Sunday, November 13, 2005

Socialism for the 21st Century

I want to start a thread here that can be a forum for examining what possibilities exist in the now, that is, our current collective spatial/ temporal space, for creating a more equitable and just global economic structure. I especially want my comrades at CAJA to participate, as well as any other interested persons out there in cyber space, so that we can get a diverse and wide ranging array of opinions within these parameters (sorry, I just don’t have time to argue with reformers): We reject the global structure of advanced capitalism as a predatory, unjust and unsustainable way to produce, allocate and distribute services and goods. We reject any authoritarian, totalitarian or class- based system which enforces hierarchical or bureaucratic State power over that of the People. My hope is that the ideas developed here can form the basis for a community wide discussion format such as a conference or symposium, eventually finding expression as a much needed opposition movement and/or alternative political entity of some kind. Within those sideboards, anything goes.

It is my belief that a “socialism for the 21st century” will incorporate and be a synthesis of, the revolutionary traditions which have preceded us, namely Marxism, anarchism, syndicalism, communism et al..and that to the degree that we who adhere to these theoretical systems can explain our arguments and reasoning while avoiding sectarianism, dogma, doctrine and over the top polemics we can contribute to this necessary, I believe critical, discussion. Of course one needn’t adhere to one of these “isms” to participate. Please provide sources or references to help others locate relevant information.

Current anti-capitalist discourse is centered on two main areas, which are at once inter-connected, and approached somewhat differently by different interest groups. These are the issues around what is termed “globalism” or “globalization”, which tend to be centered in the economic realm and those of human –rights, for which the language of democracy and law tend to dominate. Because the United States is at once the worlds largest economy, the center of global capital expansion, the most powerful military apparatus and hence the most entrenched force for global exploitation our task as subjects of this hegemon is to explore the opportunities available to us within this limited space in order to effect change.

How are the social movements in the global South, those of the indigenous peoples, of land reform and the re-distribution of wealth, those rejecting privatization and other neo-liberal economic programs relevant to our experience here? How do the global economic institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization affect development, trade and self-determination? What are the contradictions that lead to crisis and openings for radical change and what structures can replace the current model and eliminate those contradictions? Is trade unionism still a viable movement? Why is there such a propensity for anti-capitalists to splinter off into groups with seemingly minor theoretical differences? What new divisions of labor, forms of production and class relations need to be explored and defined? What role does culture play in this project? Let’s get down to it.

7 Comments:

At 7:22 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Troutsky, you asked, "What are the contradictions that lead to crisis and openings for radical change and what structures can replace the current model and eliminate those contradictions?"
A rather large contradiction that stands out in mind is how we are so worried about spreading democracy abroad, that is to say, helping other people, that we can't even help the poor in our own country. I should qualify that statement as a reference to our lack of healthcare. Certainly we have welfare, but you see where that is going.
An anecdote: When my girlfriend and I were in Venezuela she became very sick, most likely from a bad empanada at a bus station. Couldn't eat, diarrhea, vomiting, the whole lot. We got her to a medical clinic and they sent me across the street to a pharmacy with prescription in hand for a syringe and some pills. I paid for the things and came back. They gave her a shot and we were on our way. No Bills, nada. If that were in the U.S. and I had to take her to the E.R. the bill would have been astronomical.
Seeing as though my health insurance runs out in March maybe we should plan to move.
My point is this, in the last presidential elections Bush did everything but call Kerry a red. Kerry should have stood his ground and fired back that while he wasn't a communist, a system of social health care is certainly in order given we are a "wealthy" country. As Che Bob will probably weigh in, it is all in the way you frame it. While many people like the idea of social health care, they don't want to risk being called a commie.

 
At 9:10 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

What role does culture play in this? A big one when it pertains to the uneducated, self-centered in this country. Have a look at this blog, it will get you going...
http://www.babalublog.com/

 
At 11:27 PM, Blogger troutsky said...

I don't have the exact stats but i know most industrialized countries have socialized the costs of healthcare to some degree.Take away the profit incentive and there may be more motivation for preventative care.The capitalists will tell you profit is the only thing that drives people.What a sick view.

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger Kevin Carson said...

Nice blog, troutsky. I followed you over here from a comment at mine.

In your profile, you mentioned some difficulty getting along with The Party; I thought one of the benefits of being a Trot was there were so many to choose from ;)

Part of the problem with the present system is not a lack of incentive to preventive care, but that the big insurance companies are so friggin' STUPID. And because they're cartelized and protected to a large extent from cost competition, there's not so much pressure to find creative ways of economizing.

One solution might be a cooperativized healthcare sytem, where delivery of service is controlled by the same people as the financial end of things. As it is now, there's a two-tier financing system, but only a one-size-fits-all product at monstrously inflated prices.

I'd like to see the mutuals involved not only in cooperative financing of healthcare, but directly involved in organizing service. Then there'd be a big market for basic services like generic drugs, treatment of trauma and other acute problems, etc., delivered by an American equivalent of barefoot doctors, at a low price.

There's no reason somebody with a basic six-month course couldn't handle things like doing a basic sputum culture and maybe looking at an x-ray to diagnose pneumonia, and writing a scrip for zithromax. Under the white coat cartel, though, you have to pay the fees of somebody who went through a full course of med school and residency.

 
At 1:04 PM, Blogger A Wiser Man Than I said...

Kevin makes a good point in regards to doctors. Let nurses do more of the work, and we'll lower costs for sure. We should also let more doctors into medical school. We don't need to lower the standards for acceptance, but we do need to make sure we don't have anything near a shortage of doctors. Of course, all this is in a capitalist system.

Socialized healthcare worries me. Don't get me wrong, I think the current system is awful, but I'm hesitant to hand over control to the feds--or whomever. You mentioned preventative medicine, Troutsky. We could certainly use some of that. My question though, is with free healthcare, wouldn't the incentive be to discourage preemptive medicine? After all, if we don't take care of our bodies, can't Auntie Sam just give us a band-aid?

 
At 7:58 PM, Blogger troutsky said...

It then begs the question, what mechanism can best break up cartels,keep them from forming and why does capitalism tend towards monopoly? If it is an intrinsic tendency (as I believe) and markets are simply a clever, manipulative device to channel wealth and support for them is embedded in a power structure extremely resistant to change,the best reformers can hope for is Keyensian initiatives designed to avoid social unrest.The mechanisms (such as a bloated bureacracy) can be as bad as the cartels, in terms of democracy and freedom.

You would think a Trot could find a party to support but I hate selling those polemical papers and I find them all unwilling to engage in the necessary self criticism the times demand.Thats why this project.Trotskys principled opposition to Stalin and belief in "permanent revolution" still have value for me.

Health care and the environment seem to me to be good examples of how capitalist markets, while great at creating wealth short term, are unsuited to perpetuating sustainable development or recognizing areas where a precautionary, preventative attitude is warranted.

 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger A Wiser Man Than I said...

I answered a bit of this over at my blog.

As to the last bit on healthcare and the environment...

Corporations are going to remain short-sighted. I do not like the prospect of regulation, but that seems to be the only answer when it comes to the environment. Self-regulation is a preposterous notion on this front. It is like allowing a small child to decide for himself when his room is clean.

In regards to healthcare, it seems to have become far too much of a commodity to be bought and sold. The dreary lesson of capitalism is that it regulates us all to this sorry end. I haven't an answer for this at the present, but if I think of something I will let you know.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home