So first I have explained the paradigm and the multitude of forces on it and how
each person views different terms differently, thereby preventing a thorough
discussion among people without inordinate time detailing every word we use.
That inevitably leads to arguments among people who perhaps agree, but merely
use different words to say the same thing while at the same time believing the
words the other person uses mean something entirely else. It is this linguistic
conflict that is a the root of some of the large conflicts in the countries of this earth.
It is a central point of socialism that people be involved in politics. It is clear in the
phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the endless committee meetings and
everything being run by the government. Everyone should be involved in making the
choices society makes. This insistence that everyone be involved is resented, if not
misunderstood, by 90% of the people who just want to live their lives.
Because everyone cannot understand all the things that occur, and which socialism
requires them to grasp, that person becomes disengaged totally, his work
performance, in even what he enjoys the most or works at the most, suffers.
Alienation, the feeling that a person is overwhelmed, and is not nearly as
necessary to the process as the theory holds, just wears him down, leading to a
negative reaction. The insistence on involvement, even through representatives,
bothers people. They know they cannot affect anything anyhow, and that ultimately
lowers a person's self esteem.
This involvement-quotient destroys the social fabric. Socialism's central idea is that
people are the final decision makers, in every decision. Since at the same time
everything is run by the state, though managed by just a few in practice, people
realize something is not right with the other. Most people, however, and rightfully
so, are involved in more personal pursuits and that is as it should be.
This requirement to be involved requires everyone to have an opinion. It almost
seems that if you do not have one then there must be something wrong with you.
Because it is easier to get opinions from the major currents of thought then be on
the paradigm cutting edge -- it became easy for everyone to develop a socialistic
attitude, even here in the United States. This socialistic thought coupled with the
concept of everyone must be involved leads to the current political social mess. To
make things more difficult the majority of Americans have made the paradigm shift
to what I will call "libertarianism" and away from socialism. Except that no
mainstream political leader has really done so. For the moment Clinton seemed
like the new paradigm. Though he is really part of the socialistic past that's bound
to fall. So Americans are using the terminology and overall structure of thought that
is the socialist paradigm to try to explain their new found American individualist
libertarianism. George W. Bush seems to have the idea, and surrounded himself
with similar thinkers, though even he is too steeped in socialist theorems to totally
break free.
They know the words they are using do not really work, but they do not know any
new words yet to explain the deal.
To demonstrate the entire last few pages where in which we discuss the paradigm
shift, and the pervasiveness of socialist theory, and the inability of the words to
mean anything any more, and the attempts to cover all this by taking the best of
both capitalism and socialism, and using socialist terminology to explain what
"capitalism" is, I want to add in here the text of a letter appearing in the New York
Times. It was the lead letter in fact, on Jan 1st 1993. Next to an editorial on how the
'decade' really began now with Clinton's inauguration!
First, a little on the New York Times. It is the most influential newspaper in America
in that all the people in power read it. The Times, as any good newspaper will do,
pushes its opinion by context of an article or element (like ad or picture) of any
kind. Its opinion also is in the socialist paradigm -- this shifting time. That this
opinion -- this somehow best of both, is the dominant one for public policy in the
industrialized world and the third world, the Times Editorial, the letter , the fact that
they are next to each other to support each other, are all a central point in the
current events and affairs. It is the perfect real life example to the entire
philosophical musings here.
Here is the letter, from Mr. Douglas Mattern, "President, Association of World
Citizens" whose name alone is another example of the existence of the socialist
paradigm: FINDING AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM FOR A NEW CENTURY
"To the Editor:
Gar Alperovitz is correct that for nearly a century United States economic
success has been associated with war or preparation of war (Op-Ed Dec. 16th
1992). This country has yet to prove it can sustain long-term economic success
without depending on a permanent war industry.
It is essential, looking at the larger picture and future needs, that we explore
entirely new economic models Communism is now relegated to the scrapheap of
history, unable to provide the material needs for society. Capitalism, however,
has also failing miserably in many areas.
It is a capitalist, free market world, yet the inequities are brutal. More than a
billion people live in shanty towns, garbage dumps and useless land. Moreover,
the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, with the riches 20 percent of
the world's population now owning 83 percent of the wealth.
Even in the United States the greed-oriented policy of the last decade has
resulted in 1 percent of American households now controlling 37 percent of net
worth. The top 4 percent of wage earners make more money than the bottom 51
percent combined. This gross inequity is the antithesis of democracy.
Athletes and entertainers make outrageous salaries, while many people who
really contribute to the future of the country are grossly underpaid or have no
work at all. Equally obscene, many company chief executive officers are paid
millions of dollars in compensation, while they are laying off employees.
The country has become one big marketplace, where the main value is what
sells. The most contemptible result is that children are the poorest age group,
with one in every five children living below the official poverty line. Like the
homeless and the unemployed, children have no buying power, so they come
last. This is the ultimate disgrace of a system that neither comprehends what is
important nor has a vision for the future.
Capitalism, as practiced today, is inherently inequitable. It is also an
environmental disaster through dependence on mass consumption and constant
expansion of markets. We must have a better system to meet the needs of the
world community in the 21st Century. Perhaps we must combine the best of
capitalism with the best of socialism to make a truly democratic, equitable and
workable system."
each person views different terms differently, thereby preventing a thorough
discussion among people without inordinate time detailing every word we use.
That inevitably leads to arguments among people who perhaps agree, but merely
use different words to say the same thing while at the same time believing the
words the other person uses mean something entirely else. It is this linguistic
conflict that is a the root of some of the large conflicts in the countries of this earth.
It is a central point of socialism that people be involved in politics. It is clear in the
phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the endless committee meetings and
everything being run by the government. Everyone should be involved in making the
choices society makes. This insistence that everyone be involved is resented, if not
misunderstood, by 90% of the people who just want to live their lives.
Because everyone cannot understand all the things that occur, and which socialism
requires them to grasp, that person becomes disengaged totally, his work
performance, in even what he enjoys the most or works at the most, suffers.
Alienation, the feeling that a person is overwhelmed, and is not nearly as
necessary to the process as the theory holds, just wears him down, leading to a
negative reaction. The insistence on involvement, even through representatives,
bothers people. They know they cannot affect anything anyhow, and that ultimately
lowers a person's self esteem.
This involvement-quotient destroys the social fabric. Socialism's central idea is that
people are the final decision makers, in every decision. Since at the same time
everything is run by the state, though managed by just a few in practice, people
realize something is not right with the other. Most people, however, and rightfully
so, are involved in more personal pursuits and that is as it should be.
This requirement to be involved requires everyone to have an opinion. It almost
seems that if you do not have one then there must be something wrong with you.
Because it is easier to get opinions from the major currents of thought then be on
the paradigm cutting edge -- it became easy for everyone to develop a socialistic
attitude, even here in the United States. This socialistic thought coupled with the
concept of everyone must be involved leads to the current political social mess. To
make things more difficult the majority of Americans have made the paradigm shift
to what I will call "libertarianism" and away from socialism. Except that no
mainstream political leader has really done so. For the moment Clinton seemed
like the new paradigm. Though he is really part of the socialistic past that's bound
to fall. So Americans are using the terminology and overall structure of thought that
is the socialist paradigm to try to explain their new found American individualist
libertarianism. George W. Bush seems to have the idea, and surrounded himself
with similar thinkers, though even he is too steeped in socialist theorems to totally
break free.
They know the words they are using do not really work, but they do not know any
new words yet to explain the deal.
To demonstrate the entire last few pages where in which we discuss the paradigm
shift, and the pervasiveness of socialist theory, and the inability of the words to
mean anything any more, and the attempts to cover all this by taking the best of
both capitalism and socialism, and using socialist terminology to explain what
"capitalism" is, I want to add in here the text of a letter appearing in the New York
Times. It was the lead letter in fact, on Jan 1st 1993. Next to an editorial on how the
'decade' really began now with Clinton's inauguration!
First, a little on the New York Times. It is the most influential newspaper in America
in that all the people in power read it. The Times, as any good newspaper will do,
pushes its opinion by context of an article or element (like ad or picture) of any
kind. Its opinion also is in the socialist paradigm -- this shifting time. That this
opinion -- this somehow best of both, is the dominant one for public policy in the
industrialized world and the third world, the Times Editorial, the letter , the fact that
they are next to each other to support each other, are all a central point in the
current events and affairs. It is the perfect real life example to the entire
philosophical musings here.
Here is the letter, from Mr. Douglas Mattern, "President, Association of World
Citizens" whose name alone is another example of the existence of the socialist
paradigm: FINDING AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM FOR A NEW CENTURY
"To the Editor:
Gar Alperovitz is correct that for nearly a century United States economic
success has been associated with war or preparation of war (Op-Ed Dec. 16th
1992). This country has yet to prove it can sustain long-term economic success
without depending on a permanent war industry.
It is essential, looking at the larger picture and future needs, that we explore
entirely new economic models Communism is now relegated to the scrapheap of
history, unable to provide the material needs for society. Capitalism, however,
has also failing miserably in many areas.
It is a capitalist, free market world, yet the inequities are brutal. More than a
billion people live in shanty towns, garbage dumps and useless land. Moreover,
the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, with the riches 20 percent of
the world's population now owning 83 percent of the wealth.
Even in the United States the greed-oriented policy of the last decade has
resulted in 1 percent of American households now controlling 37 percent of net
worth. The top 4 percent of wage earners make more money than the bottom 51
percent combined. This gross inequity is the antithesis of democracy.
Athletes and entertainers make outrageous salaries, while many people who
really contribute to the future of the country are grossly underpaid or have no
work at all. Equally obscene, many company chief executive officers are paid
millions of dollars in compensation, while they are laying off employees.
The country has become one big marketplace, where the main value is what
sells. The most contemptible result is that children are the poorest age group,
with one in every five children living below the official poverty line. Like the
homeless and the unemployed, children have no buying power, so they come
last. This is the ultimate disgrace of a system that neither comprehends what is
important nor has a vision for the future.
Capitalism, as practiced today, is inherently inequitable. It is also an
environmental disaster through dependence on mass consumption and constant
expansion of markets. We must have a better system to meet the needs of the
world community in the 21st Century. Perhaps we must combine the best of
capitalism with the best of socialism to make a truly democratic, equitable and
workable system."
| CHAPTER 2 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
