These aforementioned socialist services and institutions are operated for the safety and betterment of all humankind, and therefore are not run for the primary purpose of maximizing individual or shareholder profit, which is incorrectly argued by our treasured schools of thought as “the rational way to respond to human need (demand), and create a society of socially conscious citizens.”
It hasn’t worked so far. Our educational system doesn’t inspire a better world. Instead it sends us into a state of panic, and our parents into a state of mania so we can have attractive transcripts, so we may attend over priced prestigious schools, in the lust for stature logos in the form of high profile university window stickers, and therefore out do our graduating “peers ” and their parents, who we have already learned to distrust or dislike for any reason we can conjure up in our deconstructive minds, and who we have also learned to fear, and constantly compete with us since little league, and soccer practice.
Here’s Albert Einstein again, this time on our treasured capitalist learning/pruning centers:
“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.”
The American Socialist’s visions:
If a socialist revolution were to materialize in the United States, those who own vast portions of useful arid land, utility and energy companies, such as oil and gas, would have their companies nationalized, or confiscated, possibly indemnified depending on the historical context, and put under people’s democratic control. Its goods and services would thereby be distributed according to need and scarcity levels, which could be assessed by tons of newly employed peoples, who would be guaranteed a universal right to work—dignified work—and assured socio-economic existence, thereby making a better life for themselves, their families, their communities, country, and world. The logic is as simple as “you work for me”, and I “work for you”, or the age old maxim of “one hand washes the other, and both wash the face”, which translates into those dreaded words “communalism”, association, or teamwork, another equivalent for brotherhood and sisterhood in every neighborhood, and yes there is no “I” in team America.
As a result of unfettered and satisfying job creation we would probably see crime rates drop like never before, a tactic which would work much better than “zero tolerance” harassment tactics, tantamount to a creeping police state, one which imprisons in the “freest nation on earth” more citizens per capita than any other.
That may not sound like “efficiency” to some, but as I stated earlier, the private prison corporations are making a killing, and it’s an increasingly lucrative market. When was the last time we had acceptable employment and prosperity levels in America? When FDR made it happen, in the depths of the depression…and right after the Second World War, when the global ruination of manufacturing capacity in most former belligerent economic powers made America the sole seller of badly needed goods and services. For capitalism it took a war to do it. How fitting for capitalism to finally provide momentary full employment under the press of enormous human catastrophes precipitated by its own dynamic. Hence, yet again, the circular viral process reemerges, by feeding off it’s own disasters, the system inadvertently helped rescue itself from it’s own inherent contradictions, which eventually give rise to periodic clashes between nation states for new market ”opportunities”. If you don’t consider World War II a big enough disaster, then that choice is your own. Yet, keep in mind that the next world war will be fought with sticks stones, or so the saying goes.
In a rationally planned economy, the booms and busts of the Capitalist market (caused by wasteful, unplanned overproduction and its natural predecessor, under-consumption) would no longer dictate who would be hired or fired. In a Capitalist economy, when markets take downturns, waves of unemployment spread through every vein of society, particularly those most vulnerable to the erratic and unpredictable weather of the “free-market.” Therefore those without labor protections in place are hit the hardest, with no system in place to guarantee them work or safety from these periodic storms. In stark contrast, a robust Socialist constitution, unparalleled in its historical demands for true democracy, equality and liberty, would guarantee every citizen the right to dignified employment, thereby banishing this systemic insecurity intrinsic to Capitalist society.
Moreover, in a Socialist United States, where resources are beyond vast, and despite our numerous “functional illiterates,” more than sufficient people are literate, capable, and hard working, mass numbers of the otherwise unemployed, or sporadically employed, could always find truly productive work. In fact, with the astonishing destruction of the global environment new industries vital to our survival as a species (not to mention respect for the planet because it’s the right thing to do) need to be created, such as green energy jobs, related human services, myriad tasks in environmental conservation, sciences, the “new” medicine, the arts, and other positive fields of work, and, for reasons that should be plain by now to the reader, we would have to be delusional to think corporations are going to do the job. As George W. Bush stated in his greatest quote to date “fool me once, shame on…shame on you. Fool me… [mind blank] you can’t get fooled again!”
As is widely known, in capitalist society many of our so-called needs are fabricated, hence the billions spent on advertising. Under socialism, there would no longer be a need to spend billions on advertising to sell people harmful products, and often useless or appallingly wasteful “things” like GM’s Hummer. The corporations are always mining the lowest common denominators of human sensibilities, including chauvinism, hyper egoism, competitiveness, and the commercial ethic, if we can call it that, as the main glue for the social fabric. Why do corporations appeal to such low level sensibilities? Because only people who posses such characteristics would be childish, and insecure enough, in light of the overwhelming evidence of how bad these vehicles are, to drive a Hummer (I’m not worried about alienating the Hummer crows from our cause, chances are, when push comes to shove, they will be playing for the other team, and already are). One day, hopefully sooner than later, all of this waste and nonsense will be a memory, and one that I would be happy to forget about very quickly, so we may actually enjoy life more than we are now.
Is socialism really something to fear so much then, as we have been taught to believe? Consider this: By abolishing private ownership of the means of production in society, by letting the actual producers, from engineers to shop floor workers, and the surrounding community, and the nation itself, become the new owners, you actually grant legal ownership to every person. There is a saying that when everyone is a bureaucrat then no one is a bureaucrat; well the same applies to socialism: when everyone is an owner then nobody is an owner, BUT, there’s a huge difference. The people now have gained control over their lives.
Meanwhile, as relates to personal property, the object of so much concern and malicious propaganda, individuals would own their homes, apartments, cars, clothing, and other private belongings as many of us do now, and these items would not and could not be shared, except as a free choice by each one of us, according to our own priorities and predilections.
In respect to our current “way of life”, has anyone ever asked himself or herself why they should have to work an entire lifetime to pay off a small house, student loan, artificially bloated health care bills and other miscellaneous debt? Why should our entire short existence on this planet be spent in a state of frequent fear of debt and insecurity, not to mention terribly unfulfilling jobs? How many times a day, week, or month does the thought cross your mind that if you were to somehow become disabled there might be no one to pay the mortgage or help take care of your loved ones?
America today, seems to put all of our faith in the private insurance industry that every last one of us knows is in the business of finding ways to deny our claims, while overcharging us. This is so well documented that that the industry accepts it as a fact and simply cynically concentrates on propping its two traditional pillars of support: an utterly bought off Congress and cynical public relations campaigns gladly disseminated by an equally evil media. Yet many of us go on accepting getting ripped off because we have been made afraid by the very same class of people to whom the alternative—socialism—is simply unthinkable.
For those wishing to learn the real facts about socialism and capitalism, I highly recommend reading Michael Parenti’s Black Shirts and Reds (among other titles he has authored) or listening to his lecture “Reflections on the Overthrow of Communism” (which can be found in the Cyrano’s audio archive). Most Leftists now turn to Noam Chomsky “by default” for theory and communist history. I don’t wish to close this essay by stirring up a brawl among progressives, or those who define themselves as on” the left,” but the sad truth is that Chomsky, his enormous contribution notwithstanding, is un unreliable guide to socialist theory, and writes little of value on the history of communist societies, other than invidious attacks against communists (”thugs who ride to power on the backs of the people”). Perhaps Noam is just yielding to an all too common liberal reflex to “balance” his criticism of capitalism, and bolster his image of impartiality with such inane attacks, but to date, he doesn’t dare lay a bad word on the door step of Cuba, or Fidel, or Che, although, as Michael Parenti has noted, Cuba is very much a Soviet styled economy.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
