He says, and it is obvious that the "flaw in this thinking" which he admitted to in his recent testimony to Congress, has affected his thought process and his grammar as he speaks here ungrammatically, but he says: "Specifically, corporations refused to treat their employees like citizens. They passed the burden of stable employment, and social services onto the government, and in effect destroyed their own capitalist game. We are now in the same mess we were in 120 years ago, deciding if we should adopt a Nationals of Socialist (sic???) economic model, because socially and mathematically speaking, Capitalism doesn't work."
So there we have it, in spite of the fact we do not know what he means by a Nationals of Socialist economic model, from the former guru of capitalism head of the US Federal Reserve we are told: "CAPITALISM DOES NOT WORK." It is what we have been saying all along. And Marx was saying 150 years ago. We need to take heart Comrades and go out with our ideas and build.
Sean
4 comments:
Sean, what exactly are "Stalinist economies?"
The Stalinist economies were the economies of the former stalinist dictatorships, a planned economy but planned from above by a bureaucracy that sucked the lifeblood from the working class as opposed to an economy that is managed and controlled by the working class through workers councils or soviets, a formation that existed in name only in the Stalinist states.
In these economies, the state, apart from showing any indication of "withering away" as Marx explained, became huge opressive monstrosities serving the interests of the ruling clique.
They did a great deal of damage to the ideas of socialism including, in the case of Russia, exterminating most of the Marxists that played a leading role in the revolution of 1917.
Sounds to me like you are a Troskyist. Are you? I also would like to know what is the difference between a Stalinist and a Troskyist.
And I would like to thank you in advance for your courtesy.
Dear Proletariopress, Thank you for the point you raise about the stalinist economies. I would agree with what Spike says in his answer. Spike and I are part of the little group Labor's Militant Voice.
Our alternative to the stalinist economies is a nationalized economy not ruled by a bureaucratic dictatorship but under workers' control and management.
By a nationalized economy we do not mean that every little candy store and newsagent would be nationalized but that the dominant corporations, for example around 500 in the US would be nationalized. This would give the working class control of the economy.
We would be in favor of compensation only on the basis of proven need. This would be more for political reasons than economic. The capitalists counter attack against nationalization, as well as military if they had the resources, would be a major propaganda thrust accusing the revolution of taking the bread out of the mouthes of poor people with a few shares. In this struggle for the consciousness of the working class we would answer by saying that if there are people with a few shares and this is all they have to live on then we will compensate them on the basis of proven need. Proven need and how they would be compensated would be decided in the course of events and by elected committees of the working class. But there would be no compensation for the capitalist class and the major shareholders who own these corporations.
Having nationalized these major corporations through the course of a revolutionary movement we the working class would then have ownership and control over the economy. We would also have a new state, a workers state based on workers councils.
We would then move on to plan, manage and control the economy. By management and plan we mean that we would initiate a discussion and debate in society over what resources would be available and what needs would exist. This debate could be extremely thorough now with mass media, which would also be nationalized under workers control and management, and the internet. But the decisions would be made by the elected workers councils. On the basis of a thoroughgoing discussion at all levels of society the democratically elected workers councils (and this would involve debate and struggle between the different workers parties on these councils) decisions would be made about what resources should be allocated to what area of the economy and what hours the working class would work and what priorities work and production would target. Annual targets would be set. This would be the way that planning and management would be developed. It would be the job of the country's leadership and the revolutionary party or parties in power to keep this aspect of the economy continually under debate and review and if necessary make changes to the decisions made. This would be workers management of the economy.
Workers control would be the continual watching over and controlling over the work in the workplace and on the ground. This would entail the conditions of the working class. But it would also entail watching over how the national and international plan was been met in the workplaces. Were we reaching our targets to meet the plan? if not why not, was the plan too ambitious, or were the methods in the workplaces not adequate and maybe had to be changed. These issues would all be discussed in the workplace committees and from there through elected delegates to the local workers councils and from there to regional workers councils and national and international workers councils. We would envisage every worker being involved in continual discussion and control over the economy and doing so in relation to the plan for the economy. This is the alternative we see to the stalinist economies and the capitalist economies. This is the alternative we see today to the crashing capitalist economies.
Yes Comrade we see ourselves as Trotskyist. We attempt in our work in the working class to try and connect with their consciousness through our work and struggle and program, but also through looking at our terminology and while holding firm on principle we look to see if we are unnecessarily making it difficult to connect with the existing consciousness. We therefore do not lead first in our material to the working class with the statement that we are trotskyists. i am not suggesting in any way that you do. Just clarifying.
The small core of Comrades that first came together to form LMV were expelled from the organization the Committee For a Workers International (CWI) over ten years ago. I was a founding member of the CWI in 1974. Today we have our own small group but we think that the fragmentation on the left is damaging to the working class. We are against it. We see it mainly as the result of two things. On the one hand the affect on all the left of stalinism, either the struggle against it or being part of it, and the other factor is that the left have been isolated from the mass of the working class for a long period. We see the coming movement of the working class will be a great help in building a mass much more united left.
Sorry for this long reply. I hope we can keep discussing. Where are you located?
Comradely, Sean
Post a Comment