Also stopping by to say Hi.

Thanks, Zack. Appreciate the welcome, and will likely check out the football forums, too.

Thanks, TSRF.

Hope all is well.

Zooey wrote:

I just read that article today. I had never heard of jacobinmag before.

I thought about posting it here myself, and asking wv’s thoughts since West Virginia gets a healthy mention in the article.

I’m still mulling over the argument put forward. I do think there is a pretty condescending attitude to minimum wage workers in society. I read a lot of disrespectful stuff a month or two ago when the minimum wage increase was announced in California. Honestly, a lot of the opposition to increasing the minimum wage was not based in economics, but in contempt for the job and the people who do it.

Hey, Zooey, Jacobin has been one of my go-to zines for awhile now. Young, fresh. Great leftist perspective. It gives me hope that there may well be a true left in America, even after the last of the old “new left” floats away on that ancient iceberg.

As for the argument. From my viewpoint, today’s “liberal” is closer to yesterday’s conservative. Corey Robin has written some great stuff about how the right has “disciplined” liberals from at least Reagan on, and that, whether they know it or not — usually they don’t — they’ve embraced most of the conservative agenda by osmosis. About the only thing that really differentiates them now are the cultural issues, views on race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. They’re so close on matters of war, the surveillance state, the economy, capitalism, there’s not really a dime’s worth of difference. It’s on matters of race and so on that there is still a significant gap.

So, to make a long story short: Liberals fall waaay short of being any kind of real alternative to conservatism because they refuse to deal with massive class divisions, and they support capitalism just as much as conservatives. I reject liberalism primarily because of this. I side with them on racial, ethnic, gender, sexuality issues . . . but I think they’re absolutely wrong on the best way to close those gaps. Rather than making it easier for the 1% to look more like America, rather than making it easier for women and minorities to climb proverbial ladders of success . . . . I think we need to get rid of the climb itself. True egalitarianism and society based on full democracy, including the economy, where all hierarchies are shattered, all pyramids pulled down, also takes care of the ginormous racial, gender and sexual gaps. By definition.

However, if we leave capitalism in place, those gaps will only grow bigger — even if we do have more minorities and women in power. Cuz we still have neck-breaking hierarchies in place.

The key is the flatten the pyramids. Let people actually live their lives in the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of staying out of the poor house.

Hey, Nittany and PA.

Hope all is well in the Keystone state.

Speaking of witches. Recently read a fascinating history of the the Salem witch trials, by Stacy Schiff. It takes a little bit to get used to her style — I’ve read two other bios from her, and this is quite different — but it’s worth it. Goes into great detail and depth about context, regional history, background, etc. etc. Tries to tell the story as if from the point of view of the accusers and the accused, and really presents a sense of the mass hysteria and crackup, without being judgmental. Schiff pretty much leaves that up to the reader.

bnw wrote:

No system can last long under such circumstance.

Btw, this is true of capitalism. It’s only survived this long because it is constantly being bailed out by governments. More than 100 times, just since 1970, to the tune of trillions. See David Harvey’s The Enigma of Capital for the play by play of that, plus a great deal more.

Capitalism’s own internal contradictions, especially the inevitable killing of its own consumer base, over and over and over again, would have destroyed it utterly a century ago, if not for the massive support of governments around the world, led by ours. It’s permanently dependent upon government, to a degree the world has never seen for any economic system, and this is a global now — also something unprecedented for economic systems.

What I suggest above would end this endless pattern of crisis, recession, depression, bailout, rinse and repeat, and it would end the massive waste, inefficiency, world-altering pollution endemic with capitalism . . . all of which are truly unsustainable, even with government protection and support.

Etc.

bnw wrote:

OK so my community has a surplus of sweet corn and all the surrounding communities have a surplus of sweet corn with only 5 days before its no longer sweet and no one wants it. My community really needs antibiotics and oil filters. How does your system make it happen?

Every community would have access to doctors, hospitals, etc. etc. We’d make sure everyone had access close enough to them to maintain the highest quality of health, safety, welfare, etc. Those doctors and hospitals would be ordering for need, just like individual citizens. They’d base that on their own community first, plus, again, enough surplus for emergencies and exchange. It’s highly unlikely they’d run out of these things, but if they did, they’d work cooperatively with neighboring doctors, hospitals, etc. etc. to get what they need.

As for that food? Unlike with our current system, where we produce in hopes of future sales (and marketing successes), and then trash roughly half of all of our food production, this alternative would focus solely on need, and would produce to order, as mentioned above. There would be the least possible amount of waste because of that. It would be all about the needs of citizens, instead of the desire for a few to make a killing. It would be citizen-centric, consumer-centric, health-centric, not profit-centric or business-owner-centric. All publicly owned and managed, democratically.

And people can “buy” stuff too. It’s not a barter-only system. They can own a home. They get digits in their accounts for work done, and those are debited when they purchase things at outlets, which are all publicly owned and operated. Schools, hospitals, science labs, parks, arts, recreation, utilities, etc. — they all would have budgets, funded publicly, derived democratically according to need. Communities would vote on what kind of production they want in their towns, and local production would be geared to meeting those needs. Their funding would come straight from those publicly owned and operated banks, so no tax collection is ever needed, and there is no debt.

The towns, regions and national assemblies would make sure this fits, works together, is updated, organized for efficiency, according to democratic goals, methods and processes. Constant chances to refine all of this as we go, with new leadership always rotating in. Since it’s set up cooperatively, and never competitively, the exchange of information is far more efficient, complete and beneficial than capitalism will ever be able to muster . . . . because “trade secrets” and “competitive advantage” force tremendous inefficiencies and the jamming up of knowledge.

This is completely different. We’d all be in it together. Like one big family, or team, but with plenty of room for dissent and disagreement, etc. And no centers of power, anywhere.

bnw wrote:

With food you can’t “produce to order” because of all the variables that can go wrong in bringing a crop to market. You still don’t answer how disparate items can be obtained for each other. There are always centers of power.

Yes, you certainly can produce food to order. It’s how humans did things for thousands and thousands of years prior to capitalism. Now we produce for profits, not for need, efficiency, health. The alternative system would change all of that.

And, yes, I did answer your question. We’d establish what communities need, set up production accordingly, and if anything falls through the cracks, we work cooperatively with our neighbors to fill in those gaps. That would include the production of antibiotics and so on. Again, health providers would order what they needed from local facilities set up to meet those orders, and their accounts would be debited per order. Prices and wages would all be established before hand, democratically. We’d ensure that wages and prices match well enough to provide a healthy, comfortable standard of living for everyone. Funding comes from the public banks. It would be steady state. No recessions, depressions and so on, because there is no profit involved, no “futures” to deal with, no speculation, no Wall Street. No private businesses or business ventures of any kind.

And, no, in this system, there are no centers of power. It’s set up to prevent them. Power is literally dispersed into the hands of every citizen, and every citizen holds the same degree of that power, voice, share in the fruits of society.