Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Socialism and Obama

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Socialism and Obama

    An interesting article from a bona fide Marxist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Brown
    When I announce that I am a socialist, I guess it is no surprise because we are all socialists now. We just bought General Motors … The fact is that we now have Marxism realized. We own the means of production and we did not have to fire a single shot. It is really quite phenomenal what went on today.

    – Pat Martin, NDP MP for Winnipeg Centre, in the House of Commons, Monday, June 1, 2009

    Leo Panitch knew that Marxism was back, brothers, when he was asked by AM640 (“Home of the Leafs”), a sports-mad radio station in Toronto, to talk about the GM deal. The Canadian people suddenly own a few levers of the means of production, and some of the comrades wanted to know what they’d gotten themselves into.

    The financial collapse has been manna for Marxists. Most Canadians don’t realize York University’s Professor Panitch is one of the world’s most prominent Marxist thinkers, a contender for the mantle of E..P. Thompson, the founder of the British New Left and, like Mr. Thompson before him, editor of the Socialist Register. This is a huge deal among Marxists, who wear their sense of history the way the rest of us wear underpants.

    But the money meltdown has pushed Prof. Panitch to centre stage. Last month at Ryerson University, he delivered the Phyllis Clarke memorial lecture, in which he explained why Marxism is more relevant today than ever. A version of the speech is the cover story of the latest edition of Foreign Policy magazine, the bible of the Washington political establishment.

    In Germany (where they’re thinking of nationalizing banks), sales of Das Kapital, Karl Marx’s masterwork, increased tenfold last year. (To over 1,000) More copies of Prof. Panitch’s Renewing Socialism have sold in the last four months than in the previous seven years. The London School of Economics – the once-leftist school where the professor did his doctorate, although he complains it now offers nary a course on Marx – has invited him back to a conference. Title? “Revisiting Marxism.”

    FROM BERLIN WALL TO WALL STREET

    To top all that, last week Prof. Panitch lit out for Moscow to take part in Russia’s version of the Davos forum on global economics. He was invited by none other than Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s President, to discuss whether the financial crisis could reinvigorate socialism as much as the fall of the Berlin Wall collapsed it. “Political systems with state capitalist elements seem to have advantages over countries with a pure liberal model,” the conference’s literature points out, before concluding that “liberal capitalism … obviously heads towards its historical end.”

    “They’re flying me business class at a cost of $4,000 because I have a PhD defence Monday morning in Toronto,” Prof. Panitch says. “It’s ridiculous. Marxism seems to be the flavour of the month.”

    CEOs aren’t abandoning their bonuses for worker committees and the power of the people. But Prof. Panitch and others point out that Marx predicted this collapse – right down to credit default swaps and other kinky tricks of finance. Marxism, they say, is a powerful tool with which to understand the mess we’re in – so powerful it will make us question the system that produced the crisis in the first place. Prof. Panitch has zero patience for the leftish wimpdom of the New Democrats or of Bob Rae, whom Prof. Panitch refers to as a “moral dwarf.”

    He saves his deepest scorn for Stephen Harper. The spectacle of the Prime Minister, a free-market economist once bankrolled by the insurance industry, admitting that governments had no choice but to take over the North American car industry was rare redemption for a Marxist.

    “What does that say? What it indicates is that these huge corporations, while they may be legally private, are incapable of operating as private institutions. And if they can’t function without being public, then the state has to maintain order.”

    Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian Auto Workers now own more than $10-billion worth of GM stock. But neither the union nor taxpayers have a real voice on the board, and GM executives in Detroit are still pretending they own the joint, refusing to disclose financial details and vowing to close 2,500 dealerships, regardless of whether they’re profitable.

    “That shows you how bizarre it is,” Prof. Panitch says, “that we call ourselves a democracy, but we have all these ‘private’ corporations that control our lives. Who owns them? The shareholders? Who are the shareholders in this case? Who owns GM? What’s being taken over by whom? And the fact that that question hasn’t been asked is frightening. Really, it has nothing to do with being a socialist. It has to do with being a democrat.”

    Like Marx, the radical left insists capitalism brought these problems on itself. The tumultuous late 1970s – the last time organized labour had any power, when politicians still bragged about “mixed economies” – were followed in short order by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, who managed to kidnap the affections of working people. Free trade, globalization, the near-death of trade unions, slashed social spending and the erosion of the economic power of the middle class ensued.

    That, the Marxists say, is why people have been forced to overuse their credit cards and dive into debt – a situation then inflamed by the profligate, irresponsible behaviour of Wall Street.

    And don’t expect Leo Panitch and his ilk to be heaping praise on your man Barack Obama: The new President is just part of the problem. Paul Street, a leftist historian in Iowa City, hammers out blogs and essays for Z Magazine, an influential new fount of leftist thinking in the United States. Mr. Street calls Mr. Obama a “fake progressive.” He likes to point out – when he isn’t lamenting how ignored Marxists are in his country, where they have an even lower profile than they do in Canada – that the finance, insurance and real-estate industries contributed $38-million to Mr. Obama’s election campaign, including a $900,000 chunk from Goldman Sachs. No wonder the Obama administration hasn’t thrown Wall Street to the pigs.

    “The left has been immobilized by Obama, for the most part,” says Mr. Street’s comrade Doug Henwood, a Manhattan Marxist who produces the popular Left Business Review and hosts a weekly radio show with socialist sympathies in New York and California. “A lot of people think the country’s being run by a left-wing radical.” But in fact Mr. Obama is “a kind of centre-slightly-left politician” overseeing the resale of America’s financial assets at fire-sale prices to the same private interests that screwed them up in the first place.

    (Mr. Henwood cites Old National Bancorp, an Indiana bank that sold stock warrants to the U.S. Treasury Department in return for bailout money. ONB recently became the first bank to get out from under the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s executive compensation restrictions by buying its warrants back for $1.2-million – about 20 per cent of what they may eventually be worth. Those larger profits could have gone to taxpayers, or so the Marxists would have it.) “The irony,” Mr. Henwood says,” is that, if Bush were still president, there might be more anger.” In his critique – every Marxist has one – “Wall Street, or the financial markets, are the institution through which a ruling class is constituted. Stepping on their toes is a no-go. And the contrast between Obama and Roosevelt is telling in that regard. The fact that Roosevelt came out of the aristocracy himself made him much more comfortable about stepping on their toes when he had to. The fact that Obama came out of the middle class and the meritocracy makes him much more reluctant to do so. I think he wants to do what they want.”

    REFRESHING JARGON

    The ruling class The aristocracy When was the last time you heard that ringing cry? Marxism has been out of favour so long, even its jargon sounds refreshing.

    Marx would be unimpressed with the West’s handling of the biggest calamity since the Depression, Prof. Panitch says, because we haven’t been bold enough. “No ambitious vision for enacting change has resulted from the current financial crisis.” Financial-transaction taxes? Taking stakes in outmoded car companies? That’s thinking inside the box.

    But the Marxists see encouraging signs. “The failure of my generation,” Prof. Panitch says, “has been that we haven’t been able to produce parties or social movements that go beyond social-democratic parties. If you’re not speaking to people through the mass media, you’re not speaking to people.” The Internet (and the success of Internet-fuelled inventions like microfinancing) may change that: Z Magazine is packed with provocative ideas about participatory economics, and Marxists in Canada and Europe are being picked up again by the mainstream media. Public anger over executive bonuses, collapsing pensions and trenchant unemployment is simmering on the gas – to say nothing of the coming fury if interest rates explode because of the bailout.

    Even mainstream economists are now making radical, Marx-like noises. Willem Buiter, an economist at the London School of Economics, last week proposed socializing and nationalizing the entire banking system, given that it can’t keep itself afloat as a private enterprise. That, Prof. Panitch says, is the kind of opening
    Marx wanted the organized masses to use to seize control. For a Marxist, the revolution is always just around the corner.

    And even if it isn’t, Marx has his uses. “The point of still being a Marxist today,” Prof. Panitch says, is to think ambitiously, “to recover the spirit of the revolution.” Karl Marx, a freshman of 19 at the University of Berlin as his brain began to explode with ideas, sent his father a letter. “There are moments in one’s life that represent the limit of a period and at the same time point clearly in a new direction,” the young genius wrote. “Every change is partly a swansong, partly an overture to a new epic that is trying to find a form in brilliant colours that are not yet distinct.” Surely one can be forgiven for seeing a little pink in the sky.

    Now for someone like me whose political beliefs revolve not around labels but around the ideas of interests, vested interests, best interests, power and propaganda... I just love the plays of power and jargon in this article.

    We need a little more critical thought on what part of human nature Marx was trying to rectify, and what part of human nature capitalism sought to glorify. Life's reconciliation is reconciling life itself, as it comes and as it is.

    Let's see a little more of that.
    But mark me well; Religion is my name;
    An angel once: but now a fury grown,
    Too often talked of, but too little known.

    -Jonathan Swift

    "There's only a few things I'd actually kill for: revenge, jewelry, Father O'Malley's weedwacker..."
    -Bender (Futurama) awesome

    Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal.
    -Immortal Technique

  2. #2
    B5C's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Burlington, WA
    Posts
    1,701

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Remember folks this socialism and capitalism swinging is normal.

    In a bad economy we want socialism and a bigger government.
    In a good economy we want capitalism and smaller government.

    “Nothing could be more dangerous to the existence of this Republic than to introduce religion into politics”

  3. #3
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by B5C View Post
    Remember folks this socialism and capitalism swinging is normal.

    In a bad economy we want socialism and a bigger government.
    In a good economy we want capitalism and smaller government.
    I agree.

    I think Marx was right in predicting capitalism would lead to socialism.
    But I think Marx was wrong in believing communism would be the end point, it will probably swing back to capitalism eventually.



  4. #4

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    I agree.

    I think Marx was right in predicting capitalism would lead to socialism.
    But I think Marx was wrong in believing communism would be the end point, it will probably swing back to capitalism eventually.
    Marx failed to assume that Socialism and Capitalism would eventually moderate anyway. He assumed that laissez-faire capitalism and fanatic Socialism and ergo the Industrial era would exist for a long period and that eventually the latter would prove victorious. He failed to assume that the people would be gradually emancipated due to moderate Socialism and Capitalism developing.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.J.P. Taylor
    Peaceful agreement and government by consent are possible only on the basis of ideas common to all parties; and these ideas must spring from habit and from history. Once reason is introduced, every man, every class, every nation becomes a law unto itself; and the only right which reason understands is the right of the stronger. Reason formulates universal principles and is therefore intolerant: there can be only one rational society, one rational nation, ultimately one rational man. Decisions between rival reasons can be made only by force.





    Quote Originally Posted by H.L Spieghel
    Is het niet hogelijk te verwonderen, en een recht beklaaglijke zaak, Heren, dat alhoewel onze algemene Dietse taal een onvermengde, sierlijke en verstandelijke spraak is, die zich ook zo wijd als enige talen des werelds verspreidt, en die in haar bevang veel rijken, vorstendommen en landen bevat, welke dagelijks zeer veel kloeke en hooggeleerde verstanden uitleveren, dat ze nochtans zo zwakkelijk opgeholpen en zo weinig met geleerdheid verrijkt en versiert wordt, tot een jammerlijk hinder en nadeel des volks?
    Quote Originally Posted by Miel Cools
    Als ik oud ben wil ik zingen,
    Oud ben maar nog niet verrot.
    Zoals oude bomen zingen,
    Voor Jan Lul of voor hun god.
    Ook een oude boom wil reizen,
    Bij een bries of bij een storm.
    Zelfs al zit zijn kruin vol luizen,
    Zelfs al zit zijn voet vol worm.
    Als ik oud ben wil ik zingen.

    Cò am Fear am measg ant-sluaigh,
    A mhaireas buan gu bràth?
    Chan eil sinn uileadh ach air chuart,
    Mar dhìthein buaile fàs,
    Bheir siantannan na bliadhna sìos,
    'S nach tog a' ghrian an àird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jörg Friedrich
    When do I stop being a justified warrior? When I've killed a million bad civilians? When I've killed three million bad civilians? According to a warsimulation by the Pentagon in 1953 the entire area of Russia would've been reduced to ruins with 60 million casualties. All bad Russians. 60 million bad guys. By how many million ''bad'' casualties do I stop being a knight of justice? Isn't that the question those knights must ask themselves? If there's no-one left, and I remain as the only just one,

    Then I'm God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Napoleon III, Des Idees Napoleoniennes
    Governments have been established to aid society to overcome the obstacles which impede its march. Their forms have been varied according to the problems they have been called to cure, and according to character of the people they have ruled over. Their task never has been, and never will be easy, because the two contrary elements, of which our existence and the nature of society is composed, demand the employment of different means. In view of our divine essence, we need only liberty and work; in view of our mortal nature, we need for our direction a guide and a support. A government is not then, as a distinguished economist has said, a necessary ulcer; it is rather the beneficent motive power of all social organisation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang Held
    I walked into those baracks [of Buchenwald concentrationcamp], in which there were people on the three-layered bunkbeds. But only their eyes were alive. Emaciated, skinny figures, nothing more but skin and bones. One thinks that they are dead, because they did not move. Only the eyes. I started to cry. And then one of the prisoners came, stood by me for a while, put a hand on my shoulder and said to me, something that I will never forget: ''Tränen sind denn nicht genug, mein Junge,
    Tränen sind denn nicht genug.''

    Jajem ssoref is m'n korew
    E goochem mit e wenk, e nar mit e shtomp
    Wer niks is, hot kawsones

  5. #5

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer View Post
    Marx failed to assume that Socialism and Capitalism would eventually moderate anyway. He assumed that laissez-faire capitalism and fanatic Socialism and ergo the Industrial era would exist for a long period and that eventually the latter would prove victorious. He failed to assume that the people would be gradually emancipated due to moderate Socialism and Capitalism developing.



    Marx also had absolutely no idea what information/technological economies would be like.

    He lived in a different world.

    His ideas are relevant only to a static industrial economic world.

    That is not the world we live in any more. We live in a dynamic post-industrial information society.

    On one level, metaphor and abstract information can be gleaned from outdated thinkers like Adam Smith and Marx but people should stop listening to them as if they are relevant.

    There are current thinkers whose ideas are FAR more relevant to understanding today's world.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  6. #6

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post

    On one level, metaphor and abstract information can be gleaned from outdated thinkers like Adam Smith and Marx but people should stop listening to them as if they are relevant.

    There are current thinkers whose ideas are FAR more relevant to understanding today's world.
    And where do you think these contemporary thinkers got their understanding from?

    That's why it's called a "Marxist interpretation".
    But mark me well; Religion is my name;
    An angel once: but now a fury grown,
    Too often talked of, but too little known.

    -Jonathan Swift

    "There's only a few things I'd actually kill for: revenge, jewelry, Father O'Malley's weedwacker..."
    -Bender (Futurama) awesome

    Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal.
    -Immortal Technique

  7. #7
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer View Post
    Marx failed to assume that Socialism and Capitalism would eventually moderate anyway. He assumed that laissez-faire capitalism and fanatic Socialism and ergo the Industrial era would exist for a long period and that eventually the latter would prove victorious. He failed to assume that the people would be gradually emancipated due to moderate Socialism and Capitalism developing.
    Yes, he failed to predict that too.

    But I think the moderate mix between capitalism and socialism we see today, especially in Western Europe, was partly caused by the things people have learned from his work.

    If he didn't publish his ideas, the communist revolution probably wouldn't have happened and Western Europe would probably have become a lot more capitalist than it has now.

    Kinda like predicting a tsunami killing millions and then being proven "wrong" because people heard your warnings, prepared for the tsunami and survived.



  8. #8

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    rk.

    If he didn't publish his ideas, the communist revolution probably wouldn't have happened and Western Europe would probably have become a lot more capitalist than it has now.

    IMO, It would have. The Bolsheviks would have just been "utopian socialists" instead of communists.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  9. #9

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    Yes, he failed to predict that too.

    But I think the moderate mix between capitalism and socialism we see today, especially in Western Europe, was partly caused by the things people have learned from his work.

    If he didn't publish his ideas, the communist revolution probably wouldn't have happened and Western Europe would probably have become a lot more capitalist than it has now.

    Kinda like predicting a tsunami killing millions and then being proven "wrong" because people heard your warnings, prepared for the tsunami and survived.
    Yes. Another reason was mainstream socialism trying to distance itself from Communism, especially after the formation of reactionist, fascist groups after WWI, ergo moderating themselves and trying to appeal to the masses and other political factions with moderate policies.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.J.P. Taylor
    Peaceful agreement and government by consent are possible only on the basis of ideas common to all parties; and these ideas must spring from habit and from history. Once reason is introduced, every man, every class, every nation becomes a law unto itself; and the only right which reason understands is the right of the stronger. Reason formulates universal principles and is therefore intolerant: there can be only one rational society, one rational nation, ultimately one rational man. Decisions between rival reasons can be made only by force.





    Quote Originally Posted by H.L Spieghel
    Is het niet hogelijk te verwonderen, en een recht beklaaglijke zaak, Heren, dat alhoewel onze algemene Dietse taal een onvermengde, sierlijke en verstandelijke spraak is, die zich ook zo wijd als enige talen des werelds verspreidt, en die in haar bevang veel rijken, vorstendommen en landen bevat, welke dagelijks zeer veel kloeke en hooggeleerde verstanden uitleveren, dat ze nochtans zo zwakkelijk opgeholpen en zo weinig met geleerdheid verrijkt en versiert wordt, tot een jammerlijk hinder en nadeel des volks?
    Quote Originally Posted by Miel Cools
    Als ik oud ben wil ik zingen,
    Oud ben maar nog niet verrot.
    Zoals oude bomen zingen,
    Voor Jan Lul of voor hun god.
    Ook een oude boom wil reizen,
    Bij een bries of bij een storm.
    Zelfs al zit zijn kruin vol luizen,
    Zelfs al zit zijn voet vol worm.
    Als ik oud ben wil ik zingen.

    Cò am Fear am measg ant-sluaigh,
    A mhaireas buan gu bràth?
    Chan eil sinn uileadh ach air chuart,
    Mar dhìthein buaile fàs,
    Bheir siantannan na bliadhna sìos,
    'S nach tog a' ghrian an àird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jörg Friedrich
    When do I stop being a justified warrior? When I've killed a million bad civilians? When I've killed three million bad civilians? According to a warsimulation by the Pentagon in 1953 the entire area of Russia would've been reduced to ruins with 60 million casualties. All bad Russians. 60 million bad guys. By how many million ''bad'' casualties do I stop being a knight of justice? Isn't that the question those knights must ask themselves? If there's no-one left, and I remain as the only just one,

    Then I'm God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Napoleon III, Des Idees Napoleoniennes
    Governments have been established to aid society to overcome the obstacles which impede its march. Their forms have been varied according to the problems they have been called to cure, and according to character of the people they have ruled over. Their task never has been, and never will be easy, because the two contrary elements, of which our existence and the nature of society is composed, demand the employment of different means. In view of our divine essence, we need only liberty and work; in view of our mortal nature, we need for our direction a guide and a support. A government is not then, as a distinguished economist has said, a necessary ulcer; it is rather the beneficent motive power of all social organisation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang Held
    I walked into those baracks [of Buchenwald concentrationcamp], in which there were people on the three-layered bunkbeds. But only their eyes were alive. Emaciated, skinny figures, nothing more but skin and bones. One thinks that they are dead, because they did not move. Only the eyes. I started to cry. And then one of the prisoners came, stood by me for a while, put a hand on my shoulder and said to me, something that I will never forget: ''Tränen sind denn nicht genug, mein Junge,
    Tränen sind denn nicht genug.''

    Jajem ssoref is m'n korew
    E goochem mit e wenk, e nar mit e shtomp
    Wer niks is, hot kawsones

  10. #10

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Da Skinna View Post
    We need a little more critical thought on what part of human nature Marx was trying to rectify, and what part of human nature capitalism sought to glorify.
    For as much ire is evoked at the mention of his name, very few Americans have actually read Marx. It might serve us well to read Marx, not to become Marxists, but to understand that our recent economic meltdown is nothing new. In fact during the 18th and 19th centuries it was much worse and more frequent.

    Adam Smith is equally as relevant, not just for the "invisible hand" idea but because he had much of the same observations as Marx in the inherent stratification of a free market. Part of Smith's solution was that the rich should pay more, in proportion of their wealth, than the poor in taxes. (yeah, by the definition of the modern right, Adam Smith was a commie) Smith also advocated publicly funded schools.
    "fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russel

    "allergic to groupthink" -FuZe

  11. #11

    Default Re: Socialism and Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by FuZe View Post
    For as much ire is evoked at the mention of his name, very few Americans have actually read Marx. It might serve us well to read Marx, not to become Marxists, but to understand that our recent economic meltdown is nothing new. In fact during the 18th and 19th centuries it was much worse and more frequent.

    Adam Smith is equally as relevant, not just for the "invisible hand" idea but because he had much of the same observations as Marx in the inherent stratification of a free market. Part of Smith's solution was that the rich should pay more, in proportion of their wealth, than the poor in taxes. (yeah, by the definition of the modern right, Adam Smith was a commie) Smith also advocated publicly funded schools.
    I think Aristotle had a quote about learning and not accepting it...
    But mark me well; Religion is my name;
    An angel once: but now a fury grown,
    Too often talked of, but too little known.

    -Jonathan Swift

    "There's only a few things I'd actually kill for: revenge, jewelry, Father O'Malley's weedwacker..."
    -Bender (Futurama) awesome

    Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal.
    -Immortal Technique

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •