring about change – real change in real lives with the help of a central government that can allocate the funds that are needed. It is about breaking banks up to serve the purpose they were believed to be for. So you do need central planning, you do need co-operation. Cameron’s wishy-washy words will not bring about this change, it will – again in my opinion, bring about chaos.
Socialism is not about taxing you to death – by the Lord we all know what that feels like now – and this under a supposed capitalist system. For the greater good of our societies we must put the power back into the hands of the people – you and me. Socialism does that, the system we have now does not. It puts the power that is available in the hands of a few. Not in parliamentary buildings, nor senates, not any governmental building – but in boardrooms. That isn’t a big society we can be proud of, that is a tyranny we should fight against.
Those who are individualists have wielded influence for so long – they have promised free cash so they can elevate themselves up an invisible social ladder. To be better than either the Smith’s or Jones’. And it has failed. Thatcher, Reagan, the Bush’s – all failed. Cameron is offering people a canvass to paint on but they can only use clear lacquer. The problem is – and this is where we must be ready to protest – is that the chaos that will follow will mean more people will become hurt by this façade. Cameron is offering what he cannot deliver: Socialism.
Socialism is society, it is community and it is for you – that is if you want to grasp the non-stinging nettle. So many say it it boggles my mind – look around you and you will see what the people are asking for – it is just that they dare not say the name.
I have to laugh – or I would cry!
This piece I picked up from a friend of mine on good old facebook. As I do try to give as much rope to conservatives to make a consummate ass of themselves I decided to read the piece with as open mind as possible reading a conservative blog piece. But, as always, and as uneducated as conservatives are – the person who wrote the piece is a councillor – a Tory councillor at that. Ho-hum.
His claim, as so many make, is that socialism doesn’t work. Again, we have to ask; how do you know? His answer is one that is, well, fragmented – but understandable when addressing poverty in the UK as the same as poverty on a global scale. Are poor people in the UK as poor as those, say, in a poverty-ridden African state? Well – no, obviously. But what has that to do with socialism? As a socialist I want people in Africa – and any other poverty stricken nation – not to be poor. Being poor kills people, a lot. But what is being poor in the UK? Well, if we are to take any inference from this particular conservative, you must be as poor as the poorest in any given State – or you are not poor because the social welfare system makes you rich!
Let’s look into the mind of a Conservative:
Ever give a thought to the poor masses of this country? Of course, the masses aren’t poor; on a global and historical scale, they’re moderately wealthy and getting more so year on year. Socialism is grounded in the Nineteenth century concepts of poor exploited workers so let’s pretend for the sake of argument that they really are poor and plentiful. Oh, and trapped there. There’s no fluidity in this imagining unlike the real world. The standard argument runs: how do we help these people? We give them wealth. Where do we get the wealth? From the government. Where does the government get the wealth? From the rich. Where do the rich get the wealth? From exploiting the poor. So the money runs a cycle back to its rightful source.
I would hazard a guess that getting the author to live for a year on what he calls ‘moderate wealth’ would be a hard task. But his argument would be he does not need to. Mine is yes he does. For one year – not a week, nor a month – a year – then come back and tell us all that he is of moderate wealth. He won’t, of course – that doesn’t fit in with his political agenda. He indicates, or I read him wrong, that the world has never exploited workers – obviously, again, not a history buff.
[...] it would make perfect sense for the poor/state to destroy the rich, absorb their assets and have the state employ the workers directly as a form of benign management. Nice on paper, murderous in practice. At last count Communism cost upwards of a hundred million lives in the last century.
I am, from that, assuming that the author means a socialist/communist/Stalinist mock up? Pol Pot? Interestingly within many realms of socialists we have said, many times, that 1. Stalinism isn’t, wasn’t nor ever will be socialist let alone communist. 2. totalitarianism isn’t socialism, nor ever will be – a simple read of what socialism is, stands for should wake him up – yet to be hit with facts about this would wash above him much as the idea that the UK poor really are, in fact, poor.
He is an advocate of the ‘free market’ – a free market where good is bought and sold and profit is the motive, capitalism to some degree. Yet, as we have seen most recently, his view of the world has come crashing down because, as we have empirical evidence of, capitalism hasn’t worked. These free markets he so brightly speaks of went to the States he so desperately lords as the evil – to the poor – who bailed them out. What happened to the free market:
Contrast this with a free-market. Here all transactions are, by definition, free, rather than forced and directed, so accurate information about desires and intentions are passed at every stage. Similarly, because producers are financially rewarded for successful production, and especially the bosses who oversee and own said production, then there are strong incentives to perform at full capacity. Profit is not an inefficiency, it is an incentive. Profit helps, it doesn’t hinder.
Pricing – Prices in a free-market are jointly determined between the ability of a producer to supply and the demand of the consumer.
Maybe he should look at the current obsession with supply-side economics of which his party so hilariously advocate.
Socialism has never been tried. Some claim that they were socialist and became totalitarian with the corruption of power. Socialism can only work once capitalism has defeated itself, something I would like to see in my lifetime but probably won’t.
Socialism, as I want to explain it … well my point anyway
Socialism is difficult to explain if you really haven’t read up about it, and believed such idiots as Reagan speaking about its evil. Socialism isn’t evil – it is a matter of working for the people rather than just a few. Where wealth is held in the hands of a greedy few and spread much more evenly around. We see, today, that many actually feel that this should be the case. See the younger generation in the US – many voted for Obama because they believed he would do something spectacular on health care provision there – he did, in comparative terms for the US, yet still, not enough for many.
We do still see the propaganda that socialism means every work-shy person will be given a mansion to live in, thousands of unearned dollars, pounds, Euros just to sit on there idle arses. That, I can promise you, is not the case.
With socialism, everyone works. That is from the wayward to the healthy to the disabled to those who are not partaking in anything that will benefit those around them, their community, their country. If a person should be incapable of work then they will not be a second-class citizen who is made to live in abject poverty because they cannot add anything to the community as a whole. That will mean them having a greater safety net than is in place now – but they are our fellow human beings and they deserve our support. Those who fall ill shall have the best healthcare that can be given, from cradle to grave. They will have the support from local to national government to get them back to producing for the local and national well being as soon as possible. People will be educated, not just in academic subjects, but in ethereal subjects, where they have the ability to think and question. It isn’t about a totalitarian state repressing the people – socialism is the people – the people who will own both the means of production and, which is just as important, the wealth that production be-gets.
It is about knowing that each day you produce you are adding to those who are a part of the community that you belong. It is about ridding the world of intolerance and poverty, inequality and bigotedness. It is about having a government that will seek what is in the best interest of the vast majority rather than the few. Something that capitalism has failed to do.
Funnily enough, socialism would produce a much freer market than capitalism could even begin to imagine. Though, in a socialist state it would be much easier to set up a ‘business’ than it is in the corporate states we live in today. Ideas would be accepted more readily because they were, by definition, ideas. Socialism, which is what capitalists believe, is evil because it would not allow a few bankers become billionaires at the expense of the community.
Socialism is hated by those who are motivated by an aspiration to have so much wealth that they are scared to spend it. Socialism is hated by those who feel the individual is more important than the next. Socialism is hated by those who believe having full employment gives too much power to the people – no matter what they say about civil liberties.
The argument that all socialism does is produce an idle class, where those who don’t want to work will be given everything for doing nothing – that couldn’t be further from the truth. It is, interestingly, those who have the greater part of the wealth of any nation that will – and does – proffer that argument. From news media to the common gossip columnist. Yet, do you ever see them directing that accusation to those who, by any means foul, do very little and accrue a great amount of wealth? Or, more to the truth – aim that argument toward, and in doing so deflect the former – aim more at those who are commonly known as the working-class? Those of the ‘true’ middle-class will not object – why would they? Their aspiration is to be socially mobile upward – further acquisition of their personal wealth at the detriment of the working-class. Buying into the capitalist genre that you can make it too, if you think the way we do.
Socialism isn’t about taking from the rich and squandering “their” money on the undeserving poor. It is a matter that no one, in such nations as ours, no one should be poor – at all.
Socialism is localism, it is about what you want, at both local and national level with us all being involved to what and by what ability we have and can add something, no matter how little or great to the community whether a greater one or small.
It isn’t about giving houses to those who cannot afford them – it is about giving homes to those who need them. It isn’t about giving a free ‘welfare’ cheque to those who will not work, it is about giving support to those who need it in dire times.
It is about us, the people and society, working for one another for the betterment of all. And that, to me, isn’t a bad thing at all.
Entrepreneurship in Socialism
Is this the case? Or, as Orrin Woodward says “When you destroy the gain for the entrepreneur to take risk, by definition: the entrepreneur will not take risk. If the entrepreneur doesn’t take risk, by definition: the economy stagnates.”
If I am reading him right – the only thing that the entrepreneur can do is look for the risk, go for that risk as long as it is worth it in a financial sense, and either fail or not fail. What about the greater needs of a society? What, then, about the greater needs of the failed entrepreneur? Is financial risk the only thing needed to motivate the entrepreneur? Is the financial reward the be all and end-all that he/she is looking for? Do we look at those who have the initial financial clout as those who are able to “Startup” new companies? What about those who don’t have the assets to risk their entrepreneurship against?
We see that it is those who have the money/power that, again, is standing in the way of those who can make a difference to society as a whole. They are telling people, en masse, that if they are not prepared to take whatever risk is needed then they should not have any of the rewards.
In socialism there are entrepreneurs believe it or not. Yet, although there are, they do not enter into the world of business simply for the financial rewards that most capitalists do. They do have a wider view.
Add, then, to your argument about socialism, especially if you are in the USA, that socialism does, in fact, work on the business level. If those who are espousing that this is an impossibility due to the heart-attack inducing risk-factor, they are simply wrong and are, as we mostly know, in the capitalist club to make as much money for themselves by exploiting what and whom they can.
To the true capitalist, competition is an anathema. The true capitalist wants all for him/herself whether that is a detriment to ones society or not. Competition, within and without socialism is welcomed.
Share this: