Again, the key is this. Starting over, with a brand new legal system. Capitalism would no longer be legal. It would no longer have any legal support. Dollars would no longer have any value. Commercial transactions outside of this new dispensation would be without any legal protections or support. Bartering is fine, though. Just no capitalist exchanges or enterprises.

Also, even though we’d have a brand new Constitution, there are many parts of our current one that would allow for the transition. Like, the general welfare clause, the equal protection clause, the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause. All of those would allow us a legal way to transition away from capitalism, until we all came up with our own Constitution.

And, to me, we need to. The old one was basically written by less than a half dozen white men who owned slaves, with next to no input from the vast, vast majority of Americans.

We can do better.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

W,

It’s fine, all things considered. A year and a half now without any chemo. Knock on the proverbial wood. Thanks for asking.

No worries about ending the conversation on the topic. Not a lot of people like talking about this stuff.

But I hope you’d at least consider this, about those wolves. From my reading and observations of real life, I don’t see most people as wolves. I see a very tiny minority in that light. Most people just want to get along, eat, drink, be merry, make love and so on — and are surprisingly selfless**. They’re actually very few Napoleons among us, though the capitalist system gives them wings. I’d rather have a system that doesn’t encourage them, promote them, protect them and bail them out when they fail. I’d rather have a system that has social justice baked in from the start, and doesn’t empower sociopaths (wolves).

**Naturally altruistic

More goodins.

I used to write all kinds of things down in little notebooks. Was obsessed with doing this in the 1980s, especially. I think it lasted up into the very early 1990s, but then I stopped. Larger notebooks after that, but I tended just to jot down general feelings about my readings, and not go into major details.

I miss have that kind of intellectual fire and passion for the new. At my age, far too much of that is gone. I fear more than a decade of chemo has something to do with this, and just life itself. It can beat that excitement out of you — if you let it. I just need to fight harder against that.

Thanks, WV.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

WV,

Going back to your mention of lots of “socialisms,” which is spot up. Makes me think of the knee-jerk reaction I always hear:

“Every time it’s been tried, it’s been a disaster!! Look at Russia!!” etc. etc.

First off, it’s never been tried. Russia instituted state capitalism, not socialism. Second, I’ve never understood how normally intelligent people, who would have no trouble understanding that different times, context and inputs equal different results, would insist that every attempt at “socialisms” is destined to repeat what happened in Russia, or China, etc. etc.

Any alternative tried in America, for instance, is going to have completely different variables, inputs, context, environments . . . which means different results. It’s literally impossible for it to reproduce what happened elsewhere, at different historical times.

It’s always struck me as a weird sort of blindness when it comes to normal cause and effect. Nittany’s our resident scientist, right? Maybe he can weigh in on how that works.

So, basically, W, I’m just not getting your objections. In every case, the system I describe would do infinitely better than our current one . . . on all scores. Everyone would have a voice. Everyone would get to hash out their objections, put in their two cents, should we do this, should we do that, let’s try this or that. That’s NOT the case under capitalism. Which means you’re not going to have a bunch of wolves killing the sheep. You’re going to have town meetings, workplace meetings, with everyone having an equal say, all voices heard, and then votes. No bosses. No political parties. The lowest levels of hierarchy possible — closing in on none. Rotating facilitators. No permanent power structures. No elections. Lotteries for civil service and workplace facilitators instead.

In capitalism, you have a few wolves eating up all the sheep. You have a few wolves deciding EVERYTHING for all the sheep. No dissent is allowed. It’s the boss’s way or the highway. No chance for democratic processes, debate, resolving conflicts using that process. You do what he or she says, or you don’t keep your job — and the bosses receive the lion’s share, even though they never do the lion’s share of work. And, as consumers, you get to buy what they tell you to buy, while making you believe you have “choice,” though you don’t. And most of that “choice” is the same old same old thing, cuz Capitalism encourages sameness, cuz mass production reduces costs, etc.

Again, not getting your objections.

I think what your describing is a system designed to preserve human liberties while forcing everyone into communal economic arrangements. The key is to have “the people” collectively make all important economic decisions. Well your faith in the people to make decisions for the betterment of all is much stronger than mine. All I need to do is look at the Trump movement.

W, I’ll break down your comment into halves or thirds and go from there:

As mentioned, people are forced into collectivist economic arrangements now, under capitalism. If they are not independently wealthy — and only a tiny, tiny fraction is — they have no choice but to sell their labor to others, to be dependent upon capitalists whose every incentive is to pay them as little as possible. Capitalists gain their wealth through the mass collectivization of unpaid labor. They make their fortunes by the grotesque suppression of wages. If they ever paid value for value, they’d never make that fortune. It is literally mathematically impossible.

As for faith in the people. I have far more faith that democratic decisions made by workers on the shop room floor, and communities themselves, will be far more beneficial to “the people” than ANY decision made by capitalists. If fact, why do YOU have faith in our current system, which concentrates vast power, wealth and privilege in the hands of the few, who then decide for everyone else. Seriously, why on earth would you support that and feel comfortable with that, but not with turning things over to EVERYONE to decide? And I mean literally everyone in the community. No political party. No group from Animal Farm, lording it over everyone else. I’m saying, direct, participatory democracy, where everyone has an equal say, equal voice and everyone is co-owner.

The comment about Trump baffles me, so I’ll wait for your elaboration.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.

And this? Capitalism requires collectivism. It can’t function without it. Modern societies can’t function without collectivism. Our current system collectivizes the workforce, consumers and the state on the behalf of the few, the rich, the plutocratic and oligarchical. From where I sit, it has never helped “individualism” in the slightest. In fact, it helps produce mass people, cogs in the machine, who buy mass produced crap, and seek to look like everyone else, watch the same shows, play the same music, etc. etc.

Socialism uses “collectivism” in the fairest, most moral, ethical and humane way. The collective works on behalf of the collective, not a few bosses. One could say this is “left-collectivism” versus “right-collectivism,” with the latter being capitalism. The right-collectivism version has the collective work to make a few people very rich. I find that to be obscenely immoral, unethical and unsustainable.

ZN, or any other mods? Any way to shrink the youtube I just posted?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

No one so far has been able to stand up to Clinton in a debate including the entire Republican house committee on Benghazi. I doubt Stein could either. The gal is tough as nails as is Warren. I have not seen Stein in combat.

W,

I think Stein would best her in debate. But Clinton will trounce Trump. Trump is easily one of the most ignorant candidates from either party we’ve ever seen. He has zero knowledge of foreign affairs, how the economy works, how government works, current events, history — you name it. If he’s not flat out lying — which is his default mode — he just pulls nonsense out of his butt. Like, when the Brexit vote hit. He was in Scotland, and he praised the Scottish for voting to leave the EU. Trouble is, they didn’t. They voted overwhelmingly to stay.

He has a Palin-like grasp of the issues. Which is to say, he’s totally clueless. A clueless lying narcissist is not going to do well in debates.

W,

You were likely a young idealist when you worked for RFK. Would you support him today? From my memories and my subsequent readings, I think it’s safe to say he wouldn’t even be a Dem right now. I’m guessing he’d be a Green. From the things he said and did on his last campaign, placing him alongside Sanders is more than fair, and RFK, unlike Sanders, constantly talked about the poor in America. Sanders, like so many others, focuses primarily on the “middle class.”

RFK went to the Delta. He went to Native American reservations. He was always doing and saying stuff to highlight the plight of the poor. And, man, he had courage. He risked his life, constantly, despite being told by his advisors about death threats. But that didn’t stop him — until it did.

I don’t see that in American politics anymore. Again, I could be wrong with this counterfactual, but I don’t see him wanting to be a Democrat, if he were alive today.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

I know it’s just a word, and there is no King of Words to nail it down to one definition. But I’m not a fan of using “progressive” to describe leftists. Primarily because I’m so used to the word being applied to Democrats. It’s basically a word used as a substitute for “liberal,” though it’s sometimes even taken up by DLC folks like the Clintons. All around the web, you’ll find people who support Hillary and call themselves “progressives,” and they reject pretty much everything we “leftists” stand for.

For me, support would be contingent on “no other choice.” I am always going to prefer someone not associated at all with the duopoly at this point in my life. But if I have to choose, I’d go with FDR. I don’t think he does something as monstrous as interning the Japanese in the context of 2016, and he wouldn’t have chosen austerity in the midst of an economic crisis, as did Obama.

But I’d probably support someone who never got a chance to be prez, above all the rest associated with either major party: RFK. The RFK of 1968, not JFK’s hatchet man from a few years earlier. I think he had a true Road to Damascus moment after his brother was murdered, and by the time 1968 came around, he wasn’t the same guy. Easily the most “progressive” candidate in the last 70 years or so, from the two parties.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Thanks, Zooey.

Pilger is excellent, and damn brave.

Agree with pretty much everything he said in the article, with this one quibble:

I think some people are using two different prisms for the two candidates. To be overly simplistic about it, “best case scenario” and “worst case scenario.” I think the latter is a good way to view any potential leader given great power. Big time skepticism, no suspension of disbelief, no automatic trust, not even “trust but verify.” They have to earn our vote, and it’s up to them to erase our doubts, etc. No givens, etc. But this should apply to both of them. To Clinton and Trump.

I think some are rebelling against the idea of Trump as media monster by going too far the other way. Almost to the “He won’t be nearly as bad as folks are saying” point. They don’t say that about Clinton. And they shouldn’t, IMO. But they also shouldn’t say it about Trump. Just because he hasn’t done all the horrible things Pilger lists, doesn’t mean he won’t once in power. And I see no indication from his words or his temperament that he would buck U.S tradition when it comes to the violent, brutal expansion/protection of empire.

Though he did say the invasion of Iraq was wrong, I think that’s just pandering to his right-libertarian base, the Ron Pauliacs among them, especially, etc. When you pair this with his all too frequent calls for getting tough on the rest of the world, including using nukes, I don’t think it really matches up.

In short, I think Trump is every bit as likely to take us to war as Clinton and do crazy, violent shit, and both will. The only difference is, where. We really are screwed.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Clinton was honest about how deeply at odds with any democratic-socialist movement she is. “We’re not Denmark,” she said, praising the “opportunity” and “freedom” of American capitalism. With this bit of frankness, Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist—indeed, no non-millionaire—should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark—yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way.

Denmark has a much, much better system than ours, and its results in pretty much every quality of life metric show this. It’s not at all close.

My own preference is to go beyond Denmark. Well beyond it. But if the choice is between our current system and theirs, there is no question which is head and shoulders better. They pretty much kick our butts every which way. And their people typically score highest in the world for happiness.

When Hillary mocked the idea of being more like Denmark, I cringed. And when she said “capitalism built the middle class,” or something to that effect. No, it didn’t. It was anticapitalist agitation that did that. Reformist liberals got stuff passed. But without leftist agitation, they never would have bothered. Basically, we built a middle class despite capitalism, not because of it. The mechanics of capitalism itself lead to rich and poor, if left unchecked. Virtually no middle class, and most people very poor indeed.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Zooey,

I don’t know the right word for this, as a shortcut. But it’s kind of a 1% “diversity” movement. It’s the absence of class critique, IMO, that makes this all so absurd.

In essence, the deal with the ruling elite is this: “You diversify your ranks a bit, and we’ll run interference for you by making this the focus of debate” — instead of the fact that there shouldn’t be a 1% in the first place. Cuz, the women and minorities who end up being let into the club are rarely, ever going to work against that club once they’re there.

Corey Robin puts it really well here

The Clinton forces want nothing more than to make all of American politics — not just in this election but for the foreseeable future — into a battle between a racist, ethno-nationalist right and a multicultural, neoliberal center. Our job is to make politics into a struggle between a multicultural neoliberal center and a multicultural, multiracial socialist left.”

I would add, and I think Robin takes this as a given: We also need to do battle with that racist, ethno-nationalist right. But the left needs to offer “the people” a concrete action plan so they don’t ever even want to join forces with the right.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Doesn’t this all have to end with Daenarys and her dragons defeating the Night King? Isn’t it just kinda obvious that you have to fight the wights with actual fire? Though the TV show added a new twist for me. It may have been in the books, but I’ve forgotten. Unlike the wights, the white walkers can walk through fire. Didn’t know that. It’s also kinda weird that the infinitely more powerful white walkers are vulnerable to Valyrian steel, but not the wights.

Also didn’t realize until just now (wikipedia) that “wights” comes from Tolkien.