Forum Post: Can reform save the USA?
Posted 11 years ago on July 4, 2012, 8:42 p.m. EST by TitusMoans
(2451)
from Boulder City, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Independence Day is a good time to ask whether the American republic can be saved by reform.
Many believe that changing our system, for instance, by making it less-susceptible to corruption--by patching the glaring holes in the framework of this democratic republic--can be saved.
Others, however, believe capitalism is just another political-economic system like tribalism,slavery, or feudalism and that like other such systems runs through an historical process before being supplanted by another new system.
Once humans evolved to the point of property ownership, class divisions resulted; in slavery people owned people; in feudalism the rulers owned real-estate, and the serfs worked as sharecroppers; in capitalism the wealthy elite own the means of production, while the workers sell their hourly services like so many prostitutes.
If Marx, Engels, and others were right, capitalism is on its last legs having reached the point, at which self-destruction becomes imminent and inevitable.
Can reform save the USA?
The problem may be more with people then with any economic system. On paper capitalism, marxist socialism, anarchistic socialism, even theocracies all should work well. It's people that either are corrupt or become so, then seek to dominate and control others.
Of course Capitalism works well on paper. Capitalists wrote that paper.
Same could be said about the other isms. Capitalism, however, forces people to be corrupt.
Of course they wrote the paper, as Marx did for his form of socialism. Any proposed economic system is written from a perspective that is favorable. What anarchist would be in favor of enforcing anarchistic-socialist decisions at gun point? Yet that was done in Catalonia in the 1930's. The theory looks at the ideal in a favorable light from the supporters point of view.
I don't see how capitalism "forces" corruption on people. It assumes competition would keep people honest. In reality we find there are ways that and larger companies certainly become corrupt and unfairly influence those charged with regulating the system. Even there it would be possible to argue that the fault lies partly with the electorate for not staying informed.
Capitalism is a quid pro quo system, and not only that, but the "best" are the ones that are rewarded with the most.
Think of it in terms of baseball, which is also a form of competition like Capitalism. In order to become and maintain the status of "the best," a player may have to resort to taking steroids, which are a dishonest form of self-improvement. Kids who play simply for fun with their friends would never resort to steroids. They have no reason. But the moment you introduce the competitive element whereby one's livelihood becomes contingent on making the grade, people begin cheating the system. Competition just creates insecurity. I'm not sure why that would keep people honest.
I don't think we can blame the electorate for not being more informed. The media and political parties are circumlocutory about their faults. When businesses informed the electorate that outsourcing would provide cheaper products and save Americans money, they intentionally withheld the fact that it would also bring down the average wages of the American worker.
We can also see how competition keeps the Republicans and Democrats "honest."
When looking at the idea of communism or socialism, it might be best to stay away from real world examples that truly amounted to nothing more than fascism in the name of some better form of government. That's really all Russia was: Fascist. Perhaps the early Christians would be a better example of communism in practice. The Native Americans as well could provide successful examples of anarcho-socialist societies.
My purpose wasn't to attack or defend any particular economic system. Competition does seem to me to be part of our nature though. Baseball at a competitive level acknowledges human nature and tries to regulate the game with rules and independent regulators.
Early christian groups were essentially communistic, but leaders slowly fell prey to human greed. That very tendency for human nature to work against any system as it is proposed in theory is my point. Not that capitalism, socialism, or anarchism are good or bad.
As far as the electorate is concerned, in my view they have to take on the role of regulating the regulators.
But I think the historical example of Christian and Native American communist and anarcho-socialist groups suggests that we could very well circumvent our competitive "nature," though I would argue that a competitive economic model teaches us to actually value intense levels of unnatural competition.
People can be corrupted, but wouldn't we be better off living in an economic society that is less likely to be corrupt? What Marx argued is that strong local societies would regulate each other better. With a strong federal government, it becomes nearly impossible for the people to regulate the legislators well.
We might be able to, I'm not sure that I agree that native Americans suppressed their desire to compete and excel on an individual basis. They certainly had leaders whose opinions and suggestions carried more weight then many others in the group. They also had the advantage of being few in number.
I don't see how a government built on Marxist or anarchistic principals could come to power, at least within the next century or so. Neither has more then token support from the population. Difficult to see a system working when well over 90%of the population has to be forced into it.
I definitely see your point. Even Marx thought it would take a while for a change to take place.
But instead of being defeatist, if more people were optimistic and actively engaged in changing, then it would happen sooner than we think.
I don't see it as defeatist to point out a problem, any more that pointing out a flat tire to someone. You're not going to go far if you ignore the problem, it has to be acknowledged, understood and dealt with.
Perhaps your problem isn't as defeatist as you think, but you sounded quite it.
But there is a lot of defeatist poo-pooing on Capitalism going on without giving a reasonable solution to the problem. The only solution is a radical change in government.
The jaded public just thinks, "This is the best we got, and it has always been this way." We need to understand that all the Americans who say "If you hate America, then get out," are really just fearful, insecure people looking for an answer.
If we actively engaged the public and pointed at the successful attempts at anarcho-socialism and communism, then that would be a starting point in changing the world. OWS for me is too aggressive, too infantile in their approach. That's why they really haven't changed much yet.
We could have had a major turning point in this election cycle. We could have thrown out the corporate politicians quite easily if we were more organized and educated, or at least played the part.
I agree that OWS could have had an impact on the political system, but too many see the system as beyond redemption. Rather then making the attempt to take it over and work toward changes from within many seem only willing to wait for its collapse.
You're completely right. I can see that you're part of the good guys, the real dreamers. Please keep fighting. I truly hope we change things.
In capitalism, selfishness is the engine that raises productivity, and is also the same engine that divides the benefits of that productivity into inequitable shares. The trick is to encourage the former and discourage the latter. Selfishness is not a result of competition. It is firmly ingrained in the human condition, well before any system of government or economy is chosen.
Research into hunter-gatherer societies suggests that selfishness is the result of years of our competitive system. Aboriginal societies in America were noted for their strong sense of community. It's one of the reasons many 1776-era colonists and Americans left "civilization" for the Native tribes.
Productivity can be raised, and can even be made a lot better without a competitive model. A good example would be the way we used our tax dollars to build our national infrastructure. We weren't "competing" against anyone, but it was a good idea. We simply need to instill in the citizenry a sense of community, and then we'll be able to accomplish much more than competition ever could.
If I had to choose between competition and cooperation to achieve a higher standard of living, I would choose competition, because it causes man to work longer and harder to achieve it.
But if I wanted a better life, I would choose cooperation, because material wealth is relative. The wealth of today is like abundant fruit without any flavor. I would rather have just enough fruit to fill my stomach with an abundance of flavor.
Explain how capitalism forces people to become corrupt?
That is a no brainer. With our system if you don't always increase your profits then your profits diminish, enticing the least savory among us to rape and pillage the most vulnerable. It is one of the major reasons why I will never increase my standard of living. Once i become accustom to living a certain way, I will defend that standard and rationalize all my actions as being just.
For instance, take the term creative destruction and apply it to Bain Capital, and you'll see how people can destroy lives and justify their actions with nifty little catch phrases, which turn the act of destruction into an act of efficiency.
Won't the least savory be present in any system?
But the rules--he with the most gold gets the most accolades--without Capitalism will not be in his favor. Listen, being greedy is about as much of a human inclination as a person taking the life of one who accosts and injures said person. In fact during the days of Sparta, it was OK to kill those who were socially deviant, but today, as a culture, we frown upon such behavior and that puts the inclination in check. The exact opposite can be said about our society and its love affair with Capitalism. Instead of shunning the rich who are less savory, we aggrandize them. Romney should be on the island of Elba, not a presidential nominee.
Maybe each person's underlying nature is amplified by a particular system. The unsavory would always flourish in the most unsavory system. The decent would flourish in the most decent system.
If Romney, Obama, Gates, Buffett, Blankfein, Dimon, Etc. are the best that our system can produce, then that system needs a major overhaul.
I have addressed your comment in my response to JPB950.
But capitalism relies on exploitation of workers, since it treats them as just another commodity. It is built on a purposeful inequality, just as slavery and feudalism were built on the same premise.
If we start with abstract Hegelian dialectics then progress through Marxist historical materialism, the apparent conclusion is that political-economic systems based on exploiters and the exploited have always created their own means of self-destruction. Sooner or later the exploited turn the tables.
Lenin wrote that social democracies could achieve temporary balances between the opposing classes, but the balance was always just a detour on the road to the society's demise.
Business owners can't exploit workers without their cooperation. Workers need to unionize again. When unions are weak, wealth inequality is strong.
If the workers are too weak to stand up to business, what makes you think they will stand up and change the entire government?
http://classwarinamerica.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/mega-wealth-unions-and-equality/
Workers are at the disadvantage; most own nothing but subsistence property and enough above that to keep them working.
Though the exploited must cooperate to a certain extent, that is they must obey or somehow break their chains, such a situation provides the seeds of its own destruction, as more and more of the workers become disenchanted and dissatisfied.
During the Middle Ages as serfs became increasingly oppressed, the most independent and skilled generally fled fiefdoms for cities, where over time they established a new class, the burghers, who countered the landed nobility.
When the industrial age dawned, the burghers, who had the advantages of a centralized population with a large amount of surplus labor amassed great amounts of capital and evolved into the bourgeoisie.
So, generally every oppressed class has some sort of escape option, which eventually closes the door to the prevailing system.
And the escape option for the 50% of American workers who earn less than than $26,000 a year?
Escape is not the answer. Standing up and fighting where we stand against low wages by forming broad based unions is. But not the current hierarchical type that has putrefied in corruption, but a direct democratic form.
The increase in personal communication can unite workers nationwide in common knowledge and action and restore what has been lost.
Syndicalism can be viewed as an escape option, as can revolution, or non-violent resistance. I prefer the last, because it is most predictable.
I support unions. but view them as transitional, until workers can truly obtain their fair share.
"All exploitation is based on co-operation, willing or forced, of the exploited. However much we may detest admitting it, the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refused to obey the exploiter. But self comes in and we hug the chains that bind us."
-Mahatma Gandhi
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/#comment-535263
And the rest of that paragraph by Ghandi. "What is needed is not the extinction of landlords and capitalists, but a transformation of the existing relationship between them and the masses into something healthier and purer."
You have a different perspective on capitalism then the capitalists do. In theory it can be said that capitalism allows for an individual to excel. If he or she produces a product that can successfully compete with others the individual is successful. Workers are not wage slaves but choose to sell their abilities. Everyone is motivated to preform their best work out of self interest. It favors the individual over the collective.
I'm not saying the system works in practice, but then neither does Marxism. The theory of any economic system looks only at the ideal from a favorable perspective.
"Workers are not wage slaves but choose to sell their abilities."
One of the two essential reasons for wealth inequality. Selling their labor at too low a price.
The other is buying that labor back again through the purchase of goods and services at too high a price.
Please don't take that statement out of context. It is made from the perspective of the capitalist, I'm making no personal comment on it's truth, falsehood, or the morality involved.
When you point out problems in capitalism you are essentially demonstrating my point. On paper, capitalism works well. It's human greed that creates the failure.
I agree with the statement. "Workers are not wage slaves but choose to sell their abilities." Was just adding the key reason why the inequality in wealth exists.
I am for the free and fair market. It us up to the people to understand it's function and keep it running smoothly. As long as we remain ignorant of the core reasons behind the current lack of fairness in our economic affairs, injustice will continue.
I agree, a key element in any economic or political system has to be the people. The statement about wage slave vs selling abilities is strictly a matter of perspective. Socialists and anarchists will insist on wage slave, free market capitalists will insist employment is a fair exchange.
Historically, capitalism fits into the scheme of other property-based systems. Marx listed them as slavery, feudalism, capitalism: each a progression from the other, not through the rose-colored glasses of lofty ideals, but only on the basis of their historical perspectives.
That was one of his major contentions with other economists, political theorists, and philosophers,. He accused them of fitting their ideals onto history, of fabricating utopias instead of simply extrapolating from historical records. Certainly, the definition of capitalism you give is an unrealistic version of the class struggle through the Industrial Age; more or less that definition makes the argument for Marx.
Since Marxism has not been tried past the revolutionary stage, it is hard to say how it may work, but Marx predicted many revolutionary attempts before the workers finally succeeded in establishing their own transition government.
Like you, I'm not saying that it works, but Marx and Engels would have resisted anyone attempting to define communism with utopian terminology; they would have traced the rise and fall of previous political-economic systems and applied that information to outline the cycle of capitalism since the industrial revolution.
I think JPBs point is valid. Is there, or has there ever been, a political or economic system that does not include corruption? I don't think that it isn't because we haven't found the right system - I think it is because human nature is flawed.
I realize that is a defeatist point of view - but maybe if we all recognize the problem, we can work to fix it. Unfortunately, even the best efforts to rectify the problem won't see real results for generations.
Yes, you both have a valid point. Still, perhaps that flaw of human nature is conditioned by the division of classes, not an innate human flaw.
I certainly don't know, but those on the bottom of two-tiered society will most often want to rise above their societal position.
If we are slaves to human nature, then there is no argument to be made for freedom or freewill, as these concepts would be nothing but illusion.
Even more disturbing, this line of reasoning absolves us, each and every body, from the specter of personal responsibility, which should make some conservatives shudder, as it conflicts directly with the very underpinnings of their whole ideology.
I agree with you, which is why I brought up the conditioning argument. The conflict that friendlyopposition and JPB950 have used as a point is not a result of innate human nature, but a conditioned response to a property-based system, in which property can realistically have only two different states: mine or others.
In fact this is the point communist ideologists have repeatedly made; the system itself corrupts most people into believing only one way of life is possible and correct, but as the class division increases, the opposition from the lower class: slaves, serfs, or workers increases, until finally that system self-destructs.
It's a bogus point about human nature anyway. Capitalism's glaring flaw is not operator error, its ugly wart is the inequitable exchange between labor and ownership - a design flaw.
The entire concept of property ownership inexorably creates the mine-others mentality. Corruption, greed, etc aren't parts of human nature; they are a response to a have/have-not world.
Rewards and consequences drive personal ambitions. It sucks to have a system full of incentives engineered to drive corruption and greed.
Not slaves to our nature, but we are foolish if we ignore it when establishing governments or economies. Foolish when we listen exclusively to proponents that simply assume people will always all do what's right and ignore things like self interest, greed, or envy.
I don't mean to absolve people of anything. In fact I see the failure of capitalism, or that of communism, as our failure to remain engaged. No system works because it's well written, or has the best intentions, it works if only when we continually work at it.
Capitalism rewards ownership - only compensates labor. Not an equitable exchange. That has nothing to do with operator error being disengaged, it is a design flaw in the machine.
I'm not trying to justify or defend capitalism. The basic point I started with is that any economic, theory as proposed by supporters, explains the system in the most favorable light. This is just as true with various forms of socialism as it is with capitalism. It's human nature, when it is ignored, that causes these systems to fail.
Economic theories are developed and instituted by believers. They ignore the shortcomings in human nature in favor of their world view. I don't think his intent was to absolve so much as point out the reality that unless we acknowledge and take into account human faults any economic system will be flawed.
His intent was to excuse the system in favor of blaming the operators. But is that really correct in this instance. A gun does not kill, it requires a human to pull the trigger. If the gun operator gives into greed and shoots another to steal their wallet, the operator could be said to be at error. However, if that gun is designed in such a way to open fire sporadicly for no reason (invisible hand), the gun going off on its own volition and killing someone would not be operator error, that would be a design flaw.
Why not? That's what we did in the Great Depression. We rose taxes on the rich folks, and the government spent it by creating jobs, or just gave it to the masses. We just have to keep doing it every few generations.
Wouldn't it be better to change the system rather than stumbling along from crisis to crisis?
Sure it would. I would like to see some kind of system like Hollywood portrayed in the Star Trek series. Everybody had everything they needed and you could have property if you want to.
A realistic system that provided for the needs of all would be best. Luxuries are just that, better to provide for all then share the surplus as luxury items.
"Independence Day" is as good a time as any to reflect upon 'independence'. From the get go the US has battled hard against 'Bankster Occupation' and right now The Citizenry is under 'The Boot of The Banksters' and 'Democracy' has been well and truly usurped !
Without a multi-pronged and multi-faceted resistance and attack on 'For Profit Private Banking' and The Parasitic Banxter Scum ... we are just being pedantic about semantics !!
"Reform" / Revolution / Restoration / Reaffirmation ... are all just words which will forever remain mythic and idealised pipe dreams without we The 99% realising the need for RESISTANCE !!!
Educate ; Agitate ; Organise ...~*~...
dum spiro, spero ...
And the best way the agitate is to educate, to inform workers that real options exist and to attain them requires a broad-based, collective effort.
Bang On The Button Bro' ... We, The 99% - have nothing to lose but our chains !!!
per ardua ad astra ...
The time has come to cast them off.
Two tunes for the olds and a beat heavy re-mix for the younglings :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyyvC5S_TRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErQHc9N2O08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mSSaDmYLyI .
Resistance Is Fertile !!!
e tenebris, lux ...
This guy can help You unite, just join him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWilYY-4MYs&feature=related
Thanks.
FYI, "It’s Not Our Job To Take Power, It’s Our Job To Fight Power !" ; Chris Hedges speaking at Occupy National Gathering in Philadelphia : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31774.htm .
ad iudicium ...
Agreed, "to fight power" in the hands of the 1% and transfer it to the workers as a whole to share collectively.
Capitalism died in 1929. Socialism can't even save us now. That's how far the train has run of the tracks. And people are still waiting around for a miracle. Just looking at the posts on this will tell you that 99% percent of the people have no idea how much trouble we're in. This is much bigger than the banks, wall street, republicans and democrats. Good luck everyone:
“Be Smart!” – FIGHT THE CAUSE – NOT THE SYMPTOM
U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )
Non U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.2” at ( http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )
If you know the world around you is collapsing and you do nothing about it, then who’s really at fault when you stood by and did nothing? We have to stop whining and do something about it. We don’t have to live like this anymore.
Reform can save the US if "The People" are involved in the process.
http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.
Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson
Since I've had time to evaluate the links, I want to bring up a quotation that reminds me, without the technological advancements, of what the OsiXs site bring up: "The way out of [the ineffectiveness of] parliamentarism is not, of course, the abolition of representative institutions and the elective principle, but the conversion of the representative institutions from talking shops into 'working' bodies... 'A working, not a parliamentary body'--this is a blow straight from the shoulder at the present-day parliamentarian country, from America to Switzerland, from France to Britain, Norway and so forth--in these countries the real business of 'state' is performed behind the scenes and is carried on by the departments, chancelleries, and General Staffs."
Vladimir Lenin wrote that almost 100 years ago in The State and Revolution. What he described was the communist ideal of individual communes as representative working bodies to truly carry on the business of state. The OsiXs idea is workable; the problem, of course, is motivating enough people to participate and finally take back their government.
The problem is motivating enough people - U R right and this is where we are today, but remember that "You can't start a fire without a spark". The more people that spread the word, will in effect "Fan the Flames". Most people don't know that we have this option or any other option for that matter. They feel helpless. I feel my job is to enlighten people and let them come to their own conclusions; not to convince them. People are smarter than the mainstream media would have you think. I hope you have the opportunity to delve deep into this site. The more you read, the more you understand what they're trying to do.
From the Declaration - ................experience hath shewn mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
http://thebsreport.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/the-declaration-of-independence-what-does-it-mean/
Why shouldn't we have more input into the decisions that affect our everyday lives; and restore liberty to us, our children, and to future generations?
Cheers :)
To some degree, yes. However, technological unemployment and molecular manufacturing, both of which are inevitable, threaten any monetary market. Reform toward environmental conservation and restoration, ending cyclical consumption, linear disposal methods, planned and intrinsic obsolescence, coupled with social reform in which ever manner possible will be necessary for a smooth transition to whatever system the people of the planet (not just U.S.) decide upon in the near future (next few decades). We've got a lot of cleaning up to do very quickly with regard to values, even moreso than political policy, or it could get ugly.
Che Guevara once said, "Economics cannot be separated from politics." To achieve the goals you mention, requires a society that is not built on exploitation of the environment and humans.
I just wonder if a smooth transition can be accomplished. Most major societal changes have been accompanied by violence
This site has a plan on how to make the transition non-violently while installing the people as the Executive Branch.
http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
You and aigars have both linked to this site. Thanks. I believe any system that non-violently returns power to the workers is worth a try, but I also agree with other posters, who say liberty is participatory; we must find a way to involve the overwhelming number of Americans.
In our current system, the only way to participate is by voting ............ which is dubious at best. The people need oversight and veto power in REAL TIME, because our government can't be trusted. They have proven this. Participation would increase if they thought their actions made a difference. The other thing I like about this plan, is that it doesn't tear down our existing system, but simply builds upon it, giving the people the final say, and allowing for an easier transition.
Let us start a new example then.
I'm all for it.
Good - we are here in a great spot to affect change - we just need people to commit to the idea.
Move to Amend is such a good and shining example of what we can do and how we go about getting it done.
This is how we need to address our issues all of them going forward to reclaim our government/country. Unity. In support of issues. This is how we begin to parent our government along the proper course for all.
This is how we reach out to our fellow citizens and our fellow organizations.
Stand together and speak with one voice on all issues - People over profits - health over profits. No more destructive behavior by any business or corporation.
This will take all of us spreading education and awareness. The people are ready to hear it. We need to give it to them.
If we accept the premise that people form history and are not pawns of some great design, whether by plan or chance, we can strike out on different paths, but that is revolutionary in itself, sure to trigger great opposition, even violent at times.
Political-economic goals go hand-in-hand; if we want to change the economics, we logically have to change the politics. Since the political deck is stacked against change, especially a leveling of the economic field, even with a vast majority supporting change, I wonder if it can happen non-violently.
We have to do - what has not been done before - own our government as it was meant to be owned - by the people. The laws are in place - for the most part - the constitution supports our legal rights - we need to claim them and use them. This Is Our Country.
Capitalism has wobbly legs because it is top heavy, concentrates mass at the top. Wobbly legs tend to fall down a lot.
One time or another it's bound to crack its head.
There is a great depression on its forehead.
Ouch!
It has - but it has failed so far to learn from the lesson. The Parents - Us - The People - have got to step in - and teach.
Maybe we should concentrate on balancing it, so the system won't be so prone to fall.
Yes this is the education to share - along with common sense goals.
This truly is not rocket science. No it does not have to be complicated. Ask any engineer that is worth anything and they will tell you to keep it simple - as the more complicated something is - the more ways it can break down.
We are people - we all have the same wants and needs - how much simpler can it get?
Shift your paradigm People.
Unite in common cause - health and prosperity for all - it is that simple.
We need to start parenting our country.