Americans have gone Crazy.

I don't know maybe it's just me but it seems like a lot of America has just gone crazy. Protests of Mosques in Manhattan, Birthers, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, heck the Republican Party! What the hell has gone wrong with everyone? I am tired of everything and I don't understand why people can't just look at what works and do it without letting ideology get in the way. Obama is not doing a horrible job. I wish he would do more for his liberal base but it could be way worse. Even though i think that George W. was a crook and broke the law and should have been impeached, I don't think he was ever faced with the kind of hatred Obama has. Well, maybe from me to some degree but I like to think of that as passionate. :) It doesn't matter because I am just sick of being frustrated with stupid senators and congresspeople who apparently don't have our interests in mind. Just the interests of corporations and extremely wealthy people who, for some reason, seem to be more important than the rest of us. I guess that one of the really disappointing things about all this. You would like to believe your representative has your interests in mind. But they don't. Sucks.

2006 Essay from the Socialist Labor Party. Interesting....

This is a statement from the Socialist Labor Party of America. I thought it would be interesting to read this and then compare it to the statements of tea-baggers et al. I was thinking of digging into some older socialist party statements and posting them up. This one is from 2006. We have had a few different Socialist Parties in the USA. Third parties don't do too well in the US you know? Maybe I will have more of these then famous socialist essays. Most famous Socialists end up not being so famous here in the USA.


Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and what the media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people and organizations that call themselves socialist say it, too—but not the Socialist Labor Party.

The SLP says that socialism is something entirely different. After all, we have plenty of government or state ownership in America today, but who would argue that America is a socialist country because of it?

This is a capitalist country, not a socialist one. Yet many cities own and run their own hospitals, libraries, transportation systems and utilities. The public schools, state college and university systems are government owned. The federal government owns and controls the FBI, the CIA, the army, the navy, the air force, the U.S. Marines and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Why, it even owns all the national forests and national parks. Yet, who would call these institutions examples of socialism? Who would say that today’s government is socialist because it owns all of these things? Not the SLP.

What Socialism Is

If government or state ownership is not socialism, what is?

Before answering that question there is something you should know about government. Not all government is state government. State government is government based on territory, such as cities, counties and nations. It is political government, and it is designed to rule over places and the people in them.

Socialist government is not state government. It would not rule over people and places, but would empower the people to rule over things. Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy. And when we say “collectively own,” we are not talking about homes, or cars, or other personal belongings. We are talking about the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want.

Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them. In each factory and other workplace, the rank and file would elect their own immediate supervisors and management committees. They would also elect representatives to local and national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work, and to an all-industrial congress to coordinate production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the country. In short, socialism would replace the political government run by politicians with an industrial government run by workers and their elected representatives.

Instead of a senator from California or a representative from New York, there would be worker-delegates from the automotive industry, from the transportation systems, from the mines, from the clothing factories, from services such as restaurants, hospitals, schools and so on. These representatives would have the single task of deciding what should be produced and how best to produce it.

Today we have political democracy only. Workers do not have economic democracy. The owners of the factories have almost absolute power over their employees. They can fire whomever they please, whenever they please. They can close the plant down and move to another state or another country. They can even order their workers to manufacture something worthless or harmful. In short, they have all the power of dictators—economic dictators.

Socialism means economic democracy. Instead of voting once every two or four years for politicians, workers would be making decisions every day where they work and in the field in which they are most qualified. Here is where their vote counts because it vitally affects their own personal lives.

When we use the word “worker,” we mean everyone who sells his or her labor power, or ability to work, at so much per hour, or so much per week, to a capitalist employer. Coal miners are workers, but so are musicians, scientists, nurses, teachers, architects, inventors and mathematicians.

Benefits of Socialism

Under capitalism workers receive only a small fraction of the wealth that they alone produce, while the lion’s share goes to the capitalist owners and to the bankers, landlords, insurance companies, lawyers, politicians, and all the other parasites who live off the back of labor and perform no useful work. By ending this robbery of the working class, socialism will enable workers to enjoy the full fruit of their labor.

Socialism would also enable us to raise our living standards dramatically by ending the billions of dollars thrown away on arms production and “defense,” by ending the waste, duplication and inefficiency of capitalist industries, and by returning millions of soldiers and unemployed workers to useful occupations.

In socialist society there would be no wage system. Workers would receive the social value of their labor. And since the people would collectively own the industries, anyone would be free to select any occupation in which he or she has an interest and aptitude. No longer would workers live under the fear of being laid off, or be compelled to spend their lives at some job they hate or are unsuited for. Also, since the people would collectively own the colleges and universities, no longer would workers be denied education or training because they lack the money to buy it.

Production for Use, Not for Profit

Furthermore, under socialism we would produce for use and to satisfy the needs of all the people. Under capitalism the industries operate for one purpose—to earn a profit for their owners. Under this system, food is not grown primarily to be eaten. It is grown to be sold. Cars are not manufactured primarily to be driven. They are made to be sold. If there are enough buyers here and abroad, then the capitalists will have their factories turn out cars, appliances, pianos and everything else for which buyers can be found. But if people lack money, if the domestic and foreign markets cannot absorb them, then these factories shut down and the country stagnates, no matter how much people need these commodities.

At the present time, agricapitalists know that they can produce more than market conditions and price-protecting government restrictions, compensated for by cash subsidies, permit them to. Meanwhile, millions of Americans suffer from malnutrition and hunger, as recent surveys have shown, and most households count their nickels and dimes when they shop for food.

The periodic depressions and recessions of the past have occurred, we are told, because too much was produced—overproduction. Factories turned out so vast a quantity of goods that their owners shut them down and laid off the workers who produced this abundance.

Under socialism the factories and industries would be used to benefit all of us, not restricted to the creation of profits for the enrichment of a small group of capitalist owners. Under socialism our farmlands would yield an abundance without great toil; the factories, mines and mills would be the safest, the most modern, the most efficient possible and productive beyond our wildest dreams—and without laborious work. Our natural resources would be intelligently conserved. Our schools would have the finest facilities and they would be devoted to developing complete human beings, not wages slaves who are trained to hire themselves out for someone else’s profit. Our hospitals and social services would create and maintain the finest health and recreational facilities.

An End to Poverty

In all previous ages of human history, poverty for most of the people was inescapable. There was simply not enough to go around. But not so today. Industrial technology and scientific knowledge have so vastly increased our ability to produce what we need and want that there is no longer any excuse whatsoever for the poverty of a single member of society. Today we have the material possibility of abundance for everyone, and the promise of the leisure in which to enjoy it.

But under capitalism industrial technology is used to replace workers and increase profits. Instead of creating a society of abundance, capitalism uses machinery to create unemployment and poverty. Our inner cities have been converted largely into festering slums in which impoverished people, not understanding the cause of their miseries, are imprisoned and damned to a life of misery.

It is not technology that threatens us. By themselves, improved methods of production and distribution are not social evils. They could be a blessing, but under capitalism technology is used for antisocial purposes.

This follows from the fact that technology and industry are the exclusive property of a small minority of the American people—the capitalist class. Capitalism uses the industries for the private profit of their owners and not for the benefit of the vast majority of the American people—the workers who invented and built them.

Build a New Society

In socialist society, on the other hand, since we would collectively own the factories and means of production, we would have full and free access to the means of wealth production and distribution. Since we would receive the full social value of our labor there would be no unwanted surplus. We would collectively produce the things we want and need for full and happy lives. It would be to the benefit of all to find new inventions, new means of production, improved means of distribution. Society as a whole would have a vital interest in providing opportunity to each individual to find the work for which he or she is best suited and in which he or she will be happiest. There would be the fullest freedom and opportunity.

And, we repeat, there would be a complete and full democracy. Democracy that will truly be based on the broadest lines. Democracy in which the final and only power will be the great mass of our people, the useful producers, which in socialist society would mean everybody. Society no longer would be split into two contending classes. Instead, we would all be useful producers, collectively owning the means of production and distribution, collectively concerned with producing the most with the least expenditure of human labor, and collectively jealous of the rights of the individual to a full, free and untrammeled life of happiness and accomplishment.

How can we get such a society? The answer is easy. It is within the power of the working class to establish such a society as soon as they recognize the need for it and organize to establish it. The program of the Socialist Labor Party of America points the way. By learning about that program you will learn how to effectively demand the end of capitalism and to organize with your fellow workers for the establishment of socialism.

Is a Socialist Market Economy what we need?

Socialist Market Economy

Socialist Economics or Socialist Theories are one of the most controversial theories for the economic development of a nation with the concomitant growth in social welfare. Originally perceived as an idea for the upliftment of the working class who seemed to be destined to be driven down to subsistence wages by the “capitalists” who owned capital and rented land, Socialist Economics has undergone many changes in the course of time.

Socialist economy is a structure of the economy which aims at providing greater equality and giving the “proletariat” or working class greater ownership over the means of production. In a normative sense, a socialist economy or a socialist state believes that socialism is the most equitable and socially serviceable form of an economic arrangement designed to achieve human potentialities.

Unlike “capitalism” where the means of production are owned by the capitalists, Socialist economies are characterized by the means of production owned by the state or by the workers collectively. Marx called socialism an intermediary stage between “capitalism” and the ultimate outcome of “communism.” The basic doctrine of Socialism of producing according to ones capacity and receiving according to ones want was replicated in the Soviet Union who became the first socialist state in 1936. It was followed later in certain eastern European countries and later moved to China under Mao Zedong.  While some western economies experimenting with   Socialism had adopted measures such as nationalization, redistribution of wealth among the poor, minimum wage measures and policies of demand management along Keynesian lines, erstwhile USSR was a centrally planned economy. It functioned by the imposition of production quotas and the clearing of goods was done was by a central planning authority. Even prices for allocation of goods and services were predetermined by the state.

The socialist states were later deemed to be corrupt with government mandarins appropriating too much power and with excessive state controls, the state of “communism” or distributing power evenly among the population with decentralization of power from the state never really occurred.

Some economic models within the framework of Socialism are:

• Public-enterprise centrally planned economy
• Public-enterprise state managed market economy
• Mixed economy
• Public enterprise employee managed market economies
• Public enterprise participatory planning

Of the models mentioned above, the public enterprise state managed market economy or a form of social market economy and the model of mixed economy are the most popular in contemporary times. The “social market economy” or “market socialism” has the state owning the means of production but there is a market directed and guided by socialist planners.

The market is given the free hand to allocate and distribute the country’s resources based on the forces of supply and demand. It thus retains the essential feature of efficiency, growth and production of surplus value generally associated with capitalist economies.

This model was effectively launched in China after reform, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in the 1970’s and 80’s and is presently adopted in Germany. Government ownership is retained in key sectors such as heavy industry, energy and infrastructure while private ownership or entrepreneurship with public-private participation is followed along the lines of the mixed economy model. India also follows a model of a mixed economy. The greatest asset of this sort of economy is the decentralization of decision making and giving local managers more freedom to respond to market conditions. This also sometimes called a mild version of state socialism and are called social democracies where the socialists do not overthrow the capitalist system altogether bit mould it to social purposes.

Social market economy is here to stay and market socialism is only an improved form of traditional state socialism. 

Market in a Socialist Economy

Reprinted from http://www.economywatch.com/market-economy/socialist-market-economy.html

Blending Socialism with a Free Market could make Us Builders again.

Once upon a time we were a nation of creators.  We built things and then we sold a lot of those things around the world.  Over the last few decades we have stopped building and creating.  Manufacturing jobs have gone to other shores.  Ships are built in Asia and Scandinavia.  Except for military ships and tanks and other things.  But Military construction even though it is necessary to a degree, does nothing to contribute to the  building of our infrastructure.  Now when someone wants to create something or build something a huge NIMBY protest pops up to prevent it.  Speaking just for my own home state, we have prevented the establishment of LNG offloading and storage, several casinos, some wind farms, just to name a few.  But it would seem that this is common throughout the nation.  We here in the US have don't seem to want to build things, we don't want to increase our tax base or create jobs.  But we still want all the services and benefits. I don't think we can have our cake and eat it too. 
Renewable energy projects would create work.  Putting public money into infrastructure projects would also create jobs.  We need to build out and upgrade our countries rail systems.  Doing this would also create jobs.  But how to do this best?  I think we need a blend of jobs programs and social programs that inject money into the economy.  This could be coupled with other changes that would let private enterprise flourish. 
One huge issue, that Senator Bernie Sanders actually introduced legislation to fix, is that companies become too big to be allowed to fail.  No Corporation or company should get so large that their failure would crater a section of the economy.  When a company gets that large they should be divested and made into smaller companies.  The second part to this is that corporations should always be regarded as instruments of business.  They are not people and should not have the same rights as people under our constitution.  By allowing them such we essentially allow a potentially immortal being with potentially large resources at hand.  This gives a corporation undue influence in our government. 
So could this be solved and fixed?  It could, but will it happen in our lifetime?  As long as people are made to fear the bogeyman of socialism the answer is no.  With a little effort we could meld the two systems and make something that works for all of us.  We could become creators again.

People, Why can't we all work together?

You know I have been listening and watching with interest all the latest hoo-ha about the economy, the Obama administration, and health care reform among other things.  The first thing that I find to be really surprising is how quickly many of us have decided to leave Obama out to dry when it comes to the policies he is trying to establish.  Now this is politics and I realize that a lot of crap slops both sides of the aisle.  But what I see as the main issue now is how the Republican party has decided to simply be a party of obstructionism.  Rather than actually work with the Democratic party to try to make good policy the GOP has figured it will do anything it can to crush the opposition and get back into control.  And to really top it all off, people are buying into the rhetoric!  So if the Democratic Party loses in 2010 and Obama loses in 2012 I will be convinced that something is wrong with the average American voter.  People complaining about the President and his policies right now have apparently forgotten that over the last eight years the Republican party had control of  everything for 6 of them.  They generated a huge huge deficit that Obama inherited.  Now generating a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.  What really makes the difference is what you spent the money on.  For us over the years of the Bush Administration that meant creating this deficit to fund two wars.  What the money should have been spent on are things like infrastructure, education and social security just for starters.

Wait a minute, you say! What about all the necessary things we had to do to keep us safe?   Well consider this.  Before 9/11 we actually had all the information we needed to prevent the attack.  The information was simply ignored, not so much at the bottom level but certainly at the top on down.  Presidential Bulletin was ignored, The National Security Advisor ignored her meetings about potential attacks.  It seems to me that if the information we had had been acted on we may have prevented it.  The same is true for the recent attempt by the Nigerian kid. We had information but didn't act on it.  So apparently all of the money we have spent on keeping us 'safe' is kind of moot.  Maybe we should publish the act or people we have prevented from blowing up things or whatever.  Then we would all have some idea how well any preventative measures are doing.  Alas too much secrecy. 

The thing I find really annoying and I alluded to it before is the lack of willingness of the Republican party to work with the Party in control.  Joe Wilson's cry of  "You Lie!" is Republican attitude in a nutshell.  This is not the Republican party of my childhood.  The party has been taken over by extremists it appears.  By the way Mr. Wilson was wrong the President wasn't lying.  I remember when I was young President Nixon, a Republican, placing price controls on beef.  Can you imagine that happening today?!  By a Republican?!   I believe most of us want these fools to work together.  Most of us would really like a single payer health care system.  Most of us feel a little angry at the wall street executives and their multi-million dollar salaries.  Most of us would like to feel that our elected officials are at least trying to work together.  I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel that way. Especially when it comes to the GOP. 

Socialism, what is it really? Can it work for us?

Hey we had a couple of good essays.  Pretty surprising I think that these very famous people who are reputed to be highly intelligent were socialists.  That says something to me.  It also says something that countries that qualify as Democratic Socialist; i.e., Sweden, Norway, Holland, even Canada et al.  all have higher standards of living than the United States.  Why would you think that is?  Are their freedoms curtailed that much?  I know they aren't in Canada having been there many times myself.  I assume the same is true for the other countries as well.  Socialism as a concept and even for the little it has been put into practice has gotten a bad rap. 

As I was taught it, in Classic Marxism communism was the end goal.  An utopian era in which government would essentially not exist and each would 'give according to his ability and take according to his need'.  In getting there the proletariat would overthrow the bourgousie  and establish a Socialist government on the way to communism.  Okay so it worked like this.  Evil Capitalism ==> Middlin Socialism ==> Communist Utopia.  Got it?  Of course NOTHING ever works the way it is planned.  Even though Capitalism was pretty horrific for the average joe in Marx's time it managed to get better for more as time passed.  No revolution occurred except those instigated by Lenin, and Mao et al. and then those guys turned around and created 'communist' countries that were really nothing more than dictatorial police states.  Though they called themselves some variant of socialist they really weren't.   Any more than the German Democratic Republic was democratic.  You know what I mean?

So it seems to me that what we need to do is try to implement a blend.  It has become obvious that for everything the free market, at least the way we implemented it, does not work to everyone's benefit.  Of course no system ever will.  But it is possible to ensure that a safety net exists for people so that the basic human necessities can be provided.  Other things can be handled through a basic free market.  So let's summarize what that might look like?  I like to think of it like this.  The basic premise of a capitalist system is the goal of making a profit.  However some things are not delivered best through profit driven motives.  I would guess that this is why, even in the US, that Police, Fire Protection and even military are not for profit organizations but government run bureacracies.  By the way they are unionized too, but that is an aside. 
So if an organization is meant to delivered human well being and safety of some kind; i.e., Health Care or Police protection.  Then that organization is best driven by a socialized government organization.  Will it be perfect?  Will people take advantage of it?  Well, No and Yes but that is beside the point.  The Police and Fire depts are abused all the time but we don't consider privatizing them do we?  Think what might have happened had we privatized Social Security as George Bush had wanted.  Holy smoke!  What a disaster that would have been.  Socializing something doesn't mean the end of the world or freedom or liberty.  The people who are crying wolf like that are the ones who already live in opulence and extreme wealth, the limbaughs and becks and hannity, et al.  And the ones who have been duped by Fox News type liars.  They cannot help themselves.  We can do better if we are not afraid to try.

How I Became a Socialist. An Essay by Helen Keller.

This is an essay by Helen Keller.  Few people may realize that she was a very fervent socialist. That little tidbit always getsleft out of the history books. She was fortunate enough to have been born into privilege and realized later that had it not been for that she would never have accomplished what she did.  She was very upset by the inequality of the capitalist U.S. society.  She spent a large part of her life and money trying to advance the cause of socialism. An interesting read.    

 

How I became a socialist

  by Helen Keller

FOR SEVERAL months, my name and socialism have appeared often together in the newspapers. A friend tells me that I have shared the front pages with baseball, Mr. Roosevelt and the New York police scandal. The association does not make me altogether happy, but, on the whole, I am glad that many people are interested in me and in the educational achievements of my teacher, Mrs. Macy (Anne Sullivan). Even notoriety may be turned to beneficent uses, and I rejoice if the disposition of the newspapers to record my activities results in bringing more often into their columns the word Socialism.
In the future, I hope to write about socialism, and to justify in some measure the great amount of publicity which has been accorded to me and my opinions. So far, I have written little and said little about the subject. I have written a few letters, notably one to Comrade Fred Warren, which was printed in the Appeal to Reason. I have talked to some reporters, one of whom, Mr. Ireland of the New York World, made a very flattering report, and gave fully and fairly what I said. I have never been in Schenectady. I have never met Mayor Lunn. I have never had a letter from him, but he has sent kind messages to me through Mr. Macy. Owing to Mrs. Macy's illness, whatever plans I had to join the workers in Schenectady have been abandoned.
On such negative and relatively insignificant matters have been written many editorials in the capitalist press and in the Socialist press. The clippings fill a drawer. I have not read a quarter of them, and I doubt if I shall ever read them all. If on such a small quantity of fact so much comment has followed, what will the newspapers do if I ever set to work in earnest to write and talk in behalf of socialism? For the present, I should like to make a statement of my position and correct some false reports and answer some criticisms which seem to me unjust.
First--how did I become a Socialist? By reading. The first book I read was Wells' New Worlds for Old. I read it on Mrs. Macy's recommendation. She was attracted by its imaginative quality, and hoped that its electric style might stimulate and interest me. When she gave me the book, she was not a Socialist, and she is not a Socialist now. Perhaps she will be one before Mr. Macy and I are done arguing with her.
My reading has been limited and slow. I take German bimonthly Socialist periodicals printed in Braille for the blind. (Our German comrades are ahead of us in many respects.) I have also in German Braille Kautsky's discussion of the Erfurt Program. The other socialist literature that I have read has been spelled into my hand by a friend who comes three times a week to read to me whatever I choose to have read. The periodical which I have most often requested her lively fingers to communicate to my eager ones is the National Socialist. She gives the titles of the articles and I tell her when to read on and when to omit. I have also had her read to me from the International Socialist Review articles the titles of which sounded promising. Manual spelling takes time. It is no easy and rapid thing to absorb through one's fingers a book of 50,000 words on economics. But it is a pleasure, and one which I shall enjoy repeatedly until I have made myself acquainted with all the classic socialist authors.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN THE light of the foregoing, I wish to comment on a piece about me which was printed in the Common Cause and reprinted in the Live Issue, two antisocialist publications. Here is a quotation from that piece:

For 25 years, Miss Keller's teacher and constant companion has been Mrs. John Macy, formerly of Wrentham, Mass. Both Mr. and Mrs. Macy are enthusiastic Marxist propagandists, and it is scarcely surprising that Miss Keller, depending upon this lifelong friend for her most intimate knowledge of life, should have imbibed such opinions.

Mr. Macy may be an enthusiastic Marxist propagandist, though I am sorry to say he has not shown much enthusiasm in propagating his Marxism through my fingers. Mrs. Macy is not a Marxist, nor a socialist. Therefore what the Common Cause says about her is not true. The editor must have invented that, made it out of whole cloth, and if that is the way his mind works, it is no wonder that he is opposed to socialism. He has not sufficient sense of fact to be a socialist or anything else intellectually worthwhile.
Consider another quotation from the same article. The headline reads:

SCHENECTADY REDS ARE ADVERTISING; USING HELEN KELLER, THE BLIND GIRL, TO RECEIVE PUBLICITY.

Then the article begins:

It would be difficult to imagine anything more pathetic than the present exploitation of poor Helen Keller by the Socialists of Schenectady. For weeks, the party's press agencies have heralded the fact that she is a Socialist, and is about to become a member of Schenectady's new Board of Public Welfare.

There's a chance for satirical comment on the phrase, "the exploitation of poor Helen Keller." But I will refrain, simply saying that I do not like the hypocritical sympathy of such a paper as the Common Cause, but I am glad if it knows what the word "exploitation" means.
Let us come to the facts. When Mayor Lunn heard that I might go to Schenectady, he proposed to the Board of Public Welfare that a place be kept on it for me. Nothing was printed about this in The Citizen, Mayor Lunn's paper. Indeed, it was the intention of the board to say nothing about the matter until after I had moved to Schenectady. But the reporters of the capitalist press got wind of the plan, and one day, during Mayor Lunn's absence from Schenectady, the Knickerbocker Press of Albany made the announcement. It was telegraphed all over the country, and then began the real newspaper exploitation. By the Socialist press? No, by the capitalist press.
The Socialist papers printed the news, and some of them wrote editorials of welcome. But The Citizen, Mayor Lunn's paper, preserved silence and did not mention my name during all the weeks when the reporters were telephoning and telegraphing and asking for interviews. It was the capitalist press that did the exploiting. Why? Because ordinary newspapers care anything about socialism? No, of course not; they hate it. But because I, alas, am a subject for newspaper gossip. We got so tired of denying that I was in Schenectady that I began to dislike the reporter who first published the "news."
The Socialist papers, it is true, did make a good deal of me after the capitalist papers had "heralded the fact that I am a Socialist." But all the reporters who came to see me were from ordinary commercial newspapers. No Socialist paper, neither The Call nor the National Socialist, ever asked me for an article. The editor of The Citizen hinted to Mr. Macy that he would like one, but he was too fine and considerate to ask for it point-blank.
The New York Times did ask me for one. The editor of the Times wrote assuring me that his paper was a valuable medium for reaching the public and he wanted an article from me. He also telegraphed asking me to send him an account of my plans and to outline my ideas of my duties as a member of the Board of Public Welfare of Schenectady. I am glad I did not comply with this request, for some days later the Times made me a social outcast beyond the range of its righteous sympathies. On September 21, there appeared in the Times an editorial called "The Contemptible Red Flag." I quote two passages from it:

The flag is free. But it is nonetheless detestable. It is the symbol of lawlessness and anarchy the world over, and as such is held in contempt by all right-minded persons.
The bearer of a red flag may not be molested by the police until he commits some act which the red flag justifies. He deserves, however, always to be regarded with suspicion. By carrying the symbol of lawlessness he forfeits all right to respect and sympathy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I AM no worshiper of cloth of any color, but I love the red flag and what it symbolizes to me and other Socialists. I have a red flag hanging in my study, and if I could I should gladly march with it past the office of the Times and let all the reporters and photographers make the most of the spectacle. According to the inclusive condemnation of the Times, I have forfeited all right to respect and sympathy, and I am to be regarded with suspicion. Yet the editor of the Times wants me to write him an article! How can he trust me to write for him if I am a suspicious character?
I hope you will enjoy as much as I do the bad ethics, bad logic, bad manners that a capitalist editor falls into when he tries to condemn the movement which is aimed at this plutocratic interests. We are not entitled to sympathy, yet some of us can write articles that will help his paper to make money. Probably our opinions have the same sort of value to him that he would find in the confession of a famous murderer. We are not nice, but we are interesting.
I like newspapermen. I have known many, and two or three editors have been among my most intimate friends. Moreover, the newspapers have been of great assistance in the work which we have been trying to do for the blind. It costs them nothing to give their aid to work for the blind and to other superficial charities. But socialism--ah, that is a different matter! That goes to the root of all poverty and all charity. The money power behind the newspapers is against socialism, and the editors, obedient to the hand that feeds them, will go to any length to put down socialism and undermine the influence of socialists.
When my letter to Comrade Fred Warren was published in the Appeal to Reason, a friend of mine who writes a special department for the Boston Transcript made an article about it and the editor-in-chief cut it out.
The Brooklyn Eagle says, apropos of me, and socialism, that Helen Keller's "mistakes spring out of the manifest limitations of her development." Some years ago, I met a gentleman who was introduced to me as Mr. McKelway, editor of the Brooklyn Eagle. It was after a meeting that we had in New York in behalf of the blind. At that time, the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism, he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him. Surely it is his turn to blush. It may be that deafness and blindness incline one toward socialism. Marx was probably stone deaf and William Morris was blind. Morris painted his pictures by the sense of touch and designed wallpaper by the sense of smell.
Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! What an ungallant bird it is! Socially blind and deaf, it defends an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much of the physical blindness and deafness which we are trying to prevent. The Eagle is willing to help us prevent misery provided, always provided, that we do not attack the industrial tyranny which supports it and stops its ears and clouds its vision. The Eagle and I are at war. I hate the system which it represents, apologizes for and upholds. When it fights back, let it fight fair. Let it attack my ideas and oppose the aims and arguments of Socialism. It is not fair fighting or good argument to remind me and others that I cannot see or hear.
I can read. I can read all the socialist books I have time for in English, German and French. If the editor of the Brooklyn Eagle should read some of them, he might be a wiser man and make a better newspaper. If I ever contribute to the Socialist movement the book that I sometimes dream of, I know what I shall name it: Industrial Blindness and Social Deafness.

Why Socialism? An Essay by Albert Einstein.

This is an interesting take on Socialism by Albert Einstein. I think we can be pretty sure that he is a smart guy.  I plan to try to publish some essays by people who are famous for other things than their political views and see how many of them were socialists versus ardent capitalists.  Should be interesting, but I may come up with zilch.  We will see.

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

(This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).)

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

Can Socialists Be Happy? An Essay by George Orwell.

I thought this was a cool essay.  Hopefully less of a slog than the other Essay, which I will probably leave off publishing. Contrary to what many believe Mr Orwell, (his Pen name by the way his real name was Eric Arthur Blair) was not an ardent conservative.  He was in fact, if to be labeled anyway, a Democratic Socialist. This little essay is perfect for my blog and just timed for the season.  Happy Holidays!

Can Socialists Be Happy?

by George Orwell

The thought of Christmas raises almost automatically the thought of Charles Dickens, and for two very good reasons. To begin with, Dickens is one of the few English writers who have actually written about Christmas. Christmas is the most popular of English festivals, and yet it has produced astonishingly little literature. There are the carols, mostly medieval in origin; there is a tiny handful of poems by Robert Bridges, T.S. Eliot, and some others, and there is Dickens; but there is very little else. Secondly, Dickens is remarkable, indeed almost unique, among modern writers in being able to give a convincing picture of happiness.

Dickens dealt successfully with Christmas twice in a chapter of The Pickwick Papers and in A Christmas Carol. The latter story was read to Lenin on his deathbed and according to his wife, he found its 'bourgeois sentimentality' completely intolerable. Now in a sense Lenin was right: but if he had been in better health he would perhaps have noticed that the story has interesting sociological implications. To begin with, however thick Dickens may lay on the paint, however disgusting the 'pathos' of Tiny Tim may be, the Cratchit family give the impression of enjoying themselves. They sound happy as, for instance, the citizens of William Morris's News From Nowhere don't sound happy. Moreover and Dickens's understanding of this is one of the secrets of his power their happiness derives mainly from contrast. They are in high spirits because for once in a way they have enough to eat. The wolf is at the door, but he is wagging his tail. The steam of the Christmas pudding drifts across a background of pawnshops and sweated labour, and in a double sense the ghost of Scrooge stands beside the dinner table. Bob Cratchit even wants to drink to Scrooge's health, which Mrs Cratchit rightly refuses. The Cratchits are able to enjoy Christmas precisely because it only comes once a year. Their happiness is convincing just because Christmas only comes once a year. Their happiness is convincing just because it is described as incomplete.

All efforts to describe permanent happiness, on the other hand, have been failures. Utopias (incidentally the coined word Utopia doesn't mean 'a good place', it means merely a 'non-existent place') have been common in literature of the past three or four hundred years but the 'favourable' ones are invariably unappetising, and usually lacking in vitality as well.

By far the best known modern Utopias are those of H.G. Wells. Wells's vision of the future is almost fully expressed in two books written in the early Twenties, The Dream and Men Like Gods. Here you have a picture of the world as Wells would like to see it or thinks he would like to see it. It is a world whose keynotes are enlightened hedonism and scientific curiosity. All the evils and miseries we now suffer from have vanished. Ignorance, war, poverty, dirt, disease, frustration, hunger, fear, overwork, superstition all vanished. So expressed, it is impossible to deny that that is the kind of world we all hope for. We all want to abolish the things Wells wants to abolish. But is there anyone who actually wants to live in a Wellsian Utopia? On the contrary, not to live in a world like that, not to wake up in a hygenic garden suburb infested by naked schoolmarms, has actually become a conscious political motive. A book like Brave New World is an expression of the actual fear that modern man feels of the rationalised hedonistic society which it is within his power to create. A Catholic writer said recently that Utopias are now technically feasible and that in consequence how to avoid Utopia had become a serious problem. We cannot write this off as merely a silly remark. For one of the sources of the Fascist movement is the desire to avoid a too-rational and too-comfortable world.

All 'favourable' Utopias seem to be alike in postulating perfection while being unable to suggest happiness. News From Nowhere is a sort of goody-goody version of the Wellsian Utopia. Everyone is kindly and reasonable, all the upholstery comes from Liberty's, but the impression left behind is of a sort of watery melancholy. But it is more impressive that Jonathan Swift, one of the greatest imaginative writers who have ever lived, is no more successful in constructing a 'favourable' Utopia than the others.

The earlier parts of Gulliver's Travels are probably the most devastating attack on human society that has ever been written. Every word of them is relevant today; in places they contain quite detailed prophecies of the political horrors of our own time. Where Swift fails, however, is in trying to describe a race of beings whom he admires. In the last part, in contrast with disgusting Yahoos, we are shown the noble Houyhnhnms, intelligent horses who are free from human failings. Now these horses, for all their high character and unfailing common sense, are remarkably dreary creatures. Like the inhabitants of various other Utopias, they are chiefly concerned with avoiding fuss. They live uneventful, subdued, 'reasonable' lives, free not only from quarrels, disorder or insecurity of any kind, but also from 'passion', including physical love. They choose their mates on eugenic principles, avoid excesses of affection, and appear somewhat glad to die when their time comes. In the earlier parts of the book Swift has shown where man's folly and scoundrelism lead him: but take away the folly and scoundrelism, and all you are left with, apparently, is a tepid sort of existence, hardly worth leading.

Attempts at describing a definitely other-worldly happiness have been no more successful. Heaven is as great a flop as Utopia though Hell occupies a respectable place in literature, and has often been described most minutely and convincingly.

It is a commonplace that the Christian Heaven, as usually portrayed, would attract nobody. Almost all Christian writers dealing with Heaven either say frankly that it is indescribable or conjure up a vague picture of gold, precious stones, and the endless singing of hymns. This has, it is true, inspired some of the best poems in the world:

Thy walls are of chalcedony,
Thy bulwarks diamonds square,
Thy gates are of right orient pearl
Exceeding rich and rare!

But what it could not do was to describe a condition in which the ordinary human being actively wanted to be. Many a revivalist minister, many a Jesuit priest (see, for instance, the terrific sermon in James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist) has frightened his congregation almost out of their skins with his word-pictures of Hell. But as soon as it comes to Heaven, there is a prompt falling-back on words like 'ecstasy' and 'bliss', with little attempt to say what they consist in. Perhaps the most vital bit of writing on this subject is the famous passage in which Tertullian explains that one of the chief joys of Heaven is watching the tortures of the damned.

The pagan versions of Paradise are little better, if at all. One has the feeling it is always twilight in the Elysian fields. Olympus, where the gods lived, with their nectar and ambrosia, and their nymphs and Hebes, the 'immortal tarts' as D.H. Lawrence called them, might be a bit more homelike than the Christian Heaven, but you would not want to spend a long time there. As for the Muslim Paradise, with its 77 houris per man, all presumably clamouring for attention at the same moment, it is just a nightmare. Nor are the spiritualists, though constantly assuring us that 'all is bright and beautiful', able to describe any next-world activity which a thinking person would find endurable, let alone attractive.

It is the same with attempted descriptions of perfect happiness which are neither Utopian nor other-worldly, but merely sensual. They always give an impression of emptiness or vulgarity, or both. At the beginning of La Pucelle Voltaire describes the life of Charles IX with his mistress, Agnes Sorel. They were 'always happy', he says. And what did their happiness consist in? An endless round of feasting, drinking, hunting and love-making. Who would not sicken of such an existence after a few weeks? Rabelais describes the fortunate spirits who have a good time in the next world to console them for having had a bad time in this one. They sing a song which can be roughly translated: 'To leap, to dance, to play tricks, to drink the wine both white and red, and to do nothing all day long except count gold crowns' how boring it sounds, after all! The emptiness of the whole notion of an everlasting 'good time' is shown up in Breughel's picture The Land of the Sluggard, where the three great lumps of fat lie asleep, head to head, with the boiled eggs and roast legs of pork coming up to be eaten of their own accord.

It would seem that human beings are not able to describe, nor perhaps to imagine, happiness except in terms of contrast. That is why the conception of Heaven or Utopia varies from age to age. In pre-industrial society Heaven was described as a place of endless rest, and as being paved with gold, because the experience of the average human being was overwork and poverty. The houris of the Muslim Paradise reflected a polygamous society where most of the women disappeared into the harems of the rich. But these pictures of 'eternal bliss' always failed because as the bliss became eternal (eternity being thought of as endless time), the contrast ceased to operate. Some of the conventions embedded in our literature first arose from physical conditions which have now ceased to exist. The cult of spring is an example. In the Middle Ages spring did not primarily mean swallows and wild flowers. It meant green vegetables, milk and fresh meat after several months of living on salt pork in smoky windowless huts. The spring songs were gay Do nothing but eat and make good cheer, And thank Heaven for the merry year When flesh is cheap and females dear, And lusty lads roam here and there So merrily, And ever among so merrily! because there was something to be so gay about. The winter was over, that was the great thing. Christmas itself, a pre-Christian festival, probably started because there had to be an occasional outburst of overeating and drinking to make a break in the unbearable northern winter.

The inability of mankind to imagine happiness except in the form of relief, either from effort or pain, presents Socialists with a serious problem. Dickens can describe a poverty-stricken family tucking into a roast goose, and can make them appear happy; on the other hand, the inhabitants of perfect universes seem to have no spontaneous gaiety and are usually somewhat repulsive into the bargain. But clearly we are not aiming at the kind of world Dickens described, nor, probably, at any world he was capable of imagining. The Socialist objective is not a society where everything comes right in the end, because kind old gentlemen give away turkeys. What are we aiming at, if not a society in which 'charity' would be unnecessary? We want a world where Scrooge, with his dividends, and Tiny Tim, with his tuberculous leg, would both be unthinkable. But does that mean we are aiming at some painless, effortless Utopia? At the risk of saying something which the editors of Tribune may not endorse, I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue.

Socialist thought has to deal in prediction, but only in broad terms. One often has to aim at objectives which one can only very dimly see. At this moment, for instance, the world is at war and wants peace. Yet the world has no experience of peace, and never has had, unless the Noble Savage once existed. The world wants something which it is dimly aware could exist, but cannot accurately define. This Christmas Day, thousands of men will be bleeding to death in the Russian snows, or drowning in icy waters, or blowing one another to pieces on swampy islands of the Pacific; homeless children will be scrabbling for food among the wreckage of German cities. To make that kind of thing impossible is a good objective. But to say in detail what a peaceful world would be like is a different matter.

Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness. This is the case even with a great writer like Swift, who can flay a bishop or a politician so neatly, but who, when he tries to create a superman, merely leaves one with the impression the very last he can have intended that the stinking Yahoos had in them more possibility of development than the enlightened Houyhnhnms.

December 20th, 1943 

If the market won't do it then the Gummint Gotta

Well at least I think it so. I read a recent yahoo news article about the next stimulus and how it should be for job creation. That's a good thing I believe. Of course there are the usual suspects out there saying things about the deficit and such. Where were all these folks when Bush was raising this deficit? Anyway, This story is a good one. Remember our economy is driven by the consumer. If no one is consuming then someone needs to take up the slack. That someone is the government. Programs that would create jobs repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure would be just the thing we need. Think of it as priming the pump. If you stop priming too soon the pump won't pump. We need to make sure that our economic pump is well primed. But what about inflation you say? Right now inflation is zero. In fact the reason there was no cost of living raise for social security was because the cost of living actually went down! So want we really need to worry about is deflation if you ask me. I have nothing to base that on but my own opinion so take it for what it is worth. Remember Socialism is not a Bad Word, or a Bad thing. Do a little research and see.

Communistic Socialism

Here is the next section of Roswell Hitchcock's Socialism. If anyone is actually reading this and enjoying it please let me know. Because I think the stuff is really dense and tough to wade through. Don't get me wrong I like it and I think it is good and important to read in this modern age. But if the popular notion is that it stinks then I will find something else. (if all two of my readers don't like it, HA!)

This antiquity of Communism, almost newly 

discovered, certainly never before seen in such 

a light as now, is evidently doing a great deal 

to strengthen the argument for it, even with 

people who have not been in the habit of car- 

ing much for historic precedents. Commun- 

ism, once treated with scorn as a raw and 

recent heresy, now claims for itself the honors 

of age. The ancient Dalmatians, according 

to Strabo (vii. 5, 5), divided their acres every 

seven years ; the Vaccaei in Spain, according 

to Diodorus Siculus (v. 34), every year. The 

♦Sir Henry Maine, first in his lectures at the Middle Tem- 

ple (1854-62), afterward in his " Ancient Law ** (1861), and 

" Village Communities " (1871); Maurer, in his "Einleitung 

zur Geschichte der Mark-Hof-Dorf-und Stadt Verfassung** 

(1854), and "Mark Verfassung" (1856) ; and Laveleye in his 

" De la Propriete et de ses Formes Primitives" (1874), trans- 

lated into English by Marriott (1878). 

ancient Germans, according both to Caesar 

(iff. G, iv. i), and to Tacitus (^Gerni, § 26), 

were Communists. So, also, in Russia, in 

India, in the island of Java, in Mexico, and 

in other countries, traces are found of the old 

joint tenure of land.* Christian people are 

reminded of the Agrarianism of the Mosaic 

legislation, the general basis of which was 

tribal, â–  with a provision for bringing back, 

every fiftieth year, every acre of the land, 

except what belted the Levitical cities, to 

some representative of its original proprietor. 

Still more account is made of the pentecostal 

Communism of the Apostolic Church. It is 

idle to deny it, as some have done. The 

Apostolic Communism, to be sure, was not 

obligatory and absolute, but voluntary, and 

might be partial ; still it was Communism. 

This argument from antiquity — heathen, 

Hebrew, Christian, is not to be brushed 

away by a breath. We must be able to show 

that the earliest and oldest things are only 

sometimes, not always, the best. Blos- 

soms are not better than fruit. The human 

race must have had an infancy ; not as I sup- 

pose of barbarism, but of crude capacity- 

awaiting development. Ideas and institutions 

of every kind — religious, moral, political, 

must have grown ; but especially political 

ideas and institutions, as pertaining more to 

what is outward, mutable, and transient. On 

no other ground can we defend the Patri- 

archal and Jewish economies. 

Communism, we may say then, is not ex-

actly barbarous, though frequently found 

amongst barbarians, but infantile. It was 

admirably suited to the Hebrews — a people 

of nomadic parentage, who were to be held 

back from commerce that they might be held 

back also from heathen contamination. And 

yet, for some reason or reasons, the Mosaic 

jubilee arrangement was so poorly observed, 

that Michaelis doubts whether it was ever 

observed at all. Ewald thinks that after hav- 

ing declined, the observance of it was revived 

by Josiah. On the whole, the Agrarian idea 

appears never to have been very fully realized. 

As for Christian Jerusalem, it was evidently 

an exceptional city in the Apostolic age. Men 

were gathered there out of all countries. 

Their new faith as Christians practically out- 

lawed them. They were poor — very poor ; 

distressed, a great many of them. Some 

were well off. It occurred to them to try the 

experiment of a partial Communism. Whether 

it was proposed, or only consented to, by the 

Apostles, does not appear. It is certainly 

not recommended in any Apostolic Epistle. 

Furthermore, the Jerusalem Church was al- 

ways poor, always an object of charity to 

other Churches ; and the Communistic experi- 

ment was not tried anywhere else. 

Later on, in the fourth century, the Mo- 

nastic Communism makes its appearance. It 

was a good thing for Europe in the perilous 

infancy of its institutions ; a good thing down 

even to the time of Charlemagne ” since then, 

a bad thing. 

*See Woolsey's "Political Science," § 25.

Thanksgiving Day. A few thoughts about our current Economy.

Well here it is thanksgiving and we watch the Macy's parade, hopefully we have something to eat and a family to eat it with. And though Obama's plan isn't perfect and hasn't solved all our problems, I believe he is off to a good start. Well It's funny isn't it that if you talk to the republican party you would not think we were doing well at all. If fact they seemed convinced that we are headed for worse. Let's hope not, but it won't be because they tried to work with the President or help at all. Let's all keep in mind the last three out of four administrations were republican. The republican party had congress since 1994 until 2006 and somehow this is all Obama and the Democratic Party's fault? Rep Mike Pence (R Ind.) says ""In the city and on the farm, as millions of American families struggle to balance their checkbooks this holiday season, they watch in astonishment as Washington spends billions of dollars it doesn't have," he said." Full story here. Yeah and why wasn't this what you were saying as Bush and Co. were spending us into the hole we are in? All of a sudden this is Obama's responsibility? Well he is accepting it and it will take time to fix. We been doing it the republican way for a few decades now and see where it got us? The fact of the matter is to say you are spending billions you don't have is disingenuous since the money is based on the good name of the U.S. and the Government is the one literally making the money. So it's kind of all 'funny money' to begin with. In a consumer driven economy, if the consumers aren't buying someone needs to fill that gap. That someone is Uncle Sam. It doesn't matter how many tax breaks you got or how cheap you can make stuff offshore or whatever. If you have no one to buy your stuff you aren't going to sell anything. So we need the stimulus and we need to use it to put people to work. We need the modern equivilent of the CCC and other work programs from the 30's. The Socialist safety net works and has saved Capitalism from itself before. It can do it again. See this.

Communistic Socialism

The following begins the next chapter of Roswell Hitchcock's Socialism. It deals with Communism. This I find really interesting.

COMMUNISTIC SOCIALISM.

This leads me to consider the Commun- 

istic Socialism. 

To-day there is not in our language, nor in 

any language, a more hateful word than Com- 

munism. In Paris seven years ago, in Pitts- 

burg last year, in Berlin this year, it meant, 

and still it means, wages without work, arson, 

assassination, anarchy. In this shape of it, 

the instant duty of society, without taking a 

second breath, is to smite it with the swiftness 

and fury of lightning. Incorrigible tramps, 

packing and prowling round together, de- 

manding the best from door to door, camping 

in farmers' barns, smashing farmers' machines, 

insulting decent men, and terrifying women 

and children, on public roads, should not 

expect to be reasoned with. Mad wretches, 

whose hands smoke with blood, can not be 
 
 

put out of the way too soon, nor too far. The 

preachers of this satanic crusade against capi- 

tal are not, of course, to be silenced where 

free speech has a genealogy running so much 

farther back than our separate existence as a 

nation ; a freedom which is not of Moses, but 

of the fathers. This planting of dragons' 

teeth is not, I suppose, to be stopped. But 

wild mobs, wrecking railway trains, and sack- 

ing our cities, are a kind of crop which can 

not be mowed down too close. 

Even such barbarities must not provoke us 

to be despisers of history. Communism, in 

its essential genius, is not new, is not con- 

temptible, is not abominable. It is a tradition, 

a philosophy, a gospel. As related to the 

tenure of landed property, it is one of the old- 

est traditions of the race. As a philosophy, 

it deals with those social and civil problems, 

in regard to which mankind have been always 

the most divided, and the most at fault. Its 

gospel, to be sure, has no God in it, only 

humanity, the fraternity of the fatherless ; 

but it preaches social regeneration, and 

promises a millennium. 
 
 

It IS a point of very considerable interest 

historically, that Practical Communism should 

have preceded Speculative Communism by so 

long an interval. The origin of property is 

confessedly obscure, like most other origins. 

Hypothesis therefore takes the place of his- 

toric certainty. And opinions have widely 

differed ; for example, as to whether property 

in land came first, or property in the products 

of land; and in regard to landed property, 

which kind of ownership came first, separate 

or joint, individual or communal. With 

respect to this latter point, the generally 

accepted theory used to be, that individual 

property was the earlier, and communal 

property the later form. The more advanced 

historico-political science of our day has chal- 

lenged this theory, and reversed the order. 

The literature of the subject is very learned 

and able, as well as abundant This particu- 

lar question of the relative antiquity of in- 

dividual and communal property in land be- 

longs especially to three writers of great 

breadth and penetration, Sir Henry Maine in 

England, Maurer in Germany, and Laveleye 

in France.* Of different tendencies, predis-

posing them to different applications and uses 

of the principle involved, these three eminent 

writers are agreed in the conclusion, after in- 

dependent and great research, that common 

property in land was, in many parts of the 

world, perhaps everywhere, undoubtedly the 

original form of ownership.

Whew! That was dense reading. Dang. Please note he has made no mention of
Karl Marx. Very curious indeed, Marx was known, he was a contemporary. Why not bring him up?

I mean the guy wrote the Communist Manifesto. Very curious, I believe that Communism then as today

has great stigma attached to it. It leads to dictatorial regimes. I think this is whay Hitchcock it attempting

to reason through his brand of socialism. We shall see,