Insulting Communists & Liberals

Do we need a more democratic economic system in America based on co-operation not competition? Is your idea of Campaign Finance Reform to have the state take over the funding of campaigns? Are the words, 'profit-motive', an epithet in your mind? If so, you may be offended by the rest of this article, please read on...

Progressivism, liberalism, leftism, whatever you want to call it, is, in essence, the inheritor of the estate of Marx. This is a historical fact which is undeniable. We may argue about the degree to which many progressives subscribe to the ideal egalitarian society, how much evolution has occurred in progressive thought, or even the diversity of progressive positions, but there can be no doubt that the underpinnings and moral basis of progressivism are directly descended from 19th century socialism.

This will sound petty on my part to bring this up, and it most probably is, but in response to the above quote I have been called 'hateful' and engaging in, "political spin designed to split Americans and divide our country," as well as making, "attributions to a generic class", (apparently one of the worst sins to commit in liberal minds, though I see no signs that the left refrains from doing so every day themselves). I've been accused of bad writing, bad logic, of 'hurling insults', and several other things.

It won't matter how many American liberals like Harry Bellefonte, or Michael Moore, or how many liberal groups like Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan's anti-war circus are quoted actually mouthing support for marxist doctrines, dictators, or various strains of socialist enterprise, it just doesn't matter because proof is not welcome about this point. We are not meant to think about why so many groups on the left are entrenched in hardcore leftist ideology.

Instead we are supposed to erase the past, accept new terminology for old concepts and avoid the debate about the underlying assumptions that liberal policies are based on.

Is today's progressive ideology, "directly descended from 19th century socialism"? Some vociferously deny it. To be liberal has nothing to do with being socialist or communist or any strain in between they would say. But, my point is not that supporters of Universal Health Care are committed communists, it is that the concept of Universal Health Care and the problem it is meant to solve is based largely on flawed socialist arguments. It has nothing to do with whether or not the average Democratic voter consciously supports a Soviet American Republic, in fact, they most definitely do not and don't even want to think of themselves as remotely doing so, such is the utter failure of that ideology. This is why many of those who do support some sort of outright socialism want to redefine the terms they use and obfuscate any reference to all the previously failed attempts to bring socialist aims to fruition.

A Third Way: obfuscation and redefinition

Socialism is on the rise in the world. Fortunately, for the world, this socialist movement is married to ideals of democracy and not communism, and this socialist movement in the world, in large part, is a hybrid which does not, as its predecessor movement in the 1920’s did, reject capitalism or free markets, but, instead seeks to co-exist with them.

This co-existence of socialism and capitalism and free enterprise is precisely the mix which vaulted the United States to the status of the greatest economic nation in the world. I personally feel rather proud that socialist movement in the world today is emulating the American model of a mixed economy combined with greater democracy. Lenin is dead! Long live the American model.

As an attempt to refute my premise, I am thankful to David for being so truthful. However, I question some of the premises he puts forward.

The entire rationale for socialism is based upon it's critique of capitalism and free markets. The question is then, why would socialism continue to be relevant after it's core principles are refuted even by it's own supporters? In essence, proponents of socialism (including the many socialism-lite's) now ask that we accept it's premises and implement it's ideals after having admitted that those ideals don't work in the real world.

How is this 'new' form of socialism, which now wants to co-exist with capitalism, any different from the old socialism, which is entirely based upon a demonization of capitalism?

Claims of ascendency

The claim is that socialism is on the rise in the world. But the fact is that socialism, which supposedly made our country so prosperous, is already in place and working it's economic wonders all throughout the third world (where poverty is endemic). If a mixture of mostly capitalism with a little socialism is actually the route to prosperity then you might expect proponents to advocate for a higher ratio of capitalism in the socialist third world, yet they do not, they actually protest privatization and free market reforms, and advocate for more socialism not less.

The real problem with this 'mixture' advocacy of socialism is that socialism has very little to offer by way of prosperity through government control. It is not an engine of prosperity, it can only dampen prosperity. The promise of socialism is absolute freedom. The practice is limited to controls on the free market and limitations on economic freedom.

Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages 

President Hugo Chavez's policy of keeping a tight control on food retail prices while doubling the price of raw coffee beans back in December may have backfired.

For at least a week, there has been no roasted coffee available on the shelves of Venezuelan supermarkets as wholesalers and coffee producers have been withholding their coffee from sale.

Since 2003, President Chavez has maintained a strict price regime on some basic foods like coffee, beans, sugar and powdered milk.

Socialism and economic control

Simply put, socialism involves the state taking control of the economy. Whether it is by setting prices, punishing profit, mandating investments, regulating in a myriad of ways, or taking total control, socialism is the progress toward making every economic decision a political one. And isn't that what we all want more of? Let's put all of our economic decisions in the hands of elected officials?

This is so important that I want to say it again: Socialism is the progress toward making every economic decision a political one.

Venezuela's leftwing leader has authorised the use of the National Guard to "find every last kilogram of coffee" being stockpiled by coffee roasters.

He even raised the prospect of nationalising the industry as a last resort.

"As far as the law is concerned, we're absolutely within our rights to seize coffee which is deliberately being withheld from sale," insists Samuel Ruh, a government appointed monitor of consumer rights.

"In fact, we have already carried out several successful raids at premises illegally holding thousands of tonnes of coffee." news.bbc.co

Hence, we have demands for a more democratic economic system. One based on social justice, or economic justice, or any number of new terminology for old marxist concepts, in which 'everyone gets a voice' in making economic decisions. Don Fitz, (Green Party of St. Louis/Gateway Green Alliance) puts it this way:

Economic Democracy in Society

Macro-empowerment assumes that questions like "How many cars should we produce?" are too important to be left to the whims of the market. Whether auto production increases by 20% or decreases by 10% should not be based on which direction a corporate board of directors thinks would maximize profit. Though it might seem that power taken from corporate board rooms should be turned over to an elite of ecologically-minded do-gooders, experiences of the Soviet Union suggest that self-perpetuating cliques don't do a great job of ruling. The democratic route is for society itself to vote on the direction for automobile production. greens.org

The idea that the laws of economics should be put to a vote is about on par with deciding if gravity should be obeyed. This is not a new concept, it is not a radical new version of socialism, it is socialism as it has always been. It is all the promises of socialism, while trying very hard to ignore that the practical implementation of it must involve the terrible loss of freedom.

One of the first economic issues for a national referendum could be, "What should be the maximum gap between the poorest and the richest citizen?" Assuming that a humanitarian society would institute a guaranteed income, how much above that income should a person make before there is 100% taxation? Should the richest be allowed to take home 1000 times the guaranteed income? 100 times? 10 times? The ratio could change over time, according to people's preference for more or less egalitarianism. The point is that such questions can be decided by people themselves through direct referendum with no need for a congress to intervene. greens.org

Socialism as a cure for 'unrestrained' Capitalism

Most arguments demanding socialist policies to regulate 'unrestrained' capitalism suffers from the fact that the definition used to justify a socialist remedy to a 'capitalism problem' actually uses only the marxist definition of capitalism (as an oppressive expolitative system that must be kept in check lest it run amok and destroy civilization).

Yet we do not need to resort to marxist dogma to justify the regulation of capitalism because the operation of free markets does not work under anarchy and lawlessness. Capitalism presupposes the rule of law and a stable environment conducive to making commercial exchange without coercion and with recourse to the courts for things like breach of contract, fraud, and theft. It works better where there is honesty and people can trust each other. It works worst in the kind of environment where everything is subject to political whims. Whether it is third world dictatorship or congress deciding that appeasing the voters means price controls on 'big oil'.

What's more, if we are looking for a system that maximizes human freedom and creates the greatest possiblity for the advancement of culture, free choice, democracy, and liberty the only choice is liberal free market capitalism.

[H]egemonic Word count: 1690

Powered By: BackLinkr

 

---