-
I don’t know about “socialists”, but it’s pretty clear that capitalism as an extreme has been questioned – even by many “conservative” economists – since the latest crash. The majority of Ossies (ex-E. Germans) look back towards the Commie days with nostalgia…
I find the poll results interesting inasmuch as they show just how out of touch the parties that represent what was formally known as the left have become. World-wide they embrace conservative economic policies (neoliberalism in particular) and have mostly ceased to represent their constituents. In some countries this is begining to manifest itself in “third parties” which are very far from being “loony fringe groups” – such as in Germany and the UK.
Of course, the rejection of extreme capitalism as a panacea is not ideologically-driven. It will probably last until some sort of liveable economic status returns… I have no doubt, however, that the recovery from the latest downturn will be similar to the previous return to “growth” via neoliberal economic policies. That is to say – the middle and lower classes will see that some or all of the erosion of their economic status that they’ve felt during the downturns will be permanent. Just about every “recovery” since the Reagan/Thatcher days has seen the same thing, sometimes including “jobless recoveries”.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – now is the time for progressive leadership to take the bull by the horns and call a spade a spade. Adopt, and stick to, a new ideology, new messages, etc., and call out the enemies of equitable policies.
I don’t think that the “third way” group are going to do this. It might take an escision from the traditional “progressive” parties or indeed new parties, but if something isn’t done soon it will take a real revolution to turn things around.
-
Since there are only 3 choices I’m not sure which I’d have picked, but it wouldn’t have been “works well”.
I think you and I agree a “mixed system” would work best. Feel free to correct your own POV if that’s wrong. Regardless, I’ll never forget the results on that “Realpolitik” thread when I asked “what’s wrong”. (It’s too bad that thread got lost when I switched board formats. I”d like to have revisited it, more than once.)
Trying to look at the current status quo from a “future history” POV isn’t as easy as I’d like it to be. It doesn’t seem like a stretch to think we’re always in a transitional stage of one kind or another, so the current status quo isn’t fixed in stone. Where have we been, and more importantly where are we going?
At a gross level we’re coming from the cold war. Yesterday the “defeat of communism” was celebrated at the Berlin wall. /snark on “Ronald Reagan did that single-handedly.” /snark off Apparently, Reagan also pissed solid gold, shit platinum bars, and farted fine perfume, so we’re also not above romanticizing mediocre leadership into superhuman abilities.
Coming on the heels of 40+ years of “cold war”, the “defeat of communism” is “proof” that “only capitalism works”, at least to this generation of supreme dumb-asses.
Put another way, this generation has one wheel in a rut, one foot on the gas, one hand on a cell phone and the other hand on a beer. The rut is steering for us and we’re in such a hurry to get wherever it (the rut) is taking us that we didn’t notice the “bridge out” sign we just drove past.
We don’t actually have “leaders”, any more. We have corporate spokesmen, often so tainted by religious fanaticism that whenever they’re let off the corporate leash they’re even worse than when they’re on it.
I don’t have much hope for this generation. Probably none at all.
About all I have left to hope for is leaving a world that’s not scarred by a full-on nuke-ya-ler exchange to my kids. I see absolutely nothing that makes me believe that “the world’s sole remaining hyperpower” isn’t crazy enough to start that exchange if and when the fatal flaws we’ve developed and won’t address reduce us to “just another nation” status. Much less “second or third world” status.
That’s why talk of a “revolution” scares the shit out of me. Not only is it possible, even likely, but power, once gained, is seldom surrendered without a fight. In a world where “money is power”, it’s only a matter of time before too many have nothing and too few have everything.
So a corollary to “once gained, not easily surrendered” is “it’s not enough to gain power, you have to hold it” becomes operative. If the current concentration of money and power continues, it’s only a matter of time before conditions become too horrible for too many and that balance will shift.
In the meantiie, we can only hope that “profits” continues to be more important than “power”. International corporations don’t care where the money comes from, as long as there’s more of it every year. They won’t let their toadies in congress start a war that would hurt their bottom line. Meanwhile, America will continue to bleed jobs to countries that don’t reward workers for their labor. Those people will go from standing in line for bread to a better way of life. They’ll learn to bargain for better working conditions. And in the end, perhaps, we’ll see a worldwide resurgence in labor unions, “Solidarnosk”, that will raise the boats of all of us on the water that’s been stashed away by a very few.
-
“Feel free to correct your own POV if that’s wrong. ”
Not wrong, but I’d describe it in another way or put it into another context. Recent historical options have been fascist/communist control of the economy, laissez faire/neoliberalism, “welfare state” with a degree of economic planning/wealth redistribution. I pretty much reject all of the above, including the “welfare state” – because the welfare state tended towards nationalization on the basis of size and not on the basis of competitiveness.
I would like to see national stewardship of elemental industries/services that are not amenable to competition (energy, water, certain transport), regulation of those that are prone to consolidation, but a relatively free hand with regards to private initiative elsewhere. I’d like to see redistribution of wealth through taxation… All together, something not really represented by the “traditional” systems, mixed or not.
“It doesn’t seem like a stretch to think we’re always in a transitional stage of one kind or another”
From the perspective of economical ideology, I don’t see any transition. We have, and have had, a neoliberal/laissez faire system since Reagan, supported by both parties. I don’t see Obama “transitioning” to anything different, nor have I detected any ideological conflict between any of Reagan’s successors in the economic arena.
“In the meantiie, we can only hope that “profits” continues to be more important than “power”.”
I’ve always had a difficulty in distinguishing the two.
“They’ll learn to bargain for better working conditions. And in the end, perhaps, we’ll see a worldwide resurgence in labor unions, “Solidarnosk”, that will raise the boats of all of us on the water that’s been stashed away by a very few. ”
That’s the “beauty” of globalization. Once a country’s workforce gets used to better conditions, corps will uproot and move to another country where workers “know their place”. Not too long ago, Spain, Portugal and Greece were the ideal places to build car factories for the European market – then the factories moved to E. Europe. Nowadays they’re all closing down – or keeping token operations for PR reasons. And as factories close in a given country, the gubmint steps in and says that “we have to lower employment costs to remain competitive”. Some countries move from 4th world status to 2nd world status, then move downwards. There’s ALWAYS a cheaper place to make things, and neoliberal national governments are always willing to sacrifice the public weal for the sake of profit… because “the market is the most efficient means”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.timbuk3.com/discuss/wp-trackback.php?p=1815