Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRasmussen Poll Indicates American Shift Toward Socialism
In an April 2009 poll conducted by Rasmussen, respondents were asked "which is a better system-capitalism or socialism?" Just 53% of adult Americans prefer capitalism, 20% of respondents favor socialism and 27% responded not sure. These figures suggest that Americans' attitudes toward alternatives to capitalism may be shifting and that we are living in a time that holds the potential to mark a radical change in the landscape of American politics.
The Rasmussen poll was conducted during one of the greatest economic crisises in the history of capitalism. The resulting pressure is forcing Americans to begin to think critically about ideas that they had previously accepted as given. With more and more people facing the prospect of losing their jobs, houses, healthcare, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the inequalities and injustices of capitalism. What this has translated to is people becoming more open to ideas about alternative visions for structuring society. In short, socialism is back.
In addition to the economic crisis, the right wing's accusation of Obama being a socialist appears to be backfiring. Conservatives were attempting to cash in on a well established strategy of 20th century American political life. These attacks have unintentionally served to get socialism into heavy rotation in the mainstream media, thereby increasing the public's interest and curiosity. Fear mongering and the paranoid style seem to be offering declining political returns.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of this poll is the response from people under thirty. The statistics indicate that 66% of this demographic are actively questioning capitalism as a system. This makes clear that the Cold War fear of socialism, created to shape the American mindset, is withering away. It is being replaced by a political openness to new ideas about how to organize society. This means there is a space for socialists where a serious dialogue can begin, which can connect Americans to grassroots organizing.
The limitation of the poll is that it does not define socialism. Socialists themselves need to carry out this task. The Socialist Party-USA is interested in finding out how people conceive of socialism and in meeting them where they are. Our conception of socialism is a democratic society where people have access to what they need in order to live a full life. Human needs are always put before private profits. This includes healthcare, education, access to jobs, and a clean environment. Socialists hope that the moment for polling will soon be past, and we will find ourselves in a moment of action for radical social and political change.
75 Comments so far
Show AllEveryone needs to read Nader's alerts list. He recently pointed out something no one here is noticing. We've all blindly accepted words which hurt our cause. Case in point: we say "private health care" ... in fact it is "corporatized health care" (private is a euphemism for corporate or corporatized). The other thing is, don't ever say "free market." Immediately that sounds wonderful. It is not free, it is, "corporatized economy." Also let's trash the word "company" and replace with "corporation." Company sounds friendly and warm, corporation is cold and dead. Speaking of this, Coca Cola is no longer happy with even "company" and now calls itself the "Coca Cola FAMILY." My 5 year old son thinks he is part of the Coca Cola Family. I want to "neutralize" Muhtar Kent (to use a military euphemism).
The healthcare q should be "Do you want public nonprofit health care or corporatized for-profit health care?" Let's see the poll on that one.
One of the biggest, and most annoying, mistakes the 'left' has made over the decades is to constantly refer to a contest between 'capitalism' and 'socialism.' The obvious fact of the matter is that the world economic system is capitalistic. The degree to which a country is 'socialistic' is the degree to which the excesses of capitalism are tempered for the common good.
“I am not a Marxist.”
—Karl Marx in an interview
Communism meant something truly bad to Americans maybe 60 years ago. The Communist ideals were all monopolized by Josef Stalin in Moscow. There were essentially no Communist splinter groups that didn't bow to Moscow.
Starting about in the 1960s and 1970s, Western European socialist parties shared democratic power in their nations, and nothing particularly bad happened, even though American wingnuts were going ballistic at the idea.
Then America went through a long, corrupt, mostly Republican period, ending with a massive bleeding out of the American dollar. Most of the people who feared "Communists" on principle have died. Finally, the hard-core neocons turned into a monolithic bunch of ideologues so concerned with their national daily "talking points" that they looked almost like a bunch of cult members.
In 2009 we can look at these terms, socialism and communism, without as much prejudice. If socialism means free public education, medicare and libraries, then socialism isn't particularly un-American. Our forefathers invented free public education. It just seemed like a good idea.
We're turned off by 40 year old coordinated sour grapes campaigns against '60s holdovers Bill Ayers and Hanoi Jane Fonda. They seem like reasonably nice people. All sorts of other people have been called socialists just to be mean, and the term has lost some of its sting through massive misuse. "Librul" doesn't work that well either.
"Just 53% of adult Americans prefer capitalism, 20% of respondents favor socialism and 27% responded not sure."
Is that one of twists of history that Marx used to call an irony of history? Savage, unfettered, militant, blind capitalism turning into its opposite, undone by its own pathologies? Is there justice after all?
"First, the Berlin Wall fell, then Wall Street fell."
The worst thing about communism is what comes afterwards" - say the people of Poland.
We should trust them, for they have experienced both "communism" and joys of capitalism Chicago Boys brought to their country after the dissolution of USSR.
I put communism of former Warshaw Pact states under quotes to indicate a false claim. The October Revolution of USSR was supposed to be a communist one but it turned into a dictatorship of state capitalism. Lenin and Trotsky ruthlessly strangled all attempts at authentic communism or anarchism: Kronstadt; Nestor Makhno's rural anarchy of Ukraine; Far East Republic of Arkhangelsk, to name a few.
Why, o Americans, do you think capitalists, nazis, fascists, stalinists and churches fought so frantically each and every true democracy in history of humankind, authentic communes among others? Why did Hitler and Stalin join their forces to stifle the true, direct, democracy of 1930s Spain, as witnessed by George Orwell in his Homage to Catalonia?
"When I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint; but when I ask why people are poor, they call me a communist.", Dom Helder Camara, former Archbishop of Recife in Brazil.
WE: Very good post! And you are accurate in the part about direct democracy in Spain. The wealthy, ruling elite saw these communities as a threat to their status and wanted no part of an egalitarian society. But I think you meant Mussolini, not Stalin (who was bad enough). Il Duce' sent in Army troops and the Reichsfuher sent in the Luftwaffe to bomb civilians in Guernica.
Thanks, Peaceman.
According to George Orwell's testimony, Stalin had a crucial role, together with Hitler, in destruction of Spanish revolution. He initially undermined it from inside, through his infiltrated "cadre", but in the end took military measures against the revolution. Orwell, having been in international brigades, had to flee from Stalin's agents - it appeared, at the very last moment. Please read his Homage to Catalonia, it's a precious and heart breaking document, and it will help you better understand his 1984.
WE, For some reason, I never read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." Thank you very much for that piece of information about Stalin and his cadres who infiltrated the leftist groups. Now you have me thinking about the inertia between the anarchists, socialists, communists, and syndicalists in mounting a campaign against the fascist government of Spain. From what I read about Emma Goldman's frustrations in her stay in Spain, the various groups initially spent more time arguing with each other on a course of action, while Franco's forces were moving in position. Could Stalin's "infiltrators" have something to do with the inaction from the beginning?
I will read Homage to Catalonia for a better understanding of it. Thanks again, WE.
Emma Goldman and George Orwell apparently had insight from different vantage points: Emma Goldman was an activist and organizer while Orwell was, as you most probably already know, a foreign correspondent who fell in love with the revolution. No wonder he was deeply hurt by Stalin's betrayal. It occurs to me now that maybe a bigger picture could be reconstructed from these two reports.
Here's an opportunity for you to return a favor: where did you read Emma Goldman's testimony from the Spanish revolution? I thought I'd read all from her but now I realize that either it's not true, or I forgot what I'd read (which wouldn't surprise me).
Thank you so much, Peaceman, for this exchange.
WE,
I'd have to look in boxes of books and articles packed away over the years and find the references you want. From my faulty memory, I'll say this for starters...when Emma went to Spain, she was interested in the anarchist communities and wanted to study their success, but in the early days of the Spanish Civil War, visited with the different leftist groups, and not able to speak the native language, relied on translators for interpretation to all the bickering about what to do. As you know, she was an "on the streets" activist, and became disillusioned by all the quarreling, and she left Spain, frustrated because of this. Goldman was headstrong and didn't waiver, and her convictions were solid, which made her "the most feared woman" in America, before she was deported.
Maybe do some research on the internet about Goldman's stay in Spain and see what you come up with.
Back in 1990 or 91, I listened to a BBC program on KPFK (a Pacifica radio station in Los Angeles) about the successful anarchist/socialist communities in Spain ("single payer health care for all!) and the farmer co-ops, and how these communities thrived. I'd like to get a copy of that broadcast.It was inspiring, to say the least.
WE, I thank you for this exchange as well.
The key question with this poll is not whether Americans have advanced degrees in dialectical materialism. What is important is that they know they are living in a capitalist system and some 47% of them are not happy about it. As Schall indicates in the article, this feeling is particularly prevalent among those under 30. All good news with no guarantees as to converting sentiment into political movement. Time for the left, especially the socialist left, to get its act together.
billyspnyc@yahoo.com
We need a new politico-economic system by whatever name, being that 95 percent of us are nowhere near the 40,000 dollars (GDP of 12 trillion dollars divided by 300 million of us inhabitants) a year that we would be making if ours was an egalitarian society. That doesn't necessarily translate into everyone making the same amount, but it certainly means that there's more than enough wealth in our land to eliminate, among other undersirable states, hunger, homelessness, unemployment and medical indigence. What's holding us back? A prevailing "wisdom" that teaches us that this is just the way it is, there's nothing one can do about it, so why try? Which is perfect for maintaining the same old same old business as usual status quo, but a serious handicap at a time when all life on earth is at risk on acount of perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday. What's the answer? Yes We Can, that's what.
I think a lot of people posting here who think the unwashed masses don't know what socialism is are missing the mark. I think they don't give Americans enough credit. People don't have to know the "classical" definition of socialism. A working definition based on trends in the real world will do. Americans are aware in increasing numbers that it is time for a bigger social safety net and taxes to pay for it; provision of essential services like health care and secondary education (as well as services which are already socialized, like police, fire protection and roads); and strict regulation of business. I believe most Americans think of these things when they hear the word "socialism", despite the boogeyman right-wing pundits try to promote, trying to update ancient fears of Communism. Unfortunately, the people are way ahead of the Congress, which is largely owned by the same folks who own the aforementioned pundits.
Having been the first, I believe, to bring up the subject of educating people on exactly what so-called socialism is, while I agree with what you say, I disagree with your statement that people don't have to know the "classical" definition of socialism. The rightwing and many of the fundamentalist churches push the message that socialism is what Russia had, where people worked, gave their pay to the government and it was then distributed equally to everyone, and it isn't a pretty picture. The uniformed do not know that it's socialism that provides all our safety nets and protections. They don't connect the need for taxes to pay for those things. I can, and have mingled in all walks of life here and have been astounded by how totally wrong so many are in their assumptions about the workings of government. So I still say, people need to be educated on exactly what capitalism and socialism in this country means.
In truth, a democracy needs a delicate balance of socialism, corporatism (monopoly captalism) and competitive capitalism.
Example. Public education, military, etc are all socialist programs (as would single payer, and are all run by governments at non-profit, and profits are earned by capitalits providing goods and services.
Monopoly capitalism. In the past Standard Oil, American Tobacco, US Steel, International Harvester, GE and AT&T were examples of monoply capitalism. The Federal Reserve System, Agribusiness, Big Oil, Big Pharma, FIRE industries, MIC, etc are examples of monopoly capitalism today. Government regulators promote monopoly capitalism with costly regulations that create huge burdens on smaller businesses, but which are easily absorbed by the smaller businesses. After retirement, the regulators go to work for those that they regulated while collecting a nice pension paid for by the tax payer.
Competitive capitalism is limited to areas not controlled by the defacto monopolies and cartels, examples being the retail industry (although this is trending toward monopoly), food eateries, hospitals, consumer product manufacturing, automobile manufacturing and various service industries. Profit margins in these industries tend to be low because of the competition. It is survival of the fittest. All capitalists hate competition, workers and consumers love it.
The real problem today is that competitive capitalism is too small a part of our economy, and what competitive capitalism we have is unhealthy in areas where there is global competition, since they compete with lower wages of foreign workers, and have a health care burden that foreign manufacturers do not have.
Monopoly capitalists bonded to government get bailed out, competitive capitalists don't, at least not without any strings attached. The banksters and autoworkers did not get the same deals.
Our economy is now largely socialist and monopoly capitalists married to government (basically fascism lite). When one looks at a government that is essentially fascist or socialist or a mixture of both, the democracy tends to get lost, and you get totalitarian rule.
If the socialists had their way, the world would be one giant monopoly government free of a "free market economy." A one-world socialist government would control every aspect of a world economy. Nothing would be left to the free market. Wages and prices would be controlled by government fiat.
If the fascists had their way, the world would be one giant monopoly corporation free of a "free market economy." A one-world fascist government would control every aspect of a world economy. Nothing would be left to the free market. Wages and prices would be controlled by the monopolists.
What we see today is a struggle between socialism (thesis) and fascism (anti-thesis), but this will result in a synthesis which will bring us Global Communism according to Marx and a secular green religion which will be the state religion, and all citizens will be members.
The only way we'll get that delicate balance is for We the People to make the rules, not corruptible reps. http://www.ni4d.us/
I don't like the term socialism for the art of living. I'm not a socialist. I'm a capitalist, by garb...then, wait, capitalism is now bad isn't it. Socialism is all the rage. Socialism. No thanks. Will take my chances in the wilds of the American heart and imagination. While you're out crunching your numbers I'll be planting a garden and making my own damn hot water. I'll walk, so...Mr. Jones...Mr. Jones...you were talking in your sleep, sir. Are we there yet? No, sir. We still have a ways to go.
Since the stink of the Soviet Socialist Republic remains on the term "socialism," and that kind of society has never been the intent by any party in this country, I believe it's a title that should be removed from this century, and a new one that is more in alignment with the intent of having a healthy society overall be found.
In my above post of the invitation to join with others at a "Tea Party," a tool of the right wing, written by a republican, it says "Some of us remember Germany's historic foray into this (socialist) arena and how its economy became based on eliteism and slave labor."
Since Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers, and under the republican party, we've seen the decline of the unions in this country, and from where I'm sitting, and of the question asked at the end of the last paragraph, "Are we there yet? Well, almost," and the past eight years of bloated growth at the top, the middle class nearly gone, the ranks of the poor swelling daily, and minimum wage plus people having to work three jobs just to survive, I'd say we're been there awhile.
Capitalism rises above mere humans, except for the labor they produce to keep the machines of capitalism running. with capitalism alone, we end up with slave labor, regardless of what it may be called. And with the so-called socialism, those humans are given living wages, and cared for in the same way people care for their pets. And yes, it does take money from pet owners to provide that care, and they don't complain about that. So what's the difference if a little of their money goes to keep their workers happy and healthy the way their pets are kept?
It's amazing how hypocritical the same people who make a big hoot about "being on their own" are the same people who rely on socialism in the end. If it weren't for socialism, the Internet wouldn't exist for you to bashing socialism. As for being a capitalist, I hate to burst your bubble but Ralph Nader's father once said that in the end socialism rescues capitalism. Unfortunately, the sad side effect from it is that the greedy capitalist pigs will give capitalism non-deserving credit. Besides, last I checked, those flying capitalist pigs are the biggest welfare recipients and the biggest costs to the taxpayers. Socialism would have at least provided the basic safety nets and save the taxpayers a lot of headache.
The following was a letter to the Editor in our local newspaper yesterday:
JOIN YOUR NEIGHBORS APRIL 13 FOR 'TEA PARTY'
"History repeats itself, and that's one of the things wrong with history" - Clarence Darrow
How fast can a viable country, once a beacon to the world, go into ruin? Ask President Barak Obama, designor of the new socialism that he wants the United States to adopt.
Some of us remember Germany's historic foray into this arena and how its economy became based on elitism and slave labor. Like the kids say, "Are we there yet?" Well, almost. The one-world government of which we are now a part is mandating the products we are allowed to have and dictating who gets what by redistribution.
Robert Kennedy said, "Each generation makes its own accounting to its children." Our grandchildren will not appreciate being sold into slavery to pay the bills accumulated by this incredibly mismanaged administration. This is the most blatant manipulation of our way of life since Franklin Delano Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court for his personal agenda.
Our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. America, it's time to stand up and be heard! Our freedoms are being taken away -one by one. Our jobs are being taken away - one by one. We must defend our freedom or lose it forever.
(With time and place for this "tea party" listed)
I went to a rally today sponsored by New Way Forward, attacking the bailouts, the banks,and the Fed. It was mostly Left, but there were some conservatives. People were planning to attend the tea party in SF, which is sponsored by Right activists. It is possible that the massive robbery by the bankers of every dollar America has or will have for the next thirty years gives us a chance to create a large movement very rapidly. I encourage people to participate in these tea parties and talk with people about the larger economic, social, and political issues involved.
David
I think the most important thing is for socialism to remain democratic - my biggest fear is we finally win back and start promoting socialist ideas again, and we repeat the mistakes of the 20th century. We need a socialism that nurtures and supports - that connects us together and brings prosperity to everyone. What we don't need is a one-party state, nor recriminations against the upper classes. We need the class struggle - not dominance of any one class over the others. It's when we start killing people who don't agree with us, or denying those who disagree with us their right to their say, that we run aground. I'm even disappointed sometimes in Chavez that he doesn't seem to have learned that lesson. I hope a new American socialism can learn where we've gone wrong in the past and build a system more open, more fair, and more equal. We need to find answers to our problems, not compound them. I want a socialism that actively works to promote the existence of non-socialist parties in order to keep healthy debate alive, along with one that works hard to persuade dissenters in healthy, respectful ways. Let's do this, but let's do it right. If socialism gains a reputation for being the most free and open system, then we get a socialism that stays alive even when the socialists aren't in power.
"I'm even disappointed sometimes in Chavez that he doesn't seem to have learned that lesson."
Chavez uses and abides by the referendum. How democratic can you get?
To people below 30, socialism and liberals, the oligarchy's favorite demons for many years, hold answers to our problems.
Young people are Internet educated and haven't felt the full measure of MSM brainwashing. So I doubt they will adopt another corruptible representative government like socialism when they can have direct online democracy.
They had 12 years in a public education system that brainwashed them that socialism is the answer to all problems and to worship Mother Earth, and to not think for themselves but to adopt the consensus and be good comrades.
Why do we need polls to tell us anything? Not everyone gets their voices heard. What about those of us who like the idea of a combination of socialism and capitalism? What about taking the best of the two worlds and improving on it? Don't get me wrong. I do believe that socialism up to a point isn't a bad idea but at some point, we should have our rights of say. What we have is a rigged capitalism and a socialism for the very well to do. Both have to be corrected.
It's far easier for corruption to ensure in a capitalist society than it is in a socialist society. I know regulated capitalism is a compromise of socialism and capitalism in some regards. I think that the bailouts to Wall Street are what's giving socialism a bad rap. What the folks railing against socialism fail to understand is that their masters are actually fighting for socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us. In other words, we poor and middle class folks should be destined to fail while the greedy pigs should continue to be very well off regardless.
Whatever 'ism' formed from benign intention, with it's plans for equality and freedom for all, seems to eventually form centralized power centers that become isolated and aloof from the very elements from which it arose, yet tends to feed off those elements while giving less and less in return.
What is it about human nature that longs for personal freedom yet relinquishes it so willingly?
>>What is it about human nature that longs for personal freedom yet relinquishes it so willingly?
In Africa they put peanuts or some such in a small container so that when the Monkey reaches in to grab a handful, their hands get caught.
Even as they are approached to be taken into captivity, they will not let go of their treasure.
We are still monkeys.
"At the same time, I meet plenty of non-coordinator class people who clearly side with the capitalists."
So have I. Hooboy. You have to wonder what's in the beer they drink.
"Just as I think public school is a waste. By 7th grade, students' abilities and areas of aptitude should be in evidence. The ones who have mechanical capacity should be trained to develop these skills; the ones who are artists, should be nurtured in their passion."
Instead they warehouse kids and pacify them for 6 hours. Or they put the affluent kids in "gifted" classes and just feed the rest gruel, for their minds as well as their stomachs.
"If our society didn't push militarism we'd see the vast assets bestowed on this land available for so much more... America is like a 14 year old with a perpetual erection that can't make love, so he wants to beat someone up, preferably someone smaller."
That 14 year old is selfish and self-hating too.
Whatever the polls suggest , it remains to be seen as to whether this shift in attitudes towards "socialism" will amount to anything.
The polls indicate that Americans have wanted Universal health Care for over 40 years . They still do not have it.
The FACT is that Lobbyists and the Corporations are the true constituency of the Government of the United States. As long as that remains the case no real "socialism" will ever take hold in the USA.
How can a Citizen of the United States change that parameter?
Rather then going after the Government for change go after the real power, the Corporations.
All citizens of the USA who fancy themselves as Socialists MIGHT as example accomplish far more by encouraging like minded people to pull all of their savings and monies out of JP Morgan , or Wells fargo and take it to a credit union.
YES there are workers at those large banks that may lose jobs, but they are losing them anyways and they too can follow the money and go to to work for those same credit unions.
Wal-mart is another Corporation that has a long history of lobbying Government so as to loosen labor laws making it easier to expolit workers can cut benefits. They would seem an ideal target.
That would be US style socialism, as in Democrats are an alternative to Republicans.
Let me know when boss class scumbags are dragged before the People's Revolutionary Justice Tribunals, and then I'll know you're serious.
ppeters-Ted Rall's book "Wake Up You're Liberal" shows just that. Socialism is too often associated with repressive dictatorships and a meager rationing of goods and services. They think we're gonna get Castro or be waiting in line for bread and medicine. But if you change the questions so that they're asking about types of reform, the people mostly support socialist solutions.
If were able to replace our capitalist system with a socialist one, a year later only the wealthy would be complaining.
ebpatton-Can you define it then? :) I've read about it, but I'm not sure that I could sum it up in a sentence. The article I read in Zmag was so comprehensive.
This is what Wikipedia says,
"Participatory economics, often abbreviated parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the production, consumption and allocation of resources in a given society."
And even that's a little wordy.
Plus, as others have said time and time again, socialism's definition can be somewhat murky. Does it mean that we all work for one big employee-owned company or does it just mean that the people's basic needs are insured or is it a bit of both?
When I talk about it with laypeople (and I'm in that category myself) I usually just make comparisons. I want what Sweden and Norway have. What I don't want is the old USSR.
We're already waiting in bread lines (food banks), and if you're uninsured, you'll wait in line forever for medicine. Screw capitalism, regulated or otherwise. All we have to lose is our chains.
"ebpatton-Can you define [parecon?]"
In one sentence: Parecon is a system designed to accomplish economic functions -- a new system that is neither capitalism nor what is commonly referred to as "socialism" (but which would be more accurately referred to as coordinatorism).
Wikipedia's definition isn't very good, IMO. Neither is mine, but parecon can't be defined in one sentence, so one shouldn't really try.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
"When I talk about it with laypeople (and I'm in that category myself) I usually just make comparisons. I want what Sweden and Norway have. What I don't want is the old USSR."
Sweden and Norway are social democracies. They have capitalist economies -- far superior to the U.S. in terms of compassion and humanity -- but still suffering from classism and market ills. And even in those countries, market forces are relentlessly attacking social services, as market forces inevitably do.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
v.purto
"The real problem is that "socialism" is a meaningless term."
No, Sir. Do not look for excuses. We know very well what socialism is - it is antidot to capitalism built around private profit and degeneration of multi-dimensional human life to but one dimension - money.
But this is only beginning. When we come to life do we ask our Mom to define what life is or we start living with the first breath.
Sure, we are far away from socialism in this country but not that far as it seems. Especially now in our high tech society. One big, real BIG blackout and nobody will know who owns what. This crisis has shown to all with eyes to see that capitalism has no clothes. Its only protection to-day is not even gillability of American people, it is protected by mercinary leib-guard and nothing more. This by itself show that current societal structure is in its last gusps. Its death may be the bloody agony but it will come rather sooner than later.
Constitutional amendment to Bill of Rights, enumerating Right to live in dignity including such rights as Right to Education, Right Right to Medical care and Right to dissent retirement will free people from all too visible chains of Invisible Hand, will be the first step.
"v.purto
"The real problem is that "socialism" is a meaningless term."
No, Sir. Do not look for excuses. We know very well what socialism is - it is antidot to capitalism built around private profit and degeneration of multi-dimensional human life to but one dimension - money."
I have no idea what you're saying here. What am I making an excuse for? Socialism +is+ a meaningless term. Ask a socialist to tell you what mechanism they favor for resource allocation. Do they favor central planning or markets? Because unless they've designed a fourth allocation mechanism, the only other choice is participatory planning. (Yes, markets and central planning can be mixed to various degrees, but that doesn't constitute a new way to accomplish allocation.)
Or ask how workplaces are organized in their world -- how they bundle task to create jobs. Every "socialist" (really coordinatorist) economy that has ever existed has had a coordinator class elevated above the working class. Why does a neo-socialist's proposal differ from what has always existed in the past under the banner of "socialism?"
Other questions could be asked, but really, these two are enough to demonstrate that socialism is a meaningless term -- like the term widget.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
"The real problem is that "socialism" is a meaningless term."
"No, Sir. Do not look for excuses. We know very well what socialism is - it is antidot to capitalism built around private profit and degeneration of multi-dimensional human life to but one dimension - money."
Not much "meaning" provided here, could you carify further please?
"Yes, markets and central planning can be mixed to various degrees, but that doesn't constitute a new way to accomplish allocation."
Who cares whether mixing is a new way? New doesn't necessarily mean better.
The irony is that capitalists are getting filthy rich at the public trough - a usurpation and distortion of socialism. Except that there is no public participation in the process of dividing up the wealth of this nation. What is it they said when this nation was founded - "taxation without representation is tyranny!"
Socialism, as taught to me since childhood, simply refers to any government, which provides for the public need beyond law and order and a military for self-defence. Therefore government involvement in things like the post office, welfare, public transportation and education are all examples in which the government takes responsibility over certain basic services even though private interests could fill the void. In effect every country on the planet (except maybe Somalia) are "socialist" to some degree. But advanced socialist countries, such as France, Denmark or Sweden, provide much more to their general citizenry such as complete health insurance, debt relief and a better social safety net overall than here in the U.S.
In fact, the U.S. has morphed into a gross type of socialism in which we now have a big government that primarily taxes the middle class and poor but only delivers good and services to a handful of powerful, private interests. This model is often referred to as 'corporate socialism'. Corporate socialism always seeks to highjack the government to serve narrow corporate interests at the expense of the public treasury. What makes the U.S. model so unique though, is that we also have a compliant (corporate) media that has monopolized our airwaves and newsprint to reinforce the private interests. It has been so effective that a majority of Americans still believe that there is actually a 'left wing bias' in the news as the media has focused our anger towards anything & everything from our own government to greedy 'welfare queens' to explain our predicament, while carefully steering us away from any examination of the vested interests that have created this imbalance. The end result is a confused public that embraces "republicanism' (the preferred corporate explanation for all of our woes) evangelicalism (also corporate friendly) or else the public simply becomes politically apathetic which in the end also reinforces the status quo.
This threat of creeping corporate socialism exists in all Western democracies, however in countries like Canada, France, Italy or Germany the populace turns to other political parties ranging from the Greens to the Communists to counter the vested interests. Americans overwhelmingly rely on only two parties, both of whom heavily rely on corporate sponsorship to exist.
Until Americans can actually figure out who is responsible for our growing income disparities, failing social safety net and grotesque foreign policies, the current system will remain intact at our own peril.
The Rasmussen poll asked one question: "Which is a better system -- capitalism or socialism?" One has to wonder if the respondents understood the words involved. Example: Ask a person which is better--a health care system that covers everyone and costs only half of what you are currently paying or the one you have? Most likely they will answer in favor of the less costly one. But if you phrase your question: Which is better, a system like we have now or one like they have in Canada? You might get a split here because they don't understand what Canada has or they will have been influenced by the negative attacks that US insurance companies have made on the Canadian system since it was first proposed.
Now if you ask the question: "Which is better: Private for profit health care or Socialized Medicine?" Most likely you will get a large number of people who will chose "Private" because they have been conditioned by many years of "socialism is bad" PR. The point is, polls mean nothing unless you understand what the answers mean.
Most people are unwilling to try something different until they have been totally screwed over and over by what they have.
Schall sez: "The limitation of the poll is that it does not define socialism."
***
No problem. Faux Nooz is on the case.
Sioux Rose
I wonder what the poll numbers would show if those questioned truly understood what socialism could mean for their lives and American society now rotted to the core as the corporate capitalists without conscience have helped themselves to all the meat and even gutted the bone marrow leaving NOTHING for citizens to chew on in the upcoming days of inevitable hunger. The word has been cloaked in stigma for generations... time to take IT out of the closet.
Rasmussen himself pointed out the flaws in this poll in pointing to a shift in America to Socialism. Don't get too excited you Socialists. But I do think we are more open to some areas than before.....so......
What is it about socialism that you do not like? You want us to believe that capitalism is all that great? Maybe regulated capitalism but why would you defend the current unfettered capitalism over socialism?
Polls are a big joke and are used to corrupt the public. I know you and I had some discussion about this when we were debating 3rd parties. Have you ever seen a poll that asks people who agree with having a healthy mixture of socialism and capitalism?
In any 'mixture' of capitalism & socialism, capitalism rapidly drives out the socialism.
Hmmm, I can see where that is true. However, there must be some way to prevent that from happening. Capitalism existed even during the Great Depression Era but up until the 1960s, it was tame and not unfettered. In fact, I would say that today's capitalism is completely unlike the type that existed back in the 1950s. While I wouldn't want everything to go back to the 1950s way, I think that there is some room for compromise. I also thought that in Europe there's a mixture of socialism and capitalism. I could see some ways where capitalism could silently push out socialism even in Europe but so far, there appears to have been some checks and balances unlike here in the USA.
Okay, I'll bite. What is the "coordinator class?" In all my years of study in socialism - yes, in Marxism! - I never heard of the coordinator class. What am I missing?
Coordinators are people who do not own the means of production, but who run the means of production on behalf of the owners. They monopolize empowering and decision-making tasks in workplaces.
Every workplace is a set of tasks. Tasks are bundled to create jobs. In corporate workplaces, tasks are bundled according to their relative empowerment effects. So tasks like "sweep floors" and "empty trash cans" are bundled to create the job of janitor. Tasks like "hiring and firing" and "investment decisions" are bundled to create the job of director of human resources.
Coordinators comprise about 18-20% of economic actors, capitalists about 1-2%, workers about 80%. Examples of coordinators include doctors, lawyers, managers, engineers, and tenured professors.
In the former Soviet Union, there were no capitalists; the economy was run by the coordinator class. (The U.S.S.R. had a centrally-planned "socialist" -- really coordinatorist -- economy.) In the former Yugoslavia, which had a market "socialist" (really market coordinatorist) economy, the economy was still run by the coordinator class, but the use of markets instead of central planning to accomplish allocation functions led to different economic outcomes. But in both cases, workers were subordinate to coordinators.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
So tasks like "sweep floors" and "empty trash cans" are bundled to create the job of janitor.
And when the janitor gets the education to do can do Civil Engineering, (which would be free in a socialist economy) they can do engineering too.
And I made it very clear that I don't believe if hierarchical wage scales - I believe pay should correspond to effort and arduousness of the task, and only that. I am at a loss as to how that makes me a lover of markets - although outside of the value of one's labor, healthcare and other human rights that get mislabeled as commodities, markets work fairly well at allocating resources.
And cleaning up shit (a necessary part of caring for aging or ill human beings - a perfectly dignified occupation) would be perfectly fine to most people if they earned 80K a year/30 hour workweek doing it. Most people find family and hobbys more interesting than work anyway.
And you Pareconists really need to get off this vilification of the "coordinator class" stuff. I e-mailed Znet a while back about whether my contributions were tax deductible and the contempt fairly dripped out of the response. Apparently itemizing your deduction means you are one of these hated coordinators too.
Isn't the smart, big-brained, Michael Albert whose job is to think and go on speaking junkets a "coordinator" too?
The "coordinator class" are the better-paid white-collar "professional" occupations - these include engineering and scientific occupations as well as managerial ones.
The idea is that they represent a third, large, important socio-economic class under capitalism because, while they don't own the capital assets that the Capitalist owner class does, they end up, by by virtue of their better pay and "empowering" jobs, siding with the owner class and keeping the laboring class beaten down.
I think it is a valid concept in some ways, but not in others. I am a civil engineer, and I even sometimes put letters after my name, but I hardly feel like a member of this (often vilified by znet/pareconers) class. I'm even a member of a union!
At the same time, I meet plenty of non-coordinator class people who clearly side with the capitalists.
"The "coordinator class" are the better-paid white-collar "professional" occupations - these include engineering and scientific occupations as well as managerial ones."
Actually, doing science is not necessarily a coordinatorist function. Do not confuse the intellect required to accomplish a task with the relative empowerment inherent in that task.
"The idea is that they represent a third, large, important socio-economic class under capitalism because, while they don't own the capital assets that the Capitalist owner class does, they end up, by by virtue of their better pay and "empowering" jobs, siding with the owner class and keeping the laboring class beaten down."
This is simply incorrect. Coordinators do not "side" work owners against workers. Coordinators have their own interests and push both down against workers, as well as up against owners. That's the point of a three-class (i.e., owner, coordinator, worker) model. If coordinators side with owners against workers, it is because they perceive it is in their own self interest to do so. But it is not automatic. Sometimes coordinators work against the profitability of the firm in order to expand their own power against both workers and owners.
"I think it is a valid concept in some ways, but not in others. I am a civil engineer, and I even sometimes put letters after my name, but I hardly feel like a member of this (often vilified by znet/pareconers) class. I'm even a member of a union!"
Unions are run by the coordinator class. John Sweeney, Andy Stern, and Ron Gettlefinger are all coordinators. As far as your specific situation goes, the labels aren't meant to imply everyone in a given class has identical circumstances. As an engineer, you should understand the important of abstracting out certain common threads in order to build theoretical models that allow us humans to better understand the world around us. That's what describing the economy in terms of classes is.
"At the same time, I meet plenty of non-coordinator class people who clearly side with the capitalists."
Of course you do. Workers hate coordinators. Workers never encounter capitalists, but they encounter coordinators all the time. The entire right wing exists pretty much solely to organize workers against the coordinator class. I mean, we all agree Bill O'Reilly and Fox news are screwing workers, so why do workers watch O'Reilly and Fox? Because workers hate coordinators, and the right knows it.
While the Democrats spend their time trying to organize coordinators, they alienate workers. The right talks +like+ workers, while conveniently ignoring worker interests (since the right really represents owners). So workers have a choice: Support (Democratic) coordinators who don't care about them, and who don't even pretend to care about them. Or support (Republican) owners who also don't care about them, but who at least pay them lip service.
It's worth noting that MANY workers punt and don't care about either Democrats or Republicans. But others watch Fox and support Republicans because, while lip service may not be actual respect, it's more like respect than the over and utter disdain workers feel from the liberal left. And some workers support liberals anyway because at least they might get a 25-cent raise in the minimum wage, which is helluva lot of money when you're poor.
The left could win pretty fucking easily in the United States if it would stop downplaying the legitimate rage workers feel toward the humiliation they endure daily at the hands of the coordinator class. This country is hugely ripe for revolution; workers are hungry for it. But they will never support a coordinatorist left, which is what we currently have in the U.S.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
Sioux Rose
With respect to your "non-coordinator class" that identifies with capitalists, a bit of anecdotal data. In attending thus far 3 high school reunions it's interesting to notice that the more average students seem to have accrued more financial rewards than "the really smart kids." And I have pondered this, so much so I wrote a parody entitled, "The Strange Case of Mr. Means." (Means in this case describing the law of averages and the "golden mean.") A lot of the ones I went to school with that "did well" and were NOT that bright became bankers or real estate brokers. (I'm sure if we had the 40th reunion this year their status would be vastly altered.)
A while back CD posted an article positing the view that Republicans were in general happier than democrats. Savvy responses asked how happiness was defined? The person who is ONLY concerned about his own welfare and perhaps that of his immediate family has a more circumscribed "happiness ratio" than the one who really gives a damn about his fellow man. It seemed to me persons who were narrow in their interests of others in fact did better in terms of income, and were VERY defensive about it. I see this as a Republican or conservative posture. It pushes this idea that the one who does well has attained God's favor, and since he/she has done well, then anyone else hypothetically can, too. So why all the fuss about social programs or sharing?
Until IDEALS are planted in children that foster a humane society, competition and aggression will emerge too often. And present day media makes violence SEXY. I hate aggression and yet I have to say, the scene in The Matrix where Neo and Trinity have tons of guns and use them as they move up and down the walls is some of the most gorgeous choreography I've ever seen. And I have seen many dance theaters perform. The makers of arms have teamed up with artists to glorify violence and at times make it highly attractive, this, to the bane of all sentient creatures' existence(s).
The real problem is that "socialism" is a meaningless term. It's not well-defined. Asking someone to define socialism is like asking someone to go up to a chalkboard and draw a widget. WTF is a widget?
Participatory economics (or parecon) +is+ a well-defined term. It refers to a very specific model that can be explained to a high degree of precision. Asking someone to define parecon is like asking someone to go up to a chalkboard and draw a square. Either you know what a square is, or it can be explained to you, because "square" is a well-defined term.
So why don't "socialists" embrace parecon, or at least talk about it? Because socialist organizations are run by the coordinator class, who are in no rush to give up (much less see) their coordinator-class privileges. Marx was a genius, and he got a lot of things right. But the fatal flaw of Marxism (ignoring that the Labor Theory of Value is simply wrong) is that it sees only the working class and the capitalist class, and it misses the coordinator class.
Parecon does not miss this class, which is why it's essentially blacklisted in the highly-coordinatorist U.S. left -- including Schall's Socialist Party.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
These 'discoveries' of 'third classes' have been pretty common over the history of Marxism. A worker is one who sells his labor, whatever the labor is.
Actually, from the very precise descriptions of Parecon given by Albert, I hope we can make it more vague, because certain aspect of the "balanced job complex" and the annual "consumption requests" are simply unrealistic.
I'll just comment on the "balanced job complex" (an awful bureaucratic term by the way - I simply cannot imagine fighters at the barricades with banners reading :Balanced job complexes for all!"):
I fully support the idea of equal pay for equal effort. And everyone should have a say in the conditions of work that affect them. But I find the idea of "balanced job complexes" where everyone must do rotation between "empowering" (managerial) and "non empowering" work (non mamagerial or non technical) problematic, but not for the reasons he may think I'm thinking. The main problem is that any large organization includes people of wide interests and likes and dislikes - some like managerial work, and would do it even if the pay were no better. I for one, do not want any of these so-called "empowering" managerial chores, thank you. Just let me do engineering and and I'll be happy to make the coffee and dump the trash too. Let those with the interest and talent in management do the management - but don't pay them better just for it - only for their effort. Now I suspect that Albert would reply and that because I'm a civil engineer, I'm already part of the hated "coordinator class", and am speaking from a position of undue privilege. But I also enjoy repairing cars, and I suspect that if I was an auto mechanic, and there was pay/effort equity, I'd want nothing to do with managing the business - just give me the challenging problems to diagnose and repair and I'd be happy to sweep the shop up when I'm done too. And Albert would surely not consider auto mechanics to be part of the "coordinator class".
Which brings up a big problem - Isn't Albert's whole delineation of jobs into dignified "empowering" ones and undignified "non-empowering" ones itself an elitist perspective? There is dignity in all kinds of work - as long as there is pay equity and there is democratic control of the conditions of work. The specific chores one does does not have to have anything to do with this.
What I am replying to I have put in quotes.
"Actually, from the very precise descriptions of Parecon given by Albert, I hope we can make it more vague, because certain aspect of the "balanced job complex" and the annual "consumption requests" are simply unrealistic."
There's no such thing in participatory planning as a consumption "request." A request is something one might make to a central planning board. In participatory planning (a third way of accomplishing allocation functions that is neither markets nor central planning) consumers -- who are simultaneously workers, make proposals for both consumption and production.
I can't explain all of participatory planning right here. But it's an iterative procedure where people in the dual roles as workers and consumers plan out production and consumption. The alternative to participatory planning is either authoritarian central planning, or markets (which are worse than central planning).
"I'll just comment on the "balanced job complex" (an awful bureaucratic term by the way - I simply cannot imagine fighters at the barricades with banners reading :Balanced job complexes for all!"):"
Why not? The alternative is a corporate division of labor with 20% doing strictly coordinator tasks, and 80% doing rote work.
"I fully support the idea of equal pay for equal effort."
Except if you pay people for effort and keep markets, you will cause a misallocation of resources beyond markets already horribly poor performance on this score. And eventually, even were you to win these in a market economy, you would rapidly lose them as movements waned and market allocation was left in place.
"And everyone should have a say in the conditions of work that affect them."
This is not possible in either a market economy or a centrally planned economy.
"But I find the idea of "balanced job complexes" where everyone must do rotation between "empowering" (managerial) and "non empowering" work (non mamagerial or non technical) problematic, but not for the reasons he may think I'm thinking."
Your use of the word "rotation" is not accurate. Do today's janitors "rotate" between sweeping floors and emptying trash cans? No, they are simply tasks inherent in the job. In BJCs, no one does any "rotating." People simply have tasks which are bundled into jobs according to their relative empowerment effects.
Incidentally, that's also what happens in corporate workplaces, except that in corporate workplaces, tasks with similar empowerment effects are bundled to create homogeneously-tasked (according to empowerment) jobs. In parecon, tasks are bundled so that everyone has to do their fair share of shit work.
"The main problem is that any large organization includes people of wide interests and likes and dislikes - some like managerial work, and would do it even if the pay were no better. I for one, do not want any of these so-called "empowering" managerial chores, thank you. Just let me do engineering and and I'll be happy to make the coffee and dump the trash too. Let those with the interest and talent in management do the management - but don't pay them better just for it - only for their effort."
See above. Besides, if you don't want tasks one might deem more empowering, you need only seek a BJC with tasks of more average ratings.
"Now I suspect that Albert would reply and that because I'm a civil engineer, I'm already part of the hated "coordinator class", and am speaking from a position of undue privilege."
You are in the coordinator class.
"But I also enjoy repairing cars, and I suspect that if I was an auto mechanic, and there was pay/effort equity, I'd want nothing to do with managing the business - just give me the challenging problems to diagnose and repair and I'd be happy to sweep the shop up when I'm done too. And Albert would surely not consider auto mechanics to be part of the "coordinator class"."
Then work a BJC comprised of mostly average-rated tasks.
"Which brings up a big problem - Isn't Albert's whole delineation of jobs into dignified "empowering" ones and undignified "non-empowering" ones itself an elitist perspective?"
Only to someone who has never literally cleaned shit (or some such) for a living. Go work as a nurse aide for six months if you want to see what real, literal shit work is like.
"There is dignity in all kinds of work - as long as there is pay equity and there is democratic control of the conditions of work. The specific chores one does does not have to have anything to do with this."
There can be no workplace democracy when someone works at a blast furnace all day, while someone else pours over the financials all day. When both come to the meetings to set workplace policy, the office worker will be the one making all the decisions, for what should be obvious reasons. Worker self management is literally impossible without BJCs.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
"There can be no workplace democracy when someone works at a blast furnace all day, while someone else pours over the financials all day."
Why do you assume that someone who works at a blast furnace (a skilled and high paying job - not may blast furnaces left here in Pittsburgh) would WANT to pore over "financials" as part of their job? Let someone else do that tedous, eye-glazing bean counting!
"In participatory planning (a third way of accomplishing allocation functions that is neither markets nor central planning) consumers -- who are simultaneously workers, make proposals for both consumption and production."
"Proposal" or "request" the result is the same. Someone is going to have to make a list of every head of lettuce, bunch of spinach, toothbrush, or lithium-iron phosphate cell (for my electric scooter) at the beginning of every year. By "iterative", I assume we are going to have to make multiple such lists as the preliminary lists get rejected. Even worse.
Sioux Rose
LEFTIST: I really resonate with your post. I date a young man who can fix anything, and I mean anything; whereas I am lucky to figure out how to turn on the VCR. According to the astro-logos persons ARE born with different skills, and it's absurd to presume that each one can readily fulfill skills that are outside of their interest or purview. A society that integrates the various aptitudes of its members in a manner that respects the contributions of each is the kind of society I'd like to live in, and would gladly help design.
Just as I think public school is a waste (in pushing the standard ed model exclusively). By the 7th grade, students' abilities and areas of aptitude should be in evidence. The ones who have mechanical capacity should be trained to develop these skills; the ones who are artists, should be nurtured in their passion. If our society didn't push militarism we'd see the vast assets bestowed on this land available for so much more... America is like a 14 year old with a perpetual erection that can't make love, so he wants to beat someone up, preferably someone smaller. That's why BILLIONS and BILLIONS are spent on blow-up toys and military hard ware.
"LEFTIST: I really resonate with your post. I date a young man who can fix anything, and I mean anything; whereas I am lucky to figure out how to turn on the VCR. According to the astro-logos persons ARE born with different skills, and it's absurd to presume that each one can readily fulfill skills that are outside of their interest or purview."
Parecon makes no such assumption. Market and centrally-planned economies are the ones that assume 80% of the population has no trainable talents.
"A society that integrates the various aptitudes of its members in a manner that respects the contributions of each is the kind of society I'd like to live in, and would gladly help design."
Then you should be a pareconist. The skills of 80% of the population are systematically tromped on in both market as well as centrally-planned economies.
"Just as I think public school is a waste (in pushing the standard ed model exclusively)."
But what's the purpose of schooling in contemporary U.S. capitalism? For 80% of the population, they go to schools where they are taught to (a) follow orders, and (b) endure boredom, because those are the skills they will need in the workforce. Think about it: What do get in more trouble for, getting a D- on a test or talking back to the teacher?
Extant public education has to destroy people's capacities, because the extant economy won't support them; there are not enough slots in the current economy to support a population of confident people who want creative, self-managing work.
"By the 7th grade, students' abilities and areas of aptitude should be in evidence. The ones who have mechanical capacity should be trained to develop these skills; the ones who are artists, should be nurtured in their passion."
No, if students want to pursue mechanical pursuits, or art, or whatever, they should have the choice to do that. It shouldn't be decided for them. Now, if they want to someday work a BJC incorporating those tasks, they may have to compete for those positions. But it's not the role of society to make decisions for kids of the kind you're describing.
"If our society didn't push militarism we'd see the vast assets bestowed on this land available for so much more... America is like a 14 year old with a perpetual erection that can't make love, so he wants to beat someone up, preferably someone smaller. That's why BILLIONS and BILLIONS are spent on blow-up toys and military hard ware."
No, there are structural reasons why we spend $1 trillion on "defense." You make war spending sound like a fetish. It's true people are taught, to the greatest extent possible, to practically worship it. But there are structural reasons why this occurs. I would recommend you read more Chomsky.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
I am of the type that I think can "fix anything" as well. Yes it some sort of innate natural talent.
As far as addressing the emotional side however, I have taken the position that there a reason both machines and peoples and systems break down and fail.
It is not inevitable . Treat a automobile "right" and it can run for decades without breaking down. So too with people.
The best way to learn is IMHO using the ability to see patterns and to take a big step back from what seems an isolated incident and recognize all things connected.
This means we must be able to think. Again in the reframing of language what we call EDUCATION today should be more rightfully called JOB TRAINING.
There is little practical knowledge that I gained from my by rote training that i received in the school systems. Where my own talent comes from is the abilty to see patterns, a cause and effect and to reason out (all without really thinking about it) a solution. All things are truly tied together even if on the surafce they would appear to be unrelated.
Which all leads me to state unequivocally that all such talents, be it mechanical aptitude or the ability to write or create music all come form the same source and none really "superior" to the other. Each have their place and each are simply different facets of the same reality.
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: I agree with your conclusion, however, I seek the pattern of the connectedness of all things in what most would term a highly abstract realm: the astro-logos. Having developed the capacity and art of reading birthcharts over the course of 30 years, I can SEE the aptitudes. There are those who allow their gifts to remain dormant, as there are a small number who take only the faintest spark of talent and nurture it into a full blown blaze of absolute creative achievement. Will has much to do with the handling of "the hand that each of us is dealt."
Sioux Rose
ERIC: To be honest, I never heard about "parecon" until your posts shared this concept.
I didn't mean that students would be FORCED into spheres of learning. I meant that it would be partially based on aptitude, and also choice.
I realize there are structural reasons for war, i.e. our MIC having its tentacles in so many states and related industries; however, when I read TomDispatch's articles on the TYPES of weapons being developed, my 14 year old boy analogy holds. Isn't that the age of "Lord of the Flies," and when the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer tortured small animals? I would say this age, when the hormones start pumping like jacuzzi jets before EMPATHY has set in, particularly because all along boys are taught to NOT LIKE girls (in elementary school, God forbid they be accused of being sissies, etc.) a certain stunting of emotional growth or empathy can occur. Apart from those who join the military as a result of desperate financial straights, the ones that DO sign up voluntarily probably qualify for my 14 year old boy assessment. Since martial societies hold brutal men (in the armed forces) in high esteem, no study to my knowledge has been done suggesting the corelation I suggest.
You are obviously a thinker. I don't agree with everything your post, but I appreciate what you have to share.
Sioux Rose
I, like your boyfriend, was born with an ability to fix anything. I am old and too blind to drive, and can not generate much of a living, since no one pays to repair anything any more. It is up to you to make sure your boyfriend does not forget the other half of his brain, the emotional one, which is probably just as strong as the half that can fix things. There are abilities that are specific, but the ability to deal with, understand, and repair many different things indicates a more general talent, which you would be unwise to ignore. Encourage him to pursue languages, music, science, or to be an activist. I have run out of time to do these, and I regret it.
Sioux Rose
ACE: Thank you for your advice... and caring. Like many males, particularly blue collar ones I would imagine ("in the trades") he is somewhat afraid of his emotional, shall we say "feminine" side. Every once in a while I can slip something in which is probably worth years of therapy. I am helping him to observe himself. If someone cares enough to hold up "the mirror" and still can show unconditional caring, that's quite a gift. In return not only am I getting my place upgraded in everything that I can think of... he's the "germ" of a story line that will become my next book. I'll give it away here: in this "new global economy" this blue collar worker, union carpenter is forced to negotiate steady work in a "right to work" state, with the Family Court System holding a virtual gun to his head. He has been jailed for delayed child support when he resided in New York. In my story line he creates an alter-ego who's a gay interior decorator in order to tap the income of wealthy gays. I am having a lot of fun with this. I told his father that his son has inspired my next book, which will be a hybrid of fact and fiction. Imagine when I hand the father a copy... Mr. Macho has enough former girlfriends under his belt (literally) to convince Papa which part of the text is fiction. And although this work will be a comedy, what it will reveal about workers in America will be serious indeed.
t_g
As long as it doesn't turn into a dictatorship anything is good: capitalism or socialism.
You, US Americans should educate yourselves!
If we'd had just a few more years of Republican rule, we'd all be communists by now.
Is it really "Bedtime for Bozo?" Or is that Bonzo...
You're forgetting that the Democrats never opposed a single thing the Republicans did. So if we were all communists by now, half the credit for it should rightfully go to the Democrats' spinelessness. (One might humorously argue that that was their "deeper strategy" all along!)
Like most victims of bullies, the dems have been cowering before the repugs for so many decades they've come to think of it as a normal way of being. Their spinelessness was what drove me from the party after JFK's assassination.