A few comments about the discussion in general. A problem, it seems to me, is that US Americans (I explicitly exclude Chris here) tend to look at the Soviet model when arguing for the superiority of a "capitalist" (=US American?) system over a "socialist" system. They seem deaf to the arguments of critics of the capitalist model that the Soviet model cannot simply presented as exemplary for socialism. Even during most of the 20th. Century many respected Marxist thinkers (Gramsci, Djilas, Marcuse, et al.) were deeply sceptical about the claims of the Soviet Union to be a genuine expression of true socialism.
Indeed, it can be convincingly argued, from a purist Marxist point of view, that the Soviet Russian situation was never able to conform to the conditions necessary for the realisation of the next historical step in the development of society in the direction of communism. Marx's historical determinism (the area of his thought in which he is most consistently Hegelian - with the exception of his rejection of idealism in favour of materialism) saw the prerequisite for the proletarian revolution as being the continuing development of capitalism in highly industrialised societies to the point where the dialectical contradictions within this system would bring about the conditions for an inevitable (and successful) proletarian revolution. According to this model, the revolution would have had to begin in Britain, the Low Countries, Western Germany, North-Eastern France, or the North-Eastern United States. Imperial Russia in 1917 (or indeed China in the aftermath of WWII) just weren't ready for socialism, in the sense in which Marx envisaged it. This was a problem of which both Lenin and Mao were well aware - much of their theroretical argument was devoted to attempts to justify their particular systems against (more purist) Marxist criticism. The result was that their revolutions, even at the time of their inception, were, at best, bastard Marxist, and consequently developed in directions detrimental to the realisation of true socialism (not to mention communism [which implies the end of alienation and the withering away of the state] , the final goal to which socialism is only an intermediate step). Seen from this perspective, I believe a rereading of Marx to see points of relevance for critical analyses of the present-day globalised market capitalist system can be fruitful. But that's meat enough for another topic (as well as a lot of hard work reading and hermeneutically interpreting a typically dense and wordy 19th. Century German philosopher, as anyone who has ever tried to plough through "Das Kapital" will attest!). In the interim, I would ask "opponents" of socialism not to cite the Soviet system as an example of any kind of credible picture of socialism in practice. More helpful in this context, as Neil has pointed out, are the various western European welfare-state models (the UK, West Germany's "soziale Marktwirtschaft", or the Swedish system) in the second half of the 20th. Century. These models have come under successively more pressure since 1979, the year Margaret Thatcher became PM in Britain. The basic criticism was that such systems were both inefficient and unaffordable. The proponents of this criticism were the same people who were the idealistic instigators of the deregulated globalised "free-market" system which dominated general economic thinking up to the middle of 2008. As the smoke starts to clear after the spectacular crash of this system, one of the tasks which still has to be faced up to is a critical analysis of the basic premises of thinkers such as Milton Friedman and the many seminally dependant on him. In particular, I believe, we need to look again at how the various social/ welfare free-market systems worked and what is really affordable (and/ or desirable) in a complex interconnected global "economy", in the context of a still rising global population, the basic aspirations of all members of that population, the digital-informational revolution and the limits imposed by sustainable environmental concerns. The arguments concerning "capitalism" and "socialism" are, ultimately, reflections of the tension between two basic principles of all modern theories of society rooted in the Enlightenment, liberty and equality. But tension can be creative. Perhaps the way forward lies in us thinking more seriously about the meaning and practical application of the third principle expressed by the French Revolution - fraternity. Francis On 22 Jan., 15:50, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing that always strikes me about "economics" (which I teach > occasionally) and "finance" (which I teach quite a lot) is that real > understanding in both is rare and hardly anything to do with being > standardly good with figures. I tend to like students who ask > questions like "why the feck should he be arsed running this business, > he'd be better off working in Sainsburys"? They have a grip on > finance. The ones who note "you can prove anything with this shit" > have a good grip on economics. Chris may have no degree, but he'll do > for me - even if a disagree in part. The first problem we have with > economic analysis is who is doing it, the second why they can't make > out sensible stuff more or less anyone could do - the rest would be > silence after we shoot some bwankers, politicians and the grossly > overpaid. > > On 22 Jan, 13:40, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And yet, don't they take your money to pay to put out someone else's fire? > > You pay for existing social services now. The only difference between your > > Fire Department, Police Department, US Military, Department of Agriculture, > > Department of the Interior, Forestry Service, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, > > is that they are already there, already being paid for. What's more, you > > understand the concept of Socialization for the common good, as the LDS has > > funded HUGE projects that way for over a hundred years. How "voluntary" > > THOSE contributions are is a matter of opinion. > > > So, this really just strikes me still as a matter of philosophy, not > > sociology. OK to take your money to pay for guns and firetrucks, not for > > schoolbooks. > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Kierkecraig > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Poor means a lot of things to a lot of people. Until you've experienced > > > the > > > > factual inability to buy your baby the medicine he or she needs to get > > > > better, no matter what you do, because there's nothing to pawn, no bill > > > you > > > > can delay, simply nothing in the bank, hell, no bank account to even > > > write a > > > > bad check on, then you will continue to operate from the perspective > > > > that > > > > all poor people need to do is pick themselves up by their bootstraps and > > > > "choose" a different life for themselves. Believe me when I say, self > > > > determination only leads you to the port of Opportunity. You still have > > > to > > > > wait for a ship to pull in. I've been hangin here harborside for better > > > than > > > > a decade now. > > > > Medicine for the baby, bank accounts, and all the other marvels of our > > > modern world can all be accredited to free market capitalism. Should > > > we forsake the project, just because not everyone benefits equally? I > > > never claimed that capitalism was perfect. There is nothing perfect > > > in this world we live in. Democracy is far from perfect. Capitalism > > > is far from perfect. But they are the best we have. Capitalism, I > > > believe is much better than socialism. Democracy, I believe, is much > > > better than Communism. They aren't perfect theories, or systems, but > > > they are the best. > > > > I do feel for the poor, and that is why, when I can, I contribute to > > > charity. Right now I can't as much as I'd like to since I'm in a > > > position where it would be nice to have contributions flowing my way > > > (I'm unemployed), but I will certainly do so when I get in a position > > > to. Thats what being a part of humanity is all about. That is what > > > it means to be "charitable." That is what it means to be virtuous. > > > Having the government come in and take my money away and give it to > > > someone else is not me being virtuous. It is me being pissed off. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
