__________________________________________________________________
(True) Socialist - Democracy
Herein Weighed Against Our
Capitalist - W.T.F.-ever We Are Calling This "Mess"
Capitalist - W.T.F.-ever We Are Calling This "Mess"
By Laurie Walker
September 23, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
So, if you've been in a cave and haven't heard, China is climbing out of their isolationism, and becoming an economic powerhouse, despite the prevalent communist control in that country, and they are coping with a tremendous shift in demographics, and growth of their population. Why is this so, when Russia has been in a constant state of decline. Do you suppose that people in China are also suffering? (Only, perhaps, without the same access to Vodka? and lack of the budding democracy along with this capitalism that allows actual the real facts and figures to get out? )Do you suppose that there might have been / is still tremendous corruption in the USSR, now Russia? Note that this decline in Russian population, and economic growth has occurred since a Capitalist Democracy began developing in the new-ish Russian nation-states.
Well, one might speculate, do some research, but I have not, and cannot speak to that situation with any real knowledge. So that's enough talking about those various experiments in Communism-playing-Capitalism...
What I want to talk about is Capitalism-playing-Socialism.
With Communism, government controls the means of production that belong to the "nation state", and everyone shares resources. There is no incentive to work harder if rewards are no greater. Communism is just as antithesis to democracy, as fascism, but on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It requires a centralized autocratic control ... likely by those who don't have any understanding of what is truly "needed" in any given situation...
One may argue also that, instead of heading in the direction of Communism, or even a true socialism, America is actually more likely to be headed toward a Fascist Corporate Capitalism.
So, whereas in a Democracy people have "a say" in how the nation will be run. i.e., voting rights, and a representational government, in a fascist regime, there is no such democratic means of securing representation.
In a democracy, WE the people ARE the government... so if you're talking to someone who seems anti-government, ask them to consider carefully, who ELSE would they like to lead, and control this nation??
Within a socialist model, excellence can be rewarded, and people who are "more able" can earn greater pay, and be promoted to positions where they do the most good, and most would want to. Socialism is absolutely not incompatible with democracy. It is not incompatible with the corporate business model. We would all be invested. We would all be subject to dividends in the truly socialist economic model, and we could all vote, based on the democratic government model.
Socialism is also quite compatible with the various branches of governance that provide a set of checks and balances with house/senate/judicial/executive)
Where there would be a purely Socialist nation-state and government, (that has never happened in all the world's history, please name one purely Socialist country? ), people would own and control the means of production collectively. Not unlike "shareholders". People would vote, (as a board of a corporation would), and can organize and protest freely to change laws, etc., (in the same fashion as worker's Unions strike or have the ability to negotiate).
Also, consider that in a true Socialist-democratic government, revenues would actually be from an actual value placed on goods produced, not speculation and inflated investment schemes and derivitives market we have developed in a capitalist "banking" economy.
There could actually be the much-longed-for elimination of nearly all taxation in a socialist system, whereas, the way it stands, we don't have any say over such things as taxation, which is primarily determined based on levels of wages left to the discretion of private enterprise. If the government doesn't have enough revenue from taxes, they've been borrowing. Mostly in the form of Chinese held Treasury Bills.
Everyone in a socialist nation would be "invested" and be motivated to succeed at a personal level, at their local level, and at a national level. You see it now... people are sharing the return on their investments in a successful, socialistic model. Housing? Co-ops and Intential Communities; Food? CSA's and Co-ops; Insurance? Mutual of Omaha; Banking? Credit Unions... Socialism is alive and well in this country, (and really rated "Vanilla on the ol' threat scale I might add) in these types of businesses I've mentioned, and these models are quite successful!
In our current overarching economic and government system as it is, Unions have their place. In a true Socialist system, Unions would become redundant, or uneeded entities. Tax-payer funded public education, guaranteed access to affordable healthcare, public lands, and other public works are all undoubtedly good ideas that do good things for the overwhelming majority of people, but what if they were provided for as part of the "shares" from our efforts? We'd be invested in the success of our schools and hospitals, and consider them part and parcel to our productivity levels.
Most of us do not own shares in most of the revenue producing companies. ( I sure don't have most companies stocks in my portfolio!! ) But another way one "stays in the game" is, to be paid decent wages! Thus the Unions.
Consider what's traditionally been thought of as a "good job" might be one that offers "profit sharing", and "paid" benefits through "group rates" or pooled healthcare accounts... Again the Unions have seen to it!
The current situation of economic capitalism allows "from each according to his ability (meaning you contribute to capital the same way as in Marxist theory) but "to" each according to their ability to invest capital, in a complete disregard of the value of the investment of labor. We consider workers wages in our government budgets at the federal level as well as "local" government budgets to be based on some economic indices, and these wages are also taxed (again). Ever hear anyone say "I put my 8 hours in". Well, how do we decide what that day's labor was worth? 8 dollars? 80?
Minimum wage is NO indicator of much of anything. It's simply a "tool" for manipulating voters. To the reverse of this, how can we decide what amount should be expected "from each according to his ability?" Tax tables?
That calculation makes corporations worthless.
Minimum wage? No raises? That's stagnant like Communism. Who's going to work hard if there's no incentives?
What is labor worth? Excellence should be rewarded.
Of course, there are these "socialist" policies I'd like to point out that are very much to the advantage of capitalists/corporatists, if one wants to examine the ways in which we "socialize" losses, such as, for instance, when tax dollars pay for clean up at Superfund sites.
Businesses go overseas where they have a lot of freedom to decide (for the most part) where they'll build a factory, how much to pay employees, and what they do to the environment... all done in order to "take" according to their "needs"... the need (that is a mandate!) to profit. They MUST profit at any cost.
They come home to the good Ol' USA for the laws that allow them these freedoms, and for the tax advantages. (read: Some pay nothing).
Very often, costs are being socialized among every one of us in many ways... Superfund sites in the United States
In its overall $8.973-billion budget request for Fiscal Year 2012, the EPA is proposing $810.8 million for Superfund cleanup programs -- a $70.3 million reduction from the prior year.
Through the Department of Justice in 2010, Financial Fraud investigations cost taxpayers $68.2 million, and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill $9.6 million in addition to their regular budget.
Subsidies to Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Oil, Bank Bailouts, Government Security for overseas businesses...
Not enough for you? Add one of our biggest expenses: Government contracts for the equipment and weapons of war.
This all happening right now due to "socialist" policies.
Unfortunately in America, the revenue stream called taxes that are taken in to support all these corporations are forced on only "some", (the real hard workers with the most "ability") Many are arguing from the right of the aisle in congress to push raising any further revenues through taxes off the table...
They want to divert tax dollars going toward operating our government as a safety net for the working class and under or unemployed people, and instead, use the funds they do collect to protect the interests, and continue to boost the profits of investors.
Consider carefully the current state of things and our society's needs for a safety net... weighing our nation's expenditures for things that benefit people versus the things that benefit "investors" who've arranged to pitch in according to their ability, which is purely financial, thus amassing the dividends from their shares. They don't even need to contribute labor. That is, unless you consider signing all those checks to be labor. They don't pay taxes on well over half what they make. (The current rate is 31%$, the lowest it's been since 1950) Can you say "broken record"? What about these figures fails to register in the minds of so many people, who, so naively, cower before these apparent, imagined threats of socialism we are repeatedly being told we face by the "anti-Obama" crowd, certain "right wing" media sources, and others who insist that those who've earned their money should be able to keep it? When it's so clearly demonstrable how these "earnings' are not generated in a vacuum. Elizabeth Warren made this argument, as have many others, including myself many months ago...
The bottom line is, when you look at all the players in this grand scheme, it becomes clear that where socialism does it's most profound work is in the realms of the very wealthy!
When Marx claimed "to each according to his ability" this means, those who are able (those of good health and of working age, those with education) are the ones who put capital into the system based on ability to earn. If they are earning, then they can pay in by investing... That's absolutely true and it's also compatible with Democracy. Might the "little guy" get to pitch in? Well, only according to his ability (to buy in!) Thus the need for fair wages.
The most basic social "Needs " are being met by taxes in our current system. Taxes are put toward those things that everyone benefits from which keep us from becoming a third world.
Research, Science, Secure Travel, Paved roads, Safe bridges, DMV to ensure Safe drivers, schools, housing costs for the poor, and our grandmas, and their medicines, Food stamps to otherwise hungry or desperate parents... Some healthcare for the poor. Tax dollars also pay for Game and Fish Commissions, Public park employees, Protecting the environment from things that harm it and us, providing subsidies for Flood Insurance, FEMA works to rescue people, Law Enforcement, Water Works, Welfare, HUD, Unemployment benefits, prisons. Carefully consider life without these things...
"From each according to his ability" is one thing.
"To each, according to his needs" ... is something quite different.
So, now, for tax dollars (socialized support) that go toward the wealthy and enhance their shareholdings?
Here are a few of my favorite things:
Here's some more:
Our govt. contracts out for the private manufacture of war weapons and equipment, (our soldier's helmets are made in China), our government, through tax dollars, goes to research that benefits industry, security for overseas businesses, managing patents, securing factories and business interests overseas with our military, educates their "often underpaid" workforce here in USA.
Still more:
Monitoring systems for weather, Big Ag Farm Subsidies, tax-funded "foreign aid" buys grain from big ag companies here, sends it overseas. Investigating law breakers, auditing, inspecting for quality.
These are safety nets for industry, and very much a socialistic economic model. One model, our government and public works are "non-profit" notion of socialism. We do run the nation as a business... a non-profit business, that relies on "taxes" (much like a non-profit relies on grant money/donations i.e., outside sources of revenue like taxes), but the other model is a "privatized" notion of socialism...
So as you see, Corporations" operate within a "socialist economic system" ... but access to it, and the profits from it, is only available to a privileged few.
When it comes to big business, the public's "got their back"
... but they do not wish to return that favor.
Instead? They invest overseas, or seek to eliminate minimum wage here. We don't mandate they pay "fair wages that meet basic needs" beyond a "minimum wage law". That is not based on a fair value of human capital (labor). Rather, it is a populist tool, used strategically to garner political support.
In this same way, our taxes are made out to be a conditional provision, subject to adjustments without accounting for the need for a workforce to have good wages (except to NOT tax the poorest wage earners... which serves to further emphasize an apparant "us versus them" mentality).
We do estimate a fair wage in government budgets for tax funded jobs. Thus the disparity in wages and benefits between private and public workers. Instead of holding industry up to the "fair wage" standards, we now seek to get government's down to the standard of industry's wages.
So, our government cannot compete with private businesses, who ship jobs over to China and pay 2 dollars a week to laborers. That's what happens when a Capitalist "democracy" teams up with Capitalist Communism.
Sooo... You still worried about socialism?
The threat of Socialism (in dreams she comes wearing a red dress and cuts off your balls ) is a centuries old boogeyman, designed to confound you.
The world would never have developed Unions, if everyone would have been paid a wage based on their basic needs, and the ability to continue "growth" through education and wages.
A living wage, a healthy incentive for learning based earning. New skills, better outputs, more money. Unfortunately, companies deny workers this... so they organized into Unions. Now look at what it has become... Unions stepped up to try to see to it this happens, but they are not "the law" of the land, and they do not have government control (though some argue they do). Unions, like taxation, and like socializing the losses for industries are perversions of true Socialist governance. These socialist economic models developed where it was needed, ad hoc, to put out "fires" if you will, and not put in place in any reasoned way of doing things at the governmental level... If everyone received a portion of capital, in the form of a pay based both on what their labor is worth, and based on needs (needs being food, shelter, healthcare, education), that is "socialism" in the truest sense, and does this interfere with freedoms, as many people seem to fear???
Only the freedom of businesses to pay people far less than they're worth, in fact, less than they "need" to get by... while paying just a few others (CEO's and such) way more than their abilities are worth, they keep some so far down on the ladder they can't see the light of day, while others are ever increasingly invested in the "successful socialism for some" model, i.e. Making their "ability" (to pay in) worth more to the overall system.
Those who've been doing the putting in, according to their ability to pay are now saying NO MORE to those without ability. But you see, they've systematically REMOVED the "have-nots" ability to get ahead, or invest. This further decreases the economic power at the same time, increasing their needs. Then you get less education, less opportunity, more suffering and more crime! A horrible cycle, a hamster wheel of failures placed at the very bottom of the ladder of opportunity. Many people keep running on this hamster wheel because they think they're getting somewhere. They've been told it can lead somewhere.
Capital can only increase for the "haves" for a little while, since they're not willing to put more in to the "pseudo-socialist" system of taxation.... eventually the spending power of the lower classes, and the "less able" will decrease to a point where it requires more inputs than we had ever seen.
Coming soon to a capitalist economy near you:
Why must we provide based on need? Well, every corner of society has needs. If those needs are not being met society decays. That's why there has been "decided" upon as a social contract, that we will provide for those who might be LEAST able, or UNable... the elderly and the children, uneducated, and the UNemployable, and even prison populations. Those who are the "haves" are becoming "have mores". Those who are the "have nots" are more marginalized and denied all but the minimal access to "needs"...low quality of life is evident in their options for food, shelter, and education. It's just a worsening, spiraling decay. Without increases in tax revenues, we will see more ignorance, more crime, the need for even more prisons... so we can argue for more taxes.
Meanwhile the "wants" of those who "have" are becoming more and more difficult to meet. Does anyone need 5 billion dollars? Dollars that represent the abilty to amass ever more economic power and control over resources?
This agenda of "Be Afraid! Be very afraid of Socialism and Communism is complete and utter bullshit!! This bullshit has been perpetuated in order to justify such injustices as lack of incentives, no benefits, part time work, low wages, and shitty working conditions... it also is used to argue for reducing programs that protect our societies, bolster our infrastructure, keep us healthy, and keep us educated. (You need us to be weak, and dumb!) Well, so sorry, Captains of Industry... You're now Captains of Obvious. The fucking game is up.
What we might do is build upon the true democracy in our socialist policies, rather than deny that we've got fully socialized corporations, who are now controlling government, or profiting from it. This is nothing more than a socialist economic system, funded by tax dollars, that is now protecting and preserve this Corporate Capitalist state. But we have one thing up our sleeve... We are still a government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE. We need GOOD people to step up and run for office. Educated people. Caring and rational people.
We can look at what is offered by each according to his ability, and also, look for what can be provided to each according to ability, but not disregarding needs. We can do both. We can provide for basic needs, and make sure the incentives are there to strive for a better life for one's self, and for a better world, while allowing us all our rights and freedoms. All it takes is fair policies for labor, and the chance for workers to invest.
Obviously the problem is, government can't do this anymore. Too much corruption. Too many sociopaths got themselves elected. Now business has amassed too much power, and they're all dancing on our graves.
The only way to undo this mess, is for people to educate themselves, and organize themselves into new, sustainable business investments, right in their own communities. They can support one another in efforts to make the changes happen for themselves. I feel sorry for anyone who would try to stand in their way. If they are forced into this corner, and they adapt and change "business as usual" to business as use-able. That is the revolution, and it's well underway.
No comments:
Post a Comment