Neo-Com

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

This one is for Goat, wherever he is.
---
We al know what Neo-Conservatism is and what is all about, I think the name is a misnomer because it isn't so much a new way to promote conservative ideals but a new stint to push fascist (corporatist) ideals and in consequence it should be called Neo-Fascism or Neo-Corporatism.

On the other side of the coin there isn't a comparative movement, ie, a reinterpretation of left wing ideals, for the most part the left became the center (not necessarily a bad thing) and the alternatives are more related to the environment than anything else (ie, the greens).

So the question is: How can the ideological left be redefined in a consistent philosophical argument? The main criticism from the right is that of the origins of the left movement, specifically at Marxism, and subsequently to mainstream socialism which has been portrayed as a movement who's only goal is to raise taxes. The problem then is that the discussion has been centered in the size of the state more than a philosophical principle, because those principles from the left have been diluted so much that they aren't even mentioned anymore.

In consequence it would be interesting to find a solid philosophical position based on left ideals that is consequent with what we know now rather than apply the concepts of the early industrial revolution. It could be called Neo-Communism or Neo-Com for short as opposition to the Neo-Con mantra. 

What do we know then about the origins of communism and why even if the ideals sound right the implementation has been so abysmally nasty? What concepts are simply inapplicable to the 21st century (or ever)? We have:

1. Abolition of private property: you can tell from the start it will not work. It isn't that we humans can't share, but that we do have a rightful entitlement to the things we own through our work. The problem isn't private property in itself but the size of it. Some interpretations of Socialism take care of that through progressive taxation but taxes are frequently aimed at all aspects of society; it stops being about redistributing wealth to become means to sustain a bureaucracy (or in the worse cases a hierarchy).

2. Control of the means of production: a consequence to #1 above, has been so far unworkable or significantly less efficient than a market based economy (yes, people survive[d] in planned economies, had work, even if those look terrible) with significant shortages and a frequent disconnection between the administrative heads to the requirements on the ground.

3. A stateless society: the excuse for the totalitarian implementation of the scheme, with an ultimate centralist view of the world. The idea of a world without borders shouldn't transform the tyranny of many to a tyranny of one.

What could be an spiritual heir of such a movement and what principles then are to be embraced?

Equality: that should be equality under the law, equality of opportunities, and equality of voice, that the voice of the individual isn't drowned by those with more means than him/her.

Freedom of expression: that is, encompassed within the one above, meaning that every individual should be able to express his/her ideas without coercion to or by him. IOW a particular speech should not be able to drown other forms of speech.

Autonomy: what 'stateless' should mean, there shouldn't be a center imposing it's views, groups of individuals should be able to govern themselves according to their means. IMO the smaller the unit the better.

And last but possibly what should be the philosophical cornerstone of said revision, A full embrace of Antitrust as means to prevent the tyranny of big capital. Private property is fine, and private means of production are fine so long the power of said institutions is controlled in size. No company should ever own a controlling stake in a market. If central means of production created a complete lack of competition, quality and innovation, the lack of antitrust enforcement does exactly the same with the aggravation of the concentration of capital that results from it.

All this encompassed within a true democracy (if no voice is bigger than others choices are truly democratic).
---
Is all that plausible? common sensical? What is missing?

Thoughts?

[Griffin NoName]

Seems to me that if greed were a notifiable disease and there were cures for it, there would automatically be more equity.

Apparently people in countries that are Individualistic have greater well being than people in communalistic countries.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Libertarian socialism with tweaks. But I wouldn't call anything "neo-com"--too close to 'neo-con.'

[Aggie]

Americans and the fear of taxes... 

2. Control of the means of production: a consequence to #1 above, has been so far unworkable or significantly less efficient than a market based economy (yes, people survive[d] in planned economies, had work, even if those look terrible) with significant shortages and a frequent disconnection between the administrative heads to the requirements on the ground.

Centralized (state) control of the means of production has proved to be unworkable in most cases ( I personally am not against Crown corporations, except for those evil milk-mobster SOBs at the Canadian Dairy Commission  ), but for mid-sized companies consumer cooperatives and/or employee ownership might be workable.  If one was rewarded for years of work with dividend-paying shares in a company, and those shares paid out well enough that a long-term employee (30 years) could live on the dividends of the accumulated shares, a pension would not be necessary. Certain policies and safeguards would need to be put into place, such as limiting the maximum shareholdings (to disallow a few shareholders having majority control) or restricting ownership to employees - in the case of a retired employee, I can see allowing their spouse to inherit the shareholdings, but not their children (i.e. would work as a spousal pension, then return to the company on death of both partners).   This could also replace golden parachutes - one would get paid out on leaving for the shares one held.

I know of some companies that use a similar ownership model (minus the pension aspects, probably), and it doesn't really benefit short-term employees but can be good to lifers.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Sounds a bit like mutualism, there, Aggie. Which I like.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But I wouldn't call anything "neo-com"--too close to 'neo-con.'

But that is the idea, to make the complete opposite very close. Think about a snob party in which someone asks you your leanings and you reply "Oh, I agree with the Neo-Coms..."

Americans and the fear of taxes... 

Personally I think taxes are fine, provided there is transparency regarding it's use. The amount of taxes I pay in the States is more in absolute terms but less percentage wise compared to Colombia, and I can see some of that money going to good use (decent highways, workable police and justice system, social security, etc) but on the same token I can see half of the money I pay going to pay for unworkable missile shields, nine digit figure airshow planes, and a whole lot of undisclosed military funding that doesn't seem to have any current practical use. Put light on those dark corners and surely expenditures would be far more rational.

In any case what is important is to prevent the idea of taxes vs industry, which could be solved with a taxation system which only covers individual gains rather than corporate gains. If antitrust is enforced corporations can't grow out of control and the owners (not the corporations themselves) would be paying taxes. Obviously it would require certain controls to avoid what CEOs do now like placing their personal expenses as if those were incurred by the company, etc, but IMO should be workable.

More thoughts later as I have the chance to place them.

[goat starer]

I will have to think about this one... its a really interesting question...

but my first thought on reading this is that there is a basic marxist principle that could be a foundation of a new left wing political philosophy.. the neo-com... and that is 'from each according to his means ... to each according to his needs.

the right wing has a relatively well founded critiscism of most left wing welfare state models that they end up creating a disincentive to work, to create, to strive. We trap people in benefits without providing the outlets for people to grow and develop. The more I think about it the less I think that the socialist politics of western europe has had any identifiable connection with marxism (any more than soviet style elitist bureacracy had). Marxism is about something that the right wing might find disturbingly familiar... establishing a work ethic so that people can thrive and prosper.

where it departs from capitalist thinking is in the definition of thrive and prosper - marxism seeing this as being about the collective prosperity and the ability of society to give a decent standard of living. ppeople benefit from the collective effort rather than the prosperity of the individual as a direct result of his or her own ability to generate wealth with the dubious idea that this then trickles down to everybody else.

I have seen in small communities this collective affort, mutual wealth model operating and releasing the creative and (dare i say it) entrepreneurial abilities of people. I have seen it happen in the poorest places in the UK and I believe in it.

So I think perhaps there is something in the definition of prosperity, the description of wealth and a reassesment of the role of the individual in a marxist model that needs addressing. The traditional view is that marxist ideals create grey drab societies that stifle individualism and flair. I dont see how this would tally with the reality of Marxes own life let alone his writing. All he did was write... reams and reams of ideas that actually dont ahve much of a central methodology or political system.

start with from each according to his means.. dont assume that only relates to the individuals ability to be 'economically active'.. expand to a model that is better at fair distribution of wealth and that both rewards effort and achievement but also has a much broader definition of what achievement might mean.

[roystonoboogie]

2. Control of the means of production: a consequence to #1 above, has been so far unworkable or significantly less efficient than a market based economy (yes, people survive[d] in planned economies, had work, even if those look terrible) with significant shortages and a frequent disconnection between the administrative heads to the requirements on the ground.

Control of the means of production is probably a bit of an anachronism these days. The big capitalist economies do not manufacture the things they sell any more: that happens in countries with less well-developed economies (because labour is cheaper there). Corporations and moguls may make huge profits out of selling goods from China and Myanmar, but they don't control the means of production.

The 'export zones' where the world's goods are made are typically not owned by the companies that are selling the goods: the export manufacturers are highly competitive independents, operating on minimal margins, and with a high degree of uncertainty. 'Manufacturers' like Nike and Gap change supplier all the time, and often at short notice. That is not control of the means of production. In Marx's day, industrialists had edifice complexes: they built elaborate factories, mills, villages for their workers; these days they don't even own the factories.

Perhaps what is more salient than control of the means of production in the 21st century (Marx was writing in the 19th Century, after all), is control of the means of consumption. If you are a company, that means your image, your brand. If they have a reputable brand name, people will buy it, and buy it for more money than they would buy a Wal-Mart or generic equivalent. Most brand names do not care altruistically whether their goods are better than the Wal-Mart equivalent, or if they are manufactured ethically or not; they only care that perceptions of poor quality, or of arm's-length exploitation, does not damage the reputation of their brand, and therefore their bottom line.

If you are a consumer, control of the means of consumption means cash. Control of access to money to buy things. Control of consumer credit. If you've got money, you can get credit to buy things without too much problem, and at a competitive interest rate. If you're poor, you struggle to get credit, and you have to pay much higher interest rates. That is precisely the sort of imbalance between rich and poor / classes / whatever you want to call it, that Marx identified all those years ago.

I think if Marx dropped in for a visit today (actually, our economy is a bit borked right now, maybe if he'd dropped in ten years ago) he would have identified control of the means of consumption as the basis of class struggle. Oxford economist Dr. Deiter Helm thought that in the latter half of the 20th century, Marx would have picked control of energy resources as the driver of social change (it was certainly the driver of a few wars in that period). I think Marx's philosophy had a point to make (whether you agree with it or not), but was of its time. We have moved on.

[Lindorm]

Have we really? Or have we just invented new ways of obfuscating the basic assumption of capitalist society -the exploiting of the masses for the gain of the few. Don't forget that one of the fundamental tenets of Marx philosophy was that the prevailing society and mode of production also created an ideological superstructure that legitimized prevailing conditions and stifled opposition. The struggle between those in power and those who are powerless does go on, even though it has been camouflaged a bit better at times. Still, exploting is exploiting, even if it is conducted by subtle means. An ideology where the workers are incited to sell their labour in order to satisfy spurious and invented needs (Marx originally talked about cravates, but plasma TVs will do just as well) can be an even more effective bondage than outright slavery, especially if the workers are given the illusion that tehy have soemthign to gain by continuing status quo.

I don't really think we need some sort of "neo-com" movement. Democratic socialism has it's own pedigree and has accomplished quite a lot of good for it's citizens. What we need are socialist parties that actually dare to stand up for their legacy, start promoting a clear ideological alternative and point out the failures of the capitalist system. The whole wishy-washy "we want to privatize everything, but in a more soft and cuddly manner" that was perhaps best exemplified by the Tony Blair-Anthony Giddens regime is, in my opinion, nothing but an ideological and moral bankruptcy. The fact that in the last elections here in Sweden, the conservatives re-branded themselves as "The new worker's party" -and not only got away with it, but in some aspects rethorically certainly placed themselves on the left of the incumbent Social Democrats, and carried the election, speaks volumes.

Coming from my perspective as a trade union representative active in a small radical union (SAC), I can certainly tell you that the class struggle is very much alive and kicking, even though it hasn't had much headlines lately. SAC has it's ideological base in the anarcho-syndicalist tradtions of Spain, France and Germany, mixed with our own experiences from our struggles. We have never been a large union, but we cartainly have fought well beyond our weight quite a few times -and won. Considering that we are despised by both traditional organised labour and the bosses, the fact that we have been active for a hundred years now says something about our tenacity and bloody-mindedness, I suppose.

Here's my merry little mob, with some information in other languages, too. (Currently only english. The french and catalan version should be online soon)
http://www.sac.se

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I don't really think we need some sort of "neo-com" movement. Democratic socialism has it's own pedigree and has accomplished quite a lot of good for it's citizens.

There are two main points to be considered, on one hand while for the most part democratic socialism is the name of the game, you have to consider that here at the States the word 'Socialism' is used indistinguishable from 'Communism' and is anathema for the both the media and the strident politics du jour. You pointed out the second one: the left has pretty much lost its north, and IMHO requires an ideological shift to both accommodate to the social ills of the 21st century.

In general terms I do agree with Roystonoboogie (Hi! good to see you) that Marx's prescription was based on the early 19th century that again, has little to do with the situation on the ground on the 21st, but as you say I do agree that class struggle is very much alive, even if its symptoms in the 1st world are minor* when you compare them with the 3rd.

A new left paradigm has to acknowledge the strengths of the market without succumbing to it as we have seen in the past 20 years, but has to be true to the ideal of a better life for those in the bottom, and protect those in the middle from the predation of the powerful.

*but growing. I blame the fall of the USSR on that: the right capitalized on the fall of the regime as an endorsement to the most egregious forms of capitalism. Now the right by dubious comparison claims that any left leaning movement is doomed to failure despite its own flagrant failings.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I recalled this little challenge:

Actually I've been avoiding that one, but when you come up with a new definition I'll tell you why it won't work.   

How about this: Any company that controls more than 50% of any given market shall be dismantled into equal parts equally capable to compete with each other. If a company has defined a standard that has a penetration of 50%+ of the market will be given a limited period of exploitation that should not exceed ten (10) years before it enters the public domain. Said period of time is counted from the moment a standard has a penetration of 5% regardless of any patent or trademark.

Tell me how a serious and strict definition, plus real enforcement of antitrust wouldn't work.

[goat starer]

I am absolutely certain (I always am  ) that one of the things the recent financial crisis proves is that having massive businesses, capable of demolishing the economic foundations of society, and apparently unaccountable to anyone is not a terribly good idea. It is really interesting to see how even with huge stockholding from the UK government it appears the government is unable to prevent the reinvention/reinstatement of the bonus systems that played such a large part in creating the current crisis. I would want to look at some qualitative measures... ie. do people NEED the thing. If they do then it should be owned by them. That means resources, utilities, food, housing.

So i would agree with Zono in part... my preferred option would be that any business that gets over a certain size shoulde be taken into state ownership so that the state can:

• control and restrict its growth... ensuring that it does not stifle and smother enterprising behavior in the rest of society
  
  use it to promote employment - only state run businesses can afford to loss make on employment because in a well run system they can factor in savings from other parts of the economy (eg benefits, healthcare, policing) of keeping people in employment. This was the fundamental error of the thatcherites. They looked at the lumbering giants of British Industry like coal and steel and thought 'hmmm... these would be much more efficient in private hands. They totally failed to factor in any of the social costs associated with the state being unable to absorb low skill workers. Incredibly stupid economics that are the direct cause of another thing that Beagle will get all aerated about - the current growth of the public sector. Its better value to the state to have people being paid £1 and producucing 50p of coal than being paid 50p in benefits and producing bugger all (and then gettig a heroin habit and costing the state far ore than their salary as a miner to put them on treatment programmes or keep them in prison).

but as i am unlikely to get this splitting large companies is a next best option as it addresses point one. Zonos look at market penetration is an interesting (and probably workable way of doing this)