There's a bit of a forum going on over at "The Nation" about how Socialism could be introduced in the face of the new economic constellations created by Capitalism in the last 20 years or so.

Here's one very interesting take, and there are a few more below it:

www.thenation.com/doc/...l=hp_picks

Otherwise, anybody got any good ideas?

MsG

An unusually well thought out article, for someone who confesses to be a socialist.

However, the fact is that there is no such thing as modern socialism. Socialism is a century old mistake that that has been disproved repeatedly. Marx was correct when he said that you could only have socialism once you had solved the crisis of production. What he failed to understand was that there is no limit to the things people want; so we will never solve the crisis of production.

Great article, as is often the case with "The Nation." I am afraid that capitalism may be in its death throes, but I don't say this with any joy, as ordinary people around me are losing their jobs, with no prospect of reemployment, their homes, their savings. It is not the elite who are suffering - do they ever? As a social democrat - the answer should have been in tightly regulated capitalism - with much of its proceeds used to support a viable and strong social safety net, but that was not the case.

Can socialism on its own truly work, especially on a massive scale? Don't know, but something will need to fill in the vacuum left by this corrupt and selfish economic system.

No it isn't. Worry less, there is no socialism.

msr

Have to disagree with you there, msr - unless the elites just use it as an excuse to make us all economic serfs in their 'New World Order', which is possible.

The problem with Capitalism is not that there's not enough money to go around, there is. Most Capitalist countries are awash with it. But those few at the top are intent on amassing as much of it as they can and thus there's not enough in circulation.

There's always this talk about "the trickle-down effect", well why not try a "trickle-up effect"? Pay the workers extravagantly and everybody will profit; not the least folks being the bosses, who'll genuinely be able to claim a bonus because of the increase in general trade caused by folks having more disposable income.

MsG

In my opinion, taken to their extremes both systems are unworkable. The solution is probably somewhere in between...

Is the whole basis of capitalist economic theory - limited resources, unlimited needs (wants?)

I agree with what you are saying - it is like when people become so agitated over 'redistribution of wealth.' What they don't seem to understand is that their wealth is being redistributed - upwards.

Maybe - a reform of the capitalist system so it is tightly controlled and its profits do not benefit just a few but all of society.

Not a new idea:

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford

“When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the change in part of the "Wages" chapter of My Life and Work.[18] He labeled the increased compensation as profit-sharing rather than wages.”

There should be a system whereby the actual production is a separate entity from the shareholders of companies and run by different people. At the moment, CEOs are only interested in increasing profits from year to year to keep their jobs when dividend payments are due. There should be legislation that keeps a very tight rein on profits passed on to shareholders, since it's this notion of ever increasing profit margins that's completely suppressed the societal component (and social responsibility) inherent in having a job and earning a wage to support a family.

MsG

Capitalism is something you can opt in and out of and it still works for all the players.

You wake up one morning and think to yourself-Ooh I 'd like to be a vegan hemp farmer on the Isle of Skye and sell renewable gull guano as fuel and possibly deoderant. With the right marketing you can hug the tree and feed your kids. If it doesn't work out bartering marine avian poop soap then go back to being a suit somewhere, they will be waiting for you , eager to here your stories if not sit to close at first.

Socialism is a bit like a bus you can get on and can't get off anywhere different from where you got on. Or worse you are not allowed off at all. That is being kidnapped ideologically in my book.

Here endeth the pish.

I find it strange that you should say that, for you seem to have forgotten that "Socialism" was the accepted (and virtually the only) way of life for our forefathers when they first learned to walk upright.

I deduce from that fact that it was once universally accepted as viable and that subsequent factors in the development of humankind led to its discontinuation. Therefore, if we did it once, we can learn to do it again to the advantage of all concerned.

MsG

Look at the bailing-out of the banks- the truely capitalist thing to do would be to let them sink or swim by themselves- the survival of the fittest, in essence. Bailing them outa dn nationalise the debt? Now THAT is socialism...

Bugsy,
I usually agree with a fair amount of what you say, but have to disagree here. The original humans are just as likely to have lived in extended family groups, so no need for socialism there, just relatedness.

From the start of recorded history, it has been more like the capitalist system you hate, a few people at the top exploiting (?) the masses... Or alternatively, the guys with the army/whips/priests manipulating the proles to feed/dress/satisfy them...

Personally, I love the idea of socialism. Trouble is, as soon as you add humans to the mix, you get problems. It's a lot like religion really.

Sorry Bugsy.

Have to disagree old spud, there hasn't been a lot of socialism floating around Europe in the last 2000 years to speak of apart from the late 20th Century.

Might even say modern socialism /communism developed in concert with the industrial revoulution. You didn't need a trade union till there was a mass of workers in one place to be unionised. Trotskyites actively encouraged rural folk to work in the factories...so they could indoctrinate/educate more people. Or so the members of the CP told me and I guessed they would know.

The back gardens and allotments of Poland fed a good deal of all the soviet state with it's black market produce, that is capitalism in action, making a few extra quid for you and your kids by getting off your arse and doing the do.

But it is nice to have a big squishy socialist conceived national health service. Yin and Yang.

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Don't you agree?

Good quick summation of the two systems,...but philosophically the question is:

Why is the lust for material things (the heart of capitalism) so strong in some people (limited resources, unlimited greed)?

Once one has basic decent shelter, food etc. having 'more' does not make much sense.

We are finite creature's and well aware that our time is short and so want to make the most of it.

This arguement is actually rooted in philosophy.

The future of capitalism can be guaranteed by human nature.

Socialism is merely an ideology.

I’d tend to the view that you didn’t have a trade union until there was a mass of workers in one place to be unionised, rather than didn't need one. What I’ve read of the social changes following the great plagues leads me to believe that ordinary people needed some way to exert power in defence of their interests, it just wasn’t there until mass casualties gave them a lot more power to move from Lord to Lord for better wages or more land.


You’d believe members of the CP? Industrialisation has a whole lot of drivers, not least the creation of a pool of labour to shift from agriculture to industry. One of the stranger notions in economics is that it can be somehow ‘wrong’ in economic terms for more people to survive off a plot of land than are strictly necessary to farm it – memory tells me it falls under the heading of ‘overemployment’, but then memory also tells me I was a steely-eyed killer and sex-god, so make of that what you will.


Wholeheartedly. The problems we’ve had, in this country at least, stem from the fact that we’ve never been able to find a happy medium but have swung from one extreme to the next. A culture of individualism has its downside.