Very well explained. My understanding is that the exploitative robber barons of this age also would like to usher in socialism, but to take away people's agency, self-determination. Also, there's a book that states that toward the end, the USSR's greatest minds at the table ultimately had to admit they couldn't understand key ideas of Marx. Marx had his own blind-spots. It was a great betrayal in 1918 to dive head first into a system they didn't take the time to realize they couldn't fully comprehend, not even on a theoretical level. Forgot the name of the book. So the challenge now is to lift the blind spots and be clear eyed. Why, for example, precisely did these ideas run into major snags and miseries and real harm to human beings on a wide scale in the kibbutzim, which you will never read about?
I'm fascinated by your point about the USSR. I'm not the most knowledgable about the country, but I do know there was a great debate right after the 1918 Revolution of whether they should implement Capitalism or attempt Socialism. At the time, Russia was a feudal-ish system, so when the latter was chosen, Soviet society was missing key elements of production that would have been created by Capitalism.
Joe, just got this post. There are 2 things going on: the pure ideas & the abuse of those ideas. People instinctively feel that, as in Europe, socialism (or a soc-capitalist mix) can create a very high quality of life with a healthy democracy when that's what capable leaders work toward, altho now undermined by costly wars. Is this the future evolution you're talking about? Thanks for bringing up these questions. I look forward to reading your posts!
I've yet to read that article, but it sounds like that's the evolution I'm describing. Basically, industries that were once privately owned (Capitalist) are purchased by a state or country, where they operate alongside and against other Capitalist businesses. Eventually, countries can purchase more and more companies, gradually eliminating profit, which is by definition an inefficiency — it is value extracted from the system that only benefits 1 person.
It is fascinating. So basically Russia was not in a position to be able to transition into socialism even if they had had the genius of Marx or Engels at the helm.... So sad! I feel I need to write about these things, even though it's not my primary interest, only because a lot of young people are kinda veering off the rails with it, expecting that these philosophies are better thought out than they actually are. So I also see that actually, capitalism can and did work pretty well, but only if you have the ethics of Adam Smith and the Puritans (the first people to really build and live in capitalism) -- it REQUIRES a society intelligent & educated enough to have a foundation of charity and good-heartedness, otherwise it devolves into exactly what it has become today -- slippery slope toward slavery, actually.
I once heard a Marxist historian (not a Marxist-believer, but someone who studied Marx) state that, "Marx didn't view himself as an opponent of Adam Smith, but his descendant."
It's intriguing how the different stages of our society build upon each other, yet we are so committed to holding on to this Capitalist stage.
...this is the truth when things evolve organically. But there's a lot of economic manipulation. The powers that be, it seems, are working toward Marxist State Monopoly Capitalism, which is what the USSR had, starting at 2:37:00 https://www.banned.video/watch?id=64150349605edf539c55cc01 Jay Dyer (starting at 2:20:00) and https://youtu.be/o4RTJgUkAW4 Max Keiser.
As China is showing, the only way to address climate change is for a socialist leaning state to invest in infrastructure and make an energy transition feasible.
The robber baron, rentier 1% of the Imperial west are making money out of neocolonialism and are opposed to any restrictions on the free market made by the 'state' which are seeking to limit environmental damage. The effects of the damage is mostly felt by the 99% and the colonised nations so it's easy to see why this should be so. But it will lead to the destruction of the 1% too.
Re : The Case for Economic Democracy. I was active in Students for Economic Democracy , the youth wing of Tom Hayden's Campaign for Economic Democracy at CSUN in 1979 and into 1980 , before I transferred colleges. Barack Obama was active with SED at Occidental College in the same time frame.
I'd say that Socialism's record isn't very indicative of its being an evolution of capitalism. Its a regression, really. Otherwise, I would not have so many family left the Eastern Bloc.
But keep preaching I guess. Unlike in Macedonia under Tito (where my family is from) most people who push against the grain in the US don't get killed. And 30 years on after evolving into a liberal, democratic, capitalist society, I've yet to have even one family member get killed by the state--which cannot be said for a similar duration under exclusively Socialist rule.
I don't doubt socialist projects have gone wrong in the past. But I don't think that disregards the whole project. After all, capitalism took about 500 years of trial and error to be successful.
Aside from the fact that any passing reader wouldn't get that impression from your substack given you don't write about it's myriad failures and inability to match the heights of capitalism or liberal democracy, let me ask you something:
Are you telling me that I should ally myself with the same ideology that killed my family? An ideology infested with people who still valorize those brutes who did that? An ideology whose members still deny atrocities in the regions it once commanded? an ideology that quite simply failed to keep its promises to my people? And an ideology whose members in Venezuela are-as I write this-attempting to keep a dictator in power, illustrating to me that when coming into power, its not capable of being democratic, roughly 30 years on after the collapse of the USSR?
Because, you know, I really hope you're not trying to say that. That'd be quite ridiculous--maybe on the same level as asking a Jew to believe in "national socialism" today after that ideology killed so many family, while liberal democracy has not.
Hadn’t thought of socialism like this before! Thanks for sharing!
Very well explained. My understanding is that the exploitative robber barons of this age also would like to usher in socialism, but to take away people's agency, self-determination. Also, there's a book that states that toward the end, the USSR's greatest minds at the table ultimately had to admit they couldn't understand key ideas of Marx. Marx had his own blind-spots. It was a great betrayal in 1918 to dive head first into a system they didn't take the time to realize they couldn't fully comprehend, not even on a theoretical level. Forgot the name of the book. So the challenge now is to lift the blind spots and be clear eyed. Why, for example, precisely did these ideas run into major snags and miseries and real harm to human beings on a wide scale in the kibbutzim, which you will never read about?
I'm fascinated by your point about the USSR. I'm not the most knowledgable about the country, but I do know there was a great debate right after the 1918 Revolution of whether they should implement Capitalism or attempt Socialism. At the time, Russia was a feudal-ish system, so when the latter was chosen, Soviet society was missing key elements of production that would have been created by Capitalism.
Is one of my favorite "what ifs?" of history!
https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/when-a-top-bolshevik-revealed-all?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=257742&post_id=108826446&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Joe, just got this post. There are 2 things going on: the pure ideas & the abuse of those ideas. People instinctively feel that, as in Europe, socialism (or a soc-capitalist mix) can create a very high quality of life with a healthy democracy when that's what capable leaders work toward, altho now undermined by costly wars. Is this the future evolution you're talking about? Thanks for bringing up these questions. I look forward to reading your posts!
I've yet to read that article, but it sounds like that's the evolution I'm describing. Basically, industries that were once privately owned (Capitalist) are purchased by a state or country, where they operate alongside and against other Capitalist businesses. Eventually, countries can purchase more and more companies, gradually eliminating profit, which is by definition an inefficiency — it is value extracted from the system that only benefits 1 person.
It is fascinating. So basically Russia was not in a position to be able to transition into socialism even if they had had the genius of Marx or Engels at the helm.... So sad! I feel I need to write about these things, even though it's not my primary interest, only because a lot of young people are kinda veering off the rails with it, expecting that these philosophies are better thought out than they actually are. So I also see that actually, capitalism can and did work pretty well, but only if you have the ethics of Adam Smith and the Puritans (the first people to really build and live in capitalism) -- it REQUIRES a society intelligent & educated enough to have a foundation of charity and good-heartedness, otherwise it devolves into exactly what it has become today -- slippery slope toward slavery, actually.
I once heard a Marxist historian (not a Marxist-believer, but someone who studied Marx) state that, "Marx didn't view himself as an opponent of Adam Smith, but his descendant."
It's intriguing how the different stages of our society build upon each other, yet we are so committed to holding on to this Capitalist stage.
I totally agree.
...this is the truth when things evolve organically. But there's a lot of economic manipulation. The powers that be, it seems, are working toward Marxist State Monopoly Capitalism, which is what the USSR had, starting at 2:37:00 https://www.banned.video/watch?id=64150349605edf539c55cc01 Jay Dyer (starting at 2:20:00) and https://youtu.be/o4RTJgUkAW4 Max Keiser.
As China is showing, the only way to address climate change is for a socialist leaning state to invest in infrastructure and make an energy transition feasible.
The robber baron, rentier 1% of the Imperial west are making money out of neocolonialism and are opposed to any restrictions on the free market made by the 'state' which are seeking to limit environmental damage. The effects of the damage is mostly felt by the 99% and the colonised nations so it's easy to see why this should be so. But it will lead to the destruction of the 1% too.
Interesting, do you have a resource where I could learn more about China's climate preservation efforts? I'm naive to them.
Re : The Case for Economic Democracy. I was active in Students for Economic Democracy , the youth wing of Tom Hayden's Campaign for Economic Democracy at CSUN in 1979 and into 1980 , before I transferred colleges. Barack Obama was active with SED at Occidental College in the same time frame.
At the time I viewed the term, "economic democracy," as slippery . Why not just assert the need for democratic socialism, directly, using the "s," word, instead of that euphemism? https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Democracy-Challenge-Martin-Carnoy/dp/0873321626 . The two authors were policy wonks for the CED. Carnoy ran for Congress in 1984, in the district incorporating San Jose. When I chatted with a campaign volunteer for him in 1984, and remarked how I had just read another book by him, https://www.amazon.com/Political-Theory-Princeton-Legacy-Library/dp/0691612706/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=wIl98&content-id=amzn1.sym.cf86ec3a-68a6-43e9-8115-04171136930a&pf_rd_p=cf86ec3a-68a6-43e9-8115-04171136930a&pf_rd_r=142-7215326-5339844&pd_rd_wg=Ocqu5&pd_rd_r=356edcec-a369-4b2e-886e-55034ea1ff46&ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk , just published as a very good neo-marxist analysis of the capitalist state, she looked at me like I was a member of the rabidly right-wing John Birch Society, heh. The other co-author, Derek Shearer , was an old friend of Bill Clinton's from the early 70's. Shearer back then had written for Ramparts , the leftist monthly. Clinton appointed him to be Ambassador to Finland. At the Congressional hearing he testified at, he was red-baited.
Love it! Thank you, Joe.
I'd say that Socialism's record isn't very indicative of its being an evolution of capitalism. Its a regression, really. Otherwise, I would not have so many family left the Eastern Bloc.
But keep preaching I guess. Unlike in Macedonia under Tito (where my family is from) most people who push against the grain in the US don't get killed. And 30 years on after evolving into a liberal, democratic, capitalist society, I've yet to have even one family member get killed by the state--which cannot be said for a similar duration under exclusively Socialist rule.
I don't doubt socialist projects have gone wrong in the past. But I don't think that disregards the whole project. After all, capitalism took about 500 years of trial and error to be successful.
"gone wrong"
Aside from the fact that any passing reader wouldn't get that impression from your substack given you don't write about it's myriad failures and inability to match the heights of capitalism or liberal democracy, let me ask you something:
Are you telling me that I should ally myself with the same ideology that killed my family? An ideology infested with people who still valorize those brutes who did that? An ideology whose members still deny atrocities in the regions it once commanded? an ideology that quite simply failed to keep its promises to my people? And an ideology whose members in Venezuela are-as I write this-attempting to keep a dictator in power, illustrating to me that when coming into power, its not capable of being democratic, roughly 30 years on after the collapse of the USSR?
Because, you know, I really hope you're not trying to say that. That'd be quite ridiculous--maybe on the same level as asking a Jew to believe in "national socialism" today after that ideology killed so many family, while liberal democracy has not.
To be honest, I don't care what you believe. I articulate my beliefs here. You're free to make up your own mind.
I'm going to take that as a "no," then.
If only you read from Eastern Europeans instead of the works of socialists.