Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipant
I have NHL already. Don’t want to take the chance on using Roundup around the house, though weeds have been going crazy lately with all the rain. Would love to find an alternative that is thoroughly vetted as non-toxic. It would seem that is is still an open question when it comes to glyphosates.
I have a recipe for weed-killer at home. I copied it 3 or 4 months ago, and haven’t tried it, but I will post it here later if anyone wants to take a shot at it. I think vinegar is a key ingredient, and I’m skeptical, but it would certainly be 1/20th the cost of round-up, and who knows?
Thanks, Zooey. Would greatly appreciate your posting that.
Isn’t Roundup also a major killer of bees? And their populations have been dangerously reduced. Without bees, we’re all screwed.
Billy_TParticipantI have NHL already. Don’t want to take the chance on using Roundup around the house, though weeds have been going crazy lately with all the rain. Would love to find an alternative that is thoroughly vetted as non-toxic. It would seem that is is still an open question when it comes to glyphosates.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t know, Nittany. Can we really say it’s nothing to worry about? From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup have been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide, concerns about their effects on humans and the environment persist.[9][5]
Many regulatory and scholarly reviews have evaluated the relative toxicity of glyphosate as an herbicide. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment toxicology review in 2013 found that “the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing” with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).[10] A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[11] In March 2015 the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic in humans” (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[9][12][13]
Billy_TParticipantYour moving the goal line isn’t very egalitarian.
Never moved it. All of my criticism here has been directed at capitalism, capitalists, etc. etc. None of it toward direct producers, in our current system or pre-capitalist.
Again, you’ll note I’ve been discussing treatment of workers under capitalism. That’s obviously quite different from a critique of single proprietors/direct producers.
You see the difference between employer/employee business relations, rationale and effects and direct producers without employees, right?
Billy_TParticipantExcept most business owners have only one employee, themselves.
And you’ll note my criticism isn’t directed against the self-employed, direct producers. Why? Because they’re not “capitalists.”
America wasn’t predominantly capitalist until after the Civil War. See Steve Fraser’s book, which I’ve linked to before: The Age of Acquiescence. Prior to the Civil War, 80% of the nation was self-employed. Small, family farms, local producers, artisans, craftspersons, etc. etc. Direct producers, without employees, aren’t capitalists.
Yes, in the America today, single proprietor, direct producers work within a capitalist system, but they aren’t capitalists themselves. And capitalism itself, with its relentless drive to unify markets, violently if necessary, is what drove the majority of those direct producers out of business here and all over the globe.
See Michael Perelman’s The Invention of Capitalism, for the history, and The Origin of Capitalism, by Ellen Meiksins Wood, for the best single definition of capitalism and what makes it unique. Also already linked to.
(Throw in The Making of Global Capitalism, by Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch, for the history of America as main proponent of its expansion around the world, once Britain gave up being hegemon.)
Billy_TParticipantWe already have this freedom. It’s called owning your own business. You’re in charge. For good or bad.
Yes, the business owner is in charge of other humans. He or she owns them, at least for eight hours a day. And it used to be for a much longer period of time before enough anticapitalist activism forced changes in our labor laws. But they still get to legally steal workers’ production and profit from it. They stil get to decide FOR those workers what their pay will be, what they must do to keep their jobs, and if the workers don’t obey the dictates of that business owner, they lose their jobs.
Master/slave. Theft and coercion. A profoundly autocratic, antidemocratic and immoral system down to its very core.
The business owner may be “free” in a sense under capitalism, but the worker isn’t. He or she obeys or they get fired. He or she doesn’t have any control over what they do at work, how much they make, or the context of their employment. They are obviously NOT “free.” And because of the massive inequality in wages under capitalism, only the lucky few have the time/privilege to pursue their personal dreams to their fullest, and only the lucky few get to maximize their own potential.
Btw, there are roughly 7 million businesses in America with employees. Think about that in terms of percentages. A tiny fraction of society owns the means of production and other human beings at work.
Why anyone BUT the rich would accept such a despicable system is nothing short of insane.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantTo elaborate on the dream: The beauty of the socialist, left-anarchist vision is manifold, complex, multi-layered, but perhaps the chief aspect of its genius is this:
Unlike our current system, unlike the system of capitalist exploitation, it’s no longer the case that the pursuit of individual dreams and self-expression are limited to those with the money and time to do so. Everyone has a far greater amount of time to spend away from work, and money is no longer an obstacle. The dream is to radically alter the percentage of time spent at our vocation, and our freedom to spend it as we wish (avocation). That guarantees individual expression, without the obstacles we find under the capitalist dispensation.
Instead of massive class differences, where humans at the bottom on up through the middle must spend most of their lives toiling to make others rich, the amount of required work time is the same for everyone, and everyone has more leisure time than work time. Everyone. Not just those born into wealth and privilege, as is the case now. Not just bosses with their country clubs and their ski and gulf vacations. Not just the financial elite with their Davos getaways. They no longer exist. We revolutionize the workday, and radically shift the proportional tilt from the vocational to the avocational, so every single individual citizen gets the chance to express their own individuality, without fear of job loss, bankruptcy, penury, hunger, homelessness, etc. etc.
Anyone who wants to work can always find it, and all work is valued. We don’t work to accrue wealth, power or leisure time. We work to make society better, and we all, by rights, have leisure time set aside for us already. We don’t ever have to accrue it. It’s ours by rights.
So, contrary to the knee-jerk criticism of right-wingers, when they talk about socialism, we actually enhance individual differences and self-expression. We actually equip all citizens with the means to do this, to find their bliss, as Joseph Campbell would say. The trade off for this is that in this system no one can become rich, no one gets to own other people, no one gets to control the destinies of other people. No one can be a “boss.” But in exchange for that, 100% of the population gets their shot at individual excellence in their chosen avocation. Everyone has a shot at whatever intellectual, artistic, scientific, mathematical, kinetic, etc. etc. etc. dream they may have . . . and from Day One they’re encouraged to pursue those dreams without the slightest concern for their costs. They have no costs, because all of it is “socialized.”
Billy_TParticipantReally? You ignored the G&T student predicament. So lets see what else. What if someone is ugly vs. gorgeous? Fat vs. fit? Extroverted vs. introverted? Still preaching equality or do you at all acknowledge human behavior and its undeniable effect?
I didn’t ignore anything. I said that you described the existing problems with society, thinking you had come up with some unique problem that would only apply to alternative systems. Again, the alternative wouldn’t have that problem, because the purpose of education in a socialist, left-anarchist society is completely different from a capitalist society. There is no need to create good little capitalist worker bees. There is no need to preach obedience to authority and mold young minds into mass children for a mass consumerist culture. There is no need to make sure kids surrender their own personal autonomy to the ruling class, to business owners, etc. Those things won’t exist.
As for individual differences? Why would any of that matter? We’re not looking for sameness in human beings, unlike the capitalist system, which depends upon sameness, teaches it, herds people into being compliant, complacent drones. It’s capitalism that couldn’t survive if everyone were actually free to do their own thing. It’s capitalism that couldn’t survive if people were taught to think for themselves, provide for themselves, self-govern, self-actuate.
So, again, who cares if people are radically diverse? In this alternative society, we celebrate, promote and do our best to provoke that.
I think you are seriously confused about the definition of “equality” in this context. It doesn’t mean individual to individual sameness. It means equal rights and all humans being equally valued. Our time being equally valued and valuable. It means equal say in one’s workplace, an equal voice in one’s community, and equal access to all the fruits of society, without hindrance. It means all citizens are co-owners of the means of production, with an equal share. It means everyone is entitled to personal autonomy and dignity, as citizens. No bosses. No masters. No slaves.
It doesn’t mean everyone acts alike or is expected to. It means quite the opposite. Because in this society, with everyone having all the tools they could possible need to achieve their potential, the diversity of individual human experience will be greater than in any previous system known to humankind. Rather than just a tiny fraction of society having the chance to pursue individuals dreams, everyone will have that chance.
Again, you seem to be critiquing this from the standpoint of how things work now, by the rules of capitalism and our existing system. That’s using the rules of Risk to say this or that Chess move can’t work.
In short, you have to think outside the box.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI’ve never been a Kenny Loggins fan. But I watched a lot of Gilligan’s Island. That seems like what you want to do but out of those 7 stranded castaways 3 are the Howels and Gilligan.
Actually, no. The point would be to make sure no one is stranded. No one. No one left behind. Everyone gets the chance to achieve their fullest potential, primarily because there would no longer be any monetary barriers between them and their dreams. For the first time in history, everyone, simply by being a citizen, would have unhindered access to the full range of educational, cultural, health and fitness and environmental options available, with no entrance fees. Instead of these things being set aside for the Howells alone, or those who manage the wealth of the Howells, everyone could take advantage of all the fruits of society. No exclusion. No one stranded.
As long as they are not the square peg to be forced into the round hole. That square peg looks around the packed gifted and talented classroom and decides the work is so ridiculously easy as to be meaningless. Feigning sleep to daydream of a life lived fully elsewhere brings some solace for now.
You’re describing our current situation, not the alternative. The alternative wouldn’t be tasked with churning out good little capitalist cogs for the machine. Instead, the duty of our teachers in the alternative society would be to provoke and hone critical thinking skills, creativity, independence of mind and body. Study the Paris Commune. This was a really big deal to its theorists and practitioners. They sought to raise a new generation of independent minds, capable of self-provisioning, self-governance, no longer under the beck and call of capitalist bosses. No longer forced into the economic machine against their will, because they had no other option, not being members of the financial elite.
No gods, no masters. We’d teach our children this, and give them the tools to thrive in an open, democratic and cooperative society. No more dependence on capitalism, corporations, the state. No more class hierarchies. They’d have access to the widest possible array of avenues to explore, all of them without prices attached. And because every community would have the resources they needed to present that array, in full, no child would have to choose between fewer and fewer options, because rich people wanted their taxes cut and public goods and services slashed to pay for them.
No class system. No chance for the rich to demand tax cuts, paid for by slashing programs for the poor and the middle. Instead, everyone gets full access to the entire gamut of learning, with no one left out.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantThis is also pretty much the same exact thing that led to right-wing evangelicals becoming politically active back in the early 1970s. For them, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the ruling against Bob Jones University, on the issue of segregation. Samantha Bee explains: …
————-
I assume the Religious-evangelicals are still a powerful core faction
of the Rep Party. They may not be quite as visible as they used to be
but I assume they still carry a significant amount of weight on the Right.
Lots of votes out there, among the fundamentalist-christian crowd.w
v
“You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?” ― Mark Twain“The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.” — Robert Anton Wilson
Great quotes, WV. I’ve never gotten a coherent response from Christians who believe the bible literally, when I talk about their god as genocidal madman. The trap is that literal belief. The only way to really get around the fact that the Christian and Jewish god is the most evil father god in all of organized religion is to NOT take the texts literally. Take them poetically, as allegory, myth, legend, etc. etc. . . . and you can avoid that conclusion. But if a person actually sees the bible as the inerrant word of their god, there is no other conclusion. He’s profoundly evil on a colossal scale.
Anyway . . . . if you want to be seriously depressed by the ugliness of right-wing fundamentalists, watch this women ranting in a Target, which is the latest boycott from conservatives — again, due to the transgendered and bathrooms issue.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI’ve never been a Kenny Loggins fan. But I watched a lot of Gilligan’s Island. That seems like what you want to do but out of those 7 stranded castaways 3 are the Howels and Gilligan.
Actually, no. The point would be to make sure no one is stranded. No one. No one left behind. Everyone gets the chance to achieve their fullest potential, primarily because there would no longer be any monetary barriers between them and their dreams. For the first time in history, everyone, simply by being a citizen, would have unhindered access to the full range of educational, cultural, health and fitness and environmental options available, with no entrance fees. Instead of these things being set aside for the Howells alone, or those who manage the wealth of the Howells, everyone could take advantage of all the fruits of society. No exclusion. No one stranded.
Billy_TParticipant….was listening to NPR on the car radio and i heard that Bruce Springsteen and Itzak Perlman and a bunch of glittering celebrities were boycotting North Carolina.
Cause of the Identity politix thing. Trans people cant use bathrooms of their choice.
They have to use the other bathroom.THAT brings about a boycott.
Meanwhile… NC can pass laws the crush the poor every legislative session, and that gets
no reaction from the rich celebs.And so it goes.
wv grouch
I agree that it would be much better if celebs advocated on behalf of the poor, dealt seriously with class issues, inequality, poverty, hunger, our melting planet, etc. etc. . . . instead of waiting for this kind of bill to come along. Hell, they should really boycott every “right to work” state. Perhaps that would force change. But the bill in question does more than just force the transgendered into going against their gender identity. It’s actually quite sweeping in its discriminatory practices:
The new law did more than repeal the Charlotte ordinance. It made the state’s law on antidiscrimination — which covers race, religion, national origin, color, age, biological sex and handicaps — the final word. Meaning cities and local governments can’t expand “employment” or “public accommodations” protections to others, such as on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Minimum wage also falls under the state’s antidiscrimination law, so this law means local governments aren’t able to set their own minimum wages beyond the state standard.
This is also pretty much the same exact thing that led to right-wing evangelicals becoming politically active back in the early 1970s. For them, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the ruling against Bob Jones University, on the issue of segregation. Samantha Bee explains:
- This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantAnd this, from the same article:
The power created by private property is expressed most clearly in the labor market, where business owners get to decide who deserves a job and who doesn’t, and are able to impose working conditions that, if given a fair alternative, ordinary people would otherwise reject. And even though workers do most of the actual work at a job, owners have unilateral say over how profits are divided up and don’t compensate employees for all the value they produce. Socialists call this phenomenon exploitation.
Exploitation is not unique to capitalism. It’s around in any class society, and simply means that some people are compelled to labor under the direction of, and for the benefit of, others.
Basically, the difference between the surplus value workers create, and the pay they actually receive, is the “exploitation zone.” This is the pool of money capitalists/corporate management draw upon for their own compensation. If there is a one to one correspondence between surplus value generated and pay, there is nothing left over for capitalists/management to make their fortune. If they actually paid value for value, they could not possibly do what they want to do, what they go into business for: get rich.
So capitalism is based upon theft, direct theft. It’s just been legalized by the ruling class, on behalf of capitalists, the folks who fund their political careers. Morally, ethically, this should actually be illegal. I see it as immoral, theft and absolutely wrong.
So in the alternative, it would be illegal to do this. There would no longer be anyone being exploited by any “boss” in any way, shape or form, including “the state.” Public or private, no one can legally get rich off the backs of others.
IMO, this is key to a just, humane, moral and ethical society. It’s not the only component of this, obviously. But it’s fundamental, never the less.
Billy_TParticipantprofit = surplus
Thought I made that clear. Without surplus you will have to magically guess how much work, sorry, in your system half time work will lead to exactly the production that will be needed. Such prescience. No other system can magically predict all the factors that lead to production.
That is for every product. No surplus. No shortage. Only exactly what is needed.
No way such a laid back do as little as needed command economy can work.
I never claimed there would be an exact match via predictions. Just that this alternative would do whatever it could to make things match up. No system can possibly be perfect, and we’re not asking for perfect. We’re going for “better.” Much, much better.
And in case I didn’t explain the leisure/profit/more work time thing very well, and I probably didn’t, here’s a pretty good article from Jacobin on the subject. Quite accessible:
End Private Property, Not Kenny Loggins
In a socialist society — even one in which markets are retained in spheres like consumer goods — you and your fellow workers wouldn’t spend your day making others rich. You would keep much more of the value you produced. This could translate into more material comfort, or, alternatively, the possibility of deciding to work less with no loss in compensation so you could go to school or take up a hobby.
This might seem like a pipe dream, but it’s entirely plausible. Workers at all levels of design, production, and delivery know how to make the things society needs — they do it every day. They can run their workplaces collectively, cutting out the middle-men who own private property. Indeed, democratic control over our workplaces and the other institutions that shape our communities is the key to ending exploitation.
That’s the socialist vision: abolishing private ownership of the things we all need and use — factories, banks, offices, natural resources, utilities, communication and transportation infrastructure — and replacing it with social ownership, thereby undercutting the power of elites to hoard wealth and power. And that’s also the ethical appeal of socialism: a world where people don’t try to control others for personal gain, but instead cooperate so that everyone can flourish.
As for personal property, you can keep your Kenny Loggins records.
Billy_TParticipantTo add a bit more nuance to the name/label thing. Some folks I really respect, whom I would normally just think of as “leftists,” sometimes call themselves “liberals.” Like Thomas Frank. He regularly blasts them, but, apparently, thinks of himself as one of them as well. His latest book, Listen, Liberal, which I look forward to reading, is (judging from his C-Span talk) an intense and tough-minded critique of liberalism.
Some contributors to Dissent, also a “leftist” magazine of long-standing, call themselves “liberals” at times. Like Michael Walzer.
The Nation Magazine has long been considered one of America’s flagship “liberal” rags (and “progressive”). . . though I recently learned from Steve Fraser’s excellent The Age of Acquiescence, has a checkered past. It was, unfortunately, all too often lined up with “the state” against striking workers, for instance, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Chris Hedges is another case in point. A severe critic of liberalism, he has been rightly condemned by people to his left for lobbing rhetorical grenades at “black bloc” protesters, basically describing them in the same way as unhinged right-wing critics do, unfairly painting ideologically non-violent protesters as violent extremists. Occupy Movement voices like David Graeber pleaded with him to stop this, because it was literally putting these kids in danger. And so many were just kids.
Political ideologies, affinities and loyalties can be quite confusing at times.
Billy_TParticipantMac,
I’m sorry to hear you’re going through rough times, physically. Hang in there. We both know what these long-term things involve.
But, back to the definitions. From my perch — and, again, I’m not the Mayor of Political Terms, so your mileage may vary — but from that perch, this is something that has been going on for a long, long time. “Liberals” have been calling themselves “progressives” for decades, and I think it especially kicked in because the word, “liberal,” started to take on negative connotations, primarily because of a successful onslaught from the right — and because not enough liberals were willing to fight for the word. Goes back at least to the late 1970s, early 80s. Prior to that, more Americans identified as “liberal” than any other political term, and then it started to shift. After Reagan, more Americans identified as “conservatives.” But for a good 40 years, it was “liberal.”
That shift is, IMO, the main reason why liberals switched words — because of the demonization of the term by the right. I also think there has always been a huge difference between “liberal” citizens and “liberal” politicians. The latter, really, are the folks who helped conservatives kill the word. (Hell, in Europe, “socialist” leaders have sold out to the neoliberal wave too). I don’t blame liberal citizens for that, though I strenuously disagree with their worldview — especially on economics, wars and empire.
So, in a nutshell, what this boils down to: you and I aren’t referring to the same people or ideas when we use the term, “progressive.” Where you see “progressive,” I see “leftist.” Where you see “liberal,” I see “progressive” too, as an interchangeable word for that. Again, we’re arguing words, not viewpoints.
Btw, even among leftists there is a lot of disagreement on various issues. We have diversity as well. For instance, I don’t think all leftists see the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as one of the world’s most horrific war crimes. I do. I also think it was absolutely unnecessary, and people like Ike agreed with me at the time. And while pretty much all socialists are anticapitalists, not all “leftists” are. As you may have noticed, I’m pretty adamantly opposed to our current system and find it beyond redemption and not worth the effort to “tame” or “reform,” etc. etc. But not all leftists feel that way.
Take care, Mac.
Billy_TParticipantSo the squirrel analogy was utterly lost on you. Oh well.
No, I got it. It just doesn’t work.
Collecting enough goods for the winter is not the same thing as selling them for profit. Putting aside enough for a rainy day, a bad harvest, a rough year, etc. etc. . . . is not remotely the same thing as selling these things for a profit. You can do the one and not the other.
And, again, no production facilities in this alternative ever need to make any money on their production in the first place, much less a profit. The system isn’t set up to make money and it’s not at all legal. The legal, social, societal structure in place doesn’t allow for it, and soon enough, it will be but a distant memory that things were done a different way in the past.
Again, revenues aren’t tied to funding in any way, shape or form. A totally separate stream of funding is held in common, in those public banks, in the form of digits, so if a “plant” needs upgrades or alterations, it puts in the request — or the community does it before that. Community councils vote on the upgrades, alterations, etc., make sure these adhere to the constitution and to environmental and civil rights parameters, and we go from there. There is absolutely no need, whatsoever, for them to show “earnings” beyond costs in order to “reinvest” in anything. That’s all decided democratically. There is never a matter of “business success” or failure involved. It’s all about the needs of the people, of every single citizen, not how well the commonly-held outlets and production facilities do on their own.
They’re just tools and means to an end, never ends in themselves, as they are under capitalism.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantAlso, to further differentiate the two systems:
As mentioned, in the alternative, sales totals are absolutely 100% divorced from pay or any kind of funding for public works. Payroll is not derived from total sales — directly or indirectly. Revenues from sales are completely irrelevant to any form of compensation or funding, for anyone. They’re used for nothing more than data points and help with predictions and allocation.
All individual payroll, all funding for public works, comes from publicly held “banks,” with individual accounts, community, regional and national. The funding stream comes from them, and it makes no difference if Outlet X has 1 million digits in sales, or a thousand. All workers are paid from those separate streams, and are equal across the board. Bonuses can be earned for things like experience, time on the job, additional education and skills training, etc. But the difference from top to bottom is never going to be enough to create inequality. And total sales has zero to do with any of it. Egalitarian wage structures apply, not a commission-like environment, as under capitalism.
Billy_TParticipantThose profits (surplus) are necessary in any system. Without profit there isn’t opportunity for trade or reinvestment. The work day cut in half better have twice as many workers since that profit must be maintained or the enterprise will fail. It works the same in nature. The squirrel that puts up half as much nuts as another won’t have as good a chance surviving winter nor the ability to reinvest in the planting of new trees.
There is absolutely no need to make profits in the alternative. None. There is no profit in nature, obviously. I think you’re confusing “profit”
with the production of surplus goods, and there is a huge difference between these things. They’re not remotely the same.Under capitalism, profits are generated by workers from the surplus value they create, which is then appropriated by capitalists for themselves. They can not produce a surplus value if their production matches their pay, so the capitalist must get them to work additional hours beyond that, additional unpaid hours, which is how the capitalist makes the majority of his/her own compensation. Collecting the most unpaid labor hours possible.
Think about a single builder of chairs. He builds and sells them himself. No employees. He is not a capitalist. He does not appropriate surplus value created by others. He takes payment for what he, himself, does, and no one else. If, however, he hires workers to build those chairs for him, and appropriates their surplus value, he is a capitalist. And they have to work hours in excess of their costs (including their pay), which also means in excess of what they would need to produce if they were their own boss.
In order for the capitalist to “profit,” his/her employees must work enough hours each day to produce surplus value in excess of their pay and overall costs. That always means more than they would have to work in any non-profit economy, or if they were on their own. In either case, it’s not “capitalism.”
Changing to a non-profit, publicly-owned economy would radically reduce hours worked for everyone. We only work as many as we do, under capitalism, to generate profits for others. It’s only “necessary” under capitalism. Not under the alternative under discussion.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantBut there is NO WAY one can put people like Any Goodman, Cornell West, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and other progressives and just “shade” them with DLC corporatist moderate liberals like Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who just helped kill a bill that would regulate pay day lenders.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I would have to respectfully disagree on point that progressives aren’t simply a stronger flavor of liberal.
I don’t associate any of the people you mention above with either “progressives” or “liberals.” They’re “leftists,” with Zinn, West and Chomsky, at least, being socialists of one stripe or another. I really don’t know Goodman’s actual politics, but I suspect she would identify as a “democratic socialist,” like Bernie.
We’re not disagreeing on the differences between various political views, in this case, which I also see as “massive”. We’re disagreeing on what these various political view-points are called. The terms used, etc.
Perhaps it’s just semantics. But as a former “liberal,” albeit a left-liberal, and never a joiner or a member of the Democratic Party, I know it’s more than common for Dems, even DLC Dems, to call themselves “progressives.” Take a tour of pretty much any Democratic Party website site and you’ll see this. Go to the Daily Kos, for instance. You’ll find tons of people who call Hillary a “progressive,” and use this interchangeably with “liberal.” Pretty much the entire “liberal” blogosphere grew up using the two words interchangeably.
Again, I see a huge difference between leftists and progressives/liberals. And from my experience, even DLC Dems, even corporatist Dems, use the term “progressive” for themselves, and this is unlikely to change. I think a better word to differentiate them is “leftist,” and if one wants to get further into the weeds, perhaps some variation of socialist, left-anarchist or small “c” communist to further refine things.
It’s not really a big deal, of course. But I don’t use the word “progressive” for people to the left of liberal.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
Thanks for the good words, and the good questions. As usual. I don’t have the answers, either, though I’m trying to think through some possibilities, etc.
Billy_TParticipantLeisure time. Actually, one of the great benefits of switching to an all public, all non-profit economy is the massive increase in leisure time. Under capitalism, we work most of our day generating profits for our employers. If we didn’t have to do that, we could all slash our work day at least in half. In some jobs, like an assembly-line at an auto-parts shop, the worker earns his days pay in his or her first hour. The rest of the time, they’re just putting money directly into pocket of ownership. They cover their own costs by early morning, and are in the surplus value territory for the rest of their shift.
Again, imagine an economy without that imperative. No need to profit. No need to make money for anyone else. This creates that leisure time you speak of for everyone, not just a lucky elite, so innovation, the arts, maths and sciences, etc. etc. . . . now get the biggest rush of new brain-power in the history of the planet. Everyone has the chance to contribute in this area, and everyone can pursue education through their entire life. No one is left out, unlike under capitalism. In reality, capitalism, because of this and a great deal more, actually radically slows innovation.
Good article on this issue from David Graeber:
Billy_TParticipantMac,
Lots of interesting discussion from you.
The what drives innovation is the free time to study. What allows that is the aggregation of capital. In a system that requires the contribution of work, is study considered work? If so, by whom? There have been many advances that were considered heretical at the time that were found to be seminal and important years later. In a fully democratized system, that research wouldn’t be allowed because the resources wouldn’t be allocated by the collective.
A response: That free time to study, and that aggregation of capital? In the modern world, for the vast majority, and for the vast majority of time, that option has been limited to the few — even more so if we just talk about capital aggregation. Which means the vast majority is left out, left behind, can’t get into the club. In recent decades, the percentage of students getting advanced degrees rose for a time, but it’s still a minority, and with exploding costs, that will soon be an ever smaller percentage and more a matter of privilege. But prior to that rise, the vast majority did not have the privilege of higher ed or special training, and even fewer could “aggregate capital.”
Our current system, with the capitalist engine in place, which is autocratic and necessarily exclusive and discriminatory, actually prevents the utilization of societal brain-power and the subsequent potential for great discoveries, art, science, etc. etc. It has always radically narrowed and limited the number of humans who could contribute in that way, or come close to reaching their fullest potential as humans. Imagine a system where no one was left behind, where there were no barriers to further study, because there were no costs involved. Everyone could continue their education, or their training, from cradle to grave, for free. No one is denied entrance into the club. That club is no longer even remotely exclusive or discriminatory. Everyone is included automatically.
As for group-think. I can’t think of any system that promotes it more than capitalism, and this comes out every time I get into these discussions. Almost everyone seems to believe it’s the only possible economic system, which is obviously the height of “groupthink.” And, because it’s an autocratic, anti-democratic system to its very core, it falls into the worst kind of group-think, as anyone who has ever worked in the private sector knows: Executives and management think inside their own little bubble, and they really don’t want to hear from the peons on the shop room floor. Yes, they talk with others in their own class, which just reinforces that group-think. But they ignore well 99% of the voices out there who might have something different to say. In the system I’m talking about, that could never happen. Everyone, by legal writ, has equal rights, equal ownership stakes, an equal voices, etc. etc. Rather than having less than 1% make all the calls and ignore everyone else, 100% of the people involved get to chime in. So you would go from the capitalist bubble to the wisdom of crowds.
More on that leisure time thing in the next post.
Billy_TParticipantYet your solution is to huddle small groups of the desperately poor to locate their skills and resources to starve together in non egalitarian agreement?
Huh? I honestly don’t even know what that means. One of THE central tenets of the alternative is egalitarianism. And no one would starve. Everyone would have food and all of their needs met. That’s the point. That would be THE focus, rather than the “creation of wealth” for a few.
See, the real problem, when it comes to poverty, inequality, hunger and the rest IS the mal-allocation and the mal-distribution of goods and services by the few, instead of the many. The control of those resources by the few means the many are an after-thought and never the focus. The focus is how much money can the few make, on the backs of the many, and if that means concentrating those goods and services primarily among the already rich — which is how capitalism works — then so be it.
If, however, you change to a system where EVERYONE has an equal share in ownership, equal rights, equal voice, and the economy is fully democratized, you’re simply not going to have 80% of the world forced to pick from the remnants left over by the richest 20%, with the richest 1% and above calling all the shots.
Again, the richest 20% consume 85% of all resources. Alter the way we distribute the total, and no one goes hungry. Make it match up, and no one goes hungry.
You have a room filled with 100 people. You have 100 apples. If 20 people get 85 of those apples, then 80 people have to fight over the remaining 15. But if you distribute one apple per each person . . . . . etc. etc.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI’ve finally found an integrity in the Progressive movement that I feel comfortable with.
Which probably means as I vote for Jill Stein that Trump will win by 1 vote in Florida and it will be traced to me not voting the Dem ticket (stupid closed primaries).
Oh well…
Folks use different words, political labels, etc. etc. and that’s to be expected. But, to me, “progressive” is the same thing as “liberal,” so in my journey further to the left, I’ve left that in the rear-view mirror, too. I identify as socialist, with strong left-anarchist leanings and very Green-oriented. A mix, to be sure, and I include Marxian in with that mix too. Ecosocialism as well, but primarily “libertarian socialist.”
Ironically, the predominant strain of socialism (from my reading) means a much, much smaller government than any minarchist ever dreamed of, and from the bottom up, not top down. But it would happen via the complete democratization of the economy, direct public ownership of the means of production, and not through “the state.” Minarchists, OTOH, going in the opposite direction, want their “small government” via the privatization of the economy.
We’d work toward no state apparatus at all over time and the elimination of all classes. A non-hierarchical society to the degree possible, etc.
But, to your point, Mac. To me, not that I’m the Word Mayor, or anything, it doesn’t make any sense to say one is a “progressive” who thinks “liberals” are weak. It’s kind of like saying you think Faulk was a great running back but a terrible ball-carrier.
Hope all is well —
Billy_TParticipantWV,
I see that. And perhaps I’m being too “literal” about definitions. But from where I sit, even if we get to the point where you want to see things go, and I’m with you all the way, it’s not “capitalism” any longer. It’s something else. Not sure what the word would be, but it’s not “capitalism.”
Along with that, yes, you’re right. We aren’t in any position at the moment to replace the current system. But the tragedy is, we’re not even in the position to “tame” it. We don’t have the political will — or access, or resources, or power — to stop it from moving further to the right, becoming more and more “neoliberal” in country after country. So, personally, it’s even pie in the sky to talk about “reform” in this point in time. Which then leads me to think, since pretty much all discussions regarding system change are massive longshots, why not talk about (and aspire to) something that would really improve the lives of billions, give everyone dignity and autonomy over their economic life and prevent ecological catastrophe? As in, if it’s all a pipe dream, why not go big?
I’m pretty eclectic in my thinking, but if I had to choose just one “school” right now, I’d take libertarian socialist. Your favorite, Noam Chomsky, is perhaps the leading representative of that currently. But he’s coming from, as you know, a long line of left-libertarians, like William Morris, Elisee Reclus and Petr Kropotkin, who also sometimes called themselves anarchist-socialists, anarchist-communists, or just socialists. To me, none of their dreams can be realized under the capitalist system, and we can’t “tame” our way there, either. It really does need to be replaced. Because, fundamentally, capitalism is all about controlling the work of others and profiting from that work. It’s all about, at its core, ownership — of humans, goods and services, resources, the earth. From where I sit, I just can’t conceive of any kind of human emancipation that includes people having that ability — to own the production of others, their time, their bodies, their autonomy, even if it’s just eight hours a day. And I can’t see how private ownership of the means of production, which necessarily includes resources and the earth, could ever lead to any liberation for humans, and it’s just not environmentally sustainable.
Anyway, hope all is well, and thanks again for introducing me to those other writers.
Billy_TParticipantYes, i like him too. I bin skimming his book. Got it for a penny at amazon. I came across him in an Adolph Reed article. He influenced Reed, apparently.
(Reed is in this thread:w
vI didn’t know about Reed, either, so thanks for that as well. Have bumped into Ben Norton before, over at Salon. But it seems like his writings elsewhere are more “radical,” which I like.
On a slightly different subject, but still relevant. It used to be, on most political forums, race, gender and sexuality discussions were “liberal/progressive” against “conservatives.” And I’d sometimes add my two cents, after letting people know, if necessary, that I’m not a Dem and am waaaay to their left. But with the Sanders/Clinton food fight, I’m seeing something new. I’m seeing a lot of liberals/progressives instantly, automatically attack folks to their left if they say even anything slightly positive about Sanders, and then launch into accusations of misogyny or even racism — which is even weirder, considering Hillary is very “white.”
The whole “Bernie bro” meme and the “Berniesplaing” meme, which once seemed to fit in some cases, now is on autopilot for all too many. Just say anything critical about Clinton and it’s automatically because you’re sexist, even though you have always been an equal opportunity critic on said issues, like neoliberalism. Makes no difference to me if it’s a male neoliberal or a female one, I’m against it, etc. etc.
Anyway . . . . again, good video. I really do think America is a hot mess right now, and I become more and more depressed each time I even think about our politics.
Billy_TParticipantCan’t do it with a population of 7 billion and growing. Technology is needed more than ever. Best hope is a new energy technology that will allow the expansion of public works and the better allocation of natural resources and manufactured products to elevate standard of living across the globe. Or a global pandemic that drastically culls the human population threatening a return to the Dark Age.
Yes, we can do without the vast majority of what capitalism produces. And we must. It’s the most inefficient and wasteful system yet devised, primarily because it’s privately owned, based upon future sales and marketing success, promotes Grow or Die, endless market competition, the battle for survival of various businesses, which are forever collapsing, obscene levels of duplication, etc.
And even with your example of food production it has failed utterly. Tens of millions of humans starve to death now, and the richest 20% consume 85% of all resources. The bottom 80% of the world gets to choose from the remaining 15%. This obviously can never work, but it’s the norm for any system based on private control of the means of production, with a profit motive attached.
Capitalism has never worked to allocate sufficient resources to the many, because it’s controlled by the few, who seek to maximize profits for themselves. This will forever prevent sufficient distribution of goods and services, especially those we depend upon to live. When you concentrate power, wealth and access at the top, the vast majority will always lose out. The only antidote to this is disperse that power, radically. Teach self-provisioning. Go back to local economies, federated with one another. Go back to local production to the degree possible. Democratize the economy, so people have a direct, vested interest in, and control over, their economic lives.
We won’t survive unless we do.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
Thanks. Have never heard of the author.
He was speaking my language, and echoed my thoughts so well.
The issue is class. Massive class differences create the power needed to implement, support and even extend any kind of apartheid. Economic apartheid, which is what capitalism is, is the engine for all the others. Get rid of economic apartheid, and you make the others all but impossible.
And, yes, I agree with him that, in America especially, liberal elites have often used the issues of race, gender and sexuality to forestall any discussion of economic inequality and class, which means they are essentially “conservatives” with smiling faces. Conservatives are more upfront about their not caring at all about class divisions, but mainstream liberals, at the very least, are complicit with the conservative agenda, which has always been to protect and enhance the ruling class, its power, wealth and privilege.
I think the real difference between them is with the vehicles used to achieve further stratification. For political conservatives, it’s generally business ownership — at least aspirationally. For most liberal Dems, it’s professionalization and education. They strive for elite positions, working for others, in general. Conservative Republicans strive for elite positions, managing or owning companies. In effect, one “side” seeks the 1%; the other the 10-2%. Neither pays any real regard to the vast majority of the nation and has no intention of ending class divisions. They seek various elite levels themselves, and don’t want those to disappear.
Again, the only real way to help racial, gender, sexuality divides in concrete terms is to do away with the class system itself — or, at the very least, radically flatten it. I prefer the former. The left (in general) needs to put class divisions front and center, and end its reliance on, for lack of a better term, “identity politics.” That’s not to say we shouldn’t do everything we can to fight against discrimination in all forms. But we need to do with along with an assertion of alternatives to class structures.
Billy_TParticipantCapitalism itself sparked a revolution in division of labor, which was perhaps THE single biggest reason for this skyrocketing hierarchy. Never before in human history were we separated so much simply due to our jobs, and never before in human history were those jobs broken up into hyper-specialization. Again, this is all quite recent in human history. Capitalism is the aberration, not communal groups with fairly flat hierarchical structures.
Well we’re now in the 21st century. Machines and technology replace human labor at an ever increasing rate. There is no return to the pre industrial society given a world population of 7 billion to feed, clothe, shelter, educate etc.
If we don’t radically downsize this, we won’t survive. We’re killing the planet because of our industrial expansion, pollution, waste, all of which are endemic to the capitalist system. In fact, as long as we have that system, which is “Grow or Die” and rabidly imperialistic by design, we will continue to head toward the cliff of our destruction.
Yes, the earth will go on without us. But it won’t be habitable by humans and a great deal of nature any more. We’ve already destroyed half of all wildlife just in the last forty years, for instance, and 90% of our fish stocks. Capitalism is pure poison.
Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF
-
AuthorPosts