Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Obama a Socialist? Reflection on the Degradation of Politics and the Ecosystem
For months, leftists have been pointing out the absurdity of the claim that Barack Obama is a socialist. But no matter how laughable, the claim keeps popping up, most recently in the form of the Republican Party chairman's warning of "a socialist power grab" by Democrats.
Within the past year, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has called Obama "the world's best salesman of socialism." Conservative economist Donald J. Boudreaux of George Mason University has acknowledged that Obama isn't really a socialist, but warns that the "socialism lite" of such politicians "is as specious as is classic socialism."
Silly as all this may be, it does provide an opportunity to continue talking about the promise and the limits of socialism in a moment when the economic and ecological crises are so serious. So, let's start with the basics.
As with any complex political idea, socialism means different things to different people. But there are core concepts in socialist politics that are easy to identify, including (1) worker control over the nature and conditions of their work; (2) collective ownership of the major capital assets of the society, the means of production; and (3) an egalitarian distribution of the wealth of a society.
Obama has never argued for such principles, and in fact consistently argues against them, as do virtually all politicians who are visible in mainstream U.S. politics. This is hardly surprising, given the degree to which our society is dominated by corporations, the primary institution through which capitalism operates.
Obama is not only not a socialist, he's not even a particularly progressive capitalist. He is part of the neo-liberal camp that has undermined the limited social-democratic character of the New Deal consensus, which dominated in the United States up until the so-called "Reagan revolution." While Obama's stimulus plan was Keynesian in nature, there is nothing in administration policy to suggest he is planning to move to the left in any significant way. The crisis in the financial system provided such an opportunity, but Obama didn't take it and instead continued the transfer of wealth to banks and other financial institutions begun by Bush. Looking at his economic advisers, this is hardly surprising. Naming neo-liberal Wall Street boys such as Timothy Geithner as secretary of the treasury and Lawrence Summers as director of the National Economic Council was a clear signal to corporate America that the Democrats would support the existing distribution of power and wealth. And that's where his loyalty has remained.
In short: Obama and some Democrats have argued for a slight expansion of the social safety net, which is generally a good thing in a society with such dramatic wealth inequality and such a depraved disregard for vulnerable people. But that's not socialism. It's not even socialism lite. It's capitalism -- heavy, full throttle, and heading for the cliff.
In reaction to the issues of the day, a socialist would fight to nationalize the banks, create a national health system, and end imperialist occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the right wing can accuse Obama of being a socialist when he does none of those things is one indication of how impoverished and dramatically skewed to the right our politics has become. In most of the civilized world, discussions of policies based in socialist principles are part of the political discourse, while here they are bracketed out of any serious debate. In a recent conversation with an Indonesian journalist, I did my best to explain all this, but she remained perplexed. How can people take seriously the claim that he's socialist, and why does applying that label to a policy brand it irrelevant? I shrugged. "Welcome to the United States," I said, "a country that doesn't know much about the world or its own history."
Let's take a moment to remember. Socialist and other radical critiques of capitalism are very much a part of U.S. history. In the last half of the 19th century, workers in this country organized against expanding corporate power and argued for worker control of factories. These ideas were not planted by "outside agitators"; immigrants at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries contributed to radical thought and organizing, but U.S. movements grew organically in U.S. soil.
Business leaders saw this as a threat and responded with private and state violence. The Red Scare of the 19-teens and ‘20s tried to wipe out these movements, with considerable success. But radical movements rose again during the Great Depression, eventually winning the right to organize. In the boom times after WWII, management was willing to buy off labor (for a short time, it turned out) with a larger slice of the pie in a rapidly expanding economy, and in the midst of Cold War hysteria the radical elements of the mainstream labor movement were purged. But radical ideas remain, nurtured by small groups and individuals around the country.
One of the reasons that "socialist" can be used as a slur in the United States is because that history is rarely taught. If people never hear about socialist traditions in our history, it's easy to believe that somehow socialism is incompatible with the U.S. political and social system. Add to this the classic tactic of presenting "false alternatives" -- if the Soviet Union was the epitome of a socialist state and the only other option is capitalism, then capitalism is preferable to the totalitarianism of socialism -- and it is easy to see how people might wonder if Obama is a Red to be Scared of.
This long-running campaign to eliminate critiques and/or critics of capitalism -- using occasional violence and relentless propaganda -- has always been a threat to basic human values and democracy. The promotion of greed and crass self-interest as the defining characteristics of human life deforms all of us and our society. The concentration of wealth in capitalism undermines the democratic features of the society. Socialist principles provide a starting place to craft a different world, based on solidarity and an egalitarian distribution of wealth.
But capitalism is not only inhuman and anti-democratic; it's also unsustainable, and if we don't come to terms with that one, not much else matters. Capitalism is an economic system based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite planet. Capitalism is, quite literally, crazy.
But on this question it's not fair to focus only on capitalism. Industrial systems -- whether operating within capitalism, fascism, or communism -- are unsustainable. The problem is not just the particular organization of an economy but any economic model based on high-energy technology, endless extraction, and the generation of massive amounts of toxic waste. Extractive economies ignore the health of the underlying ecosystem, and a socialist industrial system would pose the same threat. The possibility of a decent future, of any future at all, requires that we renounce that model.
This reminds us that one of capitalism's few legitimate claims -- that it is the most productive economic system in human history in terms of output -- is hardly a positive. The levels of production in capitalism, especially in the contemporary mass consumption era, are especially unsustainable. We are caught in a death spiral, in which growth is needed to pull out of a recession/depression, but such growth only brings us closer to the edge of the cliff, or sinks the ship faster, or speeds the unraveling of the fabric of life. Pick your metaphor, but the trajectory is clear. The only question is the timing and the nature of the collapse. No amount of propaganda can erase this logic: Unsustainable systems can't be sustained.
To demand that we continue on this path is to embrace a kind of collective death wish. So, while I endorse socialist principles, I don't call myself a socialist, to mark a break with the politics associated with industrial model that shapes our world. I am a radical feminist anti-capitalist who opposes white supremacy and imperialism, with a central commitment to creating a sustainable human presence on the planet. I don't know any single term to describe those of us with such politics.
I do know that the Republican Party is not interested in this kind of politics, and neither is the Democratic Party. Both are part of a dying politics in a dying culture that, if not radically changed, will result in a dead planet, at least in terms of a human presence.
So, socialism alone isn't the answer. In addition to telling the truth about the failures of capitalism we have to recognize the failures of the industrial model underlying traditional notions of socialism. We have to take seriously the deep patriarchal roots of all this and the tenacity of white supremacy. We have to condemn imperialism, whether the older colonial style or the contemporary American version, as immoral and criminal. We have to face the chilling facts about the degree to which humans have degraded the capacity of the ecosystem to sustain our own lives.
I'm not waiting for Obama or any other politician to speak about these things. I am, instead, working in local groups -- connected in national and international networks -- to create alternatives. There is no guarantee of success, but it is the work that I believe matters most. And it is joyful work when done in collaboration with others who share this spirit. But to get there, we have to find the strength to break from the dominant culture, which is difficult. On that question, I'd like to conclude by quoting Scripture. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." [Matt. 7:12-14]
I end with Scripture not because I think everyone should look to my particular brand of radical, non-orthodox Christianity for inspiration, but because I think the task before us demands more than new policies. To face this moment in history requires a courage that, for me, is bolstered by tapping into the deepest wisdom in our collective history, including that found in various religious traditions. We have to ask ourselves what it means to be human in this moment, a question that is deeply political and at the same time beyond politics.
At the core of these traditions is the call for humility about the limits of human knowledge and a passionate commitment to justice, both central to finding within ourselves the strength to pass through that narrow gate.
My advice to any of you who want to be part of a decent future: Find that strength wherever you find it, and step up to the narrow gate.
This is an expanded version of a talk given to the University Democrats student group at the University of Texas at Austin, September 23, 2009.
57 Comments so far
Show AllI am getting VERY irritated about the throwing around of Socialism as if it is BAD for "We the People" and BAD for the country. If anything, it could be the CHANGE that can save this country!
Learn about it from the horse's mouth instead of hearsay, lies, and innuendo by following the link below. FACTS RULE over B.S.!
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
I wish Obomber were a SOCIALIST!
. . . a depraved disregard for vulnerable people.
Thank you using the word "depraved" in the same article re Obama. Obama is as depraved a politician and human being as any Republican. I'm sick of looking at him and hearing his phony sincerity. He is the new definition of the term "The Black Death".
You're rolling today!!
Why is the underlying meme--from each according to his means, to each according to his need--so unpopular in the United States? It might go back to the Revolution (an upheaval based upon a hatred of the usurpations of an unjust government. And such an attitude could have continued as immigrants arrived, many fleeing the wars, religious hatred, and classism supported by scores of European (and other) governments during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Given our history, I do not think it odd that the citizens of this country are deeply distrustful of government. In recent years their own government has done nothing to allay their fears of tyranny.
Interestingly, NORC (I think it was NORC) did a survey and most people, presented with "from each...to each..." in isolation thought it was part of the Constitution, or a religious precept. They had a very positive response! It's only when it's coupled with The Dread Word Socialism that their Pavlovian conditioning kicks in.
"Why is the underlying meme--from each according to his means, to each according to his need--so unpopular in the United States?"
Because it doesn't make sense? Because the whole issue is who measures the "means" and "needs", or in other words, who watches the watchers?
Arktig:
"Because it [from each, to each] does not make sense? Because the whole issue is who measures the "means" and "needs," or in other words, who watches the watchers?
A conservative criticism of socialism, but a valid one. In our own society it does not seem difficult to measure means: The wealthy do not need special identification to make them stand out. And need: those without shelter, decent food, a proper education and lacking healthcare are easily recognized. Progressive taxation (which we barely practice at all) is the way to take from those that have. The second part, giving to those with need, is scarcely done by the federal government, because the present oligarchy refuses to part with much of its treasure.
Who watches the watchers? In a democracy, that is the job of the people through their elected representatives. Fix democracy and the problem is solved. Socialism does not stand in the way of that project.
I agree about progressive taxation, it's good not only on moral grounds. I agree about safety nets and helping the needy, but from the sound of your slogan and my understanding of its origins, it is about getting rid of the market and tasking the government with redistribution according to it. I'm still unclear what socialism is and how it solves the basic problem of corruption, be it government or otherwise. No answer has been given to me, I was given loads of criticism which was actually critisism of what the socialist minded folk think or want, capitalism to be!!! Capitalism can take many different forms, for some reason the left starts obsessing over their favorite straw-man and instead of fixing the problems, wants to wipe out the country and start over. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm afraid we might get exactly that. But starting over is not socialism, and will not lead to socialism, it's monkey business all the way through.
South Carolina is fast becoming the moron capital of the world.
The democratic party leadership secretly likes the idea that Obama is labeled a 'socialist' so that they can imply that Obama's actions are middle of the road and that he doesn't have to move to the 'left'.
All of Obama's major decisions protect the status quo (or enforce it) which means that corporate america is still making the decisions based on obscene profitability for the few, and let the people and environment go to hell in a hand basket.
The definition of the public option is also being twisted by both parties because neither corporate party wants to support it, but outwardly they have to give different reasons to their 'constituents.'
I don't know why the democrats say that that single payer is off the table but they are proud to point out that Obama must be doing something good because he is being labeled a socialist.
Healthcare can become a key issue if we we start a campaign that says, 'Your guaranteed a single term if we don't have single payer health care.' This should apply to all elected officials. Of course, I also thought that the war should have been a deciding issue but it isn't.
Single Payer, or Single Term.
"Single Payer, or Single Term."
Very nice slogan!!
Where does Jensen get the idea that modern socialists do not advocate the development of an environmentally sustainable economic/social system? Does he think that all socialists support the Soviet industrial model?
It also strikes me as hypocritical and even a bit strange that this anti-patriarchal radical feminist man appears to be trying to tell others how to think, and even references a Christian text in doing so.
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: Jensen's writing has always attracted me, and I found his expose on the growth and species of modern porn to be both evocative and beyond offensive (not due to his writing, but as a result of the contents revealed); but I, too, thought it rather odd that he'd cite a Christian parable after stating that he was embracing an anti-patriarchal view of life. I realize there are those, like Martin Luther King, that read Biblical Scripture and utterly transcended it. Unfortunately, both church elites and the authoritarian followers they prefer tend to bend their minds to a narrow letter-of-the-law application thus defeating whatever spiritual promise may have been contained in the words and their intended (as delivered by potential Masters) messages.
I too was very irritated at Jensen's refusal to call himself a "socialist" because of some negative associations. It would be fine if there were suitable substitute words, but there are not - in any language that I know of. Surely Jensen is familiar with the way even the word "queer" has been expropriated as a positive word.
Kivals---
Jensen has always been self-censoring in his "radical" writings. After all, he has tenure in Texas! A very narrow gate indeed... Why do you think they call it "Austin City Limits"?
-30-
For me, it is good that Obama is being called a Socialist, because for the first time in my life, it is becoming a popularly discussed topic, a serious issue.
Peace, justice and health care are the important issues for me, and reprograming or educating the public that Socialism can be good is not likely going to happen unless we can first end the War economy.
The fact that we have been brainwashed against the bad word puts it in perspective contrast to the new awakening to the many evils of Capitalism. This is good.
Now a balance is needed. I think the majority are ready for peace and a new balance, single payer health care. If folks call it new socialism or a new american way or common sense, or a Better Deal or whatever is not that important to me.
If someone calls me a Socialist, that is fine... I have been called many things.
What is it all about? That is why this discussion is good because folks are arguing about it and being confronted by our time to think about what we were taught.
I applaud Robert Jensen's spirited defense of the "narrow gate." His is one of many efforts to break through the constricted vision of twentieth century ideologies to embrace the many dimensions of liberation: economic, political, and even religious.
The demonization of "socialism" plays a central role in the capitalist strategy of consent that tells us much about why it has succeeded so spectacularly against its rivals. This communication strategy represents "socialism" as the repression of the unlimited ("free") indulgence of desire which corporations constantly encourage. This is represented symbolically by the "nanny" state, a potent image that embodies the repressive morality which it fears. The real content of the word "freedom" in modern political speech is "immediate satisfaction of desire", in particular the artificial desires that are stimulated to a fever pitch with the apparatus of modern marketing.
Capitalism enslaves the imagination through a highly-developed technology of desire. Capitalism captures and distorts human desire so that rather than serving the good of humanity or the glory of God, desire operates according to the golden rule of production for the market. This insight has major consequences for progressive counter-strategies.
Capitalism is successful because it creates a constant stream of new desires which demand immediate satisfaction. By redirecting desire into these carefully controlled channels, attention that might be directed to social concerns follows the groove of personal satisfaction and image. It works by convincing us that this system alone lets us participate in images of personal success. We participate in these images through the stimulation and immediate satisfaction of artificial desires, with all the infantile reasoning that this implies and encourages.
Religious mythology as represented by the "mega-church" phenomenon also plays a significant role. "Sinfulness" in the form of greed, sexual indulgence, selfishness, drugs, and corruption embodies the image of a "fallen" world that can only be magically redeemed. It becomes part of orthodox religious belief that the features of contemporary capitalism are the unalterable features of fallen humanity. Rather than believing that we are God's agents who can liberate ourselves through his gifts, as Jesus taught, we are forced into the belief that "Jesus" will magically liberate us through miraculous events. These beliefs reinforce the faith that capitalism can continue forever.
For instance, George Gilder says, "... man is not finite; the human mind is not bound in material brain...the energy crisis is essentially a religious disorder, a failure of faith. It can be overcome chiefly by worship; by a recognition that beyond the darkness and opacity of our material entrapment is a realm of redemptive spirit, reachable through that interplay of faith and fact which some call science, others poetry, but which is most luminously comprehended as forms of prayer." - George Gilder, The Spirit of Enterprise.
This is precisely the idolatry which enraptures the contemporary religious mind and cultivates the belief that the "creativity" of our economic system will always save us, no matter what "reality" may say. The fuel behind the fire that is devouring our planet is the constant stimulus of new desires which can only be satisfied by the organized productive capacity of globalized capital.
Resistance to climate change can't gain traction because it presents itself as a restriction on the satisfaction of infinite desire. The dynamic of capitalism is that we can become endlessly more through the multiplication of new technologies. Climate change activism opposes this irrationalism, and so can be easily characterized as dull, repressive, and totalitarian - in a word "socialist".
What Jensen and contemporary socialists call for is the liberation of desire from this bondage. Submission to this bondage is rapidly destroying its own ecological foundation, which is right now causing natural destruction that will take millennia to heal. If you would like to explore how a radical Christian vision can provide the basis for opposition to capitalist madness, see the Nonviolent Jesus at http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com/
Your writing makes a lot of sense. I take only a few exceptions. The first, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be imply that the "organized productive capacity of globalized capital" is somehow causing the excess and over-consumption that happens here and there. It seems to me that "organized productive capacity" is just necessary for life. Most people on this planet do not over-consume, but continue to grow in numbers, as if they did. I can't make heads and tails out of it, can you?
Second, your conservationist stance on climate change and apparent disrespect for technology seem to stem from the first point, you seem to view technology as a stimulator of vises. The numbers we have on this planet can't make it without technology even if we exclude the indulgence part. I'm not saying to put technology before people, it's like putting the cart before the horse, common sense helps if we can find it these days...
The third is not a disagreement, but rather a question. What should the state be? Again, I'm guessing, you don't like capitalism nor socialism. How about the Constitution? I looked at your blog, but couldn't find any clues about your views on social order. Resistance is OK if it's not reactionary, so in your view, what is the right direction?
Arktig, thanks for your thoughtful comments. As to the first question, you are correct that "organized productive capacity" is necessary for life, especially in a world that continues to grow in population, as you note. The problem with the current productive capacity is that it is not organized around meeting the needs of this growing population, but around maximizing the profit margins of the companies who control this capacity, which is why a large portion of the world does not over-consume, but lives close to starvation.
What needs to be emphasized is that the over-consumption that happens "here and there" does not happen by chance. It is not a random effect due to temporary over-capacity in certain favored regions of the world. It is the result of very organized and tightly controlled policy maneuvers coordinated between government and industry in the developed world. The same applies to the under-consumption by the vast majority - starvation feeds directly into the bottom line of these players.
As to the second point, I am a professional technologist and have been for my entire working life. I have tremendous respect for technology and believe that a world that is ecologically sane will make ever increasing use of technology. I do not attribute any of the over-consumption of the developed world directly to technology. I attribute it to the deliberate cultivation of artificial needs by corporations in search of maximum profit. Technology plays a role here, but it is an instrumental one. Technology will play a key role in the transition to a sustainable world and we should celebrate that.
Your third point is right on target - I don't advocate capitalism or socialism in the form we became familiar with in the 20th century in the Soviet Union and China. I advocate a rational and sustainable distribution of the world's natural wealth and the productive capacity that we need to sustain a fulfilling human life on this planet. In my mind that implies democratic control over those resources. To allow a tiny handful of wealthy individuals to control the resources on which the life of billions of people depend is irrational in the extreme, not to mention immoral and opposed to the values of all the great religious traditions.
Thanks for your reply, you make perfect sense, I apparently misconstrued some parts of your original post. I'll be checking your blog from time to time to see if you have any new ideas.
Good night to you and everyone else, I am late again.
Sioux Rose
BOYD: Very profound and insightful posts. Thank you for sharing them. I see it the way you do, and it was Dr. Seuss who made similar points (albeit directed at children) in his wonderful book, "The Lorax." He speaks in that small text of the way "business types" go about creating THNEEDS, as he puts it. The voice of a creature speaking FOR the trees seeks to relate to the business group (The "Onceler" and his kin) that the forests are dying, the birds disappearing, the water bodies growing tainted. However, the Onceler cannot stop given the momentum created by his profit-driven track, his only ethos being: "Business is business, and business must grow." Sound familiar? I remember a CT. school board banning this book!
In the Seuss story when all is finally used up, a child comes across a desolate, desecrated land only to find the broken-down remains of the Onceler's current residence. There he exists in virtual hiding, and out of a form of guilt melded to conscience, the Onceler--for a small fee of course--passes down the last of the great (Truffala) tree seeds. He managed to preserve a few, and thus extends to the child the chance to plant and nourish the garden and its harvests once more, working to bring back what was so foolishly abused... and nearly lost.
In my view, Dr. Seuss is a holy man or shaman, and those books of his that I have read all impart extremely pertinent, often spiritual teachings and related lessons.
Seems to me that Jensen needs to revisit Marxism 101 and review the Hegelian Dialectic...
To Paraphrase MLKJr... The Thesis of Capitalism and the Antithesis of Communism will eventually result in the Synthesis of Socialism... The true Brotherhood of Man...
Jensen seems to have a sophmoric understanding of Socialism in general and the various schools of socialist thought that have manifested over the years... How can he lump Social Democrats in with the Communist Vanguard, or any other centralized state economic model as if that is the defining characteristic of Socialism...? As a self proclaimed anarchist, he tends to prefer the Neo-Luddite Primitivist model while completely ignoring the anarcho-syndicalists, ParEcon, or any other egalitarian economic model that includes a decentralized & localized/regionalized industrial base...?
His broad-brush definition of Capitalism lumps the agrarian-based farmer & small-town shop-keeper in with the multi-national corporate conglomerates and international banking cartels...
His critique of Obama fails to recognize that neo-liberal policies of subsidies for monoculture megafarms, CAFO's, bank & insurance company bailouts, and IMF structural adjustments at tax-payer expense is actually socialism in reverse, a form of fascism that Mussolini aptly described as "corporatism"...
He should stick to social criticism of porn and other social woes... as his diatribes about political and economic theory are not worthy of a tenured professor of journalism, even in Texas...
Oh, boy, that was a mouthful... Is this a socialist site or a communist one? I'm kind of getting nervous here, oh, oh, oh, where did I land in this messed up universe?
????????
Mr 1.618, you say "Jensen seems to have a sophmoric understanding of Socialism in general and the various schools of socialist thought that have manifested over the years..." You seem to consider yourself a senior authority on the subject, so I'd like to ask you the real question, the acid test:
What is the right left idea? The mythical unicorn so many thoughtful schools are chasing around on capitalist government dime? Not to miss the capitalist NGOs.
A convoluted mess of "various schools" quotations and platitudes can't be an answer for very serious reasons, which I hope, you can figure out yourself. To give you a hint, your answer have to take care of a problem which is more or less addressed in the Constitution but is rarely mentioned in the various "ism"s. It's a very simple problem, most of us face it regularly... You have the stage.
Do your own research... And Come to your own conclusions...
There is no stage dividing the actors and the audience...
I do not claim to be a "senior authority" of anything...
Nor do I espouse any ideology as the end-all/be-all of human existence...
I believe in a "dialectic spiritualism" that transcends Marxist atheistic materialism...
And acknowledges God as part of the equation, while utilizing logic and reason...
Yet I believe that one's personal connection with God is separate from Church or State...
I believe that the Constitution & bill of rights are inalienable and universal...
And are the bedrock for individual sovereignty and the blueprint for a democratic republic...
This supercedes whatever economic system is operating at any given time...
Regardless of whether it is capitalism or socialism or otherwise...
Any laws that violate these fundamental individual rights or of the Republic are null & void...
That being said...
I feel free to criticize anyone's analysis of social, political, or economic issues as I seem fit...
Jensen has a simplistic and broad-brush understanding of anarchist, socialist, and capitalist theory...
Based on his failure to differentiate between the various schools of thought within each ideology...
And based on the conclusions that he reaches which are humanistic, contradictory and myopic...
Even If I did discover or invent a political ideology that would fix the worlds problems forever...
The Fascist powers-that-be would not implement it and the tenured intelligentsia wouldn't recognize it...
Ok Arktig, I see you are a bit confused here but let me try to help you out. No, this is not a strictly socialist or communist site. What Goldenmean is trying to say and most of us agree with is that socialism for the privileged exists rather than socialism for everyone. I disagree with Goldenmean for calling Jenson sophomoric. Jenson is only stating how different people of different classes view socialism.
Different classes view them differently as in openly vs privately. For example, the upper class openly detests socialism but in private embraces it since it is the type reserved for them only. Likewise, at first an angry poor social conservative may scream against socialism publicly but his heart actually cries for it 9 out of 10 times.
Jennifer, I liked your explanation and mostly agree with it. I also mostly agree with Jensen, politics has become a silly game of labeling, overt and covert advertising, and an exercise in confusion. In my opinion, Obama's complete intellectual and moral paralysis stems from precisely the issue I so audaciously insist upon. The left lacks a coherent social theory, much less a blueprint for governance. This complete lack of direction, makes possible the games Jensen is talking about. The right, as corrupt as it is, hides behind some coherent worldview. Although they pervert it out of shape, there is no one to call them out, since the left rejects the entire thing altogether. So there you have it, there is no left idea to speak of, it's all blind, open ended attacks at random right talking points, regardless of merit or substance. No wonder, the left is an easy target.
To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to get more confused about what constitutes right vs left anymore. The so-called "right" has nothing but a fixed set of ideas and will show heavy intolerance to those who deviate even the slightest. I can't say that the left is clean either. Over the years, there have been those faking "left" and then doing everything in favor of the "right". Most people on this site are truly independent and are not Obamabots or Dubyabots. I don't agree that there are no ideas on the left. There are but the so-called "center" and the ones pulling fake "left" are stifling them and that's before the Far Right tops it. That's why the real left is all too easily persecuted at by expected and unexpected rivals.
OK, here I have to ask again, what the right left idea is? A few things on the left make sense and so do a few things on the right. Generally, it's a standoff, kettle vs pot! (pun just happened)
All I can say is that people who call themselves socialists, have a very, very narrow view of what capitalism is allowed to do. If for example a public health care is put in place, they bemoan the unjust capitalists for stealing the socialism from them and declare such actions to be against true capitalism, lipstick on a pig, etc. It's somewhat funny but that really happens and it's hard to take it seriously.
Gabriel Kolko's 'After Socialism' raises many relevant questions, even if it brings out the usual denunciations from fans of Lenin and Trotsky, not to mention fans of the revered graybeard himself, Marx (a saw from the late Eighties in Soviet Union went: the problem wasn't just with the mustaches—Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin—but the beards themseleves, Marx and Engels). Justin Podur did a quick review of it:
http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/2787
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0415395917
I really enjoyed your comment, thank you for the links, they addressed some of the most glaring problems with "the beards" (in my admittedly amateurish view). I'll dig into it some more but even now I'm getting a better idea of what I'm looking for. Say, the Declaration of Independence is the social theory and the Constitution is its realization as a state and government. It's wonderfully simple, may be too simple for today's messed up world, but it did work, more or less, once upon a time. Now my issue is how to fix it, both the theory and the artifact. "The beards" don't give a clue in that regard, some good intentions is all I could see in their works, and even that might be questionable, considering their life style.
We don't have to ape the right and set up larger than life "father figures" whose pronouncements are then pored over and endlessly interpreted (Here's an example of an acolyte hailing from a tiny sect that has been trying for several generations to expropriate the word Socialist—as in "International Socialist Organization"—who likes parsing the words of his master thinker: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/trotsky-on-revolutionary-art).
All that's needed for meaningful change is already in our minds, even in the minds of the "wretched of the Earth":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlB7Y7xDB6U
I don't know about aping but starting from scratch is more than impossible, it's suicidal.
To say what they had in the Soviet Union was an example of communism is misleading. It's wrong, just like saying that the US has a free market economy. You can call your ass a turkey but that don't make it thanksgiving.
The Soviet Union was first and foremost an oppressive government. And I'm sure that if you are living in Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, or an American Indian here, you would feel assured when calling the US government oppressive (and correct).
You can have tyranny by the majority, so democracy should not be the starting point.
The starting point should be protecting basic human rights for all. And basic human rights should be described clearly (the UN does a pretty good job even though they don't follow it). Common sense and compassion should say the basic human rights include safe food and water, a place to live, health care, education, safety, and I'll go one step further, a right to lead a happy life (but not at someone else's expense). Somewhere it should include that this should all be done in a sustainable manner.
That should be what we are striving for as a society at a minimum.
I find the actions of the US government unacceptable. I find the actions of many US companies unacceptable. I find the level of oppression and intimidation of protesters unacceptable.
There is a possible solution, but we are no where close to where it can possible be discussed in a civil manner.
so it goes
"Obama is not only not a socialist, he's not even a particularly progressive capitalist. He is part of the neo-liberal camp that has undermined the limited social-democratic character of the New Deal consensus, which dominated in the United States up until the so-called "Reagan revolution.""
No Mr. Jenson. A neolib? Yes but Obama is a capitalist straight up and a corporate socialist.
To Boyd R. Collins---
I don't think I've read an exegesis like yours since reading Horkheimer & Adorno back in the 60s. I knew then that they were over my head. Your writing here makes me want to re-explore that side of history.
Thank you.
-30-
Thank you as well, OleManRiver. Your words have inspired me to re-read Horkheimer and Adorno again too. The fact that their insights seem no longer to be as prized as they were in the sixties says more about the decline of intellectual standards than the value of those insights. However, the analysis I presented was largely based on another member of the Frankfort school, Erich Fromm, who has a section in the "Sane Society" called "The Principle of Nonfrustration" that seems particularly relevant to the current crisis. As Aldous Huxley said in Brave New World, the principle of the current world order is: "Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today." Happiness has become the instant realization of wishes, and these wishes, moreover, are largely dictated by corporate marketing departments who form the personal images that we unconsciously emulate.
In the context of the current climate crisis, this attitude translates into deliberate self-deception. Psyches formed by the principle of non-frustration cannot cope with our inherent limitations. We are impelled by profit-inspired momentum to achieve higher and higher degrees of satisfaction, which in real terms mean greater and greater exploitation of the world's limited resources. To accept this reality would mean a sudden and devastating sense of despair. Eventually, if we had the courage, we would crawl out of that despair, but being the people we currently are, we simply can't face it. We WILL have our satisfaction, even if it means starvation for hundreds of millions of our fellow creatures.
We have been transformed into a system of desires and satisfactions. This is the system that guides us without the use of force. No matter what the depth of our disappointment with the satisfactions on sale, we return to them again and again because alternatives have been systematically excluded from consciousness. We are eternal infants, never weaned from our receptive orientation. Aldous Huxley described it well, "There's no such thing as a divided allegiance; you're so conditioned that you can't help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren't any temptations to resist." - Brave New World.
Indeed, the temptation to save the planet sheds dim light compared to those temptations to which we have become addicted. And the corporations continue to sing their siren song and we, unlike Odysseus, are not bound to the ship's mast, but steer passionately toward the empire of illusion:
"First you will raise the island of the Sirens,
those creatures who spellbind any man alive,
whoever comes their way. Whoever draws too close,
off guard, and catches the Sirens' voices in the air -
no sailing home for him, no wife rising to meet him,
no happy children beaming up at their father's face.
The high, thrilling song of the Sirens will transfix him,
lolling there in their meadow, round them heaps of corpses,
rotting away, rags of skin shriveling on their bones..." - The Odyssey, Book 12, verses 44 - 52.
I don't always agree with Jensen, but when he writes about socialism he really shines imo.
Two people come to the market: she has extra mittens she knitted, he has extra kale he grew. They swap. THAT is capitalism. It's as natural as a flea market. Even at that level, though, the community has a vested interest in the transaction: that it be fair, open, and honest. If he sells her kale contaminated with toxic waste, he damages the entire market and the concept of openness by which it functions: now, no one will buy kale. And the community also needs to monitor the sale of futures and risk-limiters, as they involve promises that may not be kept. If he borrows money on the promise of future kale-sales, but goes to Mexico instead, the credit market suffers, purse-strings tighten. So, the community, through its elected government, is involved even in the smallest details of capitalist transactions, for the good of the market and the economies dependent on it. As soon as the first farmer ripped off the first tailor, calls for community standards and intervention were present: government has always moderated capitalism, and always will. I don't care if the right calls that 'socialism' or not, its the next most natural thing beyond capitalism itself.
Jensen: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite planet. Capitalism is, quite literally, crazy." We live in an infinite universe. It's crazy to act as though we don't. Admittedly, American and European-style capitalism worked better when there was a frontier to which you banished your 'tired and huddled masses'. But, in a planet 80% covered in water, to say we lament the loss of the frontier is to express a failure of imagination, more than an actual loss of frontier. Each day, the earth receives more energy from the sun than civilization has used in the history of civilization. And each day, the sun puts out ten billion times more energy than strikes the earth. So, the number of earth civilizations that could be sustained JUST IN OUR LITTLE CORNER OF THE MILKY WAY is at least ten-billion. Ironically, the abundant energy available just beyond earths gravity well is an important argument for ecological conservation. Out of all the civilizations we could (and I think will) construct out of the suns abundant energy, none can have earths ecological uniqueness. The preservation of diversity is the hallmark of civilized behavior. If we turn inward, away from the sun, we WILL consume what's left of the earth. And that inward turn ironically STARTS by claiming that resources are finite.
>>>Two people come to the market: she has extra mittens she knitted, he has extra kale he grew. They swap. THAT is capitalism. >>
Actually that is barter, free market economy and comparative advantage. That should be the natural process of economy. Capitalism in fact distorts that fundamental market principle.
I don't want to cheapen Jensen's observation: space is a long way away (energy-wise), but it IS true that all the energy is out there. Robert Zubrin made the observation that real capitalism can't exist without 'frontier', i.e. space is not optional. In the meantime, stuck on planet earth, and unwilling to engage her oceans, I would make the further observation that one of the most egregious abuses of 'lowest-common-denominator' capitalism is to wall off all of earth's beauty, and then charge people to see it. Getting the most out of true beauty requires time: so of course the first thing 'lowest-common-denominator' capitalism takes from her citizens IS time. Give a worker a three-day weekend, and he'll go backpacking through Yosemite. Give a worker an afternoon, and he'll hit the titty bar. And do I have to actually go into the relationship between food, and FAST food? The beauty of the senses (taste, smell, hot/cold, vision, sound) have been taken from us. And what is being fed back is a 'hit': costly, awesomely engaging yet ultimately unsatisfying, addicting, and generally with long-term damage (like diabetes, or addiction). But, this is what happens when frontiers shrink, and capitalism turns to predation. The solution is NOT to dump capitalism in favor of something that TELLS people what to think and feel (that has NEVER worked for long). The solution is to open the frontier up again, as Zubrin convincingly argues in his works. We may not like the idea of moving our 'tired and huddled' masses onto (and under) the ocean's surface, or out into space. But we don't have a choice. Open up the frontier, or the alternative is a prison of the mind, or an actual prison, to contain the human passion for beauty.
Socialism goes against human nature. Humans are greedy creatures, just look at a toddler crying if it doesn't get the toy someone else has. In adults, the greed becomes more sophisticated and predatory. So I hate to agree with the scums on the Right, socialism IS utopia. Communism is utopia times ten.
The claim that Obama's a socialist is a joke of the worst order. He's Robin Hood in reverse, his first goal is to transfer public funds to private hands. He'll be remembered as the most perverse president we've had in generations, at least Bush and Reagan never pretended so magnificently well to be on the side of the American worker while repeatedly stabbing us in the back.
"Socialism goes against human nature. Humans are greedy creatures, just look at a toddler crying if it doesn't get the toy someone else has. In adults, the greed becomes more sophisticated and predatory. So I hate to agree with the scums on the Right, socialism IS utopia."
True, greed seems to be part of human nature, as are competition and self-interest; and to the extent they are rewarded by a society, they will manifest themselves. People tend to do what they are rewarded for doing and avoid that which they are punished for doing. That too is part of human nature.
But other aspects of human nature include solidarity, sacrifice, cooperation, and compassion - aspects which our society does not usually reward. Should our society reward these aspects, and there is no reason why it can't, then we can have a society that reflects these more cooperative, if not humane, aspects of human nature rather than the self-centered and destructive aspects our society does reflect. Societal design isn't written in stone, it isn't delivered by the gods, it is a manifestation of social and political choices. Different choices will yield different outcomes. Socialism does not go against human nature, as you suggest, it merely appeals to different aspects of human nature than capitalism does. Socialism is not utopia, and the 'right' is wrong to say so, and you are wrong to believe it is so.
Your point is well-made, but I would go further. The choice of whether to reward greed and self-interest or cooperation and compassion is not a neutral one. Another part of human nature, as well documented in history as greed and war, is the human tendency to transcend its own nature, to constantly repudiate a static condition in which no moral or spiritual growth occurs. There is a logic to social and political choices that truly inspire humanity. Socialism may not in and of itself be a utopia, but utopia lives within all of us and drives to constantly create and destroy all would-be utopias.
Now you're engaging in the imaginary. Solidarity, sacrifice, cooperation, and compassion do not neutralize greed, not by a long shot. They might even co-exist in the same person.
Greed's in our genes, we can't help it. The great thing about John Lennon was that he knew he was dreamer, many don't.
All the aspects of human nature exist to one degree or another - some, granted a very small degree - in every 'normal' human being. That's why it's called 'human nature'.
I submit that those aspects of 'human nature' that are most readily manifested are those that are encouraged. The level of greed in a particular society is a cultural consequence, not a biological one.
But if you want to encourage greed, like our society does, then greed will be a visible aspect of human nature. We teach competition and greed in school with reading and arithmetic - we seldom teach cooperation, compassion, and solidarity. What do you think young and malleable minds will learn in such a system? Many societal designs are based on more cooperative systems and have a minimum of displayed greed.
Are you saying there's a gene for greed?
Perhaps you feel that greed is in the genes because that's what manifests itself strongly in you. Greed is one of my lesser aspects, I have little desire for money and things. Try not to project your character on others.
Don't attack the messenger because you don't like the message. It shows the weakness of your cause. Yes, greed IS in our genes. Human survival depends on greed, it has since the stone age. Killing other species for food, when other alternatives are available, is the ultimate form of human greed. I suggest you buy a book on human behavior.
I haven't attacked any 'messenger' - if that's how you see yourself. I merely posit an alternative to what you suggest as fact.
"It shows the weakness of your cause."
Cause? What cause would that be?
To change the meaning of killing from an act of 'survival' to an act of 'greed' may make sense to you, but it makes no sense to me since every living organism, save a few bacteria, stay alive by killing or preying on something else. Are you suggesting that all living things are greedy? If that's what you suggest then I think this dilutes the meaning of the word 'greed' and grants it a respectability it doesn't merit.
"Yes, greed IS in our genes."
I'm sure the geneticists studying the human genome will be interested to hear your interesting theory. By the way, which gene is the 'greed gene' uncle_c?
"I suggest you buy a book on human behavior."
Thank you for the suggestion.
"Now you're engaging in the imaginary."
Oh, and, by the way, don't attack the messenger, it shows the weakness of your cause.