The idea of a social democracy that provides benefits for health, basic rights and education, with a safety net, is probably the best that we can hope for. (But I would also not suggest that those countries fail to regulate business in various ways. What we should have done is to prevent the mega-mergers and proliferation of shell-companies that exist only for accounting gimmicks and to hide the investors. We should also never have fallen for the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves in a general sense — they only pay for themselves in terms of the wealthy getting a great return on their meager purchase price of politicians and manipulating public opinion. Now, it is probably too late, barring some major catastrophe that stirs things up without crushing us.) I cannot say much about Belgium, but France perpetually seems to have its own problems. As for Germany, much of its economy seems to be based on sucking money out of the rest of the European Union.
JAS said
The solution attempted by the founding fathers of the United States was to create multiple bodies and spread out the authority and power somewhat, with a system of checks and balances. In addition to the fact that the original agreement already embraced a host of abuses (perhaps most notably slavery), it anticipated but was not able to prevent what has ultimately happened, as those multiple bodies have effectively been aligned with external influences made powerful mostly by means of money (and also by means of their ability to inflict politically unpleasant effects more or less at whim). This process took time, and was interrupted by the Great Depression and two world wars, but they have gotten very close to achieving their goal, if they have not already done so. A major problem, I think, is that the wealthy class is no longer afraid of the lower classes. The poor have only one real power, and that is to make trouble. No one in power seems to be willing to take on the wealthy because a) they are from that class themselves b) they hope to become members of that class c) the wealthy can fight back. The question is whether the current trick of turning one group of the lower class against another will continue to keep them too busy to turn their sights at the wealthy, or if it will ultimately result in so much chaos and violence that it tears the fabric of society apart. It might not be possible to get the wealthy to curb their excesses until they see the guillotines being brought out, oiled and tested, and by then it might be too late.
Edit: there was a bit of a built-in check when the wealthy lived among, or in fairly close proximity to, those who served them. Now, corporate boards are separated by many states or even other countries from the consequences of their decisions. (Various technologies have exacerbated this problem, and rendered irrelevant legions of middle-managers that also had some local interest in the areas of impact.) That will not ultimately be true of climate change, but those currently making decisions seems to be betting that they will somehow be able to avoid the worst effects themself by means of their wealth, or it will be okay for the remainder of their lives, and certainly not worth making major changes that might cost them or cause them any inconveniences. Anyone betting on a technological solution, including moving out to other planets, is likely to be sadly disappointed.
I don’t really believe the founding fathers had any interest in solving any of these problems. Pretty convincingly evidenced by the fact that one had to own property to vote, and the vast majority of people then and now are property less.
The only “hope” for the future lies in an international proletarian movement guided by communist doctrine with an explicit class line.
JAS said
The idea of a social democracy that provides benefits for health, basic rights and education, with a safety net, is probably the best that we can hope for. (But I would also not suggest that those countries fail to regulate business in various ways. What we should have done is to prevent the mega-mergers and proliferation of shell-companies that exist only for accounting gimmicks and to hide the investors. We should also never have fallen for the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves in a general sense — they only pay for themselves in terms of the wealthy getting a great return on their meager purchase price of politicians and manipulating public opinion. Now, it is probably too late, barring some major catastrophe that stirs things up without crushing us.) I cannot say much about Belgium, but France perpetually seems to have its own problems. As for Germany, much of its economy seems to be based on sucking money out of the rest of the European Union.
Social democracy is a dying beast that has the same issues as other nations for the same reasons.
Capital has the final say within bourgeois society and we’re seeing that in places like the UK, Poland, and the US.
Adnantell said
I don’t really believe the founding fathers had any interest in solving any of these problems. Pretty convincingly evidenced by the fact that one had to own property to vote, and the vast majority of people then and now are property less.
The only “hope” for the future lies in an international proletarian movement guided by communist doctrine with an explicit class line.
So, no real hope at all. I do think that the founding fathers were, more or less, trying to create a system to avoid excess and a constant threat of rebellion. They saw themselves as the enlightened leaders, which was not entirely untrue, but not sufficient to endure. The problem with giving the vote to everyone, is that we now have a good third of the country that is stark raving made, and votes very reliably. The electoral college and imbalances made far worse with the inequality of populations, especially with the industrial revolution and the depletion of agriculture based on family run farms. The main problem at the moment is that a handful of families have collected most of the means of making money and are living off the rent paid for by everyone else. This has been made worse by corporations that are essentially eternal people with even greater powers. The only solution is to convince them to give up their ill-gotten gains and share. I do not see that happening any time soon.
As fascinating as this discussion may be, might I suggest that it is completely off topic and promises to derail the original purpose of the thread. I hereby appeal to the moderators to move the current segment of the thread elsewhere so that those interested may continue their conversation.
TTHorne56 said
As fascinating as this discussion may be, might I suggest that it is completely off topic and promises to derail the original purpose of the thread. I hereby appeal to the moderators to move the current segment of the thread elsewhere so that those interested may continue their conversation.
Oh for Pete’s sake. This is what finally offends you? I suggest that the most interesting discussions invariable wander somewhat off topic. In this case, I think we are mostly done with the digression.
JAS said
Adnantell said
I don’t really believe the founding fathers had any interest in solving any of these problems. Pretty convincingly evidenced by the fact that one had to own property to vote, and the vast majority of people then and now are property less.
The only “hope” for the future lies in an international proletarian movement guided by communist doctrine with an explicit class line.
So, no real hope at all. I do think that the founding fathers were, more or less, trying to create a system to avoid excess and a constant threat of rebellion. They saw themselves as the enlightened leaders, which was not entirely untrue, but not sufficient to endure. The problem with giving the vote to everyone, is that we now have a good third of the country that is stark raving made, and votes very reliably. The electoral college and imbalances made far worse with the inequality of populations, especially with the industrial revolution and the depletion of agriculture based on family run farms. The main problem at the moment is that a handful of families have collected most of the means of making money and are living off the rent paid for by everyone else. This has been made worse by corporations that are essentially eternal people with even greater powers. The only solution is to convince them to give up their ill-gotten gains and share. I do not see that happening any time soon.
Some nerd wants our discussion moved so this will be my final response here.
But speaking from personal experience within the labor movement there actually is hope. A lot more people are sympathetic to the communist position than people think at first, and i see no viable alternative so until I’m shown one or someone can explain our predicament in a more coherent fashion I know where I stand. 😏
This is one of those threads where anyone can change the subject immediately simply by posting about what they’re reading. No need to get the vapors. Just keep reading and tell us about it!
For example, I’ve slipped into a Roger Zelazny time warp. (A wonderful place to visit.) I found a big fat used collection of his ** you do not have permission to see this link **, the award winning works for which he is best known. I’ve never read them all and i doubt I’ll make it all the way through this time but I do see extending my break from heavy historical critical stuff for a while.
Apparently one person thinks that the purpose of this thread is best served by simply mentioning a book read, without actually discussing its contents or the implications of those contents. Clearly, we should be sticking to topics that are simple and not controversial, like religion and the Bible.
I’m not asking for a book report or anything like that but I would be genuinely interested in the thoughts of everyone reading Dostoevsky when you reach an appropriate point.
Just finished The Brothers Karamazov. It’s as though the very essence of life itself is captured in this great novel. To have read it is an achievement given all that crowds into the time available for such a long book.
Judith said
I’m not asking for a book report or anything like that but I would be genuinely interested in the thoughts of everyone reading Dostoevsky when you reach an appropriate point.
Just finished The Brothers Karamazov. It’s as though the very essence of life itself is captured in this great novel. To have read it is an achievement given all that crowds into the time available for such a long book.
Great. Congratulations! Readers in the 19th century had a lot less distractions. They looked forward to those big fat steroidal novels. Dostoevsky helped write the script for the 20th century. Lots of folks who never heard of him didn’t realize they were living in a Dostoevsky novel.
I’m looking at one of those steroidal novels myself. Dicken’s Bleak House. I’ve always heard how brilliant and funny it is, full of amazing characters. It’s one I’ve never read. Probably because of its length.
Jill_L said
Well, I’ve read it (B.K.). I particularly like the ending where all is “resolved”. Like Judith said it captures the essence of life itself. I found myself humming Danny Boy at one point. Insightful. I wept, I laughed. I grew impatient. Well worth the effort.
Now for the movie with Yul Brynner! 🙂
Judith said
Jill_L said
Could be good!
Unless you’ve had quite enough of the Karamazovs for awhile…
Right. The book is dense and rather difficult due probably in part to its Russian sensibilities and in part to its underlying subject matter. I suppose the Karamazovs are somewhat channeling Dostoevsky’s own personal observations. Dostoevsky who was given an aristocratic or at least a higher education has a social conscience. Is he shining a light on the socio-economic situation of the time in Russian life? (I read an article about a little country on the coast of Croatia recently in Smithsonian. How little the present time has encroached on their civilization given 300 years. A picture of what Dostoevsky could be writing about!) I’d say the book B. K. is a good story that poses questions of conscience that seem to be perennial ones of human concern – the poor and hungry, role of government, personal ethics, happiness – even good and evil.
Jill_L, I ended the book with a sense of empathy for the devil! We need him! To have every day glorious and everything just the way it should be …who would even want that? The joys and triumphs are possible because of the sorrows and failures. Actually, I don’t believe in the devil but I know some who do. To me it’s just life: the good and the bad, the ups and the downs, the ins and the outs. I’m adding this response for those others (NOT scholars) to see The Forum can be enjoyed by all the bloggers and, if I can participate, anyone can! 🙂
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)