APP - Capitalism and the Leftist View

[I'm Watermark]

So after reading the thread about inequality, I thought it might be a positive experience to open up a dialogue with the board's fellow anti-capitalists. You both seem passionate about these ideas – so let's see where we can take this.

To start with some fodder, I'd like to ask you two related questions. What are the most problematic failings of capitalism as we know it today? And through what policies/actions can we address them?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Uhmmm... I'm not sure.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not exactly a rousing argument. Well, to tell the truth, I'm more against the right than I am actually a true socialist. Someone once said "[Watermark] is a man of a few words... unless you are wrong, then he is a man of many words", after I critiqued a few of their short stories in creative writing class. And, that's generally how I am on this forum, only rarely presenting something new unprompted, mostly just lying in wait to strike at someone. And, often, I used very exaggerated arguments, sometimes I don't even really believe what I'm saying and just arguing for the hell of it, although it's usually obvious when I'm doing that to anyone who knows me.


My biggest problem with capitalism today is that I think we're in a period of decadence. There is no community in America, there is no we, only I. People's loyalty to their community is very thin. They're only roused into action by negative nationalism, by wanting to go out and beat up some perceived external threat. There is no positive nationalism, that of the community coming together to support each other. People don't support the welfare state because they feel no loyalty, duty, or attachment to their fellow Americans, they believe that they're mostly leeches and that only they themselves are worthy of support. And so they celebrate the capitalists, who by definition have no attachment to the nation, who will in the split of the instant pick up their capital and move it elsewhere as soon as the numbers line up and they feel they can make more elsewhere. And they spit on those that are attached to the land, those that are not so mobile, and consider them inferior, even though they are the ones that, at the end of the day, will be there to support their community.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

As for revolutionary socialism, I admire it's style, but am not honestly a revolutionary socialist. I like the Soviet's for how they performed in WWII, and I admire their passion, but I think as far as their Socialism they largely failed.

 

[I'm Watermark]

I can largely share that sentiment, but I'm probably much less of a collectivsit, and much more of a Marxist. To me, things like community are only good insofar as they serve the needs of each individual. Individuality, self-interest - these things shouldn't be avoided. They should be embraced as part of a free society. But as they are, they cause more harm than good. The idea of the invidiual is now represented by societies where rights aren't extended universally. Whither dealing with exploitation, hollowed out democracy, or the environment, individualism as we know it has failed. And that's why socialism is so vital, as its currently the only system which effectively represents the interests of all individuals.

Socialism, or at least the kind I favor, is incredibly decentralist. It forms socity into, as Zizek called it, "a global world order", but with small democratic bodies - like co-ops, communes, local councils, and so on - to give each individual more control over their lives. Its not a shift to eastern collectivism, but also not the maintinence of western capitalism. It is for this reason that I have to challenge the fundamental assumptions of your post. Capitalism isn't a negative force in its lack of loyalty, but in the fact that it presents antagonistic social roles. Loyalty and other cultural problems are rooted in the structures of the day – and simple reform of these structures won't work. They need to be uprooted.

As for revolutionary socialism goes. There are two theorists you need to be familiar with in order to understand this: Antonio Gramsci and Karl Kautsky. Gramsci explained the failure of Russia, China, and so on, as a result of revolutionists not fighting for hegemony. They didn't develop a democratic tradition, nor did they make efforts to change the view of capitalism and the revolution. No, they just pushed the revolution forward, working within the sphere of something not culturally ready for a socialist revolution. Kautsky, in his case, explained that it was a result of ignoring one of the fundamental ideas of Marxism. That that socialism needs industrial capitalism to preceed it.

The USA could probably fascilitate it as we stand now, but as Gramsci said, there needs to be another step to the process. Which is why I don't totally oppose revolutionary socialism, but don't think it'll be fully necessary.

* * *

We do agree on a great deal, but you're approaching the problem in an a-beneficial way.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Badieu talked about this a lot. A third option (between capitalism and socialism) would be nice, but wouldn't effectively deal with class antagonisms.

 

[Steelplate]

I think change has to come from labor. Nothing gets the wealthy's attention like losing money and production. The fast food workers in NYC fired the shot across the bow and I think that was very brave of them. But they pretty much stood alone. I remember in my teen/ young adult years when Lech Walesa managed to rally everyone in Poland to fight via strike. Imagine what a similar event would do in America.

 

[I'm Watermark]

I think change has to come from labor. Nothing gets the wealthy's attention like losing money and production. The fast food workers in NYC fired the shot across the bow and I think that was very brave of them. But they pretty much stood alone. I remember in my teen/ young adult years when Lech Walesa managed to rally everyone in Poland to fight via strike. Imagine what a similar event would do in America.

But as I said, there needs to be a cultural aspect. Let's look at the realities of such a move. How to put this... well a nationwide strike wouldn't occur. The closest thing we'd get would be a large group of uprisings, probably in cities. When that occurred, participants would face a large amount of public opposition, combined with government force. It's the concequence of living in a free society - the ruling class can't control everyday opposition using violence, so they resort to what we used to call propganda. And right now, we have the democratic values to fascilitate socialism, but they haven't been expressed that way.

Which is why I cited Gramsci. The fight can't only be for power, it has to be for consent.

 

[Steelplate]

But as I said, there needs to be a cultural aspect. Let's look at the realities of such a move. How to put this... well a nationwide strike wouldn't occur. The closest thing we'd get would be a large group of uprisings, probably in cities. When that occurred, participants would face a large amount of public opposition, combined with government force. It's the concequence of living in a free society - the ruling class can't control everyday opposition using violence, so they resort to what we used to call propganda. And right now, we have the democratic values to fascilitate socialism, but they haven't been expressed that way.

Which is why I cited Gramsci. The fight can't only be for power, it has to be for consent.

OK....you mention Propaganda and consent. But the problem is....how do you combat propaganda from an entity(corporate and industrial America) that has almost unlimited resources?

 

[I'm Watermark]

OK....you mention Propaganda and consent. But the problem is....how do you combat propaganda from an entity(corporate and industrial America) that has almost unlimited resources?

Now right there is the question. How, in an era where most people don't foresee a revolution, to carry out the movement to socialism. We can posture, theorize, critique and incite all we want, but the problem comes in how.

There are a number of general views on this, so I'll outline a few. The first one says that capitalism will disnitegrate - we just need to be ready for when it does. Then there are those who say we need to use politics to attain our goals - lections and such. Some say we need to wage a war of information. And yet another group wants a revolution outright.

But the basic assumption of all of them is that capitalism will, at some point, present ideal conditions for the implementation of socialism.

Hmm. I'm curious to see what Watermark has to say about this.

 

[Steelplate]

I think the fact that the right has taken such a hard turn is actually helping. However, there are still way too many people that believe in that ideology..a lot of it is due to the unholy alliance between the Conglomerate and religion. I know you are an unbeliever, and I get that....but pragmatically, instead of destroying religion....I think that the left needs to embrace it to an extent.

The two main topical issues that the right uses for their bait and switch is abortion and gays. Now, I don't think that we should throw those people under the bus. I think we should use scripture and doctrine against the greed and intolerance that they display. I'm not saying that you'll ever get them to be FOR those two hot button issues....but you could get them to make it less of a priority and get them to look at the bigger picture.

I think to attack religion is a huge mistake. The vast majority of the people in this country and the world believe. To alienate such a huge block of people won't do anything for the cause. But, if you can convert enough of them to the economic and social aspects AND let them keep their faith, then you have and ally in a group of people big enough to make a difference.

The other obstacle is guns. Another area where the need to tread.lightly is huge.....Another post on it's own.

 

[I'm Watermark]

I think the fact that the right has taken such a hard turn is actually helping. However, there are still way too many people that believe in that ideology..a lot of it is due to the unholy alliance between the Conglomerate and religion. I know you are an unbeliever, and I get that....but pragmatically, instead of destroying religion....I think that the left needs to embrace it to an extent.

The two main topical issues that the right uses for their bait and switch is abortion and gays. Now, I don't think that we should throw those people under the bus. I think we should use scripture and doctrine against the greed and intolerance that they display. I'm not saying that you'll ever get them to be FOR those two hot button issues....but you could get them to make it less of a priority and get them to look at the bigger picture.

I think to attack religion is a huge mistake. The vast majority of the people in this country and the world believe. To alienate such a huge block of people won't do anything for the cause. But, if you can convert enough of them to the economic and social aspects AND let them keep their faith, then you have and ally in a group of people big enough to make a difference.

The other obstacle is guns. Another area where the need to tread.lightly is huge.....Another post on it's own.

You misunderstand me. I don't want to "attack religion", nor to have Republicans abandon their social authoritarianism. Religion, social oppression, these are outdated, conservative ideas. Socialists understand this, so we seek a gradual modernization process, with us at the end. Nobody will be attacked; we won't maintain the same political sphere; we'll be trying to steer the procession of history, allowing the decay, not abolition of the ideas you described.

Its very similar to Michael Harrington's "visionary gradualism".

But make no mistake. The socialists of today are much unlike those of the past couple centuries. We can't forsee revolution, nor can we organize on a scale able to topple governments. So we've molded our ideas to a form best fit for a modern context; we're, if you would, a better unification of the fist and rose.

 

[blackascoal]

Sorry I'm late .. I missed the message .. I apologize.

I'd like to qualify your question about capitalism with 'unfettered' capitalism .. which is in fact, a disease/a cancer.

What's wrong with it is on stage in America today. Humans don't count. All that counts in an unfettered capitalist system is the bottom line, not 'We the People.' What began as a capitalist system has morphed into a full-blown plutocracy. Corporations now own America, and they own the strongest voice in it. Our government is now fully controlled by the very element that the Framers and Eisenhower warned us about.

How do we get corporations out of government? Through strict campaign finance reform laws that mandate immediate loss of office and jail time for anyone who breaks those laws.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Sorry I'm late .. I missed the message .. I apologize.

I'd like to qualify your question about capitalism with 'unfettered' capitalism .. which is in fact, a disease/a cancer.

What's wrong with it is on stage in America today. Humans don't count. All that counts in an unfettered capitalist system is the bottom line, not 'We the People.' What began as a capitalist system has morphed into a full-blown plutocracy. Corporations now own America, and they own the strongest voice in it. Our government is now fully controlled by the very element that the Framers and Eisenhower warned us about.
6
How do we get corporations out of government? Through strict campaign finance reform laws that mandate immediate loss of office and jail time for anyone who breaks those laws.

But what allowed that degedation to occur? It isn't simply a crisis of finance capitaal, as much of the left believes, or of morals, as you assert through your critique. No, while these are wildly important, they fail to explain the procession of capitalism through history. And they lead to a solution of merely limiting the power of an antagonist class, not doing away with it altogether.

When you say we need laws to limit the power of corporations over government, you say something fundamentally misconceived, but with goodthe intentions. Capitalists don't only use money to control politics -they use ideology as well. Have you ever noticed the limits to american public discourse? How politicians do agree with the interests of the rich over working people? That evangelical nihilism is a matter of how capitalists promote ideology.

To deal with this, we need to ameliorate class antagonisms. We, if you would, need to kkick it all in the teeth - we can't stay within the current system, no matter how much kinder, gentler.