Saturday, May 21, 2016

Alex Henderson — Millions Now Understand That Capitalism Needs Socialism to Work—Which Is Why Bernie Is So Popular

Sanders' vision of democratic socialism is just capitalism with a safety net.
And not even with the most important part of the safety net, a job guarantee.

AlterNet
Millions Now Understand That Capitalism Needs Socialism to Work—Which Is Why Bernie Is So Popular
Alex Henderson

31 comments:

Bob said...

It's not democratic socialism, but social democracy. Bernie is a SocDem. The "Nordic Model" is an example of social democracy. Democratic socialists want to get rid of capitalism. No amount of watering will change that.

Tom Hickey said...

Right. Capitalism is based on prioritizing capital over people and environment, and socialism is the opposite.

Social democracy is "soft" capitalism.

Andrew Anderson said...

Only if socialism means removing all* privileges for banks and other depository institutions does capitalism needs socialism.

Otherwise we really haven't even tried capitalism since the banks have ALWAYS, at least since 1694 and the abolition of the Tally Stick, been privileged by government.


*Including implicit privileges like the failure of monetary sovereigns to provide inherently risk-free account and transaction services for their fiat for all their citizens thereby leaving their citizens to the mercy of banks or else to be limited to inconvenient, inherently unsafe physical fiat, aka "cash."

Andrew Anderson said...

And not even with the most important part of the safety net, a job guarantee.


And is there no end to those who wish to perpetuate wage slavery?

How about economic justice instead? Do the rich dream of having a job or do they do the work they WISH to do? Then why not the rest of us?

Bob said...

The persuasive outcome of a JG versus a BIG depends on the context of the debate. Politically they are dead or dormant. We live in a society obsessed with the so-called work ethic.

Simsalablunder said...

"And is there no end to those who wish to perpetuate wage slavery?"

Is there no end to those dreaming of robots taking care of everything?

Random said...

Loose labour markets cause inequality:

http://www.businessinsider.com/95-of-income-gains-since-2009-went-to-the-top-1-heres-what-that-really-means-2013-9?IR=T

Andrew Anderson said...

We live in a society obsessed with the so-called work ethic. Bob

Who says work requires a job? Work may require land, tools, workshops, education, training, etc. but that calls for asset redistribution, not a system to pay people to waste their time and energy lest they bid down wages or protest injustice too effectively.

Simsalablunder said...

" not a system to pay people to waste their time and energy "

Who says it got to be a waste of their time and energy?

Bob said...

Who says work requires a job?

Private property in conjunction with commodity production requires wage labour. I'm not saying that there aren't alternatives to this arrangement.

Andrew Anderson said...

Private property in conjunction with commodity production requires wage labour. Bob

What you mean to say is narrowly owned property requires wage labor and perhaps for not much longer as robots eliminate that need.

What is needed is for everyone to own a roughly equal amount of property and then we can all work without needing a job.

Bob said...

Yes, if everyone is an owner then no one can be excluded.

Simsalablunder said...

"What is needed is for everyone to own a roughly equal amount of property"

As if property are equal… There's definitely going to be people in need for job under that "solution".

Andrew Anderson said...

As if property are equal… Simsalablunder

Property would include equal ownership of large corporations since those were likely built with the publics' credit anyway.

Simsalablunder said...

Are you talking about owned by public (state owned) or do you mean what they did after Soviet Union collapsed where people became stock share holders in former state companies? The latter made neoliberals wet dream come true.

Tom Hickey said...

Distributing joint stock was a conversion of state socialism to what amounted to laissez-faire ("cowboy") capitalism, in which the Russian Mafia and oligarchs took power and acquired formerly state assets for practically nothing in comparison with the actual value, and ran the government in their interests until Putin stepped in and ended the worst of it. Now Russia is still trying to fix this in addition to shifting the nation away from the state socialis — bureaucracy really — of the former USSR through a more gradual approach. Of course the US is criticizing the Russia government for trying to recreate the USSR, which is not the case.

The neoliberal strategy imposed on Russia through the Harvard boyz under Yeltsin was a disaster.

In the first place, ordinary people knew little to nothing about capitalism and how it works, and secondly, they desperately needed munnie to survive. So they sold their shares at a pittance. That was part of the neoliberal plan actually, to get control into the hand of a few people who would in any case be more competent than the former USSR corrupt bureaucracy. But it was just exchanging one form of corruption for an arguably worse one.

While was the brainchild of the Harvard boyz, who figured that there was a window of opportunity to divest the state and that while there would be asymmetries, they would work out over time, there is now also the suspicion that the US leadership did this strategically to weaken and dismember Russia, tossing it into the dustbin of history. Whether this later was true or not, lots of Russian now believe this based on US actions since then.

Andrew Anderson said...

they desperately needed munnie to survive. So they sold their shares at a pittance. Tom Hickey

In the US at least, the abolition of government-provided deposit insurance should require the distribution of huge amounts of new fiat equally to all citizens. That plus a Steve Keen-like equal distribution of new fiat should abolish a lot of private debt without disadvantaging non-debtors.

So in the US, at least, people would not be forced to sell their shares. If not then add a BIG too.

As for land, every citizen should have an inalienable piece to live on.

Bob said...

Perhaps Andrew is referring to a National Dividend type arrangement?

Andrew Anderson said...

I wasn't thinking of a National Dividend but now that you mention it all new fiat beyond that created by deficit spending by the monetary sovereign should be distributed equally to individual citizen accounts at the central bank. There should be no more Discount Window at the cb, nor Open Market Purchases, nor currency swaps nor any other fiat creation by the cb except for the monetary sovereign at its direction.

Fiat is the Citizens' money and not to be created for special interests like asset sellers, exporters, or banks* and other speculators.

*Banks are speculators since they borrow short to lend long. Why then are we forced to have accounts with them or else be limited to physical fiat?

Simsalablunder said...

"As for land, every citizen should have an inalienable piece to live on."

That in reality means some will have better land to live off than others. Not impressed.

Andrew Anderson said...

Try being homeless instead and see how impressive that is.

Besides, a piece of land ISN'T the only required restitution.

I'm not impressed by morally clueless Progressives who were a big part of creating this mess (eg. government-provided deposit insurance instead of accounts for all at the central bank) and who only have ad-hoc, un-principled kludges like a JG as a solution.

"Professing themselves wise ..."

Simsalablunder said...

"Try being homeless instead and see how impressive that is."

Ok so you agree what I said -that some will have much better land to live off than others, which isn't an equal distribution at all and by that not impressive.
Perhaps you hope you'll be one of the winners getting the better land…

Simsalablunder said...

" un-principled kludges like a JG as a solution."

Well, that's your imagination talking which you shouldn't trust since it obviously come up with much worse ideas.

Andrew Anderson said...

Perhaps you hope you'll be one of the winners getting the better land…

Well, all of the lots distributed for homesteads should be capable of growing food so the people living on them have an independent food source. But other than that the lots would be distributed by lot (chance).

What I hope for is a peaceful, prosperous world for my family to live in.

Simsalablunder said...

"Well, all of the lots distributed for homesteads should be capable of growing food"

Since when did land become equally good in growing food?

" But other than that the lots would be distributed by lot (chance)."

Good luck with that peace when people realize that they got shittier land than others and also lost out on the distribution lottery.

Andrew Anderson said...

Equal is an impossible standard to meet; that's where distribution by chance comes in.

Simsalablunder said...

"Equal is an impossible standard to meet"
Yes and your lottery distribution makes even worse. Don't you come wining if you end up the blank.

Andrew Anderson said...

Each of the lots would be adequate for self-sufficiency in food.

As for whining:

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. Proverbs 16:33

Simsalablunder said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simsalablunder said...

"Each of the lots would be adequate for self-sufficiency in food."

As if you would be in any position to decide that.

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. Proverbs 16:33"

Oh so you think you'll be OK being a loser because the LORD decide the outcome of your cruel lottery. And your offspring too, and your neighbour and their offspring and so on.
And that's your solution for a peaceful and prosperous world…

Random said...

Andrew, look up "land value tax"