Capitalism, Socialism, and Community

I have not posted here for almost a year now.
The primary reason for this has been that I have been placing my primary
energies at the service of the Social Democrats USA of which I am a member. I
hope in future months to change this pattern starting with the following post.
Enclosed is an article called “Capitalism, Socialism and Community” which I
originally posted on Socialist Currents on October 7, 2011.

Glenn

I want to add some additional comments to those I made at the last SD
discussion on the issue of socialism, capitalism, and human nature. I would
argue that while capitalism gives a full reign to the satisfaction of human
competitive instincts for wealth and power over others, it does a very poor job
of providing for the human instincts for community and solidarity.

In saying this of course I am aware that the word “community” is a very hard
word to define. Currently community is used to refer to abstractions as large
scale and impersonal as “national,”  “international,”  or “faith” communities.”
The word “community is is used to describe  to the communal relationships that
exist within small religious sects and the various village and clan communities
of traditional agrarian societies. So in order to define what I mean I will use
the classic definition of community given by the great German sociologist
Ferdinand Tonnies in his book Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft ( Community and
Society) written in 1887. Tonnies makes a distinction between “society”
(gesellschaft) which tends to be the impersonal, large scale world of politics,
economics, urban anonymity and atomized individualism and “community”
(gemeinschaft) which are the tightly net, small scale, face to face forms of
living which have characterized most early human societies. Early hunting
gathering bands, early horticultural villages, clan societies, and traditional
agrarian peasant villages were all forms of gemeinschaft. Latter forms of
community within  earlier forms of capitalism would be the working class, ethnic
neighborhoods of 19th  and  20th century America. Modern religious bodies such
as churches, synagogues, and mosques at least to a certain degree recreate ties
of community in the modern world with varying degrees of success. The wikipedia
article on “gemeinschaft” characterizes it thusly.

Gemeinschaft (often translated as community)
is an association in which individuals are oriented to the large association as
much, if not more than, to their own self interest. Furthermore, individuals in
Gemeinschaft are regulated by common mores,
or beliefs about the appropriate behavior and responsibility of members of the
association, to each other and to the association at large; associations are
marked by “unity of will” (Tönnies, 22). Tönnies saw the family as the most
perfect expression of Gemeinschaft; however, he expected that Gemeinschaft could
be based on shared place and shared belief as well as kinship, and he included
globally dispersed religious communities as possible examples of Gemeinschaft.
….Gemeinschaften are broadly characterized by a moderate division
of labour, strong personal relationships, strong families, and relatively
simple social institutions. In such societies there is seldom a need to enforce
social control externally, due to a collective sense of loyalty individuals feel
for society.”

Given that for tens of thousands of years humanity has lived in and in fact
evolved within a matrix of small scale closely netted communities of the
gemeinshaft type, I think that it can be said that life within such community is
hardwired into the human gene pool.

What is also clear is that modern capitalism has developed a society which is
increasingly unfriendly toward gemeinschaft forms of community. Modern society
is increasingly a society of the isolated individual in which the largest
community unit is the often dysfunctional nuclear family. Individuals of course
over the course of their lives do attempt to establish communal ties through
workplace friendships, clubs, and religious bodies, etc. It is clear however
that most of these relationships tend to be fleeting and ethereal by nature. And
certainly they are seldom characterized by any sense of common purpose or
collective meaning.

There are of course a multiple of reasons why capitalism has been disruptive
of traditional communities and unfriendly to the development of new forms of
community. There are three that are the most obvious. The first and most obvious
is that capitalism has disrupted the rural life of villages and small towns
increasingly by concentrating rural populations within huge cities.

This movement of people out of rural areas,  disrupting and destroying many
forms of community, has not gone unchallenged. In the United States in
particular and  other nations as well, tightly net ethnic, working class
neighborhoods developed within the large cities during the course of the 19th
and 20th centuries as a means of maintaining some stability and community in
people’s lives. Unfortunately within information age capitalism even these forms
of community have began to breakdown.

The second characteristic of modern capitalism that has been disruptive to
community has been the cultural production of an almost universal capitalist
ideology of extreme individualism / consumerism. The supreme goal of life in
this worldview is the enhancement of the individual and the meeting of his / her
consumption desires. The second goal is that individuals must increase their
economic status within the capitalist society. It follows that if these two
cultural drives are primary then any need for community must be relegated to
second or third place in people’s lives.

The third characteristic of modern capitalism which destroys community lays
within the structure of the capitalist work place itself. The workplace for the
vast majority of the world’s “employees” is simply a place in which one
exchanges ones labor for a weekly or biweekly paycheck. The capitalist workplace
is a place in which one must suppress ones real desires to serve the will of a
hierarchy of owners, stockholders, CEO’s etc. It is the realm of unfreedom and
servitude. It is not a place of freedom, autonomy, or creativity. Thus it is not
surprising that the capitalist workplace itself is not the center of community
in peoples lives.

It is of course easy to point out the evils of capitalism, it is more
difficult to show how a concrete socialist society might work and how some of
the negative consequences of capitalism can be overcome. Certainly the Communist
societies of the past were not successful and they did little to build viable
forms of human community. In fact by their actions they openly opposed such
communities.

The fact is that a real existing socialism on a national scale has never
developed. However through the examples of worker cooperative movements such as
that of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, a realist vision of what a future
socialism might look like can be seen. A socialist society would be one in which
the dominant form of property would be cooperative and one in which workers
would simultaneously own and democratically control their places of labor and
economic enterprises.

That transformation of the relationship of workers toward capital, the means
of production, would also likely transform the life of workers toward the work
place, work itself, and toward other workers. The workplace would become
transformed from a place of unfreedom and repressive hierarchy to one of
freedom, egalitarian forms of ownership and autonomous self management.

Within a society of free workplaces, it is easy to envision that, second to
the family, the workplace itself would become the primary place of community in
people’s lives. Instead of community being lived out primarily within the
context of its earlier forms, it would develop primarily in relationship to the
self governing workplace. Other forms of community would follow. Thus the
residential pattern of cities would perhaps change  to meet a desire of workers
to live within closer proximity to their places of labor and each other. After
all the workplace would be much more central to life than it is in its currently
alienated form.

It is also possible that newer forms of democratic government perhaps of a
more directly democratic nature will develop. This could stimulate new forms of
face to face political organization which could form the basis of more communal
lifestyles. Religious bodies may change. Of course Jewish, Christian, Muslim,
and other religious faiths would continue. But society’s new forms of community
would perhaps inspire religious revival in which the major faiths would
reexamine older forms of religious community for example, that of Christian
monasticism, the Sufi brotherhoods, or the close forms of communal life of the
Jewish Hasidim. These earlier forms of religious community could be utilized by
the more creative elements of the traditional faiths in order to develop new
forms of common life. While  competitive capitalist society sees any kind of
real communal life as strange and bizarre, the newer forms of cooperative life
that would develop within the matrix of socialist society would perhaps
reinvigorate the life of religious faiths.

OK, of course socialism is not just around the corner. I do not delude myself
that it is. Of course much of this writing has been a exercise in “wishful”
thinking. However much of what we have on our side is “hopeful or wishful”
thinking. The endless protests of the left, its bottomless hatred of the United
States, its dogged obsession with direct action or on the “realism” of single
issue politics will at its best produce results that hopefully may roll back
some of the attacks of the tea party right. It seems to me that if we are to get
any where we have to go back to radical thinking regarding basic human realities
such as community, power, freedom, and justice. That is what I hope I have done
in this article. If we don’t do this we will be simply running a race on a
treadmill, a race that we can not win.

Glenn

Obama’s Leadership on the Tax Debates

Over the last week I have been paying intense attention the issues surrounding  the Obama / Republican middle and upper class tax deal.  In the past I have  generally supported President Obama in such things as his  bail out of banks to save the economy and in his jettisoning of single payer health insurance because it  simply was not doable. In this debate my positions is  much closer to those of much of the political left. I think that there are several reasons for my change in attitude. First my knowledge of the economics of the earlier liquidity crisis was very weak. This fact when combined with  my liking for Obama and my dislike of Left “purism” a real tendency in much of  the left caused me to support Obama policies at that time. Since many economists still believe that Obama and his people saved the economy  I do not renounce my position. The same tendencies also were major factors in my support of the Obama health care bill. I thought that it was simply perverse for many in the left to reject a very imperfect health care bill in the name of a non existing perfect one. Another factor in my support of Obama has  been my general support of Barack Obama’s positions on foreign policy. I see nothing moral about throwing Afghanistan and Iraq to the friendly embrace of the Taliban and Al Qaeda theocracy and terrorism. I am very aware that the Karzai government is corrupt to its core but will a Taliban triumph in Afghanistan , the collapse of Iraq into anarchy, and using a domino theory analogy the triumph of Islamic theocracy over Pakistan and much of the Mid East be good for the peoples of those societies and America and humanity in general? I doubt it. However the resource drain is intense. Perhaps these wars are not winnable and it is time to cut and run. But if America does make a strategic retreat lets not make out that this will be the triumph of peace and love. It will be a triumph of evil and probably long term greater danger.
 
Now to the recent struggle over taxes. In contrast to the political situation at the time of the development of early Obama economic policy and the health care debates, the tax cut debate entered its height after the disastrous Democratic Party collapse of November. President Obama’s failure as a political leader at  this stage of his administration is evident. (I still hope that he will turn this around though the prospects do not look good.)  Why did Obama fail as a leader? Was it because of  his failure to be more centrist, more compromising,  with the Republican Party as conservative  columnist David Brooks argues?  Or perhaps Obama has not fought hard enough to support  the ideas of his base as the left contends? In this debate I am increasing taking the side of the left. Yes I hate left dogmatism, self righteousness, and dislike purists. But all of the left can not be characterized as such. Further more it seems to me that much of what a political leader must do is to keep the support of his base strong. I do not know what Machiavelli would have said on this issue but I think that he would have agreed.
 
And what is obvious as a result of the November elections is that one of the reasons for the democratic defeat was the demoralization of the Democratic base. What is also obvious is that Obama failed miserable in framing the political issues in way that made sense to most of the American people. I think that a key reason of this is that Obama simply does not believe that political warfare has any real role in politics. He does seem to think that the art of governing nations is based purely in deal making between  the existing players based on their current but perhaps temporary levels of power. So Obama to insure the continuation of the middle class tax break decided to cut this kind of deal without being willing to engage in any kind of real political warfare.
 
In this I think that Obama is deeply flawed as a political leader. I think that politics is in fact is always  about warfare by political means. In the Middle Ages politics was done on the bloody battle field. In modern democracies is done by fund raising, propaganda, the demonization and the assassination of the characters of one’s foes. One of the means by which modern Presidents can wage battle is through the bully pulpit. While I do not believe that this pulpit is omnipotent or that decades of political conditioning can be reversed completely by political leadership, it still has great power. Obama refuses to use it effectively when making governmental policy. Thus  in looking back at the health care debate, while I do not believe that single payer was ever a real option, I believe that a decent governmental option in the health care plan should have passed. I think that the filibuster and Obama’s failure to fight effectively for it are the primary reasons it did not pass. In the tax debate I agree with those who believe that Obama should have fought vigorously before compromising. Yes there comes a time to compromise. However it should come after a full political debate which shows with the crystal clarity to configuration of each side. But of course the America people were held  hostage by the Republican Party’s stand on the middle class tax cut. Let me ask a question would this nation really have suffered so greatly without this tax cut? Perhaps it will suffer more because of the massive new deficits that will occur because of the deal which was struck. Well I do not want to continue with this now. Attached are the links to two of my favorite political writers Paul Krugman my favorite economics columnist and the other is by David Brooks my favorite conservative columnist. If all Republicans were like him it would be a much more decent party. Any way these are their most recent takes on the tax debate and well worth reading.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=g eneral
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/opinion/10krugman.html?ref=general&src= me&pagewanted=print

Steelworkers Plan Job Creation through Workers’ Coops

In a previous message I introduced an article about the agreement between the United Steel Workers and Mondragon Cooperative Corporation to  work to together to support the development of worker owned companies and firms. I want to follow that article up with another more detailed article by Carl Davidson of Solidarity Economy which presents his own analysis of the United Steelworkers Union and the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation agreement. The link to the article is  
 http://www.zcommunications.org/steelworkers-plan-job-creation-via-worker-coops-by-carl-davidson
 
 Some may wonder why I am so insistent on the importance of this subject. The answer is both ideological and existential. Economic democracy or cooperative socialism as I prefer to call it,  lays at the very heart of socialism. And the Mondragon Corporation is by far the most developed example of economic democracy in the modern world or in human history as a whole for that matter. Socialism without an emphasis on a concrete economic democracy in which workers own and manage their own businesses  and ultimately the economy themselves is hardly worthy of the name. A statist Socialism in which a small elite in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat or inspired by a Fabian dream of a planned centralized economy by economic experts or scientists suppossedly for the benefit of a passive working class  is anathema. Such dreams will not work as the communist experiment in the Soviet Union proved nor are they worthy of the respect of those who believe in human freedom and  autonomy. Enough for now. I suggest that you read the article.
 
Glenn King

God and Socialism

My “God and Socialism” article has been one of the best read of the articles on my blogs. Unfortunately the initial article was not all that well written. About two months ago I re-edited, rewrote,  and posted it on the “Social Democracy for the 21st Century” web site.   Please click the link to read the revised version of God and Socialism. The link is http://ladyofjustice.wordpress.com/category/bible/
 
Glenn

Taking Over the Democratic Party

 

The Social Democrats USA has recently made national news or at least into the Glenn Beck show which is almost as good. On his April 22 program right  tea party leader Glenn Beck attempted to further build his  case that President Obama is a socialist  by attempting to tie Obama to the now defunct radical reform organization ACORN and its executive director Bertha Lewis. Mrs. Lewis who evidently is a democratic socialist spoke at gathering of the Young Democratic Socialists the youth arm  of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in March. At the gathering Bertha Lewis called for DSA members to build the organization and recruit new members. Since Barack Obama as have many other Democratic leaders has  had a  positive relationship to ACORN prior a series of  scandals within the organization during the last few years, Mr. Beck easily scored several propaganda points. As propaganda the argument of guilt by association normally works for those who wish to believe the main story line. Next to top it off Beck showed  a citation from the web site of the old Social Democrats USA, which calls for the Social Democrats USA to be a “party within a party” ie a caucus within the Democratic Party. The implications for Beck of this were obvious. The Democratic Party  is infiltrated by and ultimately controlled by dangerous socialist elements of the Social Democrats USA. Use link http://video.foxnews.com/v/4162511/the-one-thing-422

for the full Beck ACORN presentation and use  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7_oUUtzqc

for a very short version.

 

Would that this were true! However some unfortunate facts need to be stated. The first of which is that in December of 2009 a schism occurred within the Social Democrats USA and Gabe Ross the executive director of the SD USA was fired from his position by the organization’s  full National Executive Committee. The division that occurred between the NEC and its executive director was due to an increasing tendency by Mr Ross to use methods  of slander and the demonization of   board members who disagreed with him over often minor political issues. That behavior when combined with Mr. Ross’s often deliberate refusals to implement NEC decisions and his unilateral expulsions of NEC members made his continuation in his post of Executive Director an impossibility. Unfortunately since Gabe Ross controlled the SD USA web site, the NEC leadership  had to develop an alternative web site called “Social Democracy for the 21th Century.” Unfortunately this new web site due at least partially from legal harrasment from Mr. Ross  is still not up and running. Hopefully that will change soon. This does not  mean that most of the statements on social democratic political strategy, tactics and writings on the old Gabe Ross controlled site do not represent much of the thinking of the legitimate SD USA. On the contrary much on the old site was written and developed by such notable Social Democratic NEC members as David Hacker the party’s historian.

 

Now that this is clarified, a few more points regarding the SD,USA’s supposed control of the Democratic Party must be made. Unfortunately  while the Social Democrats USA is the direct lineal descendent of the old historical Socialist Party of America of such leading members  as Eugene Debs, Norman Thompson and Helen Keller, history has not been kind to the organization.  Since the party changed its name in 1972 and its loss of members to two secession movements the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee – latter to become  DSA, and another movement which became the Socialist Party USA;  the SD USA has lost membership. Thus the Gabe Ross schism of the Social Democrats USA which so impresses Glen Beck probably has less than 20 paid members. Its activist core is evidently much lower. Glenn Beck would have been advised to have done his homework more thoroughly.

Thus it is  ironic even funny that it is the old Social Democrats USA web site that Glen Beck used to show the supposed infiltration and control of the Democratic Party by dangerous social democratic elements. However on the optimistic side Glenn Beck has done a great job of getting the Social Democrats USA  in the news even if for now the schismatic group has gotten the balk of attention. That scarcely matters in the long run the party as a whole will  benefit.

 

Building the Third Way

There are not many blogs on the Internet which specialize on the issues of economic democracy or workers self management on the internet. However Larry Hellar’s blog Building the Third Way: Economic Democracy for the New Millennium is one that consistently  and effectively does. The blog covers issues in the news  from the perspective of both socialism and economic democracy which in his world view is  the essential building block of socialism. He also periodically shares biographical information about some of the often, not well known  and better known greats of the historical workers’ cooperative movements. Finally he often attempts to deal with the problems of capitalism as a system.   Enough of an introduction. People can examine Building the Third Way for themselves. Its link is http://buildingthirdway.blogspot.com/ However I do want to introduce a few of the recent posts from the blog. The first is a recent article on the historic October 2009 agreement between the United Steel Workers and the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation to agree to mutually support the development of worker owned firms that would give workers jobs that would not be at the continued mercy of the fluctuation of capital and short term profit making of most of America’s present corporations in financial institutions.    Glenn   US Steelworkers and Worker-Owned Co-ops Contrary to the claims of many, most unions (at least in the last 50 years) aren’t anti-capitalist. They’re more than happy to always be what one might call the “loyal opposition.” As long as they’re outsiders they can rant and rave against management while always sounding pro-worker but never, ever, sounding like they opposed capitalism. Most unions are been quick to disavow any idea that the workers themselves should own and manage the shops and factories. The majority of unions are content with negotiating for better pay and more benefits. Sure, there are a few, like the International Workers of the World (IWW), that go beyond but they’re the exception and not the rule. Finally, there now seems to be a change for one union. In October of 2009 the United Steelworkers Union announced they were collaborating with the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC) of Spain to explore increasing the number of worker-owned cooperatives here in the US. According to the USW International President Leo W. Gerard, “We see today’s agreement as a historic first step towards making union co-ops a viable business model that can create good jobs, empower workers, and support communities in the United States and Canada.” He went on to say, “Too often we have seen Wall Street hollow out companies by draining their cash and assets and hollowing out communities by shedding jobs and shuttering plants. We need a new business model that invests in workers and invests in communities.” (Source: SolidarityEconomy.Org) The MCC President of Mondragron Internacional, Josu Ugarte, stated: “What we are announcing today represents a historic first–combining the world’s largest industrial worker cooperative with one of the world’s most progressive and forward-thinking manufacturing unions to work together so that our combined know-how and complimentary visions can transform manufacturing practices in North America. We feel inspired to take this step based on our common set of values with the Steelworkers who have proved time and again that the future belongs to those who connect vision and values to people and put all three first.” There’s simply no way to predict what will come out of this collaboration. As I mentioned in my blog entry of March 30th there is also the Cleveland Model in which several cooperatives haven been formed. One can hope that maybe, just maybe, that collaboration between MCC and the USW along with the Cleveland Model are examples that the dream of an economic democracy is starting to become more than just a dream.

Socialism and anarchism as spiritualiy and religion

The below named article was written by Ed ( I do not know his last name) who publishes the Yoda is I’s blog. It link is http://yodaami.wordpress.com I think that the author makes several excellent points. First he argues I think correctly that ideologies such as socialism and anarchism are simply other forms that the human religious impulse can take. I also believe that his take on the religious type of fanaticism that in general has dominated Marxist Leninism is completely sound. Finally to the degree that one believes that the world is a battle ground between the forces of good vs. evil, I think that his analysis of how evil subverts good intentions is in fact how it is often done.   Glenn   Socialism and anarchism as spirituality and religion Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 2:41:10 AM | Ed Many people think of socialism and anarchism as being opposed to spirituality and religion. But if you look carefully, you can see that they are just other forms of spirituality and religion. The ideals of the French Revolution, “Liberty, Equality, Cooperation”, are a holy mantra. They are utopian in the sense that they strive to create heaven on earth. They are powerful ideas, but they can be used to mobilize people for good or evil, just like other religions. Socialists may believe in science, dialectics, economics, the working class, the inevitability of socialism as part of their faith. They have hymns, like “The International”. They have saints, like Marx, Engels, Kroptokin, and so on. They have scriptures that explain the beliefs of their religion. Some sects fight holy wars against their opponents. There are frequent splits and accusations of heresy. And, in general, they are sincerely inspired by a spiritual calling to ease the suffering of others, by their compassion for their fellow humans. And, ironically, just like religions, some of them end up killing and torturing people, and justify it as necessary to defend the faith and to establish God’s kingdom on earth. I’m going to name names here, and call them “Leninists”. These are the Crusaders, the Jesuits, the Inquisitors of the socialist movement, whose Machiavellianism and fanaticism have given socialism a bad name. The blood of millions is on their hands, some of it direct and intentional, some of it the result of their bungled attempts at micro-managing society. Why does this always happen? My theory is that God or some force of goodness inspires people to do good, and they proceed with good intentions, but the forces of evil subvert these good intentions with fanaticism, which turns them into something horrible and evil. Or else it’s because mentally unbalanced people are attracted to these ideas for the wrong reasons (a thirst for power, a desire to play God, delusions of grandeur, egomania) and their maniacal zeal earns them positions of leadership. But in general, socialism and anarchism are motivated by the same desire to do good and save humanity from suffering that religions are based on.

SDUSA links

As stated in my last posting. there has been a schism within the Social Democrats USA and has a result  the leadership of the party lost control of the party web site to the fired executive director. Unfortunately the party’s “Social Democracy in the 21th Century” web site is still not ready for public presentation yet. That will hopefully change within the next couple of weeks. However persons who are interested in knowing more about the Social Democrats USA can still learn more about the party via its “Socialist Currents” blog and the corresponding “Socialist Currents” e-group.
 
The link to the newly established blog which contains the organization’s statements of principle, heritage, mission, and a list of its officers is http://socialistcurrents.wordpress.com/
The e-group link for those who which join in dialogue with members of the Social Democrats USA is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Socialist_Currents/
 
Glenn

Taking over the Democratic Party

 

The Social Democrats USA has recently made national news or at least into the Glenn Beck show which is almost as good. On his April 22 program right  tea party leader Glenn Beck attempted to further build his  case that President Obama is a socialist  by attempting to tie Obama to the now defunct radical reform organization ACORN and its executive director Bertha Lewis. Mrs. Lewis who evidently is a democratic socialist spoke at gathering of the Young Democratic Socialists the youth arm  of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in March. At the gathering Bertha Lewis called for DSA members to build the organization and recruit new members. Since Barack Obama as have many other Democratic leaders has  had a  positive relationship to ACORN prior a series of  scandals within the organization during the last few years, Mr. Beck easily scored several propaganda points. As propaganda the argument of guilt by association normally works for those who wish to believe the main story line. Next to top it off Beck showed  a citation from the web site of the old Social Democrats USA, which calls for the Social Democrats USA to be a “party within a party” ie a caucus within the Democratic Party. The implications for Beck of this were obvious. The Democratic Party  is infiltrated by and ultimately controlled by dangerous socialist elements of the Social Democrats USA. Use link http://video.foxnews.com/v/4162511/the-one-thing-422

for the full Beck ACORN presentation and use  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7_oUUtzqc

for a very short version.

 

Would that this were true! However some unfortunate facts need to be stated. The first of which is that in December of 2009 a schism occurred within the Social Democrats USA and Gabe Ross the executive director of the SD USA was fired from his position by the organization’s  full National Executive Committee. The division that occurred between the NEC and its executive director was due to an increasing tendency by Mr Ross to use methods  of slander and the demonization of   board members who disagreed with him over often minor political issues. That behavior when combined with Mr. Ross’s often deliberate refusals to implement NEC decisions and his unilateral expulsions of NEC members made his continuation in his post of Executive Director an impossibility. Unfortunately since Gabe Ross controlled the SD USA web site, the NEC leadership  had to develop an alternative web site called “Social Democracy for the 21th Century.” Unfortunately this new web site due at least partially from legal harrasment from Mr. Ross  is still not up and running. Hopefully that will change soon. This does not  mean that most of the statements on social democratic political strategy, tactics and writings on the old Gabe Ross controlled site do not represent much of the thinking of the legitimate SD USA. On the contrary much on the old site was written and developed by such notable Social Democratic NEC members as David Hacker the party’s historian.

 

Now that this is clarified, a few more points regarding the SD,USA’s supposed control of the Democratic Party must be made. Unfortunately  while the Social Democrats USA is the direct lineal descendent of the old historical Socialist Party of America of such leading members  as Eugene Debs, Norman Thompson and Helen Keller, history has not been kind to the organization.  Since the party changed its name in 1972 and its loss of members to two secession movements the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee – latter to become  DSA, and another movement which became the Socialist Party USA;  the SD USA has lost membership. Thus the Gabe Ross schism of the Social Democrats USA which so impresses Glen Beck probably has less than 20 paid members. Its activist core is evidently much lower. Glenn Beck would have been advised to have done his homework more thoroughly.

Thus it is  ironic even funny that it is the old Social Democrats USA web site that Glen Beck used to show the supposed infiltration and control of the Democratic Party by dangerous social democratic elements. However on the optimistic side Glenn Beck has done a great job of getting the Social Democrats USA  in the news even if for now the schismatic group has gotten the balk of attention. That scarcely matters in the long run the party as a whole will  benefit.

 

On Cooperative Socialist Perspectives

While I started this blog as a place in which to discuss both religion and politics, it has undergone several metamorphosis. It is now under going another. I joined the very small Social Democrats USA in January 2009. A lot has happened within that party since that time certainly not all positive. However in spite of this, I feel that the Social Democrats USA, which is the one Socialist party  of this nation that  is the direct descendent of the old Socialist Party of America of Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas and others, is my political home. Therefore since I am the representative affiliate member for Ohio within the SD, USA I am volunteering this blog to be the representative voice  of the party within this state. As such the messages posted within “Cooperative Socialist Perspectives” will be reflective of the views of the Ohio Affiliate but not necessarily of the official views of the Social Democrats USA national organization. I will attempt on a regular basis to let readers know if and when the views taken here represent national Social Democrats USA policy.
 
A few words about the new name of the blog. In spite of the fact that the future of this blog will be tied to the fortunes of the Social Democratic cause, as its editor  I have decided to delete very little of its old content. Most of that material in my own humble view is excellent and is still worth reading. This is so even if some may find it unusual for example that articles be posted to defend Islam from the charge of authorizing the abuse of women on a socialist site. I also do not believe that it hurts for readers to know some of the interests and background of this blog’s owner.
 
Some may question why the decision was made to call this blog “Cooperative Socialist Perspectives” as opposed to Ohio Social Democracy, Ohio Democratic Socialism,  or some more social democratic sounding name. The answer is fairly straight forward. Long before I became a member of the Social Democrats USA I believed in the views of the non establishment socialist traditions which advocated a socialism not of state ownership and control but instead of a “Cooperative Commonwealth”  in which the dominant  forms of ownership in  society would be  that of worker owned cooperatives and businesses. Yes privately owned businesses, family farms, and some state forms of regulation and ownership  would play important economic roles in society, however most economic institutions in society would be cooperatively owned and managed by worker owners. This vision is quite compatible with the political economic vision of social democracy. It is true that Social Democracy historically has tended to stress primarily the importance of struggling for reforms in side the system of capitalism to benefit working people ( a good thing). Never the less ideological room also exists within the context of Social Democracy for a vigorous vision of a dynamic socialist future. The importance of a vision of the Cooperative Commonwealth or of Cooperative Socialism thus will be  a recurring theme of many of the posts within this blog.