Why Socialism?
laparanoia
issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a
number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of
scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential
methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists
in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a
circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection
of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in
reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of
general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the
circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by
many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition,
the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-
called civilized period of human history has--as is well known--been
largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means
exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states
of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples
established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged
class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly
of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own
ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division
of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values
by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously,
guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we
really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of
human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase
and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to
other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to
overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development,
economic science in its present state can throw little light on the
socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science,
however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human
beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain
certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities
with lofty ethical ideals and--if these ends are not stillborn, but
vital and vigorous--are adopted and carried forward by those many human
beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of
society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate
science and scientific methods when it is a question of human
problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who
have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the
organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human
society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been
gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that
individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small
or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let
me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an
intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in
my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I
remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer
protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and
coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the
disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly
made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has
striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more
or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful
solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in
these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with
any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although
I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are
often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in
easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being.
As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that
of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and
to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain
the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in
their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve
their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied,
frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character
of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to
which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can
contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the
relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by
inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely
formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself
during his development, by the structure of the society in which he
grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of
particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to
the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect
relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier
generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work
by himself; but he depends so much upon society--in his physical,
intellectual, and emotional existence--that it is impossible to think
of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is
"society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of
work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of
thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the
accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all
hidden behind the small word "society."
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon
society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished--just as in the
case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants
and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary
instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings
are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to
make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made
possible developments among human being which are not dictated by
biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in
traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in
scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This
explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence
his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious
thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution
which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural
urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition,
during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he
adopts from society through communication and through many other types
of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the
passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very
large extent the relationship between the individual and society.
Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation
of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human
beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns
and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on
this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground
their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their
biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the
mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural
attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as
satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact
that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As
mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical
purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and
demographic developments of the last few centuries have created
conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled
populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued
existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized
productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time--which, looking
back, seems so idyllic--is gone forever when individuals or relatively
small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight
exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary
community of production and consumption.
by Albert Einstein
This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly
Review (May 1949).
You can read the rest of the article at the Monthly Review's website:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
Also worth reading:
"Albert Einstein, Radical: A Political Profile"
by John J. Simon
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0505jjs.htm
krp
"laparanoia" <lapar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ebc29d9-0f77-4eeb...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we
> really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of
> human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase
> and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to
> other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to
> overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development,
> economic science in its present state can throw little light on the
> socialist society of the future.
The simplistc notions of socialist theoreticians.The "predatory phase"
of human development they BEMOAN and want to overcome has another more
accurate nomenclature; "CREATIVITY." It is what drives mankind to explore,
invent, create and improve. Yes, indeed, the REAL purpose of socialism is to
end that. Some thinking people have considered that a BAD idea.
The socialist society of the future is exactly the same as the
socialist society of TODAY. Stagnant EXTREMELY poverty ridden and
regressive. One where the infrastructure has completely collapsed. Socialism
given long enough will have mankind BACK in caves grunting until somebody
invents the wheel again or discovers fire! The socialist societies are
bereft of creativity. Socialism cannot tolerate innovation. It demands TOTAL
and ABSOLUTE CONFORMITY and it uses the coercive power of the state to
ENFORCE that, typically by violence.
Socialism is a nice concept for high school sophomores. It is so
romantic. But socialism demands you view it with blackout glasses. Never
look at the real world results. Never see that it just doesn't work, or
understand why. The very things socialism is at war with are what make life
worth living. The striving to make things better. To find new and better
ways of doing things. Socialism CANNOT tolerate that! It MUST, of necessity
do all it can to suppress individuality and free thought, it MUST or it
can't survive. It MUST be totalitarian, the state is ALL, the individual
must be sacrificed. Sometimes, my friends, the good of the one MUST
supersede the good of the many, or the good of the many is meaningless.
Thank god for that "predatory phase" of Human development. I pray we
stay in it for the next million years or so when it may become irrelevant.
For right now it means progress and making a better life for our kids and
NOT a millstone around their necks. Hopefully an easier more prosperous life
where they have the comforts of life. Food, good shelter, clothing. Joy!
Read Orwell's 1984 - see your socialist UTOPIA. It's all a LIE. The
human spirit MUST be free. That "predatory phase" you complain about is
what made Picasso, Mozart, Saulk, Einstein, Gershwin, Rembrandt, Mahler,
Vivaldi, Hemingway and so many more. It's creativity. Human progress.
Take a hard look at life in Cuba or where Venezuela is heading. Whenever
you CHAIN human beings their souls die. Whatever cause of conformity you try
to sell, you kill the people when you kill their creativity. And even being
poor doesn't mean much to people who have love. You can be happy without a
100 inch plasma TV. Lots of people are.
What you call "predatory" I call creativity. You say CHAIN the soul. I
say set it free!
Adrey S
La arbitraria y política remoción, en 2003, de los magistrados de la
Corte Contencioso Administrativa, quienes en su momento se opusieran al
ejercicio ilegal de los médicos cubanos dentro de nuestro territorio o
a la persecución de oficiales de la Fuerza Armada, por discrepantes
con la conducta disoluta del Presidente Hugo Chávez Frías, ha sido
conocida, en audiencia pública, por la Corte Interamericana de
Derechos Humanos.
Una vez como dicte su sentencia, es probable que la historia de las
relaciones del gobierno de Venezuela con los gobiernos de Las Américas
se sitúe en un antes y un después; un antes y un después, cabe
precisarlo, al ingreso de José Miguel Insulza a la Secretaría de la
OEA: el más emblemático alcahuete regional – así y sin
adjetivaciones subalternas – de nuestro deterioro democrático.
Los casos anteriores de El Amparo, El Caracazo, los muertos de Vargas,
entre otros y que dieran lugar a iguales demandas contra el país ante
el órgano judicial interamericano, concluyeron todos en una
declaratoria de nuestra responsabilidad por hechos internacionalmente
ilícitos. Se trató, entonces, de supuestos desdorosos y muy
dolorosos, por implicar violaciones graves y consumadas del derecho a la
vida y a la integridad personal por funcionarios policiales y militares
venezolanos, ocurridas en distintas etapas de nuestra historia
política, cuando el Estado y su Poder Judicial no se mostraron capaces
de remediarlas por si solos.
Sin desmedro de éstos, el caso de la coloquialmente denominada
Cortesita o de la remoción de sus jueces Ana María Ruggeri, Juan
Carlos Apitz y Perkins Rocha, es el primero que pone a prueba y somete a
veredicto internacional la verdad o la falacia de nuestra democracia y
de sus instituciones de garantía.
No implicará éste, como lo pretende con su brutal amnesia o
desconocimiento la Presidenta del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Luisa
Estela Morales, un juicio acerca de una cuestión meramente
disciplinaria e interna que en nada afecta al Estado que manda Chávez
o a sus poderes públicos, o que justifique, por la razón dicha, el
absurdo y contumaz reclamo de aquella a la Corte de San José para que
respete nuestras decisiones judiciales soberanas.
Caben al respecto y por lo pronto dos comentarios.
Luisa Estela Morales fue víctima igual de la medida disciplinaria de
remoción e inhabilitación para el ejercicio de funciones judiciales
que ahora involucra a los ex jueces Ruggeri, Apitz y Rocha. Pero la
primera, a diferencia de éstos, de nuevo es Juez y a la sazón cabeza
del Poder Judicial, por sirviente fiel – eso sí - de nuestro
reformador constitucional frustrado, Jefe del Estado en ejercicio, y
comandante de una Revolución sin destino.
El juicio a la democracia que conlleva el asunto de la Corte Contencioso
Administrativa, en la práctica ha lugar, además, por ausencia y
debido a las graves omisiones de la OEA y de su Consejo Permanente:
renuentes a adoptar, luego de la elección de Insulza, medidas
oportunas de seguimiento o preventivas acerca de los muchos hechos y
actos ocurridos bajo el régimen chavista que implican violaciones
flagrantes a la Carta Democrática Interamericana y a casi todos sus
estándares.
El caso de la Ruggeri y sus colegas ex jueces se refiere, es verdad, a
violaciones puntuales sufridas por éstos en sus derechos humanos al
debido proceso, a las garantías judiciales y al trato no
discriminatorio cuando fueran destituidos de sus cargos; pero tales
atentados – es lo que importa y destaca - se explican de conjunto en
una fractura corriente y vigente, en Venezuela, de los principios de
separación e independencia de los poderes públicos y de acceso al
poder y su ejercicio conforme al Estado de Derecho, que son elementos
esenciales de la democracia representativa.
La acusada renuncia por la OEA al cumplimiento de sus deberes
institucionales de garantía colectiva de la democracia, únicos que
justifican su existencia desde 1948, encontrará ahora y por defecto,
pues, un recodo - para beneficio y solaz de las víctimas venezolanas
del "derecho a la democracia" - con la aplicación alternativa, en sede
de la Corte Interamericana, de la Convención o Pacto de San José:
que asegura, más allá de los Estados y de sus gobiernos, los
derechos fundamentales de toda persona en el Hemisferio, sea cuales
fueren sus convicciones políticas.
Con anterioridad y a propósito de otro caso similar, relacionado con
la destitución de los miembros del Tribunal Constitucional peruano, la
Corte Interamericana puso en su justo medio, desnudándolo, al gobierno
del autócrata Alberto Fujimori, cuya experiencia diera lugar a la
aprobación de la Carta Democrática Interamericana.
Ahora le toca a la Venezuela de Chávez.
Entre líneas
• La democracia no son sólo elecciones. De
allí que no le bastó a Alberto Fujimori ser electo Presidente del
Perú para sostenerse como demócrata. La democracia reclama, para ser
tal, de legitimidad originaria, que la encuentra en el acto electoral.
Pero deja de ser tal cuando no se comporta como tal, comprometiendo su
legitimidad de ejercicio o de desempeño.
• La enseñanza no se hace esperar para
Venezuela. Hugo Chávez fue electo y reelecto Presidente de la
República, pero ha venido comprometiendo seriamente, durante su
mandato, los elementos esenciales de la democracia y los componentes
fundamentales de su ejercicio. Las estadísticas y no solo el caso de
la Cortesita, hablan por si solas.
• Los atentados del derecho a la vida han crecido
escandalosamente hasta el presente: 5.968 homicidios ocurrieron durante
1999 y fueron más de 12.500 homicidios en 2007.
• El derecho a la alimentación se ha visto
gravemente afectado. El incremento del costo de los rubros esenciales a
los que dedica el venezolano el 50% de su ingreso, ha sido de 777,6 por
ciento en 9 años. Y el problema es que ahora, al deterioro del poder
adquisitivo se le suma la escasez en anaqueles de abastos y mercados.
• El derecho a una vivienda propia, el llamado
techo para todos, desapareció de las realizaciones del Gobierno. En 9
años se construyeron 248.860 viviendas: una meta que en el pasado y en
tiempos de vacas flacas, alcanzaba cualquier gobierno en sólo tres
años de gestión.
• Y si se trata de la salud, la celebrada
Misión Barrio Adentro, no impidió en 9 años que Venezuela
regresara a su circunstancia de inicios del siglo XX: las endemias y
epidemias propias a nuestro antaño drama de país rural han vuelto
por sus fueros, con virulencia inusitada. Y paremos de contar.
• Inteligente. Así podemos decirlo del
presidente colombiano, Álvaro Uribe, quien decidió no caer en las
provocaciones constantes de su homólogo venezolano. No responderá a
sus constantes insultos y ofensas, pues entiende bien que Hugo Chávez
lo hace a propósito, deliberadamente, para levantarse ante la
adversidad y remontar la cuesta de sus fatales errores políticos.
Así debería comportarse la oposición, obviando los trapos rojos y
centrándose en construir y mirar hacia adelante, dejando que los
muertos entierren a sus muertos. Así de simple.
Asdrúbal Aguiar
correo...@gmail.com
Globovisión Publicado el 05-02-2008
© Copyright 2008. Globovisión Tele C.A. Todos Los Derechos
Reservados
Adrey S
VivaChavez
krp
"VivaChavez" <TruthSe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2a516b42-9283-40c9...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we
>> really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of
>> human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase
>> and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to
>> other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to
>> overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development,
>> economic science in its present state can throw little light on the
>> socialist society of the future.
This is a repeat from last week. What you describe as the "predatory phase
of human development" that socialism strives to overcome is what those with
open eyes call "creativity" "individuality" and "freedom." It is what has
made humans explorers and inventors. In reality if left to bloom into the
total socialist society, the human race will return to live in caves and
will be again hoping for the day for the re-discovery of fire and the
re-invention of the wheel. In the "socialist state" independent thought and
action CANNOT be permitted. The socialist state MUST use its most extreme
coercive power to prevent that. It simply cannot allow creativity. The next
thing you know, somebody will want to benefit from their discoveries.
The message of socialism is that the person who sit on his fat ass in
the cave is entitled to MORE of the game brought back to feed the clan than
those who went out and risked life and limb to get it. How long before the
hunters say; "SCREW THIS!" And just don't come back?
Take a look at the example of socialist states. Cuba is a good case
study where socialism takes you. An infrastructure in near total collapse.
Roads that are near impassible. Buildings that collapse killing their
occupants on a regular basis. Trains that don't run. Public transportation
is collapse. And the second lowest standard of living in the western
hemisphere. (It was the third highest before the "revolution.") Take a look
at eastern Europe. Look at cities like Prague, Bucharest, Warsaw, and so
many others. Cities in full bloom before WW-2 and eventual Soviet
occupation. Cities that fell apart. Now that they are free of the "benefits
of Socialism" again the cities vibrate with life and gayety. They blossom
again - the arts thrive.
Under socialism - art and music are enemies of the state. They only have
the value they can be taxed to provide in support of the political aims of
the state. When they deviate they are crushed. Look at socialist states.
They must control the means of information. That's because socialism CANNOT
withstand close and critical inspection. It can only work when the masses
are kept ignorant. When they can be successfully manipulated and lied to.
The world has seen this many times. Human beings are fully. Socialism
appeals to our WORST qualities. Sloth. Laziness, wanting a FREE RIDE.
Wanting "George to do it for us." Getting something for nothing. Not
realizing that in doing that we are walking into slavery. Much like the Jews
just walked into those ovens for the Nazis. Not even a whimper. Only in
Warsaw did they resist.
Is capitalism perfect? Hardly, but it is better than socialism. You can
map your own future in it. If you invent a better mousetrap you can
progress. You can either light a candle or curse the darkness. That's a
choice you have under capitalism that you don't have under socialism. All of
the promises of socialism are lies.