Tuesday, December 14, 2021

The Summit for Socialist Democracy — Charles McKelvey

Capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, capital (ownership) being favored institutionally over land (environment, ecology) and labor (most of the people). Capitalism is the economic system of plutocratic oligarchy not actual democracy — government of, by and for the people. The economic system that correlates with actual democracy is socialism. Social democracy is a mixture of the two.
In response to the imperial circus, the Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group organized The Summit for Socialist Democracy. The participants in the December 11 panel were:

Radhika Desai, Professor at the Department of Political Studies, and Director, Geopolitical Economy Research Group, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, and coordinator of the International Manifesto Group;

Danny Haiphong, socialist activist and journalist, Co-editor, Friends of Socialist China;

Cheng Unfu, Professor, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences;

Carlos Ron, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for North America, Venezuela;

Luna Oi, Marxist-Leninist popular educator and blogger, Vietnam;

Kiyul Chung, Professor, Tsinghua University, China; Korea University, Tokyo, Japan; former visiting professor, Chinese Academic of Social Sciences; fighter for Korean unification;

Roland Boer, Professor of Philosophy, Dalian University of Technology, China; Visiting Professor, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences;

Ju-Hyun Park, writer organized with the Nodutdol network for Korean Community Development, a fourth generation Korean-American organization;

Isabel Monal Rodríguez, Director of the Department of Marxist Studies, Academy of Sciences of Cuba;

Zhai Guoqiang, Professor, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences;

Layla Brown, Assistant Professor, Northeastern University, USA, and radical black podcaster; and

Elias Jabbour, Professor, Rio de Janeiro State University, Brazil.
Biden's Summit for Democracy is a rather transparent attempt to end-run the UN to legitimate the "rules based order" dictated by the US as a replacement for international law.
Danny Haiphong maintained that Biden’s Summit was an attempt to legitimate the unilateral claim of the United States to establish the rules for the international order. The Summit is consistent with the U.S. strategy of cloaking its exploitative and aggressive policies under the guise of democracy. He noted that the Biden administration has repeatedly hyped a distinction between autocracy and U.S.-led democracy, and its allies were summoned to give credibility to the U.S. vision. Biden’s Summit is nothing more than a projection of the narrow form of democracy championed by the world’s foremost imperialist hegemon.
This is an interesting article for those interested in political economy as the basis for macroeconomics. Against this background, conventional economics in the West and some so-called heterodox economics assumes capitalism as either the natural state or the optimal system, which is a gratuitous assumption.  It assumes that liberal (Western) democracy, especially Anglo-American democracy, is the sole legitimate form of democracy, whereas the literature of political philosophy, political theory, and political science shows otherwise.

Knowledge, ideology, and real socialism in our times
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2761684730989137546/1912310394308377856#

See also
Yet these pronouncements miss the mark because they share a flawed definition of democracy. To be more precise, they mistakenly equate liberalism with democracy, thereby rendering liberal democracy the only form of democratic governance. This is wrong.
Katehon
Eric Li
https://katehon.com/node/80859

Related

Arcane laws stand in the way of direct democracy in the US. The tipoff is that the vote is not determined by the majority of voters as was established initially in the US Constitution, showing that the intent of the founders was not to create an actually democracy but rather a simulacrum of one.

The Philosopher's Stone
I SAW IT ON TV
Robert Paul Wolff | Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Amherst
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2761684730989137546/1912310394308377856#

See also

MI6 strikes again?
Another cartoonishly ridiculous anti-China propaganda piece has been published in the western mass media, this time by The Guardian, which at this point could arguably be labeled the single most destructive promulgator of empire propaganda in the western world. It is authored by Simon Tisdall, who could most certainly be labeled the single most destructive promulgator of empire propaganda at The Guardian....
CaitlinJohnstone.com
Absurd Guardian Article Declares China World’s Only Imperialist Power
Caitlin Johnstone
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/12/14/absurd-guardian-article-declare-china-worlds-only-imperialist-power/

Also

Counterpunch
Wealth, Capitalism and Ideology
Thomas Klikauer and Meg Young
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/14/wealth-capitalism-and-ideology/

22 comments:

Peter Pan said...

Representative democracy is a farce.
Direct democracy is not scalable.
Therefore, governance should be local.

Socialism is a fantasy.
A mixed economy is what we have.
Therefore, stop wasting time on ideology, which only leads to tyranny.

Stop wasting time on summits (virtue signaling).

Ahmed Fares said...

assumes capitalism as either the natural state

From my understanding, Islam is capitalist in nature. A quick Google search and I chanced across the following page (it's Wikipedia so not sure how accurate this is):

Capitalism and Islam

Islam is described generally as the founder of capitalism and is credited with establishing the first capitalist economies and free markets in history. Market economies enforced by strong property rights, which were at a level unseen before in history, underpinned economic growth during the Umayyad and Abbasid era.

Islamic Capitalism was active during the Islamic Golden Age and Muslim Agricultural Revolution, where an early market economy and form of merchant capitalism took root between the 8th–12th centuries. A vigorous monetary economy was based on a widely-circulated currency (the dinar) and the integration of monetary areas that were previously independent. Business techniques and forms of business organisation employed during this time included contracts, bills of exchange, long-distance international trade, forms of partnership (mufawadha) such as limited partnerships (mudharaba), and forms of credit, debt, profit, loss, capital (al-mal), capital accumulation (nama al-mal),[failed verification] circulating capital, capital expenditure, revenue, cheques, promissory notes, trusts (see Waqf), savings accounts, transactional accounts, pawning, loaning, exchange rates, bankers, money changers, ledgers, deposits, assignments, the double-entry bookkeeping system, and lawsuits. Organizational enterprises independent from the state also existed in the medieval Islamic world, while the agency institution was also introduced. Many of these early capitalist concepts were adopted and further advanced in medieval Europe from the 13th century onwards. Some have argued that these economic activities laid the foundations for the development of modern capitalism.


As an aside, and as regards Islam's socialist nature also, Islam has a wealth tax rather than an income tax which is 1 part in 40, i.e., 2.5%.

One of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakāt is the practice of imposition (not charity) giving based on accumulated wealth (approximately 2.5% of all financial assets owned over the course of one lunar year). It is obligatory for all financially able Muslim adults and is considered to be an act of piety through which one expresses concern for the well-being of fellow Muslims as well as preserving social harmony between the wealthy and the poor. The zakat promotes a more equitable redistribution of wealth and fosters a sense of solidarity amongst members of the ummah (meaning "community").

For Muslims, not paying the zakat is a capital offense. This is because God has placed the wealth of some, like orphans for example, in the hands of others. It is obligatory to hand it over. Otherwise, it is akin to stealing from orphans.

Muslims who live under Western governments typically take the income tax they pay in lieu of a wealth tax. The important thing is that the poor have been housed and fed.

Peter Pan said...

Organized religion is compatible with socioeconomics.

Surprise!

Matt Franko said...

“ the literature of political philosophy, political theory, and political science shows otherwise.”

lol what about in real world?

Those 3 typically Art Degree disciplines don’t “show otherwise” (implying empiricism) there are people in there that simply assert otherwise… they publish antithesis to the others offering the thesis of “capitalism”… so what?

Where in your Socrates playbook does it say that one has to believe the antithesis?

It doesn’t…

Peter Pan said...

There's not much in the way of anti-capitalist religious beliefs. Mainly comes down to individual preference. Since religion is representative of culture, this is another nail in the socialist coffin.

Peter Pan said...

lol what about in real world?

There are people in the real world (mainly academics and reddit\pol commentators) who literally believe the following:

...that conventional economics in the West and heterodox economics assumes capitalism as either the natural state or the optimal system, which is a gratuitous assumption. It assumes that liberal (Western) democracy, especially Anglo-American democracy, is the sole legitimate form of democracy...

Replace capitalism with socialism in the above passage, and we get another group of nutters.

Peter Pan said...

Or this:

...that economics in the East (namely China) assumes socialism as either the natural state or the optimal system, which is an entirely reasonable assumption. It assumes that collective (Eastern) democracy, especially democracy with Chinese characteristics, is the sole legitimate form of democracy...

Voila, there is your trendy 'socialist' belief set, among disaffected westerners.

Peter Pan said...

Emily Burns for Congress Kickoff

Democracy!

Matt Franko said...

“ There are people in the real world (mainly academics”

Many Academics are in Liberal Art based institutions… those institutions train to work between the figurative and the literal NOT between the abstract and the real… Science based institutions train in the real…

So those academics are not ever in the real world at all… perhaps the closest they come is when they reify abstractions…. like “money!” (USD) is real and we can run out of it…

Peter Pan said...

You asked the question in the context of the real world versus the academic world.

For example, Tom has spent a great deal of time in the academic world. So naturally, academics will believe the material he posts.

I see no reason to exempt academics from regular nutters, such as reddit\pol contributors, 'socialist summit' organizers, YouTube social activists, etc.

They are real people living in the real world - they just perceive it differently.

Assumptions about capitalism fall into the correct/incorrect category.
Assumptions about capitalism are ideologically driven.

This is a science free zone.

Matt Franko said...

Those people are overwhelmingly Recipients of a liberal education

Peter Pan said...

Unless you mean a high school liberal education, then no. These are working class folks, or formerly working class.

Matt Franko said...

Working class folks are not doing political rants on social medias…

These are PoliSci, Sociology, etc majors…

Peter Pan said...

Have you never been to reddit, or listened to conspiracy podcasts?
These are hosted by people who haven't quit their day job. And they never will, except for the few who make it big.

There's money to be made in controversial topics. The average Joe and Jane can supplement their income if they build a following.

Matt Franko said...

Those people are then uneducated…. So you have two cohorts there you have the uneducated and the improperly educated..,

Peter Pan said...

People who complete high school are not uneducated. What is wrong with you?

Matt Franko said...

“ People who complete high school are not uneducated.”

They are RELATIVELY NOT educated…. what is wrong with YOU?

Matt Franko said...

People who stop at high school ARE NOT educated the same as people who go on to university…

Matt Franko said...

So you’re saying the people who go K-12 are the same as the people who keep going another 4 (Bachelors) or 6 (Masters) or 8 ( PhD) ?

And then they either go Science Degree or Art Degree for those durations?

No way in hell..,

Matt Franko said...

I’m not disrespecting you if you went K-12 I’m just saying the people who went on are going to turn out very different…

FD I’m biased against Liberal Art education but I would say if you stopped at 12 and thus avoided a liberal arts education you are ahead …

But you would have done better perhaps if you got Science Degree.., depending on what you wanted to do.. if you wanted to work with material or material systems you would do better with Science…

If you wanted to work with people then Liberal Art would be the way…

But right now we have Liberal Art morons trying to work with material… so shit is all fucked up..,

We need to perhaps eradicate these people from existence…

Peter Pan said...

So you’re saying the people who go K-12 are the same as the people who keep going another 4 (Bachelors) or 6 (Masters) or 8 ( PhD) ?

For the purposes of doing political rants, they are equally qualified.

If you wanted to work with people then Liberal Art would be the way…

Liberal Arts appear to be the 'qualification' necessary for entering management style careers. This is quite the change from previous generations, where the purpose of higher education was to create better citizens. Higher education is now a glorified version of trade school.

But right now we have Liberal Art morons trying to work with material… so shit is all fucked up..

If they're in management, they tend to do just that. But management fucking things up isn't new...

Peter Pan said...

But you would have done better perhaps if you got Science Degree.., depending on what you wanted to do.. if you wanted to work with material or material systems you would do better with Science…

I once knew an auto mechanic who had a degree in mechanical engineering. When he realized how much time he was spending in an office doing calculations, he chucked that career and opened a garage.

Want to work with material systems? Become a technician.