- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
These are the things that bother me. Even more than rather Hillary is actually a neo -conservative or not.
There is-across this country-a sweeping movement of racist nationalism that threatens our very fabric. We can all intellectually pontificate here about socialism vs capitalism as we continue to march toward the destruction of the very core of what this country was founded upon.
At its essence the American people don’t understand and don’t care about the differences in capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. In fact most do not understand the difference in the ideologies. Our only interest is self interest. We have lost our compassion for those who suffer whether it be here or in other parts of the world. We are far too interested in being on the “right side” of political movements.
In my opinion what we can do is -instead of debating the intellectualism of whether socialism is a better form of government than capitalism or whatever etc-is to look across the street at our neighbor who is less fortunate and suffering and say: what can I do.
Once we actually begin to actually involve the suffering-instead of using them as a political weapon we just might be able to accomplish something that would bring happiness to a few. I honestly don’t care about winning an intellectual debate in a classroom. If this is a classroom and that means I’m excluded from the fraternity here. So be it.In my opinion what we can do is -instead of debating the intellectualism of whether socialism is a better form of government than capitalism or whatever etc-is to look across the street at our neighbor who is less fortunate and suffering and say: what can I do.
Waterfield,
One of the biggest reasons for my passionate belief in real socialism replacing our current system is just that. That person across the street who suffers. Or anyone suffering anywhere. I see the vast majority of the suffering as due to capitalism. And from my POV, it’s not a matter of “unbridled capitalism.” It’s not something we can tame or reform. It’s the thing itself. It’s the way it unleashed competitive laws of motion on the world that weren’t there before it, how it destroyed local markets and local ways of life in order to unify all markets under one thumb. It did this violently when it rose. It still uses violence today, but, because it’s already conquered nearly everything, we don’t see that as blatantly as before. But its effects never go away. No economic system prior to it ever caused so much widespread suffering, as no previous economic system was inherently imperialistic like capitalism. No previous system ever had its imperatives to Grow or Die . . . so that it must take over time and space — the future and all geography, near and far.
Boiled down: I think real socialism is the answer. The real deal. Which means the people own the means of production directly, not through proxies like political parties. The entire economy is fully democratic, with everyone having an equal say, an equal voice, an equal share. No bosses. No gods, no masters. We are all co-owners. No employees. No employers.
No economic system in which everyone has an equal say, an equal share, an equal stake, is going to allow the kind of suffering you speak of. It will have its own problems, conflicts, make its own set of errors. But with the end of the class system, with all of the old hierarchies toppled, it’s not going to be a matter of haves and have-nots anymore. That’s the road to a better world, and it’s a “pragmatic” road, too.
Of course, a general discussion of systems doesn’t preclude discussions of specifics under the current regime. As ZN mentions, we can do both/and.
But, IMO, it’s very important to zoom out, think in terms of systems, and ultimate goals. Attacking just the issues, without some kind of overall “prize” in mind, some kind of horizon to aspire to . . . . can lead to a very bad sort of “pragmatics.” A “crackpot realism” that eschews taking any chances, doing anything that might appear out of the box and upset people. That kind of pragmatics often seems far more worried about appearances, and “What will people say!!” than actually ending suffering. It seeks the appearance of being “sensible” above concrete, effective actions that benefit the many.
That’s my take, anyway.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
