Socialism? Please

[alfredo]

Found this short post over at Andrew Sullivan's site. I thought you might like it.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/socialism-pleas.html#more

Most Americans understand what this man inherited.
He didn't borrow and spend in a boom, as Bush did. He is borrowing and spending to counter a downturn more pernicious than any in memory. He isn't bailing out the banks with an invisible and unaccountable slush-fund, as Bush did. He's doing so transparently and bending over backwards to keep as many banks in private hands (not socialist enough for many, even on the right).
Equally, Obama campaigned to end torture and restore basic constitutional liberties shredded by the Bush administration's radical views of unlimited executive power. But he did not campaign to return the US to pre-9/11 models in all respects. Retaining the option of rendition may well be necessary, for example:

[readmoreoften]

1. People use the term "socialism" to mean just about anything.

Socialism is when people who create value (doctors, artists, engineers, ditch diggers, teachers, architects, writers, scientists, inventors, machinists, secretaries, farmers) take over the means of production (natural resources, factories, board rooms, schools, airwaves) and run society for themselves. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. When it works out, it's usually invaded, destroyed, or starved by the US and its allies and the CEOs who tell them what to do.

Socialism is not:

A sinister secret plutocratic scheme to impoverish the world under the guise of liberalism.

Socialism is not:

Buying 80% of the stock with government funds and not taking any profit.

Socialism is not:

Acting as a collective and becoming depersonalized for the glory of capitalism or a nation: the drab "collectivism" of corporate culture, the depersonalization of GIs in the military, bureaucracy, line dancing, parades, Nazism, group-think, "doing the wave" and at football games or the Macarena at the World Cup... none of it is SOCIALIST.

* Could socialism be drab? Might be somewhere, might not be somewhere else.
* Could socialism have a depersonalized military force? Has in the past, probably will again, just like everywhere else.
* Could socialism become bureaucratic? Probably! Just like the post office. And just like capitalist health insurers and U.S. voting regulations.
* Could socialism incorporate line dancing? If Texas was socialist, there'd be no doubt.
* Could socialism be fascism? No. They're different systems. Socialism won't exist long in one country and it has to have solidarity with regular creative people around the world to survive. It can't afford to be "fascist". That's why Hitler killed all the communists/socialists first.
* Could socialism handle "doing the wave" and the Macarena? It can handle the wave. But I have every faith that "The People" will vote to abolish the "Macarena". (This is something that capitalism has been trying to do since 1998 and has not completely succeeded. In this regard, the revolution will be victorious!)

[alfredo]

2. What's wrong with the Macarena? Very good post.

[readmoreoften]

3. What's wrong with the Macarena??? Well, if you hear it once you can't get it out of your head

for one. Thus, it disrupts the organic flow of thought.

Actually, it's something we can all vote on after the Revolution. If the people want the Macarena, I will not oppose the will of the People.

[alfredo]

7. But think of the Chuuldrreennnn!!

[Fovea]

5. I love my socialist postman

I am proud of the heroism of my socialist military protection. I honor the fallen socialist firefighters, police, and paramedics.

My socialist school nurse gets my vote anyday, the pinko air traffic controller gets too little love. That commie who sells me a beer on Amtrak, or cadres who inspected the hot dog I ate with it..

All heroes of the glorious socialist movement, where people work to improve the lives of other people, and make a decent living at it.

[alfredo]

9. I want to thank the "fellow traveler" that made that thin crust Hawaiian

pizza we ate tonight. She may not have been a Socialist, but the pizza was fantastic. Just had to mention that.

[Fovea]

16. my point is the folks i listed work from moneys

the commons allocates to protect and perfect itself.


Pizza chef, NSM.
Though I promise careful consideration of your argument RE pizza as a public good.

[alfredo]

18. She was probably educated in publicly funded schools.

[Fovea]

32. point taken

Would that all public school graduates made perfect pizza.

The world might be a far happier place.

And we'd eat better too.

[alfredo]

33. Oh yeah, and put plenty Feta on that Greek pizza.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. And don't forget those socialist teachers

:)

[Fovea]

34. My heart beats faster for my favorite socialist teacher.

My heartfelt apologies.

[originalpckelly]

6. Would people be compensated based upon how much work they do?

[readmoreoften]

11. I'd hope it'd work out like this:

Since 75% of most people's workday goes to corporate profit. For example, as an adjunct professor of communications, the university provides me with a classroom and some secretarial work (class register) plus maybe an internet connection, DVD player and projector, if I'm REALLY lucky. I get paid $4000 to teach one course, no benefits. My students (private "non-profit" university) pay over $5000 to take the class. I have 25 students. I earn the university $121,000 in profit for providing me with a class list, someone to collect student tuition, and the use of a room with a projection system that cost $10,000 five years ago and barely works (I speak from experience...) So let's say, it's actually a $120,000 profit for 3 hours of secretarial work and about 40 hours of renting me a room. If capitalism has so much bureaucracy that it needs to take that much of a profit to survive, then it's pretty bad off in terms of its own criteria. Obviously, the "non-profit" university, which also takes in 5 billion dollars of state taxpayer money a year, plus student housing rent, student meal plan profit, and alumni donation, is making a pretty penny off my labor. Most full professors doing research for the benefit of society teach 2 courses a semester. Those who work at teaching colleges have a load of 4 courses.

Now let's imagine a socialist situation. It's some future year. What are the real costs? I need a room. I need some technology. I need to share a secretary. 100 adjuncts like myself get together and we tell other people in the area: hey, here are our credentials. We'd like to educate your kids. Elected representatives say "how much will it cost?" Well, buildings already exist so there is no need to build a new one. Maybe some new technology would be good. A building with 20 classrooms and 100 offices would be really great. (As now, the offices would be simple rooms with no technological equipment and bookshelves.) They'd find a building. They'd call up the computer collective and say "hey we need some internet connectivity, 20 projectors that will last a long time because they aren't planned to become obsolete, 20 screens, and access to our regional movie download public library service." These items will cost about the same because they're made well and they're by nature beyond "fair trade"--kind of like yuppie, Whole Foods stuff and good furniture, but because there's no profit margin to be made costs will still be reasonable. Because they last longer, it all evens out. Plus there is less garbage. Because we're socialist, and not an anarchist collective making stuff in the garage, we can save material and time through economies of scale, just like the capitalists do.

So now, let's put imaginary numbers down. Let's say it's a liberal arts and social sciences school to keep it simple (so we don't have to get into science apparatus.) From my experience we'd need one full-time secretary working 4-6 hours a day, 5 days a week. Plus a janitor, a plumber, and a tech geek. For her work, she'd get a home, vouchers for furniture from various design collectives (some collectives would design based on high-concept, others would design based on popular imput), vouchers from the makers of silverware, access to transportation (a car/truck for rural areas, access to a car anytime she left the city if she lived in a rural area), health care, vouchers for whatever kinds of food people voted on growing. She would also get a set amount of extra vouchers for inessentials: TV sets, drinks at one of the local bars, clothes or trips to the tailor (if she wants clothes fit to her own taste, as they do--believe it or not--in North Korea), vacations to other locales, or hobbies--musical instruments, art supplies, computer programs, amateur (what we call now "consumer grade") film equipment. These items would not be "public property". They would be her personal property. Personal property and "private property" are different things. (For example, is my "private property" under a capitalist system really anything more than personal property? It can be claimed by the state through eminent domain. There are zones all over my yard where they can dig. If I can't pay my property taxes, I lose my house. In times of declared "disaster", my property can be commandeered by FEMA with no oversight. They could accuse me of smoking weed and confiscate my house. And so on...)

Working only 4-6 hours a day, the secretary could spend the other hours of the day doing whatever she wanted. During times of surplus, she could work extra hours for different types of vouchers if she liked "things" or she could spend her time doing things she liked, or, if she desired, visiting the elderly in the hospital or whatever. Her business.

There were 200 teachers in my "school" at the university (which had no more resources than described) that made $4000 a course giving the university a profit of 200 times $120,000. That's $240,000,000 in PROFIT for one area per semester. Of course a capitalist university has to have financial aid officers, a bursars office, alumni fundraising for more profits, lobbyists to gladhand the $5 billion of tax payer money. Offices for all these people who only benefit capital. Equipment for all these people who only benefit capital. How much would it cost to hire a secretary, a maintenance guy, a janitor and a tech geek and pay a mortgage on a building that you've owned for over a hundred years? 240,000,000 a semester? Let's say each made $40K a year (yeah right) and that their "insurance" and payroll cost the same. If they only work Spring and Fall, it'd cost $120K a semester in payroll--beyond professors, they're already paid for. So the university needs all that money for... (drumroll) what exactly. Answer: no, it ain't the fucking library.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: would people be compensated based upon how much work they do? First, I'd say, people aren't compensated properly for their work in a capitalist system. The profit extracted by owner from the value added by the worker is like a heavy tax on existence levied by kings. The way I see it: people would contribute 4-6 hours a day to their profession at most. The rest of the time they'd be encouraged to learn, create art, take classes, solve problems that they care about, and make the world a better place. Everything would not be "inequally equal". People would likely vote on what gets compensated most. Likely suspects would be firefighters, septic tank wipers, .i.e. dangerous, noble, and necessary jobs. Those compensated least would be simple jobs requiring no education (since i'd be free, no excuse really). Administrators (voucher counters, etc.) would be paid an average wage and managers in this field would never be paid more than the workers (this is an important Leninist idea--no glory or power for government administrators. They are servants of people, period.

If there was not enough work to go around, that'd mean that there was enough 'stuff' to go around. Everyone would work less. So there's no "unemployment" problem. If everyone found themselves working like dogs, people would probably say--let's cut back production on certain items then vote on what to cut back on. Maybe society didn't need as many so many picture frames after all. Maybe people'd rather have more free time and less styles of clothing. People would just cut back on hours. There'd be no "working to prove you're productive." (which is kind of a capitalist stressor to get workers to "prove" their humanity.) People who didn't want "extra stuff" would be encouraged to opt out of work, live on the basics and write novels or play their guitar in the park. Maybe they'd teach kids for free.

So that's how people would get paid. Where would the problems lie? Well, some people would want to take time off to do religious meetings in their home (nope, religions don't get free churches as far as I understand it.) There would probably be nationalist uprisings and religious folks mad that they couldn't stop abortions. Terrorism would be an unfortunate problem, but probably less so than now. It'd be up to elected problem-solvers to coordinate with the people and figure out solutions.

Most of the production errors (egregious errors!) made by the Soviets and Chinese were caused by the need to prove to outsiders how fantastic communism is (China's Great Leap Forward) or the demoralization from allowing a dictator to rise to power (Stalin) and the poverty created by war build up with the United States (war isn't profitable if you're not trying to make a buck and steal resources.)

Hope that answers your questions. :hi:

[TBF]

14. This should be an op on it's own for everyone to contribute their ideas.

We could have collectives for baby-sitting, farming, and many other activities. It would also be great to see more bartering rather than currency. Whenever I look for the root problem of an issue I usually can find the answer by following the money. Maybe we can just eliminate it or at the very least not allow people to accumulate it.

[readmoreoften]

15. Currency is a serious issue. It breeds a blackmarket. When the Euro was first on the market

but not yet actual paper, I remember hearing an NPR discussion on the effect of the black market. It was only 80 cents to the dollar because the black market was yet to be figured in, the economist said. About 20% of the economy is embezzlement, heroin and cocaine trafficking, prostitution, and so forth. (If you look at Naked Short Selling on the stock market, hell, maybe 90% of US economy is embezzlement alone. In a socialist society, I imagine a Netherlands-style drug policy, but with all the land owned and operated by the public except for personal back-yards, I don't see the possibility for massive amounts of heroin or cocaine production.) Prostitution wouldn't be outlawed, it'd just be unnecessary. I doubt people would want to fund public prostitutes. On the other hand, if a woman really got off on sleeping with guys for drink vouchers, I don't see anyone putting her in a gulag over it. That'd be her business. But she would never have to do it out of necessity.

Currency also breeds manipulation. It's an abstraction of value that can be easily forged or stolen. Precious metals would be owned collectively and probably used for technological advances with a little left over for public beautification. No need for currency without capital. In the Soviet system, "money" was only supposed to be used for partying and was encouraged to be shared with friends from what I understand.

[readmoreoften]

27. Elimination is better than prohibition. Elimination is a structural decision.

We've "eliminated" dowries and no one really misses them. Prohibition is always a bad idea. Although the Soviets did manage with a currency and intended it mostly for "extras" I think it lead to corruption. Also, since all socialism systems have been national they've needed to have a currency to exchange with friendly outsiders. The goal would be to get rid of it. Collective farms make sense. A lot of lesbians are already on top of that one.

[originalpckelly]

20. Another bookmarked post!

:P

So good!

[killbotfactory]

23. Good post

But people are greedy and stuff because of human nature or some junk, this means that:
1. People prefer to have those in positions of power above them siphoning off the wealth they create.
2. People who are afforded the basics will suddenly be satisfied with that and stop contributing to society without the threat of hunger or poverty to compel them to work a job doing something important like being a Walmart greeter or washing dishes at McDonalds.
3. What will happen to the dow jones?!?!





yes, that was sarcasm

[FatDave]

29. "people aren't compensated properly for their work in a capitalist system"

You got that right. Seems that the people who actually do the work are always the ones who get shafted.

In my case, I'm a programmer. These days programmers don't get hired, they get contracted. Which means they don't have to give you benefits, can terminate you at will, and oh yeah, your social security tax doubles. Of course, companies rarely directly contract a programmer. They contract some company that contracts a programmer for them. They get a cut, of course. Sometimes they get more per hour than the programmer does. Sometimes the food chain is even longer. I've worked jobs where there were three people/companies between me and the company who actually wanted the code I was writing.

And what does the guy who actually does the work that supports their business get? Treated like shit. He gets the threat of his job being offshored daily. No matter what he eventually gets his job sent to India, because in the end they can always do it cheaper (though not even close to better), and that money saved can go into some manager's pocket.

It's the same story pretty much everywhere. Look at the people who actually make the shoes Nike makes millions off of. Hell, even the loan officers who sold all the shitty mortgages were probably treated like shit. Doctors do better than some, but not as good as they used to. These days they make about the same as a corporate middle manager, only they've got twice the student loan debt.

They say communism fails because people start shirking. Seems to me the winning strategy in American capitalism is to find some suckers whose output you can leech off of.

[Fovea]

4. I really must stop sniffing elmers

Because before I passed out, I distinctly remember Sullivan being a conservative.

I gotta cut down and cut back, maybe paint thinner has more of a kick in this reality.

That having been said, bravo studly!

[alfredo]

8. Reminds me of an old NRBQ song:

"Who put the Garlic in the Glue?"

Phew!

[trueblue111]

10. Socialist friends

Anybody ever check how many of our allies fighting shoulder to
shoulder with Americans are Socialists? Did ever a word have
such incendiary stigmas attached to it? The newly alloted
funds for education can't arrive quickly enough to suit me...
The prostitution of language!

[readmoreoften]

12. Indeed. Obfuscation. Obscurantism. All-Pervasive Ideology.

It takes a lot of work to confuse such a basic system.

[alfredo]

13. The commons in our cities and parkland is even under attack because

some idiots call them "Socialist." Pretty much anything the greed heads can't get their hands on is because of "evil socialism."

[Fovea]

17. well put

n/t

[Echo In Light]

19. Bingo...hence the inordinate drive for "privatization."

[alfredo]

22. Greed is God to them.

[Maven]

21. "Retaining the option of rendition may be necessary"

Fuck you, Sullivan. You always show your true colors eventually.

Please remind me why DUers quote this fascist-lite gasbag. Is everyone who supported Obama in the last election automatically deemed acceptable, no matter what other heinous shit they've done?

[alfredo]

24. I don't think he was saying that he thinks rendition may be necessary.

read the whole selection.



Equally, Obama campaigned to end torture and restore basic constitutional liberties shredded by the Bush administration's radical views of unlimited executive power. But he did not campaign to return the US to pre-9/11 models in all respects. Retaining the option of rendition may well be necessary, for example:

“There could be situations — and I emphasize ‘could be’ because we haven’t made a determination yet — where, let’s say that we have a well-known Al Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,” he said. “I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario.”

At some points, his critics on right and left will see the pragmatic, reasonable path he is trying to forge. In cutting him some slack, the American people seem wiser to me than many in the commentariat.

[galloglas]

26. Socialism, please, and Thank You !! n/t

[alfredo]

28. Mr Rogers would be pleased.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. .

:thumbsup:

[tavalon]

30. I prefer to change the punctuation a bit: Socialism! Please?

[alfredo]

31. It works for me. Capitalism in small doses is OK, just as long as the

capitalist are watched closely and punished severely if they act as they did under bush.