I hope you find compelling our examination of Mondragon worker cooperatives and how they could become part of the Covid recovery ahead. We need to expand our vision. This post points to one most promising direction. We also include all the comments from last week’s post and an update on Georgia, the Health Security Act and the rules governing tomorrow’s Congressional count of the electoral vote.

Georgia on My Mind

NPR reports that lines like the one above are common in communities of color, but rare in primarily white communities, From the NY Times: “The early voting data suggests that the races are very competitive. There are some indications that Democrats had a bigger share of the early-voting electorate than they did in the general election, raising hopes for a party that has traditionally been the underdog in runoff races. The Atlanta area, the Democrats’ political base, has seen some of the highest turnout rates in the state’s early voting.”

The polls continue to look positive. I am guessing we will all be glued to the tube about 4 or 5pm today. We win these two races and we have a chance to implement some bold change. To be clear, Biden is not the Messiah, or even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, so beginning Jan 21, it will be time to push.

Phone bank for both Ossoff & Warnock:
https://www.mobilize.us/togetherfor2020/event/362350/ 

Speak Spanish?
https://www.mobilize.us/georgiademocrats/event/366470/https://www.mobilize.us/electjon/event/365613/https://www.mobilize.us/teamudh/event/364570/ 

Text bank for the Georgia Runoff:
https://demvolctr.org/resources/textbanking

Multiple phone banks, some focusing on absentee ballot chasing (verifying /reminding to return ASAP with voters who requested) w reclaim our vote,
https://www.votinginformation.org/rovphonebankcentral

MAKING CHANGES FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD Influencing Legislators: A Lobbying Workshop

Health Security Zoom Educational Series

If you want to beef up your understanding of the Health Security Act being introduced in 2021, Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign has a series of Zooms coming. Check it out.

Join us this Thursday, January 7, 7:00-8:30 PM, for a Health Security Basics info session. This Zoom meeting provides an overview of the Health Security Plan and the 2021 legislation, with time for your questions.
What are the main components of the Health Security Plan? Who will be covered? What health care services will be covered? Get the basics–or refresh your memory–on Thursday. Register now.
Upcoming meetings:
Tuesday, January 12, 7:00-8:30 PM: Health Security BasicsAn overview of the Health Security Plan (and the 2021 bill), with time for your questions.
Thursday, January 14, 7:00-8:30 PM: Health Security Q&AAn informal question-and-answer session on Health Security.
Tuesday, January 19, 7:00-8:30 PM: Legislative KickoffThe latest updates, held on the first day of the 2021 legislative session.

News In Brief

From NPR: “Congress’ Role In Election Results: Here’s What Happens Jan. 6″ Brief, very straightforward description of tomorrow’s Congressional process that begins at 11am MT. My read of this is that when a state’s vote comes up to be counted, one objection from the House and one objection from the Senate would trigger the House and Senate moving into their own chambers for a two-hour debate and then a vote. For an objection to be approved, both chambers must vote in favor, by just a simple majority. It is doubtful either chamber will approve any of these objections, certainly not the House. So while none of this will influence the outcome, if there are objections to results in 6 states, which seems possible, the vote count could extend to midnight or beyond. And with just one Senator and one House Rep challenging every state, the debate could extend beyond the time limit allowed for Congressional certification of the vote. Surreal.

Our Start at Putting Meat on the Bones:
Basque Republic’s System of Worker Collectives

Just as in the US, Spain experienced a withering Covid blow to its economy. Unlike in America, Spain has a strong tradition of worker owned cooperatives. So when the Covid-generated recession hit Spain, the government told factories and other businesses across the nation to let workers go, to scale back and preserve capital. But in Spain there is a rich tradition of worker owned cooperatives and it is not a small scale operation.

Today, we examine the Mondragon worker owned cooperative that operates throughout Spain and that enabled workers throughout the Basque region to weather the Covid recession because the business model was organized around the needs of workers, not shareholders.

“The concept of the cooperative may conjure notions of hippie socialism, limiting its value as a model for the global economy, but Mondragón stands out as a genuinely large enterprise. Its cooperatives employ more than 70,000 people in Spain, making it one of the nation’s largest sources of paychecks. They have annual revenues of more than 12 billion euros ($14.5 billion). The group includes one of the country’s largest grocery chains, Eroski, along with a credit union and manufacturers that export their wares around the planet.”

Founded in 1956, the power of the Mondragon cooperative movement comes from its historic credibility gained from success and its values which are quite obviously different from the way corporations operate in the US. You can argue whether this is modified capitalism or socialist operations within a capitalist system, but whatever you call it, it is a model that departs radically from how we do business.

The priest viewed cooperative principles as the key to lifting living standards. In 1955, he persuaded five of the first graduates of the local engineering program to buy a company that made heaters and run it as a cooperative. They elevated workers into owners — partners is the term of art — with each gaining a single vote in a democratic process that determines wages, working conditions and the share of profits to be distributed each year.”

However, as expansive as the cooperative movement is in Spain, it has not made significant inroads in countries outside of Spain

Yet even as cooperatives are increasingly part of the discussion about how to update capitalism, they remain confined to the margins of commercial life. They are found in Italy and Belgium. In the north of England, the city of Preston has promoted cooperatives as an antidote to a decade of national austerity. A series of cooperatives in Cleveland have been organized by a nonprofit, the Democracy Collaborative.”

When Roxanne and I took a 10,000 mile US road trip to visit progressive organizations and city government that was advancing them, we visited Madison, Wisconsin, where the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives serves as a research center and incubator for worker cooperatives. Its website has a wealth of resources on cooperatives. They have published an excellent 12 page document that outlines the different types of worker cooperatives, how they are formed and governed. When in Wisconsin we attended the launching of a worker owned cooperative circus and met with others in the cooperative movement. Given the loss of so many small businesses during the cooperative, the idea of restarting those businesses as worker owned cooperatives is something that NM and the nation should examine closely. You can access the PDF below.

Recently, some large corporations have committed to efforts to “reform,” and incorporate socially conscious practices in the business world.

Within the corporate world, high-profile initiatives have declared the dawn of a more socially conscious mentality. Last year, 181 members of the Business Roundtable, a leading group of chief executives, pledged fidelity to a new mission statement in which they promised to run their businesses not solely for the enrichment of shareholders, but also for the sustenance of other so-called stakeholders — workers, suppliers, the environment and local communities.

Unfortunately, corporate culture is not an easy thing to shift and subsequent studies of these 181 businesses have revealed no substantive differences in how they are operating from other non-Roundtable businesses. In an intransigent corporate world, it is easy to see why there is such a need for expanding the concept of worker owned cooperatives. Compare the pay gap experienced in most of America’s largest companies to that of in Mondragon cooperatives.

In the United States, the chief executives of the largest 350 companies are paid about 320 times as much as the typical worker, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. At Mondragón, salaries for executives are capped at six times the lowest wage.”

And during times of financial crisis or a pandemic the differences in how the US capitalist corporation operates is stark with how a Mondragon cooperative functions.

For most multinational companies adapting to the pandemic, the interests of shareholders and employees typically diverge. Executives have continued to cash in on stock-based compensation buoyed by public bailouts even at companies that have resorted to layoffs.

At Mondragón, workers know that, as owners, they stand to benefit from sacrifices that strengthen their businesses.

“This is more than a job,” said Joana Ibarretxe Cano, a production manager at the Erreka Group, whose factory was closed for all of April. “This is being part of a team.”

As a result of their focus upon preserving worker jobs, Mondragon cooperatives have fared far better than mega corporations.

The system proved robust during the global financial crisis of 2008, followed by the so-called sovereign debt crisis across Europe. Joblessness soared beyond 26 percent in Spain. But in Mondragón, the cooperatives apportioned the pain through wage cuts and advance payments on future hours. Unemployment barely budged.”

The worker owned cooperative is entirely organized around the perspective, needs and knowledge of the workers. Profits stay in the company and the community and the orientation of the organization is focused on preserving jobs and offering the best possible working conditions. It is inconceivable that a Mondragon meat processes plant in Spain would force its workers to return to work in close quarters until fully tested safety measures were installed. Yet, in America, meat packing workers who wanted to stay away from the obviously unsafe conditions at work, were deprived of unemployment benefits. Cogs in a wheel do not have rights. This is in stark contrast to the Mondragon model.

“This flexible approach was possible because the company is part of a vast collection of cooperative enterprises, centered in the town of Mondragón. Most of its workers are partners, meaning they own the company. Though the 96 cooperatives of the Mondragón Corporation must produce profits to stay in business — as any company does — these businesses have been engineered not to lavish dividends on shareholders or shower stock options on executives, but to preserve paychecks.”

In the dialog that developed last week, with many comments offered on democratic socialism, several called for a clearer definition of what might be involved in a move toward democratic socialism. The worker owned cooperative is just such a model. It does not involve government controlled industries, indeed, as the term “democratic” socialism conveys, cooperatives are fiercely democratic.

Imagine the US government offering the University of Michigan $100M to expand its Center for Cooperatives, funding scores of implementation coaches.

Imagine the roll out of renewable infrastructure being performed by newly formed, locally operated worker owned cooperatives.

Imagine state and federal grants offered to owners of small business owners whose businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic, if they agree to work with University of Wisconsin cooperative coaches and incorporate a specific set of cooperative guidelines that create worker cooperatives instead of sole proprietor operations.

Certainly there are details to be worked out to achieve these kinds of visions, but when we make policy, we make choices and since the founding of this nation, the decisions made by our elected leaders have been designed to favor landowners, slave owners, mega corporations, Wall St, and the rich.

Imagine if we used a different set of criteria in making these choices, in utilizing our resources, in making our policies. Tax credits don’t have to go to big box stores to keep them in a community; tax credits an be offered to workers to form cooperatives that perform the same function but keep profits in our commnities.

If you want to be part of a group of New Mexicans who are exploring these kinds of concepts, consider joining our Transformation Study Group. You can work in a team or on your own to research and develop a brief of an issue area of your choice, or you can simply join our twice monthly conversation.

Below, we have provided the full stream of commentary from last week’s discussion of democratic socialism. Read on! And pray for Georgia. Pray for our nation.

In solidarity and hope,

Paul & Roxanne

Democratic Socialism Discussion

Comments from 2020 Is Almost Done: What Next? Thoughts on Georgia, Democratic Socialism & 2021: This is the post that got the conversation started, Dec. 28, 2020

From Blacksheeprising

I too look forward to my daily dose of Heather Cox Richardson though often the contents make me grind my teeth. I agree with every single word of the 12/30 posting. With that said, the Democratic Party also has a lot of responsibility for getting us to where we are today and I have written her to encourage a blog post that addresses the role of Democrats during the same time period. I firmly believe that all of us Democrats need to do some serious “soul searching” as we move into 2021.

From Terry Storch

I have to echo Paul’s continuing endorsement of Heather Cox Richardson–she is my morning sanity, and I expect her to be a calm exposer of many things relevant, potentially troubling (because how could there not be such developments) and not necessarily obvious during the Biden years. Today’s column I have put in my “articles to keep” folder. It’s sweep of the past 40+ years is basically a 3 page haiku of the essential and relevant currents during that period, up to the present.

From Phyllis in Taos

I’m not sure where to put this comment or request. This is an article in Politico that may be the group to push their agenda of anti social democracy. The Force is a group of newly elected House of Representatives. They are a conservative group who have lived in communist countries and rail against socialism. I would be interested in you take on their point of view.

Click here to get to the article from Politico.
Thank you Phyllis Wilson Taos

From William Finnoff: This comment triggered all kinds of other comments, with William Finnoff responding to each.

I’m posting this here although it actually references a link you put up in an earlier post and have referred to once or twice since. Specifically, the Yes article “10 Things you should know about Socialism”: https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2020/01/30/socialism-understanding/.

I had some issues with this article. It is a pretty typical example of a narrative that can be summarized as: “Anything good that has occurred in the modern world is due to some (vaguely defined) flavor of socialism, and anything bad that has happened can be ascribed to capitalism”.

His first point: “1. Socialism is a yearning for something better than capitalism” harks back to Marx who was looking at capitalism as it existed in the 19th century. So, what exactly are we talking about when we refer to ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’? According to Miriam Webster,

“Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”.

“Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control”.

According to these definitions, Sweden (the country many democratic socialists point to as a successful socialist state) has a capitalist economic system since – according to the Wikipedia entry on the Swedish economy: “Sweden is a competitive and highly liberalized, open market economy. The vast majority of Swedish enterprises are privately owned and market-oriented combined with a strong welfare state.” (In fact, the only difference in this description and the description of the U.S. economy would be to replace “strong welfare state” with “weak welfare state”). As such, it isn’t clear what the author is really talking about when he refers to socialism (other than it isn’t what China and Russia have come up with).

Further, the author’s historical analyses are either questionable or belong in the apologist canon of socialist thought. I’ll start with “3. The Soviet Union and China achieved state capitalism, not socialism.” This is a silly fig leaf that modern socialists have pasted over the many horrors perpetrated by not just Stalin and Mao, but any number of other self-proclaimed ‘socialists/communists’ such as Pol Pot and Robert Mogabe (or more recently Nicolás Maduro and Xi Jinping). This tries to sweep the abuses of power of socialist regimes under the rug by attaching the pejorative ‘capitalism’ to regimes that are explicitly and enthusiastically ‘socialist’. If one were to attach a name to these regimes that is most closely aligned with his narrative, it wouldn’t be ‘state capitalist’, it would be FASHIST. Alignment between state and private enterprise? Check. Nationalistic? Check. Persecution of immigrants and minorities? Check. Protectionist economy? Check. Cult of personality for a charismatic leader? Check.

How about his point? “8. Fascism is a capitalist response to socialism.” This is another highly questionable statement which modern socialists have advocated to distance themselves from the ‘National Socialist Worker’s Party Deutschland’. If you don’t think that the Nazi’s or the ‘Republican Fascist Party’ (Mussolini’s outfit) were socialists, then consult Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s book “Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939”. This describes the parallels between many of the measures taken by Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt during the 1930’s to expand social security systems, invest in expansive public works projects and nationalize various industries. In many ways, Hitler and Mussolini were more ‘socialist’ than Roosevelt.

In his final point, the author states: “10. Worker co-ops are a key to socialism’s future.” This is the current shiny object in academic socialist thinking. Although there are certainly a number of examples of successful worker co-ops out there in the world, they are very few and far between (even in purportedly socialist countries). There are a number of questions about how this is supposed to work in the real world: Where are these co-ops going to get their capital from – public banks? (Isn’t this a case of state–capitalism?) If not there, then where? Are these enterprises going to be owned by the workers and are they going to be striving to maximize their own benefits (profits)? Are these enterprises going to be competing with other enterprises in a free market or are they going to be given preferential treatment, or monopoly status in their respective industries? If they are forced to compete, Isn’t this just capitalism with a different set of owners/shareholders? If not forced to compete, what is then to prevent them from exploiting the consumers of whatever they are producing for their own benefit?

If progressives want to convince anyone (who isn’t already a believer) about how wonderful socialism Is, they will have to come up with better arguments than the weak sauce put forward in this article. The usual ‘real socialism hasn’t been tried’ is beyond lame (if it hasn’t been tried, how do you know it will make things better?) Most of what progressives currently advocate (nationalization of banking, health care and other industries, large public infrastructure investment such as the Green New Deal and an expanded regulation of any private industries left standing) all fit very nicely into the ‘state-capitalism’ model. If people are suspicious of that, they have a lot of historical evidence to back it up. Progressives are going to have to explain very clearly why ‘this time it’s different’ and explain IN DETAIL what measures will be put in place to ensure that this time it really will be different.

I’m posting this here although it actually references a link you put up in an earlier post and have referred to once or twice since. Specifically, the Yes article “10 Things you should know about Socialism”: https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2020/01/30/socialism-understanding/.

I had some issues with this article. It is a pretty typical example of a narrative that can be summarized as: “Anything good that has occurred in the modern world is due to some (vaguely defined) flavor of socialism, and anything bad that has happened can be ascribed to capitalism”.

His first point: “1. Socialism is a yearning for something better than capitalism” harks back to Marx who was looking at capitalism as it existed in the 19th century. So, what exactly are we talking about when we refer to ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’? According to Miriam Webster,

“Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”.

“Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control”.

According to these definitions, Sweden (the country many democratic socialists point to as a successful socialist state) has a capitalist economic system since – according to the Wikipedia entry on the Swedish economy: “Sweden is a competitive and highly liberalized, open market economy. The vast majority of Swedish enterprises are privately owned and market-oriented combined with a strong welfare state.” (In fact, the only difference in this description and the description of the U.S. economy would be to replace “strong welfare state” with “weak welfare state”). As such, it isn’t clear what the author is really talking about when he refers to socialism (other than it isn’t what China and Russia have come up with).

Further, the author’s historical analyses are either questionable or belong in the apologist canon of socialist thought. I’ll start with “3. The Soviet Union and China achieved state capitalism, not socialism.” This is a silly fig leaf that modern socialists have pasted over the many horrors perpetrated by not just Stalin and Mao, but any number of other self-proclaimed ‘socialists/communists’ such as Pol Pot and Robert Mogabe (or more recently Nicolás Maduro and Xi Jinping). This tries to sweep the abuses of power of socialist regimes under the rug by attaching the pejorative ‘capitalism’ to regimes that are explicitly and enthusiastically ‘socialist’. If one were to attach a name to these regimes that is most closely aligned with his narrative, it wouldn’t be ‘state capitalist’, it would be FASHIST. Alignment between state and private enterprise? Check. Nationalistic? Check. Persecution of immigrants and minorities? Check. Protectionist economy? Check. Cult of personality for a charismatic leader? Check.

How about his point? “8. Fascism is a capitalist response to socialism.” This is another highly questionable statement which modern socialists have advocated to distance themselves from the ‘National Socialist Worker’s Party Deutschland’. If you don’t think that the Nazi’s or the ‘Republican Fascist Party’ (Mussolini’s outfit) were socialists, then consult Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s book “Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939”. This describes the parallels between many of the measures taken by Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt during the 1930’s to expand social security systems, invest in expansive public works projects and nationalize various industries. In many ways, Hitler and Mussolini were more ‘socialist’ than Roosevelt.

In his final point, the author states: “10. Worker co-ops are a key to socialism’s future.” This is the current shiny object in academic socialist thinking. Although there are certainly a number of examples of successful worker co-ops out there in the world, they are very few and far between (even in purportedly socialist countries). There are a number of questions about how this is supposed to work in the real world: Where are these co-ops going to get their capital from – public banks? (Isn’t this a case of state–capitalism?) If not there, then where? Are these enterprises going to be owned by the workers and are they going to be striving to maximize their own benefits (profits)? Are these enterprises going to be competing with other enterprises in a free market or are they going to be given preferential treatment, or monopoly status in their respective industries? If they are forced to compete, Isn’t this just capitalism with a different set of owners/shareholders? If not forced to compete, what is then to prevent them from exploiting the consumers of whatever they are producing for their own benefit?

If progressives want to convince anyone (who isn’t already a believer) about how wonderful socialism Is, they will have to come up with better arguments than the weak sauce put forward in this article. The usual ‘real socialism hasn’t been tried’ is beyond lame (if it hasn’t been tried, how do you know it will make things better?) Most of what progressives currently advocate (nationalization of banking, health care and other industries, large public infrastructure investment such as the Green New Deal and an expanded regulation of any private industries left standing) all fit very nicely into the ‘state-capitalism’ model. If people are suspicious of that, they have a lot of historical evidence to back it up. Progressives are going to have to explain very clearly why ‘this time it’s different’ and explain IN DETAIL what measures will be put in place to ensure that this time it really will be different.

From Examining what 2016-2020 Means for 2021 Plus Shocking New GA Polls & What You Can Do, Dec. 31.

Comments from Mick Nickel: Hang on!

Hi dynamic duo. Before we, as a common humanity of any size, can determine ‘what to do and how to do it,’ we first must own our collective histories, and come to some understanding of the origins of those behaviors and the consequences that have brought us to this time and place.

This evening marks the closure on the most bizarre 300 days of non-combat battlefield slaughter in ‘murkan history – 380k dead, more than 6M casualties. Tomorrow the C19 battle continues, uninterrupted by the nonsense illusion of a ‘new year.’

In the Siege of Leningrad, lasting 872 days, more than 900k civilians perished, along with an equal number of soldiers. Half of civilians were evacuated before the fighting, so the 600k or so souls that remained were homeless and starving.

In Russia, the key country of the Soviet bloc, about 27 million humans died miserable deaths in WW2 (about 1500 days), which potentially saved the lives of 130M ‘murkan civilians, almost none of whom perished in that war.

In total, all casualties in WW2 numbered around 90 million, dead and wounded and murdered or starved. World C19 deaths in 300 days are 1.8M, with 20M infected.

I could reach back into the past 2500 years and find a billion battlefield deaths and 30 billion civilian casualties, for a start. In one battle alone, 2500 years ago, almost one million soldiers warred against each other with swords and spears and pikes and daggers and clubs and sticks and arrows. Imagine those casualties.

I know this is grisly stuff, even with the detachment of decades, centuries or millennia.

But what is gruesomely terrifying is that in all these centuries of billions of horror stories that carried on through many generations, every one of these events were perpetrated by no more than a few ‘individual, liberated’ male humans; men who lived much of their personal lives almost completely isolated from the mass of humanity they were willing to sacrifice via fear, bribery, extortion, police actions or the cult of personality. Few of these men rarely or never lifted a hand in personal violence. All were greedy, affluent, narcissistic, sociopathic, sadistic, misogynist, racist, paranoid, megalomaniacal.

No vaccines have ever emerged that can inoculate mankind against these dis-eases.

Ironically, 2500 years ago, the Athenians introduced the first civilian democracy, Siddhartha Gautama and Lao Tsu created social philosophies that united individuals into communities of cooperation and non-violence, based upon personal responsibility for both individual acts and community behaviors. Plato and Socrates defined social contracts between individuals and societies based upon ethos (ethics), fellowship, community, sharing and gifting.

In 2500 years, two parallel, but diametrically opposed tracts of thought, actions and consequences have evolved, or devolved.

But common to both tracts is one glaring void – females, and the feminine influence and ethos, were totally absent, virtually unknown, minimized if not persecuted, or objectified in ritualistic ways that were created entirely by male perspectives.

In the 300-day war of C19, who are the warriors of first response, medicine, social work, public health, volunteer support, charity, sanitation, grief counseling, etc.? Who are the emperors, generals, captains, high priests and philosophers? Who creates excuses and rationalizations while others work their asses off, like cyborgs or robots controlled by the mainframe AI?

Males are about 2 to one as likely to die or become ill from C19. But the ratio among health care responders is about even, with nurses accounting for more than a third of infections.

It is obvious to me that the feminine psyche, or the lack thereof, via a preponderance of the evidence through 25 centuries, constitutes one elephant in the room in the present condition and fate of the human world.

Virtually every element of the human world is on fire or sinking beneath the icy, rising waters of sickening seas. Right now, we do three things well – we breed and we kill and we lie.

Everything inside that triangle sucks, except perhaps art, music, literature – and those are shaky.

I attempt to practice Buddhist philosophy. I constantly ask myself ‘who am I, what am I, where did my mind originate and what drives it to persist instead of seeking the emptiness of Nirvana?’

What is my life, any life worth if it cannot care for all life as much as it does itself. Is there really a true self, except through the presence of all others?

Today, I pondered the physical reality of infinity. How could I even contemplate anything about it without the ability to measure its volume and conceive of its shape? Then it occurred to me that a sphere is perfection. From any point on that sphere, no matter how large or small, all of infinity can be reached, measured and realized. Truly, a sphere IS infinity, both without and within. A sphere is a black body. It absorbs and radiates all possible wavelengths. My existence rides on the back of a single photon either emitted or absorbed by this sphere. I am everywhere and nowhere, everything and nothing, instantly and yet forever.

It is now 12:31 am, Jan 1, 2021. Experience peace, practice it constantly, and stay frosty.

Comments on Reflections on Silver Linings to 2020 & More from Good News from Georgia & Reflections on Democratic Socialism, January 2. 2021.

From Tom Hester

Mr. Finnoff ends his argument with a straw man whom I don’t recognize. Progressives want “nationalization of banking, health care and other industries, large public infrastructure investment such as the Green New Deal and an expanded regulation of any private industries left standing.” Here’s a guy who has meticulously combed through definitions and contentions and then asserts that Medicare for all is “nationalization of health care” and that state banks and providing Post Office savings accounts are “nationalization of banking.” He implies that the interstate highway system, that large public infrastructure, is unwise in these times when food delivery services are valued in the billions.Folks who live in glass houses….

From William Finnoff in reply to Tom Hester

Tom,

Once again, it’s obvious that I didn’t make my point clearly. First of all, you are absolutely correct that Medicare for All doesn’t attempt to nationalize the entire health care system, rather, it just plans to nationalize the health care insurance system.

Further, even though YOU may not be suggesting the nationalization of the financial system, there are many on the left who have advocated for this. This was discussed very seriously during the financial crisis of 2008-2009 as described in this Reuters article:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-financial-nationalization/will-united-states-be-forced-to-nationalize-banks-idUSTRE50F1KI20090116.

It is also a policy idea that many on the left are still advocating as can be seen in this article by the Peoples Policy Project: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/07/03/permanently-nationalize-the-banks-during-the-next-financial-crisis/

and in this article in The Call: https://socialistcall.com/2020/03/19/socialists-nationalize-finance-depression/.

I also don’t mean to imply that large scale infrastructure investment by government is a bad idea. Or for that matter, that the nationalization of other parts of the health care system (hospitals, say) and large parts of the financial system (e.g. too-big-to-fail banks) is necessarily a bad idea either. (I, personally, think that there is a lot of merit in these ideas).

The point that I was trying to make was that the author’s claim that Russia and China (or for that matter, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.) aren’t actually socialist countries, but are in fact “state capitalist” is, at best, misleading and requires one to accept a definition of capitalism that few people unacquainted with modern academic socialist thought would recognize. (Essentially, Capitalism = any socio-economic system that is oppressive, exploitive, imperialistic, militaristic and/or racist).

In addition, attaching the (what is clearly intended as a pejorative) title of “state capitalist” to countries that follow a Marxist-Leninist style of government has the negative side effect of denigrating or dismissing many of the policies employed by these countries (such as state ownership of many industries, large scale infrastructure investment by government, etc.) that can lead to positive outcomes for the general welfare of the people in the country.

From Mick Nickel:

Hi dynamic duo.

I will post this late since I was OOT yesterday, and post it again on Monday.

This following quote, from The Daily Beast, IMO sums up the first part of a two-part delusion concerning capitalism, the obviously preferred method of existing for Mr. Finnoff.

‘a quote from Vernon Linwood Howard, author of, among other things, The Mystic Path to Cosmic Power.

“A truly strong person does not need the approval of others any more than a lion needs the approval of sheep.” ‘

Capitalism, Predatory, Parasitic, Slothful, Dumbfoundingly Illogical and Disastrous.

Capitalism, a classy word for two psycho-physical illnesses – bulimia, and hoarding.

The quote above was taken from a monologue of Lin Wood, the current parasite posing as lawyer for Tyrannus rumpfk and its gaggle of toothless velociraptors.

Finnoff and I first posted almost simultaneously on New Years Eve. Before my post I researched, for more than one hour, a condensed history of warfare among humans in the past 2500 years. I noted that in virtually every case of a known battle, the aegis for those battles/wars was the self-proclaimed or cosmically proclaimed blessing, via some deity, of individual, liberated males (liberated in the sense that they were unfettered in their abilities to be rewarded for their appetites). This aegis is nothing more than a ‘right to take,’ via force, anything it wants.

Firstly, it is mostly lionesses who do the killing of sheep or some unfortunate but necessary prey species.

Secondly, that ‘killing’ is actually the only available lunch, dinner and supper for most, if not all of a pride of lions – men, women and children – for several days.

Third, a lion has no choice in the mechanism of meals it needs to survive. And there is no war between lions and sheep, or wildebeest.

Every capitalist human has many choices of behavior, but is forever imprisoned in the dungeon if its own feckless superiority and delusion, addicted to its weaknesses, and unaware of its strengths.

Capitalism is one dramatic weakness of an always-empty gut.

Discernment and its companion attribute of harmony are strengths of a gut that knows when it is full, and unagitated, and capable of complete digestion and elimination of the valuable, revered food whose remains can be recycled into renewed life.

Within that gut and its digesting life force is an incredible ‘society’ of ‘social’ beings who ‘know’ that without the renewing cycle of uncountable individual beings, working together to sustain a balance between life, death and rebirth, no society of lions, or sheep, or wildebeest or humans, would be possible.

Mick Nickel

From Dave W

My question may be naive, but I don’t see much sense in commenting further before knowing the answer. To wit: What is the necessity in naming an economic arrangement?

Could we not focus instead on determining which sectors of society would operate most equitably under state control, and which should be left in the private realm?

From Brian O’Keefe

Finoff makes many mistakes in his critique of Wolff in an effort to corner socialism and have it squeezing out in various forms of capitalism, fascism, etc. Socialism in its purest definition truly has not been implemented anywhere and that’s because it is inevitably connected to leaders such as Finoff mentions from Hitler to Mugabe. Any normal definition of socialism must be taken either in context of an economic model but also as a governing one. I can’t think of any country that has tried a socialistic form of governance, as Janet Warner makes a good point in substituting “egalitarianism” for socialism as a social model. I would never equate Mugabe, Hitler, Mussolini and others of that ilk as socialists. I do not believe that socialism can include a segment of society or industry that ignores the well being of the populace. If little “s”, the people, socialism is necessary to build big “S” Socialism then it would be more akin to egalitarianism.

The economic model has also not been tried except as a hybrid to ensure the preeminence of capitalism which has a choke hold on almost every government in the world. A quick check shows that socialism has as yet only been a theory without any true examples with which to examine it. The Scandinavian socialist/capitalist democracies only give some glimpses into the potential of true socialism.
In conclusion, I believe Finoff is off point in his comments though he is erudite.

From William Finnoff in reply to Brian O’Keefe

Brian,

I appreciate your careful evaluation of my what I had to say and your comments show that I was not clear enough about the points I was trying to make. My main issue with Wolff’s article was its fairly crude attempt at negative branding of capitalism (not clearly defined) with many of the evils of the modern world. I was just trying to turn this around and show the exact same sort of negative branding can be done with socialism. Not only can this be done, but it HAS BEEN DONE with enormous success by the right – so much so that socialism is not associated with “good things” for a lot a people in the world.

That may not be YOUR definition of socialism, but it certainly is for a lot of other people, due to the many unfortunate historical examples of pretty nasty people and governments that have labeled themselves as socialists. (Calling oneself a “Democratic” Socialist doesn’t really help much, when one considers such examples of the ‘Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea” or the “German Democratic Republic”, two of the most draconian police states in the history of the world).

If your definition of socialism isn’t what history might suggest, then why attach oneself to a label that can be easily used to conjure up all sorts of negative connotations by reactionary forces? Call yourself an ‘egalitarian’ – great! When people ask what you mean by that, then you can describe what you mean by that exactly and perhaps convince them that this is an attractive vision for the future. Call yourself a socialist in America (and many other places in the world) and people will immediately be turned off or get bored while you explain that you aren’t actually a Stalinist or a Maoist or Trotskyite or Nkrumahist or whatever flavor of socialism that history provides.

My final point was to try and push for those on the left to get together, be specific and form a consensus about what the end state they are striving for and how to transition to get there. You note that: “Any normal definition of socialism must be taken either in context of an economic model but also as a governing one”. Clearly you don’t think that “any normal definition of socialism” has been tried. Ok, what is “any normal definition of socialism” exactly? Is there (in a “normal definition of socialism”) any private ownership (durable goods, capital goods, land – anything?) Who controls the means of production, worker councils, government (local, state or federal) or something/someone else? How are decisions made about priorities, through markets and prices, through central planning or through some other mechanism?

If you can’t be specific about what you are aiming for and how to get there, it is going to be difficult to convince anyone who isn’t already on you side to join you.

From Janet Warner

A friend of my pointed to the word egalitarianism as a substitute for socialism. An adherent of the doctrine of equal political, economic, and legal rights for all human beings.

Comments on Why & How the US Government Has Failed Us: Excerpts from a Sun Interview with Economist Dietrich Vollrath, December 3, 2021.

From Bobbe Besold

Try out this interview as well (also from The Sun) https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/539/dark-corners
if you’d like to learn more about how and why we are where we are.
Thank you Paul and Roxanne.

From Mick Nickels: As always with Mick, hold onto your seat.

Hi dynamic duo and fellow planetary citizens.

103 years ago, in 1918, Eugene V. Debs, Labor and Socialist candidate for the ‘murkan presidency, said the following during a campaign speech:

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is usefull to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars while millions of men and women who work all their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.”

400 INDIVIDUALS IN ‘MURKA HAVE A TOTAL NET WORTH OF $3.2 TRILLION. $3,200,000,000,000. 0.00000012 percent of the ‘murkan population.

Around 100 million households in ‘murka have an annual income of $25-50 thousand, in many cases to support a family of 3-5 persons. Their net worth might be 0 – 10 percent of that yearly income.

That is potentially ALL the persons in ‘murka, minus the top ten percent (32,500,000), leaving 302,500,000 citizens with virtually NOTHING.

I abhor capitalism, which is nothing more than an artificial organism (a god) that turns humans and all other living things, and all physical matter, into objects to be – collected/owned/turned into garbage – by those who; 1 – create an unchallenged value for everything, and 2 – have an artificial source of power to enslave (own) each and every object on planet Earth.

This dialogue from Sun is obviously accurate in the ‘effects’ of capitalism.

But just putting new lipstick on this pig, which happens each and every time a new tidbit of propaganda is vomited all over ‘murka via any number of media mechanisms, just redefines and obviates the same parasitic behavior that has created at least 2500 years of tragedy, bitterness, depression, vengeance, addiction, slaughter, terror, massive instability, all leading to planetary suicide, homicide and genocide.

Most humans are the victims (via ignorance or Stockholm Syndrome) of the incessant madness of capitalism, perpetrated by the ilk of the same male racists, sadists, sociopaths and misogynists that began this terminal behavior several millennia ago.

We all are forcibly conditioned via propaganda to believe in HOPE, which is an assumption/expectation that ‘things’ will get better IF ONLY we ‘believe’ that they will turn around and we will drop softly into the gentle bosom of Nirvana.

Mick Nickel

From Karen St. Clair

Paul: Back in 2004 when I was CEO of a local credit union we were paying our folks $13 – $15 an hour in Portland, OR. It appalls me that most people aren’t even making that almost 17 YEARS later. What the heck is going on??!! We both know that the rich have just gotten richer on the backs of the workers. No wonder that there is such upheaval in our country.

Categories: Economic justice

Tags: Featured, Mondragon, read more, Worker, Worker owned cooperatives