zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Yes, the Dems have used Russia as a distraction….But that doesn’t mean it’s not a serious issue.

Yeah that’s my view too.

I mean in a lot of ways Putin’s Russia is an example of what would have to the USA if it went even further rightward into overt, dominant, 100% oligarchic authoritarianism.

As long as we can write things like my last sentence without getting into serious trouble, we’re not there yet.

We won’t get progress if we slide further right.

There is nothing good about a right-wing authoritarian oligarchy trying to intervene in our world.

As far as the Russia resisting empire argument I hear sometimes, it’s laughable. Russia IS empire. Marx, we should always remember, pointed out that one of the dominant features of imperialism is that it involves competition among different empires. In modern imperialism, there is never just one empire.

.

Agreed. I think that’s a good way to put it. Russia, under Putin, is basically the USA on steroids, if it heads even further to the right. And, yes, it’s an “empire” too. And it practices imperialism too.

I am still puzzled when I read lefties supporting Trump’s connection with Russia. It would make perfect sense if they were a seriously “progressive” nation, seeking egalitarian reforms, peace, love and understanding, etc. etc. But they’re obviously not.

To me, it’s not a good argument to basically say, “We do it too!” Or, “We’re even worse!” One would think “the left” would oppose both our current system AND theirs, vigorously, defiantly, with passion, etc.

I wish the DSA was strong enough to run candidates at all levels — local, state and nationally. I like their overall plank more than I like the Greens, and I like the Greens waaaay more than the Dems.

http://www.dsausa.org/

I’m still to their left, but when it comes to the American political spectrum, with its woefully fractured “left,” they’re about as good as we get.

As for Bernie: I don’t think he’s gonna run. He’ll turn 76 in September. So, 80 in his first year as prez. He’s fighting the good fight, to be sure, but who would blame him if he passed the torch at this point? To whom, I have no idea . . . .

wv wrote:

good stuff, BT.

How goes life?

w
v

It is, WV.

Doing fine. I recently started on a new novel, and when it’s finished, it will be my fourth completed since I went into semi-retirement. It’s my first foray into a ghost story. The idea is that the ghost comes back to the scene of the crime and works to solve the mystery of her death with her husband and her lover. They’re the only two people who can see her.

Anyway . . . also wanted to say thanks for the Lierre Keith video. I really liked it. She’s sharp, direct, gets right to it, and I agree with the vast majority of her model, though I think there’s more “blending” going on than she seems to acknowledge. A voice worth me looking into. Did not know about her before.

Hope all is well with you, WV.

Good follow up article to that. A review of two recent books. The article’s long, but well worth a look:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/choose-and-be-damned-responsibility-and-privilege-in-a-neoliberal-age/

Choose and Be Damned: Responsibility and Privilege in a Neoliberal Age

By Sean McCann

(Relatively) short excerpt:

JULY 2, 2017

WHEN KARL MARX envisioned the better world of the future, he imagined inscribed on its banners the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Our own world, Yascha Mounk observes, is governed by a different principle. Ours is an age of responsibility, Mounk contends, and the most prominent voices on left and right, in the realms of high theory and the byways of common sense, are united in the premise that individual people should determine their paths through life and bear the consequences. From each according to her desires, to each according to what she has earned. “We must do what America does best,” newly inaugurated President Clinton declared in 1993: “offer more opportunity to all and demand responsibility from all.”

At the heart of such reasoning, as Mounk’s important new book makes clear, has been a political vision nearly as utopian as anything in Marx — and one just as given to ideological zeal. Over the course of the past half century, Mounk points out, political officials of both major parties have turned repeatedly to the core value of personal responsibility, calling on it to redefine the purposes and design of government as well as pushing the state to play an ever more disciplinary role in relation to its most vulnerable citizens. They have been motivated, Mounk suggests, not merely by a political agenda, but by a fantasy of the just social order — a vision in which each individual person cares for herself and the government acts to ensure that citizens receive only the public support their efforts merit.

The dream, as Mounk reveals, is a narrow and crabbed one. Placed under his precise and dispassionate analysis, it shows itself to be conceptually dubious and empirically unworkable. But the fantasy has attracted plenty of influential adherents. Indeed, among the most troubling of Mounk’s arguments is the claim that the liberal defenders of the welfare state no less than its conservative antagonists have signed on to the dream of personal responsibility. No surprise, then, that a thin theory of individual agency has come to dominate our ideas about freedom and that an impoverished language of citizenship has crowded out alternative visions of democratic society.

The subject of sticking at least somewhat close to the mythological originals is a personal one for me, most likely because the myths and studying them was so pivotal in my life. At the age of nine, along with basically discovering the Rams, the Lakers, and the Giants, getting into World Mythology literally changed my life. A major light bulb went off for me and I’ve never looked back. It was probably the most important thing in freeing me from Christianity and belief in any one religion. I just could never look at them the same again after I got into comparative myths and religions.

Hope all is well with youze guys.

Also, speaking of the feminist side of things: Gadot apparently only received $300K for her performance. I hope she has “points” too, and not on the net but on the gross. The infamous “Hollywood accounting” tricks have stiffed more than a few actors and directors. If memory serves, the director of the LOTR movies, with their billions in revenues, was told his movies didn’t make any profit so he didn’t receive his bonuses. Lawsuits quickly followed.

Also, for those of you who have seen it, have you also read the comics? I haven’t, so I don’t know if they strayed from those or adhered closely to them. But I wonder about the accents of the Amazons. What do you guys think they were shooting for?

While the ancient Greek mythographers differed somewhat about their place of origin, some saying Libya, but most placing them somewhere near the Black Sea, I couldn’t quite get the accent. Sounded a bit like Russian, but not really. Maybe Georgian, which wouldn’t have been half bad if they tried to stick closely to the myths.

But, again, it bugs me that they had Ares be the lone survivor god from the pantheon and the most powerful. Ares was never depicted that way. Though some stories do have him as the father of the Amazons, which is kinda interesting when it comes to the comics.

Anyway, good movie. Oh, and I finally saw Doctor Strange, on Netflix. Liked it, but not as much as I thought I would. It started out really great for me, but then succumbed to almost mindless action sequences that happened too often and too quickly. I wanted much more exposition, backstory, character development. The artwork and special effects, of course, were amazing.

Kewl, as the young kids used to say. Lee Camp is very good. And, as you say, funny. If RT focused on that kind of programming — real, no-nonsense stuff about capitalism, inequality, etc. etc. — it would be doing a great service for Americans.

It’s weird, though, being Russian TV. Russia, since the end of the state-capitalist, Soviet system, and especially now, is even more crazed laissez faire, neoliberal and Wild, Wild West capitalist than we are. And we wrote the book on the subject.

I’m trying my best to avoid the “what’s going on” realm, too, like WV. But I fail here and there. Really want to stay in the Big Picture, analytical, philosophical range, a la the Frankfurt School. I think that’s much healthier for me, personally. But I may need more extensive rehab. Anyone know of a good 12-step, de-politicalishing program?

;>)

That said, the Comey thing, from what I’ve gathered, has fallen on deaf ears among the Trump base. Or worse. They see it as yet one more sign that the Establishment is out to get Trump. It’s not just that they’re blowing it all off. It riles them up to defend him even more.

Also, the potential for Mueller being fired . . . . We see Republicans already trying to clear the way for this. It’s not out of the question. I would have thought it would finally force impeachment proceedings, but now I don’t think that’s the case at all. We’re in proverbial uncharted territory, and that’s very dangerous.

Oh, and did you guys see the cabinet meeting? Everyone took their turn to slobber-praise, bow and scrape for their Dear Leader, as Trump soaked it all in. I’ve never seen anything like it before. The man is mentally ill, and his cabinet is co-dependent.

PA Ram wrote:

One place, for example that does not need capitalism, is health care. In fact, it is BECAUSE of capitalism that our current health care situation is such a disaster.
Infinite growth. That’s what capitalism requires. And yet–that isn’t possible. It’s a myth from the start.

. . . .

So yes–I have problems with it. At the same time, the free market can probably do some things better than government programs(IF regulated).

The question is really–can you have regulated and limited capitalism? Or…if you have it at all will the beast simply swallow the regulations time and time again with a corrupt congress and pursue the infinite growth model no matter what?

That’s a big question.

So far we haven’t seen that it can restrain itself. We haven’t seen any political will to restrain it.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Sickness-Healthcare-Became-Business/dp/1594206759

Good post, PA.

Healthcare is a great example. Capitalism is the reason why our costs are so incredibly high, and getting higher all the time. Medicare for all is an excellent response on the payment side, but we also need non-profit, public health care delivery.

And it’s not really as “radical” as it sounds. For most of American history, it’s the way we did things. Most towns paid for their own doctors, nurses and clinics, and then anyone in that town could just pop in, get treatment, and perhaps leave a chicken. If they couldn’t do that, they still received care. That was the norm.

Why not do that today? It’s scalable, too. Communities, counties, states and nationally. Pay doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, out of the tax pool. Give everyone a citizen card. No one pays directly, but they receive their treatment regardless. Our taxes cover it.

Of course, IMO, if we switched to an all public economy, we could solve the issues of overall runaway costs. As long as we have a capitalist economy, that’s going to be difficult when it comes to high end medical equipment and treatment and such.

My vision would solve for that by forever severing “sales/revenues” from wages and public works funding. Obliterate that connection. Draw the funds for personal wages and public works projects from a totally separate pool, held in common, literally, directly, by all of us. Sales and revenues at any commerce outlets would be entirely irrelevant when it comes to individual wages, taxation, funding, etc. etc. It just would no longer matter how many widgets you sell. Everyone would receive salaries regardless, set by us democratically, along with prices, and sync all of that up so that EVERYONE can live comfortably on what they make.

Cradle to grave education, health care, transportation and housing would be free for all. But those who work would be able to purchase homes and “stuff” for those homes for themselves. They’d own that. But all commerce would be publicly owned.

Hope all is well, PA.

zn wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

Yeah, this isn’t the time for an all-out open revolt against capitalism. People can’t even envision what that would look like.

Here;s my take on that kind of thing. It’s a philosophical belief of mine and is rooted, ironically, in a traditional conservative source, although to me it’s something that can easily be translated into a left context. It’s basically this—no contrivance of pure reason can predict or engineer a human utopia. In fact, in some cases, the effort to do so is itself going to be a terrible thing. AND it is said in all due respect to those who think differently. Part of why we’re here is to hash all this out, and we have to do that without bad friction and conflict. With differences and debate, but no gunfire.

People cannot think up legit models of human social existence. It’s beyond our capability.

In fact one of my complaints about the right is that the basic tenets of neo-liberalism are just think-tank fantasies and do not operate in the real world the way the thinkers thought they would.

So yeah we resist tyranny from the financial elite and and large capitalist interests but then naming a utopia based in reason is just going to fail, the way those things always do.

I don’t believe in commitment to socio-economic engineering models based on reason, but I DO believe in principles you hold to. So to me it;s an ethics, not engineering. Ethics are open to situations and change and contexts; it’s not about imposing models based on the weak-ass contrivances of reason alone. For example to me it’s a leftist principle that democracy includes the public world having final say in issues of economic policy and economic life. Government should never be an instrument for private interests to benefit at the expense of public good. (For some idea of what that would look like–where government IS an instrument for private interests to benefit at the expense of public good–look at NOW.)

Gonna go against my own self-imposed temp exile for a moment to comment this Monday morning. For me — and I’ve said this before to no avail — it’s not about utopia or pure reason taking over. Not in the slightest. It’s never been about that. It’s about starting with basic principles of justice, equality, democratic control, the full consent of the governed and building a structure that serves all, instead of the current one that serves the few without our input or consent. It’s about generating much better results. It’s an ethical, moral stance, with tremendous pragmatics and practicalities built in to support the new structures, the new legal arrangements. It would be a massive improvement in the way things are done, from an operational stance, from an effectiveness pov, along with those massive improvements along ethico-moral lines. And it’s never, ever been attempted beyond small enclaves like the Spanish left-anarchists of the 1930s, or the Paris Commune of 1871.

I also think you’re forgetting that our current system was imposed on all of us without our consent, by force, and is maintained by force and endless “social engineering.” It’s not as if it’s the “natural” outcome of a “natural” process that just gets us to capitalism and its hegemony. Replacing it with a new system, based on principles of justice, equality, egalitarianism, cooperation (rather than competition) and full democracy, inside and outside the workplace, is no more a matter of “social engineering” than our current system . . . . and, unlike that current system, it would, from the get go, incentivize, empower, enable full inclusion, with no one left behind. Our current (socially engineered) capitalist model, which is the real “utopian” structure, incentivizes, empowers and enables the concentration of vast wealth, income, access and power at the very top, legally, via its internal logic, “naturally.”

Morally, ethically and, yes, logically, knowing this should lead most people to choose left-alternatives. And it’s not as if capitalism has ANY history of actually working for more than a small percentage of humankind, or that it has ever NOT been massively destructive of the planet.

It’s never been about the bogeyman of “pure reason and utopia” for me, or for any anticapitalist I’ve read or know. It’s always been about starting with basic principles of justice, personal autonomy, liberation, emancipation; basic goals for significantly improved lives (in all spheres, for everyone) a better environment, a much better legal system, and building better alternatives from there.

In short, it’s just common sense. To think of it as “pure reason run amok” is to fundamentally misunderstand this vision ginormously.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

My view is that it accurately describes most leftists. Not all of them, of course. It doesn’t describe your views, for example, if I read you correctly. Or WV’s — who sees corporate capitalism as the problem, not capitalism itself.

=================

Well, corporate-capitalism iz what we got, so thats what i talk about. As far as some other kind of capitalism that might be regulated and tamed — i dunno, BT. I can envision a socialist system with a little capitalism mixed in.

I dont spend much time anymore thinking about wv-ram’s idea of ‘utopia’. Ya know. It aint here now, and it gonna happen, so i dont spend a lotta time thinking about it. For me it comes too close to ‘day dreaming’.

w
v

Thanks for the clarification, WV.

For me, it’s not about “utopia.” It’s just my worldview. It’s how my principles sync up with and inform my vision for how things should and could be. It’s primarily a “moral” thing for me. And I honestly don’t think it’s any less “realistic” to talk about a replacement for capitalism than reforming it. The deck is stacked mightily against significant reforms, too, as you know. At present, even mild reform is out of the question.

The power is with Capital to protect its perks, privileges and hegemonic sway. It’s not with reformers. And I also believe the insistence on reform, rather than full replacement, actually empowers retaliation by the hard right and weaponizes latent fascism, because reform will always leave far too much inequality in place. That’s endemic to capitalism. It’s what it does.

And from a practical, political pov? FDR couldn’t have passed the New Deal reforms he did pass if not for an actual, vibrant, passionate, anticapitalist left, scaring the bejeesus out of the Establishment. That’s almost non-existence right now, which means the Establishment has no one to fear on economic grounds. They know they don’t have to “cut a deal” to prevent a worse scenario for themselves.

In short, if leftists won’t fight the anticapitalist fight, who will?

Another thing to consider: There is nothing produced in a capitalist economy that could not also be produced in a fully democratic one, and for much less, with much less waste or pollution. There is nothing inherently more “productive” about the capitalist system, or the profit motive, or the for-profit model, and no one in their right mind could argue convincingly that capitalism doesn’t produce mass inequality, quite naturally, as a matter of its internal logic.

The vast majority of people in a capitalist system are NOT capitalists, by definition. They’re workers, paid a salary, or an hourly wage, and the quality or quantity of their work wouldn’t be negatively impacted if they received their salaries as co-owners of a workers’ cooperative, say, versus from a CEO who makes a thousand times more than they do. In fact, I’d bet anything a non-capitalist, non-profit model, a democratic co-op, for example, would incentivize better work, more passion for the job, less alienation and stress by far, and much greater “loyalty” to the mission at hand. It would be a new kind of loyalty to a family of equals, instead of a hierarchy of what amounts to different species, given the massive difference in pay and benefits under capitalism. And that non-capitalist model would also mean a much, much shorter work week for everyone.

Several of the posters here are teachers. Their jobs would move seamlessly to a (true) socialist economy. And Nittany, as a scientist, would as well. But pretty much all work could make the transition to co-ownership, and I honestly don’t see why anyone would be against such a change, unless they’re in the 1% or seek great personal wealth for themselves.

I try really hard to understand the reluctance to dump the capitalist system, at least when it comes to 80-90% of the population, and I just keep running up against a brick wall. I honestly don’t get it.

Zooey wrote:

I haven’t thought to much about a post-capitalist world. I suppose I’m in favor of something other than capitalism, but I haven’t read anything about alternatives to speak of, and don’t know what might be possible. Replacing capitalism isn’t a prospect I expect to be taken seriously in my lifetime. I mostly concern myself with worrying about a descent into fascism, and the end of sustainability of life. I think capitalism has fatal flaws inherent in its system. And we are seeing the effects of them now.

As far as liberalism vs leftism, I thought the article pointed out some key differences in perspective between the two, but it was the sub-headline that originally attracted me to the article. It didn’t deliver much on that point, though.

Thanks, Zooey, for your take.

I think about a post-capitalist world all the time. Daily. Sometimes minute to minute. And, yes, I agree. It’s not likely to be repealed and replaced in our lifetimes. But I honestly think if it’s not, humanity won’t survive. And I don’t mean that as hyperbole to make a point. I mean that quite literally. Capitalism is unique among all previous economic systems in being wedded to “growth.” No previous economic system was dependent upon that. It needs it or it dies. Capitalism must continuously expand into new markets, spatially, geographically, and/or via time, or it goes into recession and depression, and it wouldn’t recover from those crises if it weren’t endlessly bailed out by governments. It’s managed to survive this long because of the trillions spent to resuscitate it — more than 100 times, internationally, just since 1970.

And that doesn’t count the ecological destruction. Again, it’s the first economic system in history to constantly need more, and more, and more. More production, more consumption, endlessly, which means more waste and pollution. And the profit motive incentivizes the continuous rape of the planet, for riches in the here and now. The planet, at least as far as the animal and plant kingdoms are concerned, can’t sustain that.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I still stand by my view that most leftists are anticapitalists

And I still disagree.

I think it’s fair to say that as a rule or generalization people on the left are against large economic interests dominating democracy and democratic institutions, but in terms of the only genuine solution to that being the replacement of all capitalism entirely, I have only seen you say that in more than 10 years of posting with these folks.

Reaching around the globe now, the european left for example includes strong and numerous voices for revising social and economic structures, but that does not reduce to strict anti-capitalism and the belief that all forms and traces of capitalism are to be entirely dismantled OR there is no real progress</span>. And in fact it is rare that I see that position (the blue bolded one) criticized as being too residually pro-capitalist.

The part in bold may be the crux of the misunderstanding here. I’ve never added that part. I’ve never said, “or there can be no progress,” and that was never my point. I’d be thrilled if we can even get to a Sanders in America, or further, to a Corybn-like manifesto. I see all of that as “progress.”

My point about capitalism and anticapitalism isn’t that anything short of the latter is useless. It’s that it should be the goal, and that most leftists do view it as necessary in order to achieve a truly just society with as little inequality as possible, and that it is the only way to save the planet. It’s not that anticapitalists want all or nothing, or that we think without the complete and utter abolition of capitalism, life can’t improve. It’s that anything short of that does fall short when it comes to human emancipation, equality, social justice and environmental sustainability. And, that there’s simply no reason on earth for clinging to capitalism in the first place. It’s not logical to do so, given how it came into being, its horrific costs, its endless destruction, its endless crises, and its incompatibility with a healthy planet. It makes zero sense to cling to a system we know is so destructive, antidemocratic, authoritarian, autocratic, etc. etc.

Why? Why invest so much time and energy on trying to reform it at all, rather than replacing it with a better system from the Get Go? Why NOT replace it with a system that is fully democratic itself, with social justice and equality already baked in?