The Problem Is Capitalism: Only radical reforms will solve neoliberalism’s crisis of democracy
from In These Times:
The Problem Is Capitalism
Only radical reforms will solve neoliberalism’s crisis of democracy.
BY Joseph M. Schwartz and Maria Svart
In “Lean Socialist: Why Liberalism Needs Socialism—and Vice Versa” (May 2013), Bhaskar Sunkara calls for the rebirth of a socialist movement that would work alongside liberals for immediate gains for working people, while simultaneously offering a vision of a socialist society that would extend democracy into the economic sphere. And, at the same time, that movement would fight for the structural reforms most likely to lead towards that goal. We at Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), including our founding co-chair Michael Harrington, have always embraced this strategy. The problem? Socialists became indistinguishable from liberals because the liberals and a strong labor movement disappeared, swept away when “the tides of neoliberalism moved in.” As Barbara Ehrenreich frequently noted in the 1990s, with liberals and social democrats endorsing Clinton’s and Blair’s “kinder, gentler” dismantling of the welfare state, socialists were often the last defenders of the liberal gains of the 1930s and 1960s. But to go beyond liberalism, we absolutely agree with Sunkara that work must be done alongside movement activists, rather than so-called liberal technocrats. Socialists need to teach the liberals to fight once again. But how?
First, we must remind liberals of history. Before social democracy retreated, socialists foresaw the dangers of insufficiently radical reforms. In the 1970s and 1980s, European socialist theorists such as Nicos Poulantzas and Andre Gorz joined Harrington in warning that if the Left failed to socialize control over investment, the corporate drive for profit would lead capital to abandon the “social contract” compromise of the welfare state. Socialist governments in France, Sweden and elsewhere pushed for democratizing investment. But capital immediately fought back, beginning with the CIA-aided overthrow of the Allende regime in Chile in 1973 and continuing with French capital’s strike of the early 1980s. In the face of the onslaught, democracy and old-style liberalism began to crumble. This time around, liberals must recognize the true enemy and embrace radical reforms. Socialists will be there to push them to do so.
Second, we must remind liberals that racism and the center and Right’s use of a racialized politics played a central role in the rise of neoliberal capitalism. Thatcher’s and Reagan’s opportunistic attack on income-based child support for single mothers (aka “welfare”) played a major role in constructing a right-wing majority. Though the main beneficiaries of means-tested “welfare” were white, Clinton passed “welfare reform” to rein in mythical, non-white “welfare queens.” This distracted the public from Corporate America’s job-killing deindustrialization and outsourcing policies. So, since conscious socialists are but a small part of the American public, how do we build the revived Left that Sunkara calls for? Clearly, we need an anti-racist radical movement capable of refuting pervasive myths about the U.S. welfare state. The emergence of a militant immigrant rights movement and low-wage workers movement will be central to a Left and labor revival, as will the resistance of underemployed and indebted college graduates.
We take heart along with Sunkara that younger people are favorable (or at least open) in their attitudes toward socialism. But 30 years of neoliberal capitalist state policies have fostered a deep skepticism about politics. Many find it hard to envision mass movements winning reforms in state policy that would improve their lives. Sunkara is right to issue his impassioned plea to “Lean Socialist,” and young people are joining the socialist movement, in part due to the invaluable intellectual work that he and his colleagues carry out at Jacobin magazine. .....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/article/15005/the_problem_is_capitalism
= new reply since forum marked as read
Delete all corporate advertising. Preach community and personal growth and ......oh wait!?! You were just being rhetorical...
.
LOL 
of the majority in the hands of a few, inherently and over time.
But what we need isn't radical reform or extreme measures or anything that hasn't been done and proven before, successfully, many times. Capitalism concentrates wealth, redistributing it from the many to the few. Government, by various means (chiefly tax policy) is there to represent the interests of the majority.
The difference between an egalitarian Sweden, for example, over a Gini-coefficient-challenged USA, even given practically identical economic structures, is a few percentage points in the tax codes applied over time. Its not radical, its easy.
...and there is a great deal of human nature to be found in this "toxic system" and its "predatory norms".
The trouble with human nature, as many attempted systems of government found in the last century, is that you can't get rid of it, you have to deal with it one way or another, whatever grand perfection of an ideology you've built from. One way or another, people have to manage the economy, make corrections, learn from mistakes, muddle through, etc. There are plenty of countries that do a better job than us lately, and it isn't really rocket science. Also, in spite of republican obfustication, its also not really a mystery what went wrong in 2008, or how to prevent another go-round.
Even with that, if the goal is, say, alleviating poverty, then for all its evils capitalism may not have spoiled things too badly?
Looking at global poverty levels, or what would be called "extreme poverty", where deprivation is the norm. It wasn't that long ago that half of the human population lived in extreme poverty. One source says that in 1815 85% of the human population lived in extreme poverty, and that that was likely the norm going back into prehistory. It wasn't capitalism that caused it, and capitalism may not have driven the massive improvements in the human condition. But you can say that most of the wealth produced in the 40 year time period of the graph was produced within essentially capitalistic economic structures. Managed and moderated by governments.
It can be done, and the overall effect can be beneficial. I'm less certain about the results of revolutionary or radical alternatives.
