Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I am just going to ignore the discussion and ramble some insignificant thoughts to an insignificant group of peers because that seems like´the most fruitful thing to do for me, after the decision to enter this thread is already a given.
Strictly speaking - Socialism doesn't work. I agree with that. In so far as that Socialism means the collective replacing the individual. Humans are not made out of the stuff necessary to power mass collectives. We are not ants. That is why instead of mass collectives we have had authoritarian structures in all mass societies which have every existed on this planet. Because once inter-personal-relations cease to be able to carry the weight of power - you need some kind of impersonal force to bring structure. And that - in its very nature! - requires some kind of authority. Because in chaos - always and I mean always total dickheads get to call the shots in the end.
Yet - I am still eager to define myself as a socialist. Because I think Socialism still embodies the right values. But it got one hell of a struggle to find the right paths to approach those values. It will never reach them - the struggle is to find functional ways to get close to them.
Whereas Capitalism has terrible values with terrible consequences - but rides on a train of extreme natural functionality which makes it shine like a supernova. And part of that is that Capitalism has no trouble to get pretty close to its core values. That, in turn, is all part of its natural advantage and allure and power.
So we have one ideology of extreme natural functionality and hence of fantastic results, while still being pretty horrible in many ways.
We have another ideology of extreme ideals, but being basically in a constant battle with the status quo, and, supposedly, certain forces of (human) nature.
Now the mistake is to look for that clean and clear ideology that explains it all. If you go down that path, either you are a capitalistic swine or a socialist sky head. Nature does favor capitalism, for plenty of reasons. But nature does also allow for plenty of modification and even, to a degree, revolution. But to what extend? Nobody freaking knows. And a status quo can be a powerful thing. Even if - on principle - another sate of affairs is possible - the sheer burden of overcoming the status quo can be its inherent death sentence.
So when I say I define as a socialist - it really means the believe that the natural forces which make capitalism thrive are excellent and plentiful, but also terribly lackluster and much more is possible. It is not the believe in any given set of answers or strategies. It rather is the believe in a movement, a drive towards betterment, with the full acknowledgement, that the realm of possibilities is unknown, and that some paths may make it worse.
I say one thing, though. Authoritarian command economies - that is: state capitalism - certainly does not appear like an avenue worth of much more exploration than it already received in several Communist states. I am happy with calling that a failure, without calling socialism a failure.
An alternative? Well - the effort to make a capitalistic economy more socialist. Not due to welfare. But by changing the mode of production itself. HOWEVER. In this instance - I need to quote myself
How to get out of that hole? No idea. It freaking sucks. You not only need the international market because as Ricardo put it Portuguese are better in making Wine than the English. You will need it for essential industrial natural resources. And for those, you will need hard currency. And for that, you will need a thriving international trade of goods. And for that, you need to behave like everyone else does. Which means screwing people and maximizing profit. Thank you for your attention.
Strictly speaking - Socialism doesn't work. I agree with that. In so far as that Socialism means the collective replacing the individual. Humans are not made out of the stuff necessary to power mass collectives. We are not ants. That is why instead of mass collectives we have had authoritarian structures in all mass societies which have every existed on this planet. Because once inter-personal-relations cease to be able to carry the weight of power - you need some kind of impersonal force to bring structure. And that - in its very nature! - requires some kind of authority. Because in chaos - always and I mean always total dickheads get to call the shots in the end.
Yet - I am still eager to define myself as a socialist. Because I think Socialism still embodies the right values. But it got one hell of a struggle to find the right paths to approach those values. It will never reach them - the struggle is to find functional ways to get close to them.
Whereas Capitalism has terrible values with terrible consequences - but rides on a train of extreme natural functionality which makes it shine like a supernova. And part of that is that Capitalism has no trouble to get pretty close to its core values. That, in turn, is all part of its natural advantage and allure and power.
So we have one ideology of extreme natural functionality and hence of fantastic results, while still being pretty horrible in many ways.
We have another ideology of extreme ideals, but being basically in a constant battle with the status quo, and, supposedly, certain forces of (human) nature.
Now the mistake is to look for that clean and clear ideology that explains it all. If you go down that path, either you are a capitalistic swine or a socialist sky head. Nature does favor capitalism, for plenty of reasons. But nature does also allow for plenty of modification and even, to a degree, revolution. But to what extend? Nobody freaking knows. And a status quo can be a powerful thing. Even if - on principle - another sate of affairs is possible - the sheer burden of overcoming the status quo can be its inherent death sentence.
So when I say I define as a socialist - it really means the believe that the natural forces which make capitalism thrive are excellent and plentiful, but also terribly lackluster and much more is possible. It is not the believe in any given set of answers or strategies. It rather is the believe in a movement, a drive towards betterment, with the full acknowledgement, that the realm of possibilities is unknown, and that some paths may make it worse.
I say one thing, though. Authoritarian command economies - that is: state capitalism - certainly does not appear like an avenue worth of much more exploration than it already received in several Communist states. I am happy with calling that a failure, without calling socialism a failure.
An alternative? Well - the effort to make a capitalistic economy more socialist. Not due to welfare. But by changing the mode of production itself. HOWEVER. In this instance - I need to quote myself
That is, IMO, the crux of socialist efforts. We are all part of a world economy, and we all depend on it. Ricardo, the famous economist champion of international trade, got some things wrong, but what he got right, was that every nation is going to be a sucker if it does not rely on international trade. But that necessarily means playing by its rules, so to be able to compete. And that necessarily means ceasing power to international capitalism. Severely limiting national options.
How to get out of that hole? No idea. It freaking sucks. You not only need the international market because as Ricardo put it Portuguese are better in making Wine than the English. You will need it for essential industrial natural resources. And for those, you will need hard currency. And for that, you will need a thriving international trade of goods. And for that, you need to behave like everyone else does. Which means screwing people and maximizing profit. Thank you for your attention.
