CDZ Humane Capitalism : an introduction

[SeaGal]

Moreover, the Capital CLASS based system cannot and will not provide the benefits of advanced technology to society at large. In agriculture alone, we have the capacity to feed the world. Yet in the world center of global Capital, food insecurity and its attending miseries rise.

Can you show me a successful socialist ala Marx society where there is no want of food or technology, no ruling class, or if there is one, doesn't live in luxury apart from the masses?

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

a successful socialist ala Marx society

No 'socialist' nation has never existed. Nor can it.

Any nation ruled by an elite that towers like royalty over powerless toilers can be declared a 'success' for Capital. So I readily cede that you have the easier assignment.

Feel free to lower the 'Bar of Success' by widening the disparity gap so much as you wish.

 

[SeaGal]

a successful socialist ala Marx society

No 'socialist' nation has never existed. Nor can it.

Any nation ruled by an elite that towers like royalty over powerless toilers can be declared a 'success' for Capital. So I readily cede that you have the easier assignment.

Feel free to lower the 'Bar of Success' by widening the disparity gap so much as you wish.

Why has no 'socialist' nation ever existed?

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

[/QUOTE]Why has no 'socialist' nation ever existed?[/QUOTE]

Socialism IS internationalism.

As such, socialism can exist SOLELY on a global scale. Marx indicated as much closing his Manifesto with the appeal to workers of the world -- UNITE! The October Revolution established but the first stage in the transition toward socialism. And even there, the Revolution created a highly contradictory condition between a genuine worker state on one hand, but on the other -- retaining a bourgeois [privileged] system of distribution.

Relative to the original post by 'peacefan,' repeated references ['war' and 'diplomatic war' and 'world war' plus references to regional conflicts around the world] show that the crises s/he describes require resolution on a global scale.

 

[SeaGal]

Socialism IS internationalism.

As such, socialism can exist SOLELY on a global scale. Marx indicated as much closing his Manifesto with the appeal to workers of the world -- UNITE! The October Revolution established but the first stage in the transition toward socialism. And even there, the Revolution created a highly contradictory condition between a genuine worker state on one hand, but on the other -- retaining a bourgeois [privileged] system of distribution.

Relative to the original post by 'peacefan,' repeated references ['war' and 'diplomatic war' and 'world war' plus references to regional conflicts around the world] show that the crises s/he describes require resolution on a global scale.

Let me phrase this in terms I can understand - first, the goal. Correct me please where I am wrong.

The goal of socialism is to create a global society where all live peacefully because competition for resources has been eliminated - all will work, all will have their needs met. There will be no bosses, no subordinates. A Utopia, so to speak. The distribution of goods will be overseen by committee, honor system, how? This will be brought about by revolution such as occurred in Russia led by Lenin's Bolshevik's?

One question - 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'
Who will guard the guards themselves?
Juvenal

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

i have decided that the Democrats in the US should have a real chance at winning the upcoming US national elections.

i don't like Trump's calls for a new cold war one bit, you see.
i don't see anything wrong with China "stealing" some intellectual property, because the Republican-led super-wealthy Americans were probably engaging in unfair trade practices for decades, which led to this whole escalation.

let's stop this encroaching cold war dead in it's tracks by electing a Democrat as US President!

and for the record : i have stopped believing you Republican haters entirely.
all you do is sprout rehashed propaganda that you're fed by Republican media outlets like Fox News, which i watched quite a lot in recent times. it kinda disgusts me now though..

 

[dblack]

Socialism IS internationalism.

As such, socialism can exist SOLELY on a global scale. Marx indicated as much closing his Manifesto with the appeal to workers of the world -- UNITE! The October Revolution established but the first stage in the transition toward socialism. And even there, the Revolution created a highly contradictory condition between a genuine worker state on one hand, but on the other -- retaining a bourgeois [privileged] system of distribution.

Relative to the original post by 'peacefan,' repeated references ['war' and 'diplomatic war' and 'world war' plus references to regional conflicts around the world] show that the crises s/he describes require resolution on a global scale.

Let me phrase this in terms I can understand - first, the goal. Correct me please where I am wrong.

The goal of socialism is to create a global society where all live peacefully because competition for resources has been eliminated - all will work, all will have their needs met. There will be no bosses, no subordinates. A Utopia, so to speak. The distribution of goods will be overseen by committee, honor system, how? This will be brought about by revolution such as occurred in Russia led by Lenin's Bolshevik's?

One question - 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'
Who will guard the guards themselves?
Juvenal

Socialism is an attempt by government to cop-opt economic power and control trade. Much like theocracy attempts co-opt religion and control people's beliefs. It's wrong for the same reasons.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

Socialism IS internationalism, etc.

Let me [re]phrase this ... first, the goal...

'The goal of socialism is to create a global society where all live peacefully because competition for resources has been eliminated ...'

The 'final goal' of socialism is the abolition
> of economic exploitation,
> of all forms of inequality, and
> of the oppression of one group of human beings by another.

Socialists disavow utopian visions. It struggles to defend working class interests and opposes all efforts of the financial and corporate aristocracy to impose the burden of today's crises on the masses. Your assessment is correct that socialism is not a gift to be given to the working class; it must be won by the working class itself through struggle for itself.

Who will guard the guards themselves?

Workers elected democratically by workers to make the decisions regarding production and resource allocation will make those decisions.

* * *

Relative to the original 'peacefan' post:

'It’s just a few more steps of sociological evolution before we can overcome all of this and embrace the ability for our planet to use our planning and education and competitions to sustain a much larger human population on an Earth that is home to a lot more pretty farm land, dotted with tourist attractions that will bring us all much joy.'

Peacefan identifies correctly the need to utilize planning -- and subsequent application of resources -- for this flowering of human culture. But this is not possible while those decisions serve class privilege. The optimism aside, I think 'peacefan' indicates as much writing:

'One of the slogans that powered WW1 into reality was ‘the war to end all wars.'
'One of the slogans that the Jews came up with after WW2, was simply : ‘never again.'

The second Great War put the lie to the slogan/rational of the first.
The drive toward authoritarian forms of rule PLUS regime change in China belies the second.

There exists no possibility of resolving even one of the major crises while class privilege presides.

Edit: Repair incorrect html issues

 

[Grumblenuts]

Socialists disavow utopian visions. It struggles to defend working class interests and opposes all efforts of the financial and corporate aristocracy to impose the burden of today's crises on the masses. Your assessment is correct that socialism is not a gift to be given to the working class; it must be won by the working class itself through struggle for itself.

Self-contradictory. The goal purportedly being to eliminate class,

The 'final goal' of socialism is the abolition
> of economic exploitation,
> of all forms of inequality, and
> of the oppression of one group of human beings by another.

..you've still wound up not only with a "class" identity but a "working" one to boot, adding insult to injury. Upon first meeting, do we not assess one another (and by extension/reflection.. ourselves) based upon what we do "for a living" far too much already? In this new information age all (not retired or otherwise limited) should be presumed capable of quickly learning and performing a great number of productive tasks, and so able to soon switch when the task becomes clearly redundant. "Productive" meaning of recognizable net benefit within one's community.

I find a mixture of entrepreneurial spirit and humility healthy. We should challenge one another to do our own thing as much as possible. To do what seems to come naturally with some degree of pleasure while deliberately interfering as little as possible with the needs of all others trying to do the same. Upper and lower bounds appear equally required in all of nature so why fight against a democratic mandating of either? A minimum wage without a maximum wage is an insult to justice and humanity. Providing an acceptable range of compensation (and wealth) that the voting public periodically reviews and approves as "reasonable" should not even be considered debatable.

High time we got serious about getting together and living peacefully, sustainably.

 

[sartre play]

Its just word salad, the goal we should hope for and support would be a more equitable solution, a balance of interest, don't be a brat no one group gets everything they want. were we not taught to share?

 

[peacefan]

i would like to thank you for these quick and efficient lessons in how the capitalist system really works.
it's been very insightful.

i'm now not even sure i want to change it at all.
after all, as they say "money has feet", and "it can be lonely at the top".

we basically all get rewarded in some form or another for the time and effort we put into our work as (young) adults.
and criminals get punished.

i'm truly unsure whether the capitalist system needs any upgrades at all, now.

i'll be bookmarking your posts for later use, and i'll update this thread if i ever do update my document that started this thread.

thanks again. you've been of extraordinary help to me and the life i lead (mid-to-lower middle class)

 

[Leo123]

I have a problem with the title of this thread. Capitalism is an economic model it can neither be humane or unhumane. Morality should never be assigned to any economic system or any other non living entity. That is what Marxists do and it NEVER works. BTW the 'rich' in this country are mostly on the left and today they are using their money to try to overthrow America. It's not their money or capitalism that is immoral, they are.

 

[sartre play]

I have a problem with the title of this thread. Capitalism is an economic model it can neither be humane or unhumane. Morality should never be assigned to any economic system or any other non living entity. That is what Marxists do and it NEVER works. BTW the 'rich' in this country are mostly on the left and today they are using their money to try to overthrow America. It's not their money or capitalism that is immoral, they are.

THE rich are mostly rich, & interested in staying that way. they do what ever works best for then self's, there are champions for more equality, there are some supporting the opposite. they come from all sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

you've still wound up not only with a "class" identity but a "working" one to boot, adding insult to injury.

'Here CLASS' is seen from the end when class divisions arising from the system of production have been readdressed through worker ownership and control. In response to member 'SeaGal,' I referenced a society without exploitation, inequality or oppression. If you see these as inevitable regardless of what productive system prevails, then you cede that hostile productive relations are ontologically grounded and that their resolution is an impossibility. That is entirely fatalistic. Moreover work is no injury. Labour is good.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

i'm now not even sure i want to change it at all.

When the roots of productive relations are exposed, we move invariable toward socialism or toward further reaction. You are not leading toward the later. With [approximately] $350 million net worth, the Clintons are solidly middle class. Supporting the petty bourgeoisie agenda of the Clintons, the Obamas, etc. may not be in your class interests. Nor can you offer any basis for resolving the international antagonisms related directly to hostile competition for lucrative international markets.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

Socialism IS internationalism...

The goal of socialism is ...

Socialism is an attempt by government ...

My thinking [and I'm the learner here] is that this should be taken up on a 'socialism is...' thread. I'm considering Engel's 1880 pamphlet as an initiatory document, but it may not be appropriate as it is some 20 pages in length. I'll keep looking.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

Capitalism is an economic model it can neither be humane or unhumane.

The cotton plantation based economic model of the old South comes to mind...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Moreover work is no injury. Labour is good.

Safety is no accident, lol. My point there was just that class is clearly bad. Indeed, work is good. It tends to keep us engaged with real life and honest. But we shouldn't let what do for a living define or consume us. There's far more to life and always other jobs to do. I also believe some capitalism is good and shall persist no matter what, but it needs to be kept on a very short leash.

 

[dblack]

Socialism IS internationalism...

The goal of socialism is ...

Socialism is an attempt by government ...

My thinking [and I'm the learner here] is that this should be taken up on a 'socialism is...' thread. I'm considering Engel's 1880 pamphlet as an initiatory document, but it may not be appropriate as it is some 20 pages in length. I'll keep looking.

I've read enough about socialism to know I want no part of it. But Liberal Corporatism is what the Democrats will server up, and it's even worse.

 

[Trotsky's Spectre]

Socialism IS internationalism...

The goal of socialism is ...

Socialism is an attempt by government ...

My thinking [and I'm the learner here] is that ...

I've read enough about socialism to know I want no part of it. But Liberal Corporatism is what the Democrats will server up, and it's even worse.

Petty Bourgeois liberalism of the next 9% after the 1% is indeed the principle obstacle to socialism and as such is a noxious blight. On that, your assertion stands. But 'I've read "about" socialism' suggests limited or perhaps no reading of works by actual socialists. By that I mean such documents as Marx' Kapital, Engel's 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,' Lenin's 'Exposition of Marxism,' Trotsky's 'Transitional Programme' or statements and/or resolutions from the International Committee of the Fourth International.

Edit: For the reason I stated above, further discussion of 'socialism' should occur on another thread. I'll try to find a 'linkable' text within a few days.