Socialism makes sense!

[aman]

Greetings my brothers and sisters,

 

I would like to write about an issue that has occupied my mind for a very long time. My thoghts are not based on any explicit research but based on the pieces of information that have been given to me throughout my educational life. No doubt that the current events also instigated this composition and rendered me to share it with you all.

What I want to write about is neo-colonialism! What is it? How did it appear? How does it work and what does it try to achieve? And of course, the effects of this implicit ideology in the status quo global political structure are the questions that I would like to attemt to answer.

 

Colonialism is a very familiar action to many nations of the world. Either to colonised or to coloniser. Here are some of the traditional colonisers: England, France, Portugal, Spain......and the colonised ( in this case it is easier to mention the continents instead of individual countries ) South America, Africa, Asia..virtually all continents.

What is colonisation or colonizing? It is exploitation, it is exraction of resources ( extraction: not replacing, not sustainable, ) exploitation of men power, slavery, imperialism....Colonization is what England did to India, China, South Africa, Canada, Americas...Likewise with the other colonizers. They fought with each other for what belongs to indigenous people of these countries and they still do it. They killed each other for the resources of others!

How did it all start? How did this colonialism start? How did this wave of physical, military occupation of countries start? Answering this question would be deviate from the real issue. And I assume that the audience of this essay has a pretty firm background knowledge of the history of the world.

But it would be safe to start from the industrial revolution that swept the world and ignited the still continuing wave of globalization. What or who is the culprit of this exploitation of indigenous people, this insatiable greed, and desire for constant accumulation? It is what they call capitalism. It started with the movement that took the means of production away from the laborers and gave it to industrialists whose actions are solely about maximizing their profists. Of course, this can only be done either by cutting the cost of production, or raising the prices.

The meaning of cutting the cost of production is very clear. It involves either reducing the wages, reducing the labor contribution to production or playing with the tax rates and so forth. Of course, the exploitation of the labor class is the main issue here. Clearly, and naturally, by the very definition of the system of capitalism, keeping labor dependent, oppressed, and controlled in any way it can be is legitimate means of maximizing profits. This is the dirty, filthy reality of capitalism. It is a way of legitimatizing the exploitation of the "South." "South" is where the Marxism is understood and respected. Why? Clearly, no one likes to be imperialized, exploited, controlled and be dependent or a victim of so called poverty trap. Only ideology that opposes this plague is Marxism or close forms of this ideology ( socialism, communism.) If you pay attention, you will realize that these ideologies are very popular in the "South" and rightly so.

What is wrong with Socialism or communism? I claim that there is nothing wrong with socialism or communism! So, why Soviet Union is not any more? I claim that if it was not for Stalin who used "people" to serve the regime instead of regime serving the people, the Soviet Union would still be existing. Stalin and his successors did not care about people. They cared about prevailing the regime, and serving th regime. They forgot or ignored the meaning of socialism. But, this was not what was intended by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin established the Union to serve the people. It was not specifically to exalt the prolateria and belittle the aristocracy but to create equality. It was not about denouncing the conveniences of technology or other material goods. It is Stalin and his 5, 10, 15...year plans and his ambition of exalting the communism rather than protecting what communism was about: PEOPLE. ( Same goes for Mao.) Lenin, when he was sick and isolated from state affairs, said " Get rid of Him! I don't trust Him." But...it was too late.

Anyway, was Marx right about what was going on? Was he right about the exploitation and the implicit goal of so called capitalism. In my opinion, he was. The exploitation was not limited to prolateria but was carried on different dimensions. The need for cheap resources to maximize the profits, for cheap labor cost the Rain Forests to humanity, displaced people, comdemned them to hunger and misery. Look at Africa.....the beloved continent of many! Africa, the continent which is identified with misery....hunger, plague, war...... South America, Asia....likewise were exploited by G-7 or G-8 whatever the f*** they are called.

TO BE CONTINUED! But waiting for your valuble comments!

Best regards!

[Vayri7X]

What is your opinion on worker-controlled factories, like Burkman in Argentina, or the anarcho-syndicalized ones in Spain ( during the SPansih revolution)?

 

I think people who detest socialism do so because it has been abused by *authoritarian* means- basically, the new boss is the same as the old boss. In an AUTHORITARIAN socialist system , there is still room for a power-elite to reproduce oppression. Dissent is stifled, and the power-game continues albeit in the name of so-called "socialism".

 

However, one can have in place a means of organizing the economy that is non-capitalist, that is sustainable, that disseminates wages more equitably & that limits authoritarianism. One that is based on consensus and works for the betterment of all.

 

Moreover, on a neighborhood level, people can organize in an a collective and anti-authoritarian fashion, without being led around by bosses, head(men) et al.

Take a look at the assembalistas in Argentina ( who I think we all have alot to learn from) , or the collectives in Chiapas, Mexico, or the innumberable small-scale socieites and projects around the world. Moreover, one that challenges sexism , racism and all those tired ism's.

 

I am very interested in Robert Hahnels and Michael Alberts theory on PArecon, - i.e., the participatory economic model. You can find it on Zmag.net's site www.zmag.net under economics. ( as a side note, some of Barsamian's work is here , too.)

 

see http://www.parecon.org/

 

 

 

WHat I am trying to say in plainspeak ( without heavy theoretical rhetoric) is that while capitalism ( particualrly in its neo-colonial and neoliberal manifestations ) does not work ( skeptics witness Argentina, et al) Idon;t think that old-style authoritarian socialism works either. I think an anti-authoritarian and apporoach is necessary to have a more just and sustainable, non-capitalist economy and society.

 

On a sidenote, should anyone consider this a "fringe" view, please review your news on what happened in Cancun during the WTO meetings, and similar trade meetings the world over ( and since the 70's ). People are definitely agistating on a wide-scale for change. In Cancun, the campesinos ( farmers) and opponents of neoliberla cpaitalism struck a win when the talks collapsed.

[Vayri7X]

My apologies if this does not go in this section. I was replying to aman's post.

 

 

 

Also, what is the issue of privatization in Armenia ? How do you think this affects people's access to water, electricity and other public servies that ger privatized?

[Vayri7X]

err- nevermind aman. Seems like someone saw who the wizard was operating behind your curtain in an earlier thread .

 

blasted internet with the tendency to hide deniers behind seemingly sane 'questions' _

[gamavor]

Jewish Kibutz are even better. All equal, all happy!!!