How Communism became the disease it tried to cure MercatorNet (blog) The great German sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920) offered an understanding of the evolution of socialist regimes in the twentieth century from revolutionary radicalism to a stagnant system of power, privilege and plunder, manned by self-interested ... |
Read more here:
How Communism became the disease it tried to cure - MercatorNet (blog)
In a world becoming more atomized and misanthropic by the day, where it seems sometimes that you have only to be a raving degenerate in order to achieve fame and powerwitness Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, or, in a different way, Milo Yiannopoulos (whose degeneracy, though, has partly caught up with him)it is useful to be reminded of the other side of human nature. The institutions of modern capitalism happen to reward depravity, first and foremost in the economic sphere, but since the maturation of mass society generations ago, in the cultural sphere as well. One is constantly confronted, therefore, by moral and intellectual filththe depths of human vulgarity on television and the internet, mad lusts for power and profit in politics and business, collective slavishness to mainstream norms in intellectual institutions, self-deception on a virtually heroic scale among the hordes of objective servants of power. One feels hemmed in by forces of delayed social implosion; one feels claustrophobic in a society whose categorical imperatives are but to privatize and marketize, to impersonalize, bureaucratize, and stupidize, all for the sake, ultimately, of accumulating capital.
Fortunately there are avenues of momentary escape from the decadence. One such avenue is to follow a particular train of thought that David Graeber pursues in his bestselling Debt: The First 5000 Years, as well as in this paper. It provides a conceptual antidote to the knowledge that Trumps and Bannons exist.
Namely, Graeber reminds us that fundamental to human nature, more fundamental than the debaucheries thrown up by late capitalism, is the tendency that he dubs communism. On a deep level, we are all (or nearly all), to some degree, communists. For if communism means from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, as Marx defined it, then it simply means sharing, helping, and cooperatinggiving to others in need what youre able to give them, even if it is only advice, assistance at some task, sympathy or emotional support, or some money to tide them over. Friends, coworkers, relatives, lovers, even total strangers constantly act in this way. In this sense, Graeber says, communism is the foundation of all human sociability; it can be considered the raw material of sociality, a recognition of our ultimate interdependence that is the ultimate substance of social peace.
From this perspective, incidentally, the early Marxs apotheosis of communism in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 acquires a somewhat different meaning. To quote his grandiose idealistic formulation:
This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuineresolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and manthe true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species.
If one understands communism in Graebers sense, as, in effect, a fundamental tendency of human natureand a principle immanent in everyday life, to quote Graeberthese exalted theses are at least suggestive. For instance, humans psychological communism does tend to resolve conflicts between man and nature and between man and man, for it springs from the reservoir of sympathy that Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith understood to be shared by all non-pathological humans.
The communist morality, in fact, is nothing but a corollary of the Golden Rule, that you should treat people as youd like to be treated, with respect and compassion. Morally speaking, communism is common sense. Indeed, polls show that, despite what were taught to think about the political proclivities of Americans, large numbers agree with this radical statement. In 1987, for example, when Reaganism was ascendant, a national poll found that 45 percent of Americans considered Marxs famous slogan quoted above (from his Critique of the Gotha Program) to be so obvious that they thought it was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution! This is a point one might make in debates with political conservatives (i.e., reactionaries).
It would be amusing, too, to point out to some Breitbart writer or his legions of online followers that, in spite of himself, he is manifesting a communist morality every time he helps someone, every time he shares or cooperates; he is acting contrary to the capitalist imperative to gain wealth, forgetting all but self. Or to point out to a conservative Christian that Christian love is essentially communistic, and that Jesus hated the wealthy. (See, e.g., Luke 6:24-25: But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.) A communist society would just be a society in which the baseline communism of everyday life (and of original Christianity) was the guiding rule, the main principle of social organization.
As for our own society, the only reason it is able to function at all is that its held together by this dense anti-capitalist fabric, into which the more superficial patterns of commercialism, the profit motive, and greed are woven. Capitalism is parasitic on everyday communism: everything would collapse if the latter even momentarily vanished. One might, therefore, reverse the typical judgment of apologists for the status quo: not only is capitalism not a straightforward expression of human nature (supposedly because were all predominantly greedy, as an Ayn Rand or a Milton Friedman might say); it is more like a perversion of human nature, which evidently is drawn to such things as compassion, love, community, respect for others, and free self-expression unimpeded by authoritarian rules in the economic or political sphere.
Such are the thoughts with which I try to comfort myself periodically, when feeling overwhelmed by the systemic misanthropy that daily bombards us all.
Chris Wright is a doctoral candidate in U.S. labor history, and the author of Notes of an Underground Humanist and Worker Cooperatives and Revolution: History and Possibilities in the United States. Read other articles by Chris, or visit Chris's website.
This article was posted on Wednesday, March 15th, 2017 at 7:33pm and is filed under Capitalism, Communism/Marxism/Maoism, Donald Trump, Economy/Economics, Society.
Over at The Corner, Ericka Andersen writes: "More and more liberal Americans are embracing socialism. Unfortunately, it seems many of them arent aware of the realities that citizens in countries like Venezuela face."
That got me curious. Is it true that more and more liberal Americans are embracing socialism? I couldn't find a whole lot on the subject, but Gallup has asked a few times recently whether people have a positive image of socialism. And in 2015 they asked whether people would vote for a socialist. Here are the results:
This isn't much. Maybe ANES has some longer-term trends on this? Still, the Gallup polls don't suggest any overall recent warming toward socialism. If liberals really are getting seduced by the red menace, some other group must be making up for it.
So what's going on? A few recent polls have gotten a lot of attention for reporting that millennials prefer socialism to capitalism, but I doubt they really mean much. For one thing, we have no idea if this is anything new. For another, millennials polled in 2016 probably figured that socialist meant "Bernie Sanders." But Bernie's no socialist, no matter what he calls himself.1 He's a European-style social democrat, just like me.
If I hear millennials starting to talk about nationalizing the banks and having the feds take over the steel mills, then it might be time to wonder what's going on. Until then, I think the answer is: nothing.
1I don't know what he believes in his heart of hearts, of course. In practice, however, he's a pretty standard issue social democrat. So are lots of American liberals. Bernie is just more vocal about getting there right now than most of them. That's one of the benefits of having a safe seat in Vermont.
See the article here:
Is Socialism On the Rise? | Mother Jones - Mother Jones
Forbes | Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism - Brownies Are Now Illegal In Venezuela Forbes This might cause a little confusion for in some parts of the world "Brownies" means a certain junior age group of Girl Guides or as we might these days call them Scouts of the female persuasion. Sure, we could imagine Maduro and the Chavistas trying to ... Venezuela has a bread shortage. The government has decided bakers are the problem. Short of options, Venezuela opposition stages flash protests |
See the article here:
Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism - Brownies Are Now Illegal In Venezuela - Forbes
While the Democratic party continues to fail to meet even the lowest bar set by Progressives, it appears that the runoff from one of the two main parties in the U.S. may be headed straight for the Democratic Socialists of America.
Democratic Socialism, the technical political belief that Senator Bernie Sanders subscribes to, has seen their membership triple in the last yearto close to 20,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members.
And though many on the right may be terrified, DSAunderstands completely why they are growing: young people & Bernie.
Increasingly, much to the terror of the far right, socialism, is no longer considered the horrific word it once was to millinnials, expecially those who heard the term used to describe Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primary.
Young Americas tame view of socialism is due, in part, to a more true understanding of the meaning of the word, as well as the more moderate stance of Democratic Socialists. This is especially true in regards to Democratic Socialism because it is much different and far less radical than outright socialism.
On the basic level, as the DSA explains on their website, Democratic Socialists do not want the government to own the means of production. Instead, the DSA actively fights against capitalistic overreach, pushing back against mammoth corporations and their deep involvement with government. The DSA asks that government step in when corporations have gone too far, in order to protect consumers and keep things fair.
Democratic Socialists favor a sharing of ownership over consumer-good industries. Your local coop is a good example of Democratic Socialism in practice.
But to Republicans like Stuart Varney, Democratic Socialists are just good, old-fashioned commies.The worst nightmare for the right would be for young Bernie-backing Democrats to continue calling themselves Democratic Socialists.
Fortunately for the Democratic party, Democratic Socialists do not consider themselves wholly apart from the Democratic party. Much like how Senator Sanders ran as a Democrat in the primary, members of the DSA continue to work for and contribute toward the Democratic party, working to spread their goals from within.
If the Democratic party is willing to make room, the addition of Democratic Socialists appear to be only a net good for the floundering political party.
The rest is here:
As Dem Enthusiasm Lags, Democratic Socialists Of America See Memberships Triple - The Ring of Fire Network