EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Is 'Productive'?
Ever since Presidential candidate Barack Obama told Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka "Joe the Plumber") that "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama and other progressives have retreated from that position, terrified of conservative charges that criticism of growing American inequality (the top one percent of Americans earned eight percent of national income in 1980; they earned 23.5 percent in 2008) is "socialism."
But spreading the wealth around, as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett clearly demonstrate in the powerful book, THE SPIRIT LEVEL, is good for everybody: nations and states where equality is greatest perform better on almost every indicator of quality of life than those where inequality is greater--even the wealthy live longer in such countries!
Of course, greater equality does require a greater level of public provision and social insurance, and therefore, some transfer of wealth from richer to poorer. Such redistribution challenges deeply-seated beliefs. There is no doubt that the conservative ideology of personal responsibility resonates deeply with many Americans and remains a fundamental ideological barrier to the expansion of our social safety net and greater economic security.
That philosophy has its intellectual roots in the writings of Ayn Rand, the embittered Russian émigré who argued that a very few creative, productive and ambitious people (symbolized by John Galt, the entrepreneur hero of her best-selling ATLAS SHRUGGED) actually make possible all the good things in life. On the other hand, most people--especially in Rand's view, paid laborers--survive only because the John Galts and other "self-made men" of the world provide work for them. Galt, Rand opines, should be praised, not taxed. If he and other jobs creators stopped working to protest their oppressive taxation, the rabble would starve.
When I read ATLAS SHRUGGED in the 1970s, I found it cold and heartless, full of cardboard characters and intellectually vacuous. But many people, obviously, feel differently. The book, and Rand herself, have actually seen a resurgence in popularity, ironically, just as the "you're on your own" philosophy they represent has triggered the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. At its core, the ideology was distilled to a few simple words by a conservative student who challenged me during a speech I gave last winter at Georgia Tech:
So what I hear you saying is that you would take money away from the productive people and give it to the unproductive people?
In other words, the student suggested, I would take cash from John Galt and give it to John Lazy.
My response to this charge goes something like this:
Oh, and what I hear you saying, young man, is that those people who grow your food, harvest it in the fields (without even minimum wages) and transport it to the stores, those people who clean your streets and take away your garbage so you don't have to live in filth, those people who will teach your children if you have any, and take care of your infants and toddlers while you do your productive business, those people who build the cars you drive in, who work overtime without pay at big box stores for $18,000 a year, whose backs turn to jelly after years of driving the trucks that carry your products to you, those people whose work benefits you every day of your life--those people who have seen almost zero improvement in their real wages during the past generation of policies favoring John Galt--those are the "unproductive" people whose survival only the Galts make possible.
And meanwhile, those other people, the ones who have seen their incomes mushroom and their taxes wither, those "self-made" people with expensive educations whose brainpower and hard work have created such wonders as exploding derivates and credit default swaps, whose "products" never affect your daily life except when you have to bail out the disasters they create, those "best and brightest" people who earn more in a day than your child-care providers will earn in a year, whose year-end bonuses are often greater than the lifetime earnings of ordinary workers--they are the "productive'' people.
And you, young man, have a problem with taxing those "productive" people to provide a little more security for the ones you consider unproductive. Well, I have news for you. I see no possible moral justification for labeling the first group unproductive and the latter productive--quite the contrary, in fact--unless you automatically assume that Group B is more productive solely because its activities earn more in the market as it presently exists.
Indeed, I believe that in a moral world we would offer greater compensation to those whose labor actually makes life better. In which case, there is absolutely no moral argument at all against greater equalization of incomes. In fact, I find the distribution of earnings in this economy to be morally obscene.
In the misty heights of Randian philosophy, however, what people earn from the market is what they are really worth, and it is the result of their efforts alone. Taxing them in such a situation is a theft of their property. Their efforts alone make the world better--indeed, Ayn Randians suggest that government security measures, not de-regulation, are to blame for the current crises. If only we had left it all to the market, they proclaim, things would now be fine.
The first problem with this argument is that no one is truly self-made--Warren Buffett points out that he would not be a billionaire if he'd been born in Bangla Desh, for example.
Moreover, it is impossible to prove or disprove the claim that if we were true to the market things would be great, since that claim is totally theoretical. It is akin to the radicals of the 60s and 70s who dismissed criticisms of the Soviet Union by saying "Well, that's not real socialism. Under real socialism, you wouldn't have these problems." But, their more conservative critics countered correctly that, "actually existing socialism is all we can truly judge and it is a failure."
Turning that on its head, we have had thirty years of actually existing tax cutting, de-regulating, privatizing government policy--as USA Today points out, American taxes are at their lowest levels since 1950--and we are demonstrably less fair, less secure, less satisfied, more indebted, more stressed, more incarcerated, less healthy and less happy in comparison to people in other countries than we were when Ronald Reagan first drank Ayn Rand's Kool-Aid.
Today, conservatives attack a different "socialism," the social democracies of Western Europe and especially, the Nordic countries. But these actually existing societies, though not perfect, perform better than we do in nearly every quality of life category. Wilkinson and Pickett's data makes this clear as does even a cursory look at Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Factbook.
As progressives, we should not hesitate to state these things or to speak in moral terms. As Paul Krugman makes clear, for thirty five years from FDR to Jimmy Carter, America became more fair and more secure. For the past thirty, beginning with Reagan, fairness and security have unraveled. For that, the Randians should be apologizing, not gloating.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
87 Comments so far
Show AllThe only problem I have with this article is his use of the word "earn" in conjunction with John Gault types.
You do not "earn" enormous bonuses when you create credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. At best, you "reap" them.
Paul Goodman distinguished between two kinds of people in society decades ago by contrasting those who made things and those who lived off society by creating useless things such as advertizing jingles (this was, of course before credit default swaps had been created).
I agree that the John Gault-types are more swindle than kindle. But I would go even further. Most wage earners today do jobs that do nothing toward the betterment of the human species. Just one example: my cousin's family. All happily, gainfully employed.
He works for Siemens (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8112550.stm) his daughter works for Raytheon (MIC) and his son, the artist, works for the video-game complex, specializing in military shoot-em-ups (necessary for training future DRONE pilots).
I think John de Graaf's essay pretty well demonstrates--unintentionally--what has gone wrong with progressives and liberals.
The problem with the "productive" argument the young man makes to the author is not that it dosen't include a broader variety of producers but that it measures human worth in terms of productivity. In effect, Graaf's counter-argument reinforces this.
With regard to this point, Old Peculiar's comment tellingly illustrates how silly and arbitrary measuring human worth by perceived productivity really is.
Matt Taibbi also wrote an article about the Rand influences in today's society, and especially the effects of her theories on our financial institutions, brought to bear by her very dedicated student Alan Greenspan, and also within our elite academic institutions: the article appeared on CD on April 24, 2010:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/24
When I was going to college, one of my friends gave me a copy of Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. When I reached the rant by John Galt, I tossed the book aside -- he was too pretentious and arrogant for me. A few years later, though, when I discovered that the book represented Rand's philosophical theory of Objectivism, the everyone is on his, or her, own, and the fittest will survive, and that those theories were being implemented inside our government -- I re-read the book, but I still found John Galt to be more than I could stomach. Now, Greenspan says his ideology was "flawed." However, after leaving the Fed, he went to work for/with John Paulson, the man who bet against the economy and made a fortune.
The Matt Taibbi article is well worth reading -- if you haven't already read it.
Michael Lewis' book, Liar's Poker, is an inside look at the financial institutions that took our economy, and the world economy, down. His new book, The Big Short is also very telling, along with several other recently published books, including The Quants, 13 Bankers and No One Would Listen, written by Harry Markopolos. Michael Lewis left the financial securitization business feeling that, as a financial broker, he added absolutely NOTHING to society.
Productive? NO! The banking industry executives are NOT productive, but they sure are enamored with themselves and their formulas. They just keep taking! -- enabled by our very own elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans.
"There is no doubt that the conservative ideology of personal responsibility resonates deeply with many Americans and remains a fundamental ideological barrier to the expansion of our social safety net and greater economic security."
That points to a fundamental contradiction in conservative philosophy as expressed in the US. US conservatives do claim to believe in personal responsibility but at the same time support the powers and rights of corporations. But this is a contradiction. The main appeal of forming a corporation as a business entity is that it limits civil and criminal liability of the managers and the shareholders, i.e., it limits personal responsibility (that attracts potential managers and shareholders to the corporation). Also, the corporation distorts the relationship between productive work and income, which Randians assume is a simple and healthy relationship in their imaginary "free market" economy, as shareholders may receive income for contributing no productive labor.
In exchange for preventing the development of what they believe would be a large parasite class of the poor and lazy asking for and receiving handouts, the US corporatist Randians choose to create the preconditions for the inevitable development of a wealthy, avaricious, powerful parasite class that poses a much greater danger to the surival and welfare of the entire community and that comes with much greater cost.
"...personal responsibility resonates deeply with many Americans and remains a fundamental ideological barrier to the expansion of our social safety net and greater economic security." -Graaf
One of the main reasons many Americans focus narrowly on personal responsibility to the marginalization or outright exclusion of social responsibility is because liberals and progressives--like the auther of this piece--are perfectly willing to ACCEPT perceived "productivity" as a measure of human worth. They may quibble with Randians over who should be included as being productive--but the use of the measurement itself is not challenged.
A major function and attraction of America's personal responsiblity craze is that its narrow focus on the individual exaggerates an unchecked sense of self-interest that inevitably leads to resentment of the Other.
For those wishing to distinguish themselves from the Other it helps to have an accepted definition of human worth based on productivity.
Instead of reading Ayn Rand, people should read Thomas Hobbes. He described the kind of society the financial people live in quite well, a few hundred years ago. A dog-eat-dog existence
"Instead of reading Ayn Rand, people should read Thomas Hobbes."
Or the Greeks.
But to be honest with you, I have to admit--its likely I won't be reading either.
As an alternative, consider The Wire on HBO which just finished up its last season. According to its creater and one of its writers--David Simon--its based on the Greeks. Euripedes... someone else and someone else but not Aristophnes (the comedies)
What's interesting to me about Simon's approach is that he substitutes the Greek's selfish, venal gods with today's institutions--i.e. the schools, police elected officials etc.--as today's gods that no longer serve man but instead betray him.
Simon lays this out in this youtube--this is part one:
David Simon on the End of the American Empire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJNkL12QD68
David Simon is a very interesting guy! I have watched three or four of the seasons of The Wire, and the writing is very good. It's frightening to watch the corruption the program shows, and the betrayal of the people by elected officials and those appointed to positions of power. David Simon was a reporter for the Baltimore paper, who lost his job when the paper downsized, and the his writing partner was a beat cop in Baltimore. Therefore, their insight into reality is spot on!
Bill Moyers interviewed David Simon on the Journal, when he was still hosting the PBS program. I think all of the programs are archived and still available if you search on the site.
Thanks for the link. As soon as I have time, I'll watch it.
I saw that interview on Moyers--in fact it was in that interview that Moyers mentions Simon's appearance at Loyola that led me to it.
Thanks, greg!
(Make sure you watch all three parts, Kay.)
I found his point about the War on Drugs destroying are police force particularly tragic. Yes, we are living in a failing state where post-modern institutions throw venal thunderbolts at our collective arses.
Thanks, Old Peculiar!
"I found his point about the War on Drugs destroying are police force particularly tragic." -- Old Peculiar
I agree -- those episodes in The Wire were startling, and tragic, too.
"I found his point about the War on Drugs destroying are police force particularly tragic." -- Old Peculiar
The episodes--like the ones featured in the Moyers interview--show how the same motivation behind making more arrests for petty offenses that destroyed the police force is the same motivation behind teaching to the tests that has destroyed the schools.
In both cases, it's juking the stats for personal interests i.e. career advancement and remunerative gain.
There's your personal responsibility.
thanks greg ...r.b. fuller points out the horrible long standing western illusion that "we must prove our right to live..."
Producing what? The wage slavery to those who would abuse us? No. Much better to hunt, gather and fish.
Die ay 41 and watch your wife die in childbirth on the 8th kid because 5 have already died?
No Thank You..
>^^<
The US far right economy has failed yet the arrogant, mega wealthy elites refuse to recognize this, thus their pretending that a recovery exists. Specifically, the 2.7 percent growth rate of the first quarter, about one third of what is needed were there an actual recovery, and the trivial job gains reveal that the "recovery" is nothing more than propaganda and fantasy. Not to mention that even the 2.7 percent is mostly in sectors (especially finance and health care) where a majority of the players are extremely high income and very wealthy elites who technically don't need a job to survive. Meanwhile, those who have to have a job to survive work in sectors many of which have not yet seen even a mini recovery, sectors such as construction and education.
Some things never change. The rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting poorer despite the changed economic circumstances from a few years ago to today. This process is seemingly all that really matters in the States anymore. As long as many of the rich are getting richer and regardless of how many tens of millions are getting poorer, the US economy is considered to be a success by the powers that be.
Many elites have conveniently forgotten that there have always been (for many hundreds of years at least and plausibly for thousands of years) small and ultimately insignificant mini "recoveries" within overall depressions. Depressions simply don't magically reverse themselves after a year or two; they end only when sufficiently large scale counter forces are brought to bear. Things have to change on a scale commensurate with the scale of the depression or it will most likely both in theory and in fact never end the way American recessions used to end for about fifty years after World War 2. Instead, the depression will evolve into stagnation and it will be at least a decade, more likely many decades, and very possibly never before the economy gets back to where it was before the depression started in terms of income opportunities (jobs and business opportunities) available for the masses of unemployed.
Check any number of third world countries for further details about how big economic downturns are not automatically followed by strong recoveries. Roughly but accurately speaking, third world countries are essentially countries that are permanently depressed.
When Paul Krugman pointed out that Obama's stimulus was not going to be sufficient, he was of course exactly correct.
There is a new custom news/commentary feed you might want to check out, sort of a Common Dreams on steroids except that there are no comments: http://unityprogress.blogspot.com/
This article assumes that conservatives, objectivists, and libertarians are going to allow reality to get in the way of their agenda, which they have repeatedly demonstrated that that they are not. Don't expect any apologies from these people.
What is productive?
P= people
R= really
O= owning,
D=developing,
U= utliizing,
C= creating,
T=talents
I=infusing
V=vigorous
E=enterprises......................what?
People being valued for their expertise in their work, whether it be designing buildings or cleaning them. AUTONOMY being the operative word here. The person DOING the job might have some wonderful ideas, which could improve efficiency and productivity, but with a HUMAN slant. Sadly, these bees of the hive are often invisible.
Plus, less of that paperwork designed to CYA, and also, create a more simple way to look at and really address problems.
Actually, the original Ben and Jerry's, where work was FUN, ( and why should it be a grind, anyway?) sounded like a wonderfully human place to work. A new math, where the top and the bottom are tied together in their "product worth."
Doing away with job titles would be nice..reporting to Mary, would be better than the the assistant VP in charge of gobbly gook, or talking to George, the originator and idea gatherer, instead of the CEO. We have just become so full of ourselves with those titles!
Sorry Ms Rand, but without those editors, proofreaders, printers, paper factories, publishers, agents, office staffs, book sellers, truck drivers, coffee pot makers ( for those late nights) and yes, those book buyers, we wouldn't have ever heard of you!
Don't forget, Tesla , WAS the idea man, but Edison had the factory!
"Obama and other progressives...."?
Even Obama avoided that fraudulent claim.
"Greater equality"?
Equality has almost never existed in human relations.
The problem addressed in this article is that we no longer have any semblance of government BY or FOR the people.
The author is correct about the domination of "Randian" beliefs, however, this state religion is hardly limited to conservatives.
The majority of people in this nation have sold their humanity for the thrill of experiencing the Jurassic Park of unrestrained capitalism wherein the pentagon is tyrannosaurus rex.
It really is NOT so much a matter of who is more productive, but rather, who can pay to feed the beast and who will be fed to the beast. As the beast grows, so does its appetite.
Lots of thoughtful comments here, but I didn't expect to get through so many (reading oldest to newest) before I got to "Obama and other progressives...."?
Yes, I know that some feel that Obama-bashing has become too reflexive, not to say compulsive. And not at all "productive".
But these little mocha euphemisms, or polite fictions, stick me like splinters on a bannister rail.
PS: I don't know where the nym "birdbrain alley" originates, or if it's an original creation. But the birdfeeder on my little back patio must be smack-dab in the middle of it.
IMO, the flock of house finches frequenting it lately must have been raised by locusts. It's not too far from literal to say that they constantly swarm around and atop it, except when challenged by the Rude Boy starlings.
It's gratifying to watch their pure slapstick antics, but I'm glad when they clear off long enough to let a cardinal or chickadee have a snack.
I'm afraid to go out and check the feeder, since I fear it will be picked clean-- and the Food Club shipment won't come for another week! They might decide in their bird-brained way to devour the goose that fills the golden feeder!
"Obedient Servant"
My immediate reaction to this article was replete with expletives and so, I did as you did (and cooled down a bit in the process).
The nym came from years of fascination with and study of birds. Perhaps it is my self-parody. I live in a small conservative (that is, typical) college town and my refuge is the garden/refuge I've tried to create for birds and other creatures. I especially like the idea of "the Catbird seat".
My friends (many liberal professionals) ALL voted for Obama and, before the election, I was treated as persona non grata because I felt obliged to try to point out the nakedness of their great savant and his associates. These friends do not know that I expect an apology. I see no reason to tell them. We do not talk about it. I see them less.
So, I come here and try to point out the BS and am glad that your voice and a fair number of others are here.
The birds have always been true.
"Ornithology" has always been one of my favorite Charlie Parker tunes.
Either 'we're all in this together,' or we're competing with each other for every job, every resource, every nickel.
It can't be both. And civilization cannot survive and thrive in a 'dog-eat-dog' 'ownership society' where those suffering from extreme Greed-aholism are lauded as Winners and the other 98% are condemned as lazy bum losers whose decades of hard labor count against them.
We The People are, in fact, on our own. And it's our choice to make - either walk the walk, shake off the materialism, overcome the Greedism, and live the Commonwealth lifestyle, or keep racing the other rats for that piece of cheese that you can then keep all to yourself while the rats around you starve...
The only way to change the current failed 'system' is for more and more of us to detach from it and live the right way. Ain't no body gonna do it for us...
Well just brilliant!
In case you haven't been paying attention, those 98% are the winners. It's the 2% that can't get it together that are the losers.
Am surprised de Graaf accepts the premise that John Galt types are the productive ones and workers are not. I would argue that John Galt gets his wealth from the labor of those working for him. Workers are producers, the John Galts of the world are the parasites. Certainly the Galts come up with new ideas and new inventions and, in general, they are amply rewarded for them. But how do libertarians reconcile the hereditary monied elite with the John Galts of the world? What wealth do hedge fund managers really create? Lottery winners? Athletes with big salaries? Oprah Winfrey? Come on--workers create the wealth, not the arrogant bastards at the top.
Why comment if you won't read enough to know what you're commenting on? You criticize the author for views he has explicitly disavowed, and then reveal that you agree with everything he actually said. Stop wasting peoples time.
Not true. The article was about the dominance of market thinking in Randian philosophy. That Rand thought taxing the rich was unfair to the movers and shakers of society. The author accepts that premise and goes on to talk about how it IS fair to tax them, that currently we don't tax them very much. I didn't see the author explicitly state that the "John Galts" of the world don't create the wealth they enjoy. He simply said it is perfectly fine to tax them.
Exactly, and as a liberal, not socialist critic of Randism, you will never hear the phrase "surplus value" or "value theory of labor" from Mr. de Graf.
drosera wrote "Am surprised de Graaf accepts the premise that John Galt types are the productive ones and workers are not."
---Did you actually READ this article?
de Graaf neither implied nor wrote any such thing....
"The author accepts that premise and goes on to talk about how it IS fair to tax them, that currently we don't tax them very much. I didn't see the author explicitly state that the "John Galts" of the world don't create the wealth they enjoy. He simply said it is perfectly fine to tax them" ---actually de Graaf said the exact opposite of this...in his rebuttal to the college student, he listed, at length, all the wealth that is created by those nice folks randians consider "unproductive".
"their more conservative critics countered correctly that, "actually existing socialism is all we can truly judge and it is a failure."
This John de Graff may as well be John Galt because he's spewing some seriously dangerous propaganda. We on the far left think about the question of socialism a lot, and we feel great oppression from such propaganda from the apologists of... DAS KAPITAL!!!
John de Graff is explaining the logic of the lesser evilists who elected O'Bamba in 2008 to escalate the fascist enterprise with extreme catastrophic results.
With such rationalizations as "existing socialism is all we can truly judge and it is a failure".
Socialist Cuba has, by far, the best value in healthcare on the planet. It may be that Cuba's value in education and agriculture are also two to five times better than any other on the planet.
Socialism works VERY well. de Graff obviously has a stake to defend in... DAS KAPITAL!!
If we look all across the planet we see small communities surviving precisely due to the socialist elements in their community. They survive precisely because they are all for one and one for all.
I noticed de Graff let this phenomenon slip off his editing desk. He must be aiming for a continuation of the fascist state but with a modest reduction from wild excess and evil to a lesser excess/evil. It's been a very popular position in the USA.
de Graff criticized self-reliance that USan conservatives tend to support. Predictably, he neglected to convey the value of self-reliance and the appropriate way to integrate it into our personal policies. We need self-reliance to remain free from oppression but we cannot make it an excuse to oppress others. Notice de Graff carefully avoided explaining this because his liberal ideology forbids any sort of self-reliance.
Instead, liberals want a fascist state as much as conservatives in the USA. Only the liberals want a little more health/wellness for the slaves, by forcing their masters to be a little more benevolent. They hate socialism because they hate universal equity/justice. They work to bury this goal, the greatest goal of all.
Nice post, rt.
Not to get too far off thread, but you brought up Cuba. I'm worried about that little island in the middle of all that crude...
" We need self-reliance to remain free from oppression but we cannot make it an excuse to oppress others." -rtdrury
"Instead of grieving for himself, which would have processed and gotten him over his own feelings about how hard his life had been, he felt anger at others for, as he imagined it, getting away with something." -happyrock
Some insightful posts on this thread--among them I especially like the two quotes above from different commenters--I think they both go to the heart of the "personal responsibility" trap.
Why should the John Gaults be awarded more for their contribution than all the others? They may come up with an idea, but without the others, it would come to naught. But, you say, the entrepreneur wouldn't be motivated to organize a new endeavour without the chance to make a lot of money. I don't think so. Entrepreneurial people, like all of us are motivated by many factors, not just money. And what about the the people who contribute nothing (the sick, the young, the aged?), should they get nothing? Cooperative civilization should forget difference of reward. Everyone should get an equal share of the community Product.
I sometimes wonder if the comment writers at Commmon Dreams actually read articles or just make comments. Actually, I was clearly saying exactly what Ted is saying and sarcastically attacking the John Galt idea, or perrhaps irony and sarcasm is too hard to understand. It will be hard to convince Americans that people don't have to be productive of anything to earn their way. Even Marx understood that. Cuba, where I have been twice is no model for the US--its health care is good but unlike the Scandinavian countries I mention it does not match up in the other quality of life numbers and is far from a free society. I used the wrong word is saying "earn,"--make or reap would be better it's true. but what strikes me here is the ultra-left tone, accusing Obama of being fascist, etc. This sort of stuff will never build a majoritarian progressive movement, which is my goal. We need to counter conservative propaganda and offer a believable alternative that can speak to a majority of Americans. I went through a far left phase and realized no one at all was taking me seriously. I'm tired of being more left or progressive than thou, I want to actually move our society a bit.
Cuba has been under constant assault by the US which has done everything possible to economically destroy the country, so your analysis is false. I'd suggest a little refresher course on the ideas of Noam Chomsky.
Going into why the Soviet Union was NOT true socialism would take more time than I have at the moment, but I will say a few things. Russia was rigidly feudalistic right up into the 20th century and had never gone through the Renaissance. Its peasantry where psychologically stultified by a rigid, authoritarian Orthodox Church. Marx never thought the revolution would begin in backward Russia but in the more socially progressive states of Germany and England.
From the moment of the revolution, Russia was under assault by a capitalist coalition - much like France was under assault after its revolution - and under these kinds of circumstances - and this includes Cuba and Nicaragua - it is quite difficult to create open social democracy, something that should be obvious.
In other words, we have to imagine how all these revolutions would have developed if they had not been under murderous assault. I suggest you read Michael Parenti's "Against Empire" as a way of gaining some clarity on this issue and others.
Whining about an "ultra-left tone" and defending Obama is just hilarious. We are living in a corporate state, the fusion of corporations and the state into a vast Military-Industrial-Finacial Complex that, if not fascist, is well on its way. It is a corporate plutocracy, and it could be argued that the oligarchic core of this corporate state is for all intents and purposes fascist.
We are free? It is to laugh! We, the people have no power. And Obama serves that anti-democratic corporate state as faithfully as any republican; Obama is Bush's
3rd term.
You write, "I went through a far left phase and realized no one at all was taking me seriously. I'm tired of being more left or progressive than thou, I want to actually move our society a bit."
This is simply pathetic. Again, what you call "far left" is simply genuine progressivism. are progressives to blame because the brainwashed American majority doesnt have the intelligence or the guts to face the truth of the situation? If people dont take progressives "seriously" it is due to their own brainwashed, uninformed psyche. What we need is for Americans to grow the F*** up and face the truth. Watering down the truth so that they find it more appealing isnt the answer at all. We need a general strike that shuts down the country like yesterday, and if they cannot handle real progressivism now, then they deserve all the exploitation that come their way as they have no one to blame but themselves.
Do you honestly think that people here are motivated by some mere ego need to pose as "more progressive than thou?" You've got it all wrong. People here simply see through the two-party plutocracy and are no longer fooled by or tolerant of Madison Avenue creations like Obama, who has given the elites EVERYTHING they want at the expense of this country, which is, by the way, heading for one serious nasty collapse. If you want to "move our society" tell the sheep to wake the f*** up and face the truth, and if they wont, no amount of watering the truth down is going to make a bit of difference.
I'd say more, but I dont have the time.
"Kitaj"
Well done!
you've said plenty to prove my point. I guess I'm writing on the wrong site. As for my views I've made them clear. I'm a social democrat and I believe the Nordic model is the best actually existing system--not perfect by any means--but let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I also realize that in my fight for more time for working people I miss one point--too many of you, working or not, obviously have too much time on your hands. One can never be far Left enough for some of you. circle the rifles and let the circular firing squad have a go--it's about all you stand for.
No, you're on the right site. I sure would have liked to see you take down that student. Is it available on YouTube? Did he have a comeback for your retort? What did the rest of the audience think?
That's pretty funny John, in your response to me you advocate for people to have lives where they can work less and here in your response to this poster you are deriding folks here in general for having too much time on their hands.
You also said we should take on the "honest positions" of folks and then rather than do just that you use tired cliches that I've seen over and again emanate from liberals and centrists about we so-called "perfectionists" being "too far left" and involved in the circular firing squad. Of course you decline to define any of this so all I can do is believe you simply don't like people criticizing your articles and that you are unwilling to "honestly" defend your position.
The hypocrisy in your comment is screaming.
John - that was a great article - thanks. How some here could have posibly missed your point is beyond me. Keep on Writing.
Thank You, Mr. de Graff, for aking time to respond to some of these comments. I have never seen anyone else do that here on CD. I hope you won't judge all of CD's reader/commenters too harshly. There are a lot of boneheads and trolls lurking here.
I too find the "lefter than thou" crowd odious. The best "solution" to our problems is to look around and see what works, and try to use that.
How can anyone can actually look at the Nordic social democracies and still think US style financial capitalism is better? You would have to say something stupid like "but they don't lock up pot smokers there", as though that were somehow actually of any importance.
And, yes, I should get back to work.
" sometimes wonder if the comment writers at Commmon Dreams actually read articles or just make comments."
You are absolutely correct, sir.
"what strikes me here is the ultra-left tone, accusing Obama of being fascist, etc. This sort of stuff will never build a majoritarian progressive movement, which is my goal."
Note that a practical, rational approach to actually doing real-world movement building will earn you accusations of, Oh, I don't know, pick one: Fascist, Corporate Stooge, John Galt Wannabe.....
This is the Piss and Moan About EVERYTHING Club.
Yes I clearly saw that. We sometimes like to amplify.It's just feeding energy into an idea, like feeding heat into a hurricane. Ideas rule, in the end. Keep up the excellent work of idea-building.
Most here do read the articles and parse them quite closely.
Your aspersion about "the left" is duly noted, (you cutely went through a "phase" like puberty?) but perhaps now you could more clearly define what your present political "phase" is and also identify what you consider as "the ultra-left?"
The fact that political positions in America are far to the right of the rest of the planet, e.g. liberals in this country are in reality right-wing reactionaries on the global spectrum, may be something for you to consider.
Perhaps you do not even understand what liberalism is and it is quite clear you are unclear on what socialism means.
Now I don't know who you hang with but your positions are rather milquetoast and scarcely even political so if folks weren't taking you seriously perhaps you need to find some different allies.
It's also possible you are concerned with how well you are received rather than simply telling the dirty truths that need be told.
But let's be concrete here, tell us in specific terms how, we will use this example, we are to get affordable mass public transportation in this country.
I am a social democrat or democratic socialist depending on how you define the term. I am far to the left of the Democratic Party and would be aligned with the progressive wing of most European social democratic parties. I am also a Green and believe any solution to issues like unemployment must include ecological considerations which is why I believe shorter working hours should be a goal for the the Left. I am fully read up on Marx and happy to debate fine points with anyone but have no time to do here. Suffice it to say, I am more sympathetic to the Marx of the 1844 Manuscripts and Grundrisse than to the Marx as interpreted by Lenin. If I wasn't concerned about class I wouldn't write a whole article on inequality--it seems that some readers missed that my point was to defend the battle against inequality against the Right. I do believe in self-initiative and believe the way to get more of it is to reduce the role of the market and paid work in our lives so we can build communities together. In this I am a devoted follower of Ivan Illich. Perhaps this will give you a better perspective of my views, which may be miquetoast to some of you, but certainly aren't to those in power. Certainly the idea that I am New Age or a defender of the present corporate order of things is not even close to the truth. Dialogue is good, but let's take on the honest positions of people to criticize, not what we assume they say because we pick out a few words by themselves. Please. I would subsidize mass public transportation and tax cars and petroleum more as in Europe, and I would shorten working hours so people feel they have the time to use it. Simple.
"I went through a far left phase and realized no one at all was taking me seriously. I'm tired of being more left or progressive than thou, I want to actually move our society a bit."
And one achieves that by not already compromising your positions before you even start bargaining! FDR got what redistributive programs passed that he did _only_ because of powerful movements far to his left.
Exactly. An idea without workers is just a pipedream.The "R. Buckminster Fullers"of the world are NEVER EVER motivated by money. They are the real creators/inventors of the world. They are supremely motivated by the very act of creation. And we are morally obligated to take care of ALL members of our self-proclaimed society; "as ye have done it unto the least of these,(my children), ye have done it unto me".Our sacred contract starts with the words "We the people" and whoever comes & stands together under that construct has a claim upon our loyalty & devotion to their well-being. That IS the meaning of society & being social. THAT is the bottom line, NOT some idiotic profit & loss statement.
A really productive person will come up with a more democratic, transparent, honest, incorruptable government, and how to implement such a government. Now that's productive. Thomas Jefferson was productive. Benjamin Franklin was productive. Do you see any productive people around today?
A really productive person will come up with better ways to prevent war, because an improved method of winning wars in a nuclear age is kind of expensive. If you fight you're likely to win the ashes of the war, which aren't worth too much.