What is the inherent flaw of the assertion that capitalism equals democracy?
In my book, I talk about the fairy tale we learn in grade school about the dashing economic system named capitalism who meets democracy, the fairest political system of them all, and how together they lived happily every after. Meanwhile in the real world, capitalism hooks up with any government that protects its investments - from military dictatorships to Islamic republics to whatever you want to call that thing we have in Washington, DC.
Far from promoting democracy, capitalism limits it, both by greatly restricting our basic rights to expression and assembly while we're at work (imagine what that would look like!) and by creating monstrous economic inequality that inevitably flows into political inequality. Socialism is about extending democracy - by extending popular decision-making into arenas currently controlled by unelected institutions like corporations and police departments and by creating many new democratic institutions such as neighborhood assemblies and workplace committees.
Would it be fair to assert that there is a direct correlation in the relationship between the mythical narrative of the rugged individualist and capitalism, and that since the nation's foundation we have seen a tension between that concept and the relationship between the public good and government?
I think there's some truth to that but I'm also wary of automatically equating government as it currently exists with the public good. I understand the good intentions but disagree with those who try to defend socialism by reducing it to any government program so that they can say, "Don't be afraid of socialism; it's just highways and public schools!" Actually, the highways were built so that the military could quickly move around the country and most public schools are designed to instill literacy, obedience and limited critical thinking in future employees. We have to fight for more support for many government institutions, but also fight within those institutions for community control. And we also should learn and benefit from the best aspects of our country's individualist traditions: the freethinkers and rebels like Margaret Fuller, "Big Bill" Haywood and Muhammad Ali.
You mention the impact of Citizens United in your book and that "capital outranks humans" in many nations, including our own. You then assert that capital is "a parasite that uses humanity as a host body to multiply itself even as it weakens" that which makes us distinct as humans, including love and compassion. In this world, have many people become commodities as the corporations and entities that amass and control money assume the rights belonging to people?
The most stunning example of this is of course our failure to reduce carbon emissions to stop global warming. Many news outlets are reporting that the recent climate negotiations in Paris are a turning point because the lower costs of renewables and drop in oil profits are finally creating "market incentives" to switch to a less destructive form of energy production - because you know, the mere continuation of human existence beyond this century hadn't really been much of an incentive for these guys.
Just as social-ism is about the needs of society, capital-ism is about the needs of capital. The US Supreme Court has made this quite explicit, both with Citizens United declaring that corporations have the rights of people and its decisions allowing unjustified police searches and government spying, which basically means that people don't have the rights of people. We then internalize this logic: We root for property value to rise in our neighborhoods even if that forces longtime neighbors to move, and judge our kids by standardized test scores designed in the interests of future employers to measure their ability to follow whatever instructions they're given.
How does your chapter entitled "Imagine" reflect the late 1960s protest slogan, "Be realistic, demand the impossible"?
My version of that fabulous paradoxical slogan is that I imagine a lousy day in a better world. I take the reader through a day under socialism in which everything goes wrong: You get in trouble at work because you don't get payment from one of your customers - it's easy to forget now that everyone has plenty, but money is still the way society keeps track of its resources. You argue with your mother because you belong to generations that have very different understandings of family: You don't feel an obligation to visit a despised uncle who was active in the counterrevolution and she thinks you're being a bad nephew. My intention - beyond demonstrating my neurotic inability to imagine simple joy - is to counter the idea that socialism is some type of utopia, which of course would mean that it's impossible. I find comfort in that because, like most people, I think utopias are creepy.
On page 134, you make the argument that liberalism implies incremental reform that if followed by supporters of socialism ends up embracing capitalism. Can you expand on that?
I think it's important to push for incremental reforms - from raising the minimum wage to winning full spectrum equality for all - both because we desperately need them and because it's in those protest movements that people learn how to fight in their own interests. That's what creates the potential for socialism - but only if there are already socialists out there. The problem is when socialists drop the S-word and try to water down our ideas to make them more appealing. That's when we ourselves end up adapting ourselves to capitalism. It's true that the socialist label has been greatly damaged both by anti-socialist propaganda and by the many dictatorships that have called themselves socialist. But it's also true that capitalism keeps pushing new generations to look to an alternative. We have to be willing to be in the minority most of the time so that we can be there when opportunities arise.
Why won't a socialist world be boring, as you explain in chapter 10?
I begin the chapter by invoking some of the dystopian visions of socialism from science fiction, in which equality is interpreted to mean everyone being exactly the same, which of course is horrifying. But socialism isn't based on the premise that people are the same, only that they have the same rights and resources. Socialism wouldn't be boring because it's a society run by and for people, and people are fascinating.
Sure, many of us become a little drab after decades of spending most of our waking hours in dull jobs before plopping down in front a screen to watch supposedly more interesting people play superheroes or score touchdowns. But when ordinary people are able to enter the public arena - think Black Lives Matter or the Arab Spring - they are anything but boring. Socialism is about expanding social movements like these into a full participatory democracy. It might be hectic and full of challenges - remember we're not about utopias here - but it definitely won't be boring.
You employ a lot of humor throughout your book. Many dedicated political advocates are quite uncompromisingly serious about social justice; why do you think evoking laughter occasionally adds to your explanation of socialism?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
