It's Capitalism, Not Globalism

I think we all agree that both parties are parties of capitalism and both are responsible for the pro-capitalist, anti-worker laws and economic conditions. To think a communist would be a defender of the Democratic Party is a sign of failure to understand. You say the problem is both parties but you then say the problem in government is the "type of men/women within the government", which implies rather strongly that you find a party somewhere that is not the problem. Can you untangle this seeming contradiction? What do you really mean?

Another thing you haven't seemed to understand is that it all springs from the foundation of society, -the economy. The "type of men/women within the government" is that type which comprises and conforms to government needs, and the "government needs" are determined by the foundation of society: the capitalist economic system. The problem is, indeed, the capitalist system because it dictates everything else.

 

Tragically, this country seems to be quite full of conservative ideologues and dupes who don't really recognize this quite obvious reality.

 

Let me clarify, everyone of course has a fundamental right to security that applies to personal items and the shelter of a home. I'm of course advocating a sensible form of communism, not some draconian and daft form of communism in which your control of your toothbrush is precarious, in which it might willy-nilly be requisitioned and given to someone else. It's of course the forces of production, economic power, and economic well-being that shouldn't be anyone's private property or privilege, and this is essentially the socio-ethical insight that would be enforced in an authentically communist society. That is, no one is entitled to deprive others of material and social well-being in order to better his/her own lot. This is indeed the simple principle that would be applied, and it would only involve individuals being denied the private control of items when granting them private control would adversely impact the welfare of others. This of course would clearly be the case with the means of economic production and the value created by the labor of workers, ergo private ownership of the resources and facilities used for production and the value created by workers would certainly be abolished. What about items such as automobiles? Well, your entitlement to the private use of an automobile would end where and when it diminished someone else's quality of life. There would be a contingent but no absolute right to control material items, only an absolute right to a decent quality of life. Whenever there's a conflict between your contingent right to possess material goods and the right of your fellow wo/man to well-being and happiness, society would lean in the direction of upholding everyone's intrinsic, fundamental, and absolute right to well-being and happiness. Well, the short answer then is that it's the means of attaining well-being, whatever they may be at any given time and under any given circumstances, that society shouldn't ever allow to be privately owned. Perhaps this is too radical for some, but it's merely a matter of going all in for a form of society that's consistently well-being-oriented and committed to universalizing access to economic well-being.

 

I wonder who could ever oppose that. If there is anyone here who does, I'd love to see their reasoning.

 

The socialization of the means to well-being, featuring the social ownership of the means of production, in fact works as a fundamental definition and description of communism. Liberation from the burden and bonds of individualism, from the shackling of human potential by selfishness, for the attainment of a more genuine and rich self-actualization by a deep participation in the creative interrelationality and interdependence that generates the bounty and beauty of the universe and all of its creations, this is the meaning and spirit of authentic communism in a nutshell. Replacing existing socioeconomic and political structures with forms of organization that materialize the vision of a truly free and organic human existence is the revolution that communism signifies.

 

very true

 

Good points, the fact that the capitalist system is geared for the economic enrichment and empowerment of the capitalist class and not for the economic self-sufficiency and viability of societies; and that the form of globalism that it's produced is a world system of, by, and for corporate and financial elites and detrimental, to put it mildly, to the interests of workingpeople are certainly fundamental reasons to reject it and to seek to replace it with something more designed to universalize economic empowerment and well-being. However, I certainly don't advocate nationalism as a counterforce to capitalism and actually-existing globalism. Nationalism has historically proven to lock human beings into divisive identities and mentalities that prevent them from relating to each other with empathy and a sense of justice, and to promote destructive conflict rather than synergistic and mutually-beneficial cooperation. Rather, in my view a radically alternative form of globalism, a movement to actualize the vision of a democratic, social and economic justice-oriented world society, a genuine socialist people's republic of earth designed to bring about the economic and political integration of humanity in ways conducive to the interests of the masses rather than the upper classes would certainly represent a much more enlightened counterforce to capitalism, and if successful would produce significantly preferable results.

 

Pro-capitalist ideologues steeped in atomistic economic egoism (many of whom euphemistically call themselves "libertarians"), who alas seem to abound in our culture.

 

And of course this grievous-to-the-free-marketarian state of affairs, the evolution of powerful entities capable of gross imperfect competition and of co-opting government, is an inexorable outworking of the inborn dynamics (intercapitalist competition and the drive for the accumulation of capital – yes, one of the key ironies and contradictions of the "free market" is that capitalist competition destroys free competition) and the naturally arising status quo (the dominance of large capitals) of the private enterprise system, ergo real-world capitalism can never equal a truly free market, the free market is a bit of ivory-tower fantasy that will never be actualized by flesh-and-blood, down-and-dirty, downright-demonically-driven-to-accumulate capitalists. Sorry, free-market fundamentalists, but the reality of capitalism will never be made to conform to the idealized picture that you like to paint, capitalism is simply inherently subversive of its own professed principles, it will always produce a state of affairs featuring the economic and political hegemony of its major players. And therefore, of course, as long as globalism means the globalization of capitalism it will essentially entail the global imposition of the economic and political power of a few corporate and financial leviathans. The creation of a socialist world system would certainly be a much preferable form of globalism.

 

http://cdn.camyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/south-north-korea-at-night.jpg
Communist utopia/Capitalist nightmare... take your pick.

 

Rather than spending my time rehashing, I'll merely repost this repost this bit:

Firstly, a serious bit of adversity has been thrown North Korea's way, beginning with that destructive little episode called the Korean War. And of course North Korea has been under constant siege by this country and its client (and yet its leaders and the philosophy of communism are blamed for it becoming a closed society!). And, what's more, it suffers from a serious disadvantage, virtually all of the arable land is located in the south (this little factoid, combined with being under siege, certainly helps to explain North Korea's hunger problem, but of course your type gets much more satisfaction from laying everything dysfunctional, dysteleological, and dystopian about North Korean society at the doorstep of its allegedly communist regime). And last but not least, its worst handicap is that no, its system is not a shinning model of authentic communism (it's arguably more inspired by the WWII-era Japanese fascist state model). And yet despite all of this, and despite the North Korean state having coped with the hostility and adversity that it's been subjected to, and having managed to implement socialism well enough to build a modern society with guaranteed housing and health care and employment for everyone, an absence of slums, a good public transportation system, some attractive public buildings, the beautiful city of Pyongyang, and an economic system that is making a minimal contribution to climate change, your conventional and clearly biased mind, which has uncritically swallowed the demonized image of the country purveyed by our capitalist-owned media, still thinks that North Korea can be held up as a textbook example of the nightmare that communism supposedly leads to! LOL! (Also, with an implacable and formidable enemy like the United States can anyone really blame North Korean leaders for wanting a nuclear bomb?!)

Here, read this, by one of the most brilliant theologians (I point this out because it's quite predictable that you or others of your conventional, anti-communist POV will respond with cheap shots at his intelligence) of our time, who actually toured North Korea recently,

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/reflections-after-a-week-in-north-korea.html

 

Perhaps you could share with the group what situation would completely discredit communism for you, i.e., when would facts trump your idealism? Since every attempt at communism in the world has been a complete and utter failure, and yet you still can't accept that communism itself, not outside forces, is to blame, what would it take for you to change your mind?

 

IOW, the proletariat needs to overthrow the bourgeoise.

 

May I?

First you need to understand what you are asking. And that relies on the actual theory of what, exactly, communist society is. ("Theory" because communist society has never actually existed yet.)

You are asking "could you share with the group what situation would completely discredit a society with no classes and no state machinery?"

But if your question was actually "share with the group what situation would completely discredit communist theory for you?" it's a different discussion. In this case you would be asking what would discredit Marxian theory. And I'm sure the answer would be "nothing will ever discredit it". And if you disagree I would ask you to describe to the extent possible what you mean by "communist theory".

 

So by your definition, communist theory can never be discredited, no matter how many times it is tried, because no one can make it work in reality. By MY definition, that means communist theory is ALREADY discredited because no one can make it work in reality.