Barbara Ehrenreich/Bill Fletcher Jr.: Reimagining Socialism: Rising to the Occasion

[marmar]

from The Nation:



Rising to the Occasion
Reimagining Socialism

By Barbara Ehrenreich & Bill Fletcher Jr.

March 4, 2009



Socialism's all the rage. "We Are All Socialists Now,"Newsweek declares. As the right wing tells it, we're already living in the U.S.S.A. But what do self-identified socialists (and their progressive friends) have to say about the global economic crisis? The following essay will, we hope, kick off a spirited dialogue, with four replies in this issue and more to come here at TheNation.com. --The Editors


If you haven't heard socialists doing much crowing over the fall of capitalism, it isn't just because there aren't enough of us to make an audible crowing sound. We, as much as anyone on Wall Street in, say, 2006, appreciate the resilience of American capitalism--its ability to regroup and find fresh avenues for growth, as it did after the depressions of 1877, 1893 and the 1930s. In fact, The Communist Manifesto can be read not only as an indictment of capitalism but as a breathless paean to its dynamism. And we all know the joke about the Marxist economist who successfully predicted eleven out of the last three recessions.

But this time the patient may not get up from the table, no matter how many times the electroshock paddles of "stimulus" are applied. We seem to have entered the death spiral where rising unemployment leads to reduced consumption and hence to greater unemployment. Any schadenfreude we might be tempted to feel as executives lose their corporate jets and the erstwhile Masters of the Universe wipe egg from their faces is quickly dashed by the ever more vivid suffering around us. Food pantries and shelters can no longer keep up with the demand; millions face old age without pensions and with their savings gutted; we personally are consumed with anxiety about the future that awaits our children and grandchildren.

Besides, it wasn't supposed to happen this way. There was supposed to be a revolution, remember? The socialist idea, prediction, faith or whatever was that capitalism would fall when people got tired of trying to live on the crumbs that fall from the chins of the rich and rose up in some fashion--preferably inclusively, democratically and nonviolently--and seized the wealth for themselves. Such a seizure would have looked nothing like "nationalization" as currently discussed, in which public wealth flows into the private sector with little or no change in the elites that control it or in the way the control is exercised. Our expectation as socialists was that the huge amount of organizing required for revolutionary change would create an infrastructure for governance, built out of--among other puzzle pieces--unions, community organizations, advocacy groups and new organizations of the unemployed and nouveau poor.

It was also supposed to be a simple matter for the masses to take over or "seize" the physical infrastructure of industrial capitalism--the "means of production"--and start putting it to work for the common good. But much of the means of production has fled overseas--to China, for example, that bastion of authoritarian capitalism. When we look around our increasingly shuttered landscape and survey the ruins of finance capitalism, we see bank upon bank, realty and mortgage companies, title companies, insurance companies, credit-rating agencies and call centers, but not enough enterprises making anything we could actually use, like food or pharmaceuticals. In recent years, capitalism has become increasingly and almost mystically abstract. Outside manufacturing and the service sector, fewer and fewer people could explain to their children what they did for a living. The brightest students went into finance, not physics. The biggest urban buildings housed cubicles and computer screens, not assembly lines, laboratories, studios or classrooms. Even our flagship industry, manufacturing autos, would require major retooling to make something we could use--not more cars, let alone more SUVs, but more windmills, buses and trains. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/ehrenreich_fletcher

[readmoreoften]

1. Very cursory read. A bit ahistorical. Lenin was all for capitalism collapsing through

currency devaluation. Communists have always maintained the capitalism is a resilient but ultimately untenable situation. It's the RESILIENCE that's so nutty and exasperating. It's like the zombie at the end of the movie that you think is dead but then the fist tightens, but it's like that plot point repeated ad infinitum. It's that spunky terminally ill patient who just won't quit. But also who just won't stop terrorizing the nurses, doctors, and support staff.

It's not like a revolution is suddenly unnecessary. The point of socialism isn't to get rid of capitalism and have everyone suffer. The point of socialism is to create an egalitarian economic system. Wealthy industrialists and kings have always killed anyone who attempted to design such a system even in times of crises. There is no reason to think that if capitalism collapses, suddenly the rich and the conservative nationalist factions would allow us to seize the means of production.

(Our brightest students went into finance, not physics? Okay, I disagree with that one.)

[corruptmewithpower]

2. Capitalism is an unfortunate name for a favorable tendency.

People who are free to do what suits them tend to do productive things well. The smart money goes to help them do these things even better.