"...Everyone has the ability to work in some way, and determinism should be the order of the day. ..."
On Jan 22, 4:01 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > This is why I get such funny looks when I say that I'm a Socialist > Libertarian. I believe in Liberty and Self Determination, Determinism, but > also believe that a free man in a free country should determine to create a > level playing field and a social infrastructure which benefits all, and > softens class delineation, instead of perpetuating and hardening it. I have > a hard time resolving the contradiction of drawing the line at 12th grade, > when the "good jobs" require University. I have a hard time drawing the line > at CPR, when, you'll die as easily without kidney medication. > By the same token, I abhor welfare checks. Everyone has the ability to work > in some way, and determinism should be the order of the day. That's where > "From each according to his ability" comes in...not "according to his > motivation", mind you. How would you feel, Craig, if in exchange for a MERIT > BASED (3.0 gpa and attendance requirements) socialized education, I offered > an utter repeal of the US Welfare and food stamp programs, and replaced them > with a community works program? Instead of food stamps and welfare checks > going out for nothing at all, everyone in economically repressed > neighborhoods who is currently on those programs would have to put in X > number of hours weekly in a works program, which would be structurally > diverse enough to fairly account for any hardship imaginable. Programs could > include neighborhood cleanup, construction, tutoring, specialist > instruction, senior assistance, disabled assistance, etc. etc. etc. etc. > etc. And of course, anyone who puts in four years in the military gets their > four years of education automatically. Does that sound reasonable to you? > > See, I'm not talking about free money from no where for everyone. I'm > talking about a form of government which is symbiotic, healthy, and provides > the best possible chance for anyone in general, based on their own > determination, and willingness to put into it. > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM, frantheman > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
