Re: European Union

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxx>]

"Capitalism" in this day and age is lunacy. "Capitalism" is the
aboriginal jungle of every last man for himself, in pure competition
with every other man, belying even the coupling of a man and a woman as
mates, an elementary form of "socialism."  All the technological
advancement we enjoy today is the result of anti-capitalism, grouping
together cooperatively, wherein groups of people form harmonious and
cooperative groups with labor specialization to achieve goals much more
grandiose than can be expected with every man for himself.  We in the
USA have shown remarkable success in this effort, as evidenced by our
Real Wealth, despite the lunatic adherenence to "capitalism."  That we
are being destroyed in the process of this lunacy is evident in web page
<http://dieoff.org/page5.htm>.

Countries such as Russia, have failed in emulating us in the USA,
because they did not start so far down the track as we did, 200 or so
years ago with the vast ripping off of the native population, and
failing, give the term "socialism" an undeserved bad name.  This modern
"capitalism" tries to spoil this all by insisting upon at least for now,
"competition" among groups, called legal individuals.  The anti-trust
movement is a blatant attempt to restore this ancient jungle competition
by destroying these legal individuals, into basic people, as
civilization had begun in the ancient jungle.  The downsizing (dumping
individuals) of what had been cooperative groups is an attempt to
restore the ancient jungle of "capitalism." To try to restore
"Capitalism" in this day and age is LUNACY.

Hyman

Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 May 1998, Dennis R Redmond wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 May 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
> >
> > > It is not just
> > > a simple matter of changing the laws by consensus to socialize property
> > > relations. For example, property is excluded from democratic process in
> > > the US; it would require a complete transformation of the government,
> > > particularly the elimination of the Bill of Rights, to achieve this.
> >
> > Huh? Since when is the Bill of Rights the linchpin of capitalist property
> > relations? Human rights are not somehow less important than workers'
> > rights, human rights ARE workers' rights.
>
> It is the Bill of Rights wherein property relations are held up under the
> justification of individual liberty. This is the purpose of a bill of
> rights, as they are modeled after the Rights of Man, namely, the
> protection of civil society - and the elites who despotically rule there -
> from the incursion of democratic redress. It is a common error to think
> that capitalist elites writing law to keep the state out of their business
> is somehow law protecting all individuals; indeed, this is the gimmick
> that makes the whole thing work: the liberal conception of minimalizing
> the state is a euphemism for marginalizing the masses. Many have written
> on the matter, see, for example, Hegel, Marx, etcetera, particularly in
> their critiques of the liberal conception of freedom and its deceptions.
> For the civil-political/public society split, which is the historic basis
> for the bourgeois republic deception, see Gramsci, Hobsbawn, others. Also
> one might read the fifth amendment where property - if you have any - is
> specifically protected. Did you, Dennis, think that the fifth amendment
> was written to protect the slave, the farmer and the proletarian's
> property from the capitalist?
>
> > > There are ways to make capitalism more humane, of course, which do not
> > > make it any more democratic, and in the end function to strengthen the
> > > grip of the ruling class over us, but which nevertheless make for
> > > important improvements in the lives of the masses.
> >
> > Oh, Lord. So we should just stand back and let the Forces of Evil
> > dismantle the welfare state, trash the environment, wreck real wages and
> > plunder the planet, as a way of heightening the (somehow always fatal)
> > contradictions of capitalism?
>
> How do you read such frantic proclamations in what I have written? I do
> not believe it is morally justifiable to permit people to suffer for
> revolutionary goals. I oppose the devolution of the present social welfare
> structure, and would have preferred it stay at its peak level of social
> expenditures, and I will always support increasing social expenditures. So
> I don't know where you are drawing these wild ideas from my arguments. It
> is simply a matter of fact that the same structural modifications that
> strengthened the ruling class also benefited the masses greatly. Why
> should noting this fact automatically suggest that I would oppose raising
> the living standards of people? Take a breath, Dennis, you are jumping to
> wild conclusions.
>
> > The evidence is just the opposite: countries with strong workers'
> > parties, powerful trade unions, and humaner social systems, like the
> > Netherlands, Germany and Sweden, have political systems where we
> > wage-workers have a far greater ability to resist capital than, say, in
> > neoliberal UK or America. The sins of Eurocapital are not the fault of
> > Willy Brandt, but of Deutsche Bank & Co.
>
> Hey, guess what? I support strong worker's parties, powerful trade unions,
> humaner social systems, and political systems where workers can resist
> capital. I'm a socialist. I oppose neoliberalism, and recognize that the
> United States is particularly dominated by the business class. At the same
> time, Keynesianism and corporatist politics (e.g. the capital-labor
> accord) in the period following WWII helped not only solidify the United
> States' economy, but strengthened the United States over against the rest
> of the world. Remember, much of the wealth that the social welfare states
> were built on came out of the hides of billions of people around the
> world.
>
> Andy