Friday, March 6, 2009

A Response to Richard


Thank you for your intelligent response.

I concur 100% with the aim of "Socialists" for taking over the Government is to dismantle it. I also agree with the IDEAL of a moneyless society where the means of production and distribution are held by the workers, but in transitioning to this eutopia (good place) we will need to have some direction over the various national treasuries until we can evolve to a world currency before we can evolve to a moneyless economy. "Safety-net" programs are usually a function of the Treasuries.

With respect to the idea of Socialists winning control of the the US Government via the ballot box seems like an impossibility, so we are left with the options of revolution or the rational convincing of the current branches of government that the aims of "Socialists" stated previously (dissolution with exceptions noted).

I favor an economic democracy where local/inter-community/inter-regional worldwide solidarity based on a socialist vision, planning process, and policy guidelines. All across the spectrum (from workplace to local to global) there will be need for dispute resolution, but the political aspects of the "political economy" need to be explicitly kept to a minimum and that concept inculcated in all worker/citizens, and those necessary decision makers that realistically there will have to be. Structural hierarchies, (although particularly odious in Capitalist organizations, governments, and organizations like the Catholic Church) are not unique to Capitalism, it is basic to animal and human behavior and necessary when there is disagreement about how best to accomplish a task, establish a process, and develop and interpret policies, in a timely fashion. It is a trade-off between such and true consensus on every minor point. But I also contend, that every effort to involve all in the democratic process is fundamental. This is why education is so basic to the success of a working ecological economic system.

I have not once stated, nor would I, that I propose to maintain the economic relations of Capitalism. My goals are quite to the contrary. My approach is to reconcile in practical terms, Marx's Labor Theory of Value, with a quite common Capitalist held belief, Locke's Labor Theory of Property, which contends that property, real and capital accumulation, arose due to the fruits of labor. I ascribe completely to the former (Marx) and view the latter (Locke) as bunk, propaganda, with the exceptional realism (perhaps you've heard of "the American dream").

But even in the rare cases where Locke's Theory of Property is true, it needs to be discouraged as appealing to the more base instincts of human nature (domination versus cooperation, equity, and camaradarie) and as a false promise to all those shackled by the current economic system.

The point is that I am trying to propose practical solutions. Hegel wrote that we can spend our whole lives just trying to figure it all out. Marx argued that we needed to do more, we needed to do something about it. I don't mind taking the time to explain, but eventually we need to apply our ideas to the real world.

I'm a Work kin for peace and cooperation.

Best regards,

Mike Morin

No comments:

Post a Comment