Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Texas Was Once a Hotbed of Socialism – Jacobin magazine

Thomas Alter II

The Texas partys record on black rights was rather poor. It saw how the ruling class used race to divide the working class, yet it offered no specific program to fight racism. Instead, the SP argued that overthrowing capitalism and creating a socialist society would automatically end racism.

Debs called on all workers regardless of race to join the SP on equal terms. However, the Texas SP did not even initially do this. In the first years of its existence, it followed Jim Crow practices with segregated meetings. When the Texas SP created the Renters Union in 1911 to organize tenant farmers, it limited membership to white persons over 16 years of age.

However, the racially exclusive membership policy of the Renters Union did not last long. In 1912, lumberjacks in western Louisiana organized by the IWW were making modest gains against the lumber barons through interracial organizing and direct-action tactics. Inspired by this, the Renters Union, at its 1912 convention, eliminated the word white from its membership requirements and called on black tenant farmers to organize separate local unions. Still, from the available evidence, one does not find black farmers forming their own locals of the Renters Union, and very few African Americans joined the Texas SP.

It is hard to say how the Texas SP would have fared had it truly attempted to stand up for black liberation. Following World War I, black Texas veterans returned home determined to fight for their rights, and militant chapters of the NAACP were formed across the state. By this time, though, the Texas SP had been repressed due to its opposition to the war. And after a brief flurry of civil rights activism, the NAACP in Texas was rapidly repressed as well by the state government.

An interracial alliance of workers in the Texas SP definitely would have made our class and the party stronger. At the same time, it would have attracted the full force of white supremacist terrorism, most likely crushing the movement. Yet even in defeat, a black-white alliance of workers in the Texas SP would have provided a shining example and laid an earlier foundation to put us in a better position to win racial and economic justice in our present.

Continue reading here:
Texas Was Once a Hotbed of Socialism - Jacobin magazine

LARRY KUDLOW: There is virtually no merit in Mr. Biden’s socialist eco-system – Fox Business

FOX Business host Larry Kudlow reacts to President Biden's re-election campaign launch on 'Kudlow.'

Joe Biden announced his re-election campaign today through a YouTube video, which as far as I know, has never been done before since most people running for the highest office in the land have given live speeches in front of people, but not Mr. Biden. The big theme is apparently "let's finish this job," which to me is averyscary thought. Just saying.

Most Americans arenotbetter off than they were two years ago and I don't think that's going to change in the next year-and-a-half. Mr. Biden failed to mention inflation in his re-elect video or the fact that real wages or take-home pay for typical working families have fallen essentially every month since he's been president.

Falling real wages arethesource of American pessimism in poll after poll showing the source of unhappiness, and while Mr. Biden didn't mention it in his video, he's going to have to deal with it on the campaign trail. That is, if he ever goes on the campaign trail live and in-person.

The economy in his first full year in office, 2022, grew by less than 1%, while the inflation rate jumped 6.5% after rising over 9% for a good part of the year and to this day it remains the highest inflation rate in fourdecades.

TRUMP SLAMS BIDEN'S 'CALAMITOUS AND FAILED PRESIDENCY' AS PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES 2024 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

President Joe Biden speaks about the banking system in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Mar. 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik / AP Images)

We are mired in stagflation with a risk of recession, and that's why polls keep telling us Americans are mighty worried about the future and their kids' future and their grandkids' future. Mr. Biden has waged war on fossil fuels based on a far-left Green New Deal ideology that does not comport with the science or the actual facts.

Lately, he wants to end the internal combustion engine and shift everybody to electric vehicles, but at the same time slash electricity power output by as much as two-thirds. Go figure. More electric cars, less electricity, all in the name of radical climate policy.

Fiscally, he's slapped on more federal spending and regulations than anything we've ever seen. Big government socialism, or as Steve Forbes puts it, modern socialism through the regulatory state, unelected bureaucrats.

As former Sen. Phil Gramm put it today in the WSJ, "tilting the scales of cost benefit analysis to social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, but no serious economic analysis."

Besides shutting down the car business and the fossil fuel industry, Mr. Biden's regulators have gone after airlines, trucking, railroads, energy, communications, student loans, banks, credit cards, childcare mandates, family benefits, paid leave, unions, even recently punishing middle-class homebuyers who have good credit in order to reward high-risk borrowers like the ones that brought down the financial system 15 years ago.

Mr. Biden has gone way beyond the Obama administration, and that's why we face continued below-2% economic growth, instead of the 3.5% that governed the U.S. for roughly 70 years after World War II.

Mr. Biden has spent and borrowed something like $6 trillion in just two years, alongside the regulatory binge he has proposed a $5 trillion tax hike on the most productive job creators in society.

His social policies have attacked parents in schools, left open the southern border to millions of illegals, along with an epidemic of drugs and crime. His foreign policy was a disgrace as he fled Afghanistan and he has supported an unheard-of politicization of the legal and justice system.

The video accused MAGA Republicans of tax cuts for the rich, denying freedom, denying equity, denying love, burning books, allfabulous stuff although unsupported.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, gives his take on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal on 'Kudlow.'

BIDEN CAMPAIGN VIDEO: MAGA extremists are lining up to take on those bedrock freedoms: cutting Social Security that youve paid for your entire life while cutting taxes for the very wealthy, dictating what health care decisions women can make, banning books, and telling people who they can love, all while making it more difficult for you to be able to vote.

He hasn't lifted a finger to help blue collar workers or traditional families. He has supported the most extreme gender and sex education anybody has ever seen. There's virtually nomeritin Mr. Biden's socialist economic system. No merit whatsoever. It's all about diversity, equity, inclusion, along with his big government socialist economics. Whether in-person or on video, it'snotgoing to work, Mr. Biden, so I'll just end by saying: Save America. Retire Joe Biden.

This article is adapted from Larry Kudlows opening commentary on the April25, 2023, edition of "Kudlow."

Read more:
LARRY KUDLOW: There is virtually no merit in Mr. Biden's socialist eco-system - Fox Business

The Socialist Patriot: George Orwell and War – The Imaginative Conservative

Does the socialist-patriot George Orwell offer a model for us today? Specifically for the youngof left or rightfor whom Peter Stanskys book is likely meant to serve as an introduction of sorts?

The Socialist Patriot: George Orwell and War by Peter Stansky (130 pages, Stanford University Press, 2023)

Less a brief biography than a lengthy essay, this study by Orwell scholar Peter Stansky should give those on the left and right much to ponderand not just about Orwell the writer, but about Orwell the example as well. For Orwelland Peter Stanskylife as a socialist patriot was neither a contradiction in terms nor an oxymoron. Today it is. Especially for the young.

During the Cold War both left and right of all ages sought to stake a claim to Orwell. So which was he? Here Orwell and Dr. Stansky are in complete agreement. Whether as Eric Blair (his birth name) or George Orwell (his pen name), Blair-Orwell was decidedly a man of the left.

As an occasionally frustrated Peter Stansky concedes, Blair-Orwell changed his mind more than occasionally about many things. But at base he had been an English patriot for as long as he could remember, and he was a self-proclaimed democratic socialist of one sort or another for much of his published writing life.

Here Dr. Stansky considers Orwells thoughts and actions in the context of four wars: the Great War of 1914-1918, the Spanish Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War.

Born in 1903, Eric Blair was too young to have had any direct involvement in the Great War, but he was not too young to defend Englands role in it. Nor was he too young to think, nay to know, that England was worth defending.

Dr. Stansky captures the Blair-Orwell attachment to pre-1914 England with a line from Cyril Connolly, an Orwell compatriot and fellow Etonian: Mr. Orwell is a revolutionary who is in love with 1910. To be a bit more specific, that would be the England of 1910.

Dr. Stansky borrowed that line from a Connolly review of Animal Farm, which was published just after the end of World War II. That would be a time when the author was seriously struggling with questions that he could never resolve and which might well be irresolvable. Here they are: Could truly revolutionary reform be achieved without violenceand without any violence to a nations past, as well as to its commitment to genuine democracy? Secondly, could those who achieve such reforms remain committed to genuine equality and willingly surrender power?

Dr. Stansky contends that Orwell wrote his fable as a warningand not just to those who sought power, but to those who would be asked/required to live under it. And yet the author remains convinced that Orwell remained convinced that his desired vision could be achieved without those in power abusing their power.

Historically speaking, Orwell was aware that Stalin and Stalinism were serial abusers of power. Neither was to be emulated or admired, and both could be avoided. Still, for Orwell, democratic socialism remained not just a realistic goal, but one that offered the best vision of a decent society as well.

Decent was an important word for Orwell. He meant it not just in reference to how people should treat one another, but also in regard to how a nation-state ought to be organized and how its leaders should treat its citizenswho are just that, citizens, rather than subjects or clients. More than that, he associated decency with some version of political and economic equality.

For Orwell, that version meant some never-quite-defined version of state imposed equality, as opposed to simply the minimal safety net of a welfare state. It certainly included state ownership of the major means of production and distribution.

From the mid-1930s to his death, Orwell wrestled with the dilemmas involved in achieving such a goal, while maintaining a decent democracy. He never resolved this dilemma, and he never abandoned it. Reading between the lines, it seems to remain a dilemma for Peter Stansky as well, if only because he is not about to criticize either Orwells goal or his continuing to wrestle with it.

Orwells commitments to both socialism and democracy were heightened by two compelling experiences in the mid-1930s: his road to Wigan Pier and his participation in the Spanish Civil War.

The road led him to the coal mining district of England, as well as to an even greater appreciation for the English working class. And his road to Spain opened his eyes about Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Orwell, the socialist, rather than Orwell the patriot, went to Spain not just to observe, but to fight. And fight he did, even to the point of taking a bullet in the neck. Luckily, he survived the wound, but any thought he might have had that the Soviet Union was a force for good in the world did not survive.

During World War II, Orwell soldiered on the English home frontand in alliance with Moscow, while rallying support for the war and for a fully socialized England. In fact, it was during this war that Orwell, the patriot, and Orwell, the democratic socialist, were on fully united display. For him, this was a doubly good war, both because it would preserve England and because it would advance socialism.

There seem to have been moments when Orwell couldnt decide whether a socialized England would be a better ally or whether a victory in the war would better assure a socialized England. But no matter. Peter Stansky is convinced that Orwell had convinced himself that a socialist England would still be the same England of his youth. Specifically, Orwell believed that that the pre-World War I England (of his memory) and the post-World War II England (of his hopes and dreams) would essentially be the same England.

Orwell lived long enough to see the Labor Party come to power and take the first steps toward building his idealized England. Of course, he didnt live long enough to see his ideal realized, much less to witness the rise and fall of Thatcherism. And the England of today? Its not likely that he would recognize an England that is at once increasingly distinct from the England of his youth and not yet anywhere close to the England of his hope and dreams.

Orwell died believing that a truly democratic England and a fully socialized England remained a single realistic possibility, as well as one that could actually be achieved. On this crucial matter George Orwell did not change his mind at all during the last decade of his life. He lived those years as a socialist patriot, and he died a socialist patriot.

As such, does he offer a model for us today? He seems to be just that for a ninety-year-old Peter Stansky. But otherwise? Specifically the young for whom this book was likely meant to serve as an introduction of sorts?

Those who are young and on the right might read him and try to heed his warnings against permanently centralized permanent political power. Those on the left might read him and seek to advance his dream of democratic socialism.

But could either be interested in emulating Orwell, the socialist patriot? Those on the American left and right have witnessed Orwells treasured, working-class drift to the right, while simultaneously being dismissed and/or abandoned as deplorables by their erstwhile allies and patrons. More than that, those on the left dont much care for the past of their country. That would be the very past that Orwell treasured about his own country. For them, it is a past to be destroyed or at least transcended, rather than preserved.

At the same time, those on the right have no interest in using war as Orwell sought to use World War II. Like Orwell, they might well treasure their countrys past, but they would have no interest in transforming or transcending it. Lastly, given Orwells example, they would be less inclined to risk what Orwell was willing to risk: namely that a socialized England would remain his England of old. As a result, today George Orwell, the socialist patriot, standsand likely will remaina very lonely figure on this side of the ocean, Peter Stanskys admirable effort notwithstanding.

Author John C. Chuck Chalberg once performed a one-man show as George Orwell.

The Imaginative Conservativeapplies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politicswe approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please considerdonating now.

The featured image, uploaded by JRennocks, is a photograph of the statue of George Orwell at BBC Broadcasting House, taken 14 April 202. This file is licensed under theCreative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

The rest is here:
The Socialist Patriot: George Orwell and War - The Imaginative Conservative

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warns against ‘system of socialism for the rich’ as 2024 campaign launches – Fox News

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned in an interview on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that America is turning into a "system of socialism for the rich" after formally launching his 2024 Democratic presidential primary campaign Wednesday at an event in Boston.

President Biden's newest challenger is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy. RFK Jr. told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" hours after his campaign launch what he sees as the most pressing issues facing the United States. He cautioned that a corrupt merger of state and corporate power is turning the country into a "corporate kleptocracy."

"There's a cushy socialism for the rich and this kind of brutal, merciless capitalism for the poor. It keeps us in a state of war it bails out banks," he said.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at an event where he announced his run for president on Wednesday, April 19, 2023, at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel, in Boston. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds) (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. GAINS SIZABLE CHUNK OF BIDEN VOTERS AT PRESIDENTIAL LAUNCH: POLL

"Last month, the United States government told 30 million people it was cutting their food stamp checks by 90%," he continued. "It took 15 million people off Medicare. The same month it gave $300 million to the Silicon Valley Bank and tapped up the cost of the Ukraine war to $113 billion. We're sending $113 billion to the Ukraine. The entire budget of EPA is $12 billion. The budget of CDC is $11 billion. We have 57% of American citizens could not put their hands on $1,000 if they have an emergency. A quarter of our citizens are hungry. So we're cutting welfare and food stamps by 90%."

The 2024 presidential candidate claims that the country is bailing out bankers and paying for a war that it can't afford.

"The way that we do this is by printing money," Kennedy said. "We've printed 10 centuries of money in the last 14 years."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announces presidential campaign in Boston (Fox News)

Kennedy noted that the excessive printing of money is causing inflation and fueling increased food prices - which he calls "a tax on the poor."

AARON RODGERS APPEARS TO SUPPORT DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL CHALLENGER WITH ONE EMOJI

"We've raised food prices for basic foods like chicken, dairy and milk by 76% in the last two years, and now we're cutting people's food stamps and bailing out banks the same month," Kennedy said. "It doesn't make any sense."

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He added, "We need to get rid of this kind of corporate control of our government our democracy is devolving into kind of a corporate plutocracy."

Kennedy is considered a long shot in the presidential race, but a new poll says he has taken a chunk of President Biden's supporters in the outset of his campaign. A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll says 14 percent of Bidens 2020 voters flocked to Kennedy when he first announced his candidacy earlier this month.

Kennedy and Marianne Williamson are the first Democratic candidates to challenge Biden in the 2024 presidential race.

Read the original:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warns against 'system of socialism for the rich' as 2024 campaign launches - Fox News

Can co-operatives play a role in a transition to socialism? – Morning Star Online

MANY socialists are members of co-operatives from choosing to shop in their local Co-op supermarket or banking with the Nationwide Building Society, to playing a more active part in housing or other co-operatives.

For many, whatever their view of the quality of the goods and services, their membership provides the satisfaction of engaging with a body that is not solely concerned with making a profit for its shareholders.

But what role can co-operatives play beyond this, for example helping to secure a better, socialist, future?

Karl Marx attached great significance to the role that combined, social labour plays in the development of capitalisms productive forces, helping, he argued, to create the conditions and lay the foundations for the new, communist mode of production.

How could or should workers freed from capitalist relations of production continue to work in association with one another in the new sets of relations?

Unfortunately, many would-be followers of Marx have allowed his critique of utopian socialism in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) to lead them to ignore or undervalue his subsequent remarks about producers and consumers co-operatives.

For instance, in Volume I of Capital, Marx refers to Robert Owens co-operative factories and stores as isolated elements of transformation they demonstrated how significant elements of capitalist production and exchange could be remodelled.

They were isolated in that they were separate from the working-class movement which alone could and would lead the struggle to overcome the capitalist mode of production.

This last point was something, Marx believed, that Owen but not his followers had come to understand.

Thats why, in an earlier footnote, he referred to co-operatives being used as a cloak for reactionary humbug, presumably by capitalisms apologists.

In Volume III, Marx points out that just as capitalist owners in their joint stock companies no longer directly supervise production themselves, hiring managers instead, so co-operative factories furnish proof that the capitalist has become no less redundant as a functionary in production as he himself, looking down from his high perch, finds the big landowner redundant.

Marx goes on to argue that in a co-operative factory the antagonistic nature of the labour of supervision disappears, because the manager is paid by the labourers instead of representing capital counterposed to themThe capitalist disappears, as superfluous from the production process.

Both co-operatives and joint stock companies expose the reality that the capitalists wealth does not accrue from any input to the production process, but from profit and interest derived from surplus value created by the workers.

Whereas co-operatives demonstrate that enterprises can thrive without any necessity for private ownership, they also must function within a capitalist market economy.

Subject to that economys rules and pressures, their own collectivist outlook may go no further than the enterprise and its local community, while other enterprises are unavoidably regarded and treated as competitors.

The Mondragon Co-operative Corporation (MCC) in the Spanish Basque country exhibits the contradictions of co-operatives in a capitalist society on an extensive scale.

Established in 1956, it comprises 250 enterprises employing 74,000 workers (around half of them members) in the manufacturing, retail, financial and technology sectors together with 125 production subsidiaries in China, India, the US, Mexico and Brazil. The MCC has weathered recessions more successfully than many of its capitalist competitors.

Yet Mondragon has its negative features. While the co-operative members are protected, the same does not apply to the 35,000 or so non-member contract workers and employees many of them temporary in MCC subsidiaries.

Levels of member participation in key decision-making are low; there is a significant degree of misunderstanding, even antagonism, between workers and management (despite far lower income differentials than in a typical capitalist enterprise) and between members and non-members.

The extent of solidarity with workers outside the locality is lower than in neighbouring towns, as is involvement in left-wing political activity (Mondragon was until recently a bastion of support for the right-wing Basque National Party).

Out of the internal conflicts of recent years, which have included strikes and occupations against co-operative managers, initiatives have arisen to build trade unions within the corporation.

Efforts to reconcile co-operatism and trade unionism have produced interesting developments elsewhere, including Latin America and France, where unions have rescued threatened enterprises, turning them into co-operatives governed by a unionised workforce.

The United Steelworkers in the US and Canada have been working with Mondragon to develop a unionised co-operative model for workers buyouts of failing companies.

However, the history of co-operatives, in general, indicates that shorn of any political or ideological orientation, they are unlikely to play any significant role in the struggle to overthrow capitalist state power so that a better, co-operative mode of production can be built.

Under capitalism, co-operatives must compete and survive in a market economy dominated by monopolies. The contradiction between social ownership and competition cannot be resolved within a capitalist system.

Even within a socialist planned economy (in a number of the former socialist countries and in Cuba today, co-operative enterprises exist and function within and alongside state-owned enterprises) there are contradictions to be overcome.

Contradictions between collective planning at national, regional and local levels on the one hand and co-operative autonomy on the other; between the goal of full employment and the freedom of co-operatives to retrench, lay off workers or go into voluntary liquidation; and between the collectivist outlook of a politicised working class and more localised interests, preferences and objectives.

Notwithstanding their limitations, Marx saw in workers co-operatives glimpses of the future mode of production within the old form the first sprouts of the new in which co-operative labour could continue and flourish without capitalist ownership. In Capital Volume III he wrote:

[A]lthough they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system, [they] show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one, when the development of the material forces of production and of the corresponding forms of social production have reached a particular stage.

Later, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880) Friedrich Engels paid fulsome tribute to many of Owens ideas and activities, stating that Owen had given practical proof that the merchant and the manufacturer are socially quite unnecessary, their internal economy suggesting a first step towards a much more radical revolution of society.

Lenin, too, grasped the potential value of co-operatives in the transition to socialism once state power had been achieved. They would no longer be the stuff of ridiculously fantastic dreams of those who saw them as an alternative to the revolutionary class struggle for political power.

Near the end of his life, in 1923, Lenin believed that state power, state control of all large-scale means of production and state supervision of private enterprise, would be all that is needed to build a complete socialist society out of co-operatives alone.

So: what role if any can co-operatives play in helping to secure a transition to socialism? Co-operatives may (or may not) embody some socialist principles but however widely they might spread they will never be even islands of socialism within a capitalist society: thats a utopian dream.

The collapse of the Co-operative Bank (not in itself a co-operative, but owned by the Co-operative Group) and its conversion to a private bank in 2013 shows how vulnerable they may be when mismanaged.

Co-operatives are not an alternative to class struggle. But they could play a greater role in demonstrating how socialism could be, though on a small scale, and how they can survive and thrive, albeit with compromises in a capitalist society.

And once we are rid of that system and its stranglehold, they could come into their own as a key element of a new, socialist, future.

The Marx Memorial Librarys (MML) rich programme of on site and online events continues on Thursday April 27 at 7pm with the launch of Radhika Desais book Capitalism, Coronavirus and War.

Next Monday May 1 is International Workers Day with a rally starting at midday on Clerkenwell Green, the site of the MML if you arrive earlier you can enjoy tea and cakes and a guided tour of Marx House. Details are on http://www.marx-memorial-library.org.uk where you can also find links to earlier Full Marx columns.

This answer, number 95, gratefully acknowledges permission to include material from Rob Griffithss Marx's Das Kapital and Capitalism Today (pp 72-78) which can be obtained from Manifesto Press at http://www.manifestopress.org.uk.

Continue reading here:
Can co-operatives play a role in a transition to socialism? - Morning Star Online