Brain Change
Destroy dogma, superstition, and lies.
Spare thoughts, anyone?
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Oh, No! Not Socialism!
After bringing the economy to its knees, America's conservatives are squealing like pre-teen princesses with no date for the prom. They're not hissy-fitting for those of us who have lost the wealth we have earned. They're wailing because an emergency plan to prevent economic catastrophe will take away more of their funny money.Lately they're comparing the plan socialism. And I love it!
We know socialism. It's the principle that has everybody pay for the street in front of their house rather than making every property owner construct their own section of road.
We remember Ben Franklin's socialist notion, born a hundred years before socialism, that gives us the public library down the street.The full extend of American socialism boils down to this: we all pay for something, so that it's there for anybody who needs it. This all-for-one-and-one-for-all system leaves no one out of the picture. That's why our fire departments don't let houses burn down if the homeowner can't pay what it would cost to put out the fire.
Conservative crackpots want us to believe that the plan our President, Democrats, and some Republicans want to put in place, to clean up after the economic devastation they've brought down with their greed and corruption, is not just socialism but Marxism. And so they scream, "USSA!"
It's neither the Marxism of Marx and Lenin nor the socialism of John Stuart Mill, Oscar Wilde, George Orwell, G. B. Shaw, Bertrand Russell, and others. It's necessary.
When regulation for the common good is relaxed, capitalism, that great engine of creativity, begins to devour everything within its reach. First, the livelihoods of those without wealth. Next, those who depend on their purchasing power.
When the party in power sides with and gives free reign to those who own and control the tools of work and production, they can and usually do siphon wealth produced by you and me into their own pockets. As has happened before, in a cycle that can't do anything but end in collapse, the economy collapses.
Why would it surprise anyone, then, that the correction for imminent collapse would involve a bit of redistribution?
Yet, what has been proposed is nowhere near that Christian concept rephrased by Communists, "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability." We're so far from public ownership and government administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. We're nowhere near equal opportunities for all or egalitarian compensation.
So why are they weeping?
Our most strident demagogues are squealing "USSA," because they know that the numbest skulls among us will bob brainlessly in accord.
To most of us, though, the overused socialism bugaboo betrays thinking in want of substance. Fortunately, volume won't make up for the vapidness of their complaint this time. We know that the our social institutions and those of many of the world's nations make good use of controls for the common good to keep capitalism in its place.
The Constitution of the United States, our nation's mission statement, if you will, lists as its ultimate aim, "to provide for the general welfare." That's why we're organized as a society rather than hunting and gathering in tribes at war with each other. Conservatives, abusing the word freedom, would pull us back to the tribalism Karl Marx predicted would follow the failure of capitalism.
Let's hope we can liberate enough of what belongs to all of us from the greedy grip of the few before they wrest power from the rest of us again.
That's why I hope they continue to cry, "The sky is falling!" It shows them for the spoiled brats they are.
Labels: Bertrand Russell, communism, conservatives, G. B. Shaw, George Orwell, John Stuart Mill, Lenin, Marx, Marxism, Oscar Wilde, socialism
# posted by Peter Lloyd @ 1:06 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Hmmm. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of your post, I am frustrated by one thing. It's the same thing that frustrates me about the 'other side'; and therein lies the problem.
When I hear Rush Limbaugh speak, I literally get a sick feeling in my stomach. From what I've heard on his show, he often refers to the 'other side' in derogatory terms: name calling, exaggerations, generalizations, etc. This is simply not fruitful! In a live debate, progress is ALWAYS hindered by such actions. Editorial articles are simply delayed debates; spaced out by the time it takes to write and read them.
That said, my friends and colleagues know I am prone to wild generalizations, egregious exeggerations and name-calling, but in an all out effort toward diplomacy, I do so in the appropriate forum.
Now, defining an 'appropriate forum' is certainly a subjective endeavor. I would simply suggest that if one can be quoted, republished or shared in such a way as to add fuel to the ongoing fire (admittedly an exaggeration) between 'opposing' sides, then we should use great caution.
It is no error that I've intentionally put the word 'opposing' in quotes. Although our attitudes, values, goals and lifestyles are often diametrically opposed, WE THE PEOPLE are not inherently opponents. Lest we forget, we all belong to the same country! As put forth by our Forefathers, our duty is to democracy!
Let us move forward graciously, tolerantly and intelligently. Let us listen not to the vehemence of the attack, but rather the underlying intentions, fears or hopes of our brothers. There are matters that must be resolved, rights and values that must be preserved, but let us do it in such a manner that we offer, first and foremost, respect for our fellow Americans.
We can call them 'assholes set to ruin our lives' in private.
jim tobergta
When I hear Rush Limbaugh speak, I literally get a sick feeling in my stomach. From what I've heard on his show, he often refers to the 'other side' in derogatory terms: name calling, exaggerations, generalizations, etc. This is simply not fruitful! In a live debate, progress is ALWAYS hindered by such actions. Editorial articles are simply delayed debates; spaced out by the time it takes to write and read them.
That said, my friends and colleagues know I am prone to wild generalizations, egregious exeggerations and name-calling, but in an all out effort toward diplomacy, I do so in the appropriate forum.
Now, defining an 'appropriate forum' is certainly a subjective endeavor. I would simply suggest that if one can be quoted, republished or shared in such a way as to add fuel to the ongoing fire (admittedly an exaggeration) between 'opposing' sides, then we should use great caution.
It is no error that I've intentionally put the word 'opposing' in quotes. Although our attitudes, values, goals and lifestyles are often diametrically opposed, WE THE PEOPLE are not inherently opponents. Lest we forget, we all belong to the same country! As put forth by our Forefathers, our duty is to democracy!
Let us move forward graciously, tolerantly and intelligently. Let us listen not to the vehemence of the attack, but rather the underlying intentions, fears or hopes of our brothers. There are matters that must be resolved, rights and values that must be preserved, but let us do it in such a manner that we offer, first and foremost, respect for our fellow Americans.
We can call them 'assholes set to ruin our lives' in private.
jim tobergta
I think we should start our discussion based in facts and number. I'm an engineer and I like raw numbers. The statistics below are from a report published by the American Tax Foundation (non-partisan). I've included them to remind people that we are not a "one-for-all-all-for-one", "we all pay for something, so that it's there for anybody who needs it" socialist society. You see, there are a lot of people not paying for it and even more people paying a lot more than their "fair share".
The top 20% of income earners (by the way, that's $99,000 and more - not just Donald Trump and Bill Gates) pay 53% of all taxes. The top 20% income earners pay more in tax dollars than the remaining 80% combined. If you were to average the bottom 80% of tax payers you would find that the top 20% pay 4.5 times that average. If you included the top 20% in the tax burden average, you'd still see the top 20% pay more than 2.5 times the average. Finally, 21% of US households have 0 tax liability.
Compare that to Government spending... The bottom 20% of tax payers receive $14.76 for every $1 they pay in taxes. The middle 60% just about break even and the top 20% gets less than $0.60 for every dollar they spend in taxes.
Some of the is necessity... It doesn't work any other way. But, let's not demonize people who work hard and earn a lot of money - they are paying for a lot of the stuff we use every day.
Big government is bad. What's bad is when the government spends $3 when it should spend $1. What's bad is when they spend it on the wrong things. Consider the following... 50 years ago a butcher could be the sole income of a family, raise 9 kids, own a home and own a car, provide health care for his family and still save money for retirement. Today, that's impossible. Why? Because government has lost sight of policy outcomes. Politicians are too busy constructing policy for their base, and not for a positive outcome.
If you went to college, got a white collar job and have a kid who is ready to go to college. Unless you've done something funny with your taxes, you will not qualify for financial aid for your kid. You are going to be on the hook for $20,000 per year for the cost of education - sure, there are student loans, that just means the kid graduates with a mini mortgage payment every month. Does that make sense? Because you are an educated, working, valued member of our economy, your child will be saddled with education debt?
We've lost sight of rewarding people for doing the right thing. You go to college, you become part of the "services economy" the gov't's been tauting for a generation, you earn a living, buy a house, pay greater share of taxes and when it's time to educate your kid - the government isn't there for you. You've done everything right and now you're ignored. Let's reward people for doing the right thing. Let's make that our first priority. All other priorities should take a back seat.
The top 20% of income earners (by the way, that's $99,000 and more - not just Donald Trump and Bill Gates) pay 53% of all taxes. The top 20% income earners pay more in tax dollars than the remaining 80% combined. If you were to average the bottom 80% of tax payers you would find that the top 20% pay 4.5 times that average. If you included the top 20% in the tax burden average, you'd still see the top 20% pay more than 2.5 times the average. Finally, 21% of US households have 0 tax liability.
Compare that to Government spending... The bottom 20% of tax payers receive $14.76 for every $1 they pay in taxes. The middle 60% just about break even and the top 20% gets less than $0.60 for every dollar they spend in taxes.
Some of the is necessity... It doesn't work any other way. But, let's not demonize people who work hard and earn a lot of money - they are paying for a lot of the stuff we use every day.
Big government is bad. What's bad is when the government spends $3 when it should spend $1. What's bad is when they spend it on the wrong things. Consider the following... 50 years ago a butcher could be the sole income of a family, raise 9 kids, own a home and own a car, provide health care for his family and still save money for retirement. Today, that's impossible. Why? Because government has lost sight of policy outcomes. Politicians are too busy constructing policy for their base, and not for a positive outcome.
If you went to college, got a white collar job and have a kid who is ready to go to college. Unless you've done something funny with your taxes, you will not qualify for financial aid for your kid. You are going to be on the hook for $20,000 per year for the cost of education - sure, there are student loans, that just means the kid graduates with a mini mortgage payment every month. Does that make sense? Because you are an educated, working, valued member of our economy, your child will be saddled with education debt?
We've lost sight of rewarding people for doing the right thing. You go to college, you become part of the "services economy" the gov't's been tauting for a generation, you earn a living, buy a house, pay greater share of taxes and when it's time to educate your kid - the government isn't there for you. You've done everything right and now you're ignored. Let's reward people for doing the right thing. Let's make that our first priority. All other priorities should take a back seat.
# posted by 
: 10:18 AM
: 10:18 AM
Dear Anonymous,
Just because you're an engineer, my friend, you don't have to see society as a machine.
I say this, because your argument is utterly void of humane concerns. We are talking about people, aren't we? How people should live together as opposed to how they should arrange themselves statistically. Yet your entire focus is on those of us who enjoy the best of what we as a group produce.
You complain for those who enjoy comforts that could not be had without the geniuses who invent them, the entrpreneurs who bring them to makert, and the people who put the pieces together in the factories, the people who deliver them from factory to warehouse to stores to homes, as well as the people who clean up the mess when we throw away the boxes our conveniences came in.
Society means all of us. Not just those who take the most of the top of this process, before they are asked to give some back.
Speaking of which, the garbage man just went down the street. He used to work as half of a team. Apparently his employer responed to the Bush regime's economic debacle by doubling his load. One driver-loader instead of a team of two.
How do your numbers deal with the fact that my collector and millions of workers like him have been similarly squeezed? Working harder and longer over the past few decades for the same and sometimes less money. Meanwhile more money goes to the companies who hire these wage-locked wokers.
For as long as I've been working, more money has been going up, less down where the real work gets done. As we've heard over and over these past few weeks, men who have destroyed corporations are running off with millions in rewards. For failing! For destroying! We certainly have "lost sight of rewarding people for doing the right thing."
Our previous garbage collecter took it upon himself to bring along a helper and pay his helper out of his own pocket. He was fired for taking the initiative to do what it took to get the job done right. How do we reward him?
"Of course," the company management will cry, "the asssitant was uninsured! The man has no right to hire! That's not the way we work! We have a human resources department..." On and on they will whine, oblivious to the wretched conditions they promote. Great system, indeed.
I just wanted you to know about my garbage guy as well as the overfed vice-president who also does the right thing but gets rewarded for it with a bonus and a profile in the Wall Street Journal.
In short, my anonymous friend, we are systematically squeezing down and paying up. It's the opposite of what our hero Robin Hood would do. I call it hood robbin'.
Numbers provide comfort, when we select them to ease our consciences and twist them to prop up our precoceptions. But the comfort deludes us. We have created the misery that you describe in your portrait of the butcher with greed and larceny. Some men and women make money, more that I will ever see, by playing Monopoly with what people like my garbage collector produce or improve. The hood robbers produce nothing and take the lion's share of our collective effort.
Oh, yes we are a "one-for-all-all-for-one," "we all pay for something, so that it's there for anybody who needs it" socialist society. Just not enough so.
Our mission statement, if you will, the preable of the Constitution of the United States, includes "provide for the general welfare." But we don't even need this statement of purpose to understand the basic reasaon why any group of people organizes. Namely that nothing happens without all of us. And as long as some of us are paid wages that cannot feed a family for doing the jops that make some lives so cozy, money will have to go from the top down. If only to keep the broom pushers and table waiters alive to serve.
The alternative--tribes led by warlords scrapping forever for resources.
Just because you're an engineer, my friend, you don't have to see society as a machine.
I say this, because your argument is utterly void of humane concerns. We are talking about people, aren't we? How people should live together as opposed to how they should arrange themselves statistically. Yet your entire focus is on those of us who enjoy the best of what we as a group produce.
You complain for those who enjoy comforts that could not be had without the geniuses who invent them, the entrpreneurs who bring them to makert, and the people who put the pieces together in the factories, the people who deliver them from factory to warehouse to stores to homes, as well as the people who clean up the mess when we throw away the boxes our conveniences came in.
Society means all of us. Not just those who take the most of the top of this process, before they are asked to give some back.
Speaking of which, the garbage man just went down the street. He used to work as half of a team. Apparently his employer responed to the Bush regime's economic debacle by doubling his load. One driver-loader instead of a team of two.
How do your numbers deal with the fact that my collector and millions of workers like him have been similarly squeezed? Working harder and longer over the past few decades for the same and sometimes less money. Meanwhile more money goes to the companies who hire these wage-locked wokers.
For as long as I've been working, more money has been going up, less down where the real work gets done. As we've heard over and over these past few weeks, men who have destroyed corporations are running off with millions in rewards. For failing! For destroying! We certainly have "lost sight of rewarding people for doing the right thing."
Our previous garbage collecter took it upon himself to bring along a helper and pay his helper out of his own pocket. He was fired for taking the initiative to do what it took to get the job done right. How do we reward him?
"Of course," the company management will cry, "the asssitant was uninsured! The man has no right to hire! That's not the way we work! We have a human resources department..." On and on they will whine, oblivious to the wretched conditions they promote. Great system, indeed.
I just wanted you to know about my garbage guy as well as the overfed vice-president who also does the right thing but gets rewarded for it with a bonus and a profile in the Wall Street Journal.
In short, my anonymous friend, we are systematically squeezing down and paying up. It's the opposite of what our hero Robin Hood would do. I call it hood robbin'.
Numbers provide comfort, when we select them to ease our consciences and twist them to prop up our precoceptions. But the comfort deludes us. We have created the misery that you describe in your portrait of the butcher with greed and larceny. Some men and women make money, more that I will ever see, by playing Monopoly with what people like my garbage collector produce or improve. The hood robbers produce nothing and take the lion's share of our collective effort.
Oh, yes we are a "one-for-all-all-for-one," "we all pay for something, so that it's there for anybody who needs it" socialist society. Just not enough so.
Our mission statement, if you will, the preable of the Constitution of the United States, includes "provide for the general welfare." But we don't even need this statement of purpose to understand the basic reasaon why any group of people organizes. Namely that nothing happens without all of us. And as long as some of us are paid wages that cannot feed a family for doing the jops that make some lives so cozy, money will have to go from the top down. If only to keep the broom pushers and table waiters alive to serve.
The alternative--tribes led by warlords scrapping forever for resources.
Article written before the government took over GM, right? Where are we now, Peter? Will the government ever let GM be private again? I wonder.
# posted by : 9:42 PM
: 9:42 PM
Anonymous,
GM is not private, was not private, and may never been private. It is owned by its shareholders. Now, we the people, dba the US Government, are shareholders as well. Some of the incompetents who drove GM into the ground, including the ceo who gave us the abomination called the Hummer have been replaced.
Let's hope our stake in this publicly held enterprise pays off somewhere down the line.
Peter
GM is not private, was not private, and may never been private. It is owned by its shareholders. Now, we the people, dba the US Government, are shareholders as well. Some of the incompetents who drove GM into the ground, including the ceo who gave us the abomination called the Hummer have been replaced.
Let's hope our stake in this publicly held enterprise pays off somewhere down the line.
Peter
More details for Anonymous:
GM is currently owned by the United States Treasury (61%), the United Auto Workers Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (17.5%), the Canadian and Ontario governments (11.7%), and some bondholders (but not shareholders) of the former GM (now called Motors Liquidation Company) (9.8%). No shares of GM are currently held by, or are available to, the public or other investors, pending an IPO anticipated in 2010.[5]
wikipedia
GM is currently owned by the United States Treasury (61%), the United Auto Workers Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (17.5%), the Canadian and Ontario governments (11.7%), and some bondholders (but not shareholders) of the former GM (now called Motors Liquidation Company) (9.8%). No shares of GM are currently held by, or are available to, the public or other investors, pending an IPO anticipated in 2010.[5]
wikipedia
<< Home
Post a Comment