HN user
Once you start following/helping/participating in the labor movement it becomes clear that virtually every company will go to great lengths to stop a union from being formed and winning a contract, they will even break the law. The question for organizers is not "will this company do it?" but "what do we do about it when they do?"
San Francisco's problems are rooted in extreme inequality. There is no tough on crime policy that can improve the lives of the majority in this context.
I think it's helpful to understand capitalism as a historical process in the real world, and not as a pure idea which society fails to live up to. The state had an important role in the development of capitalism everywhere, it still plays a crucial role, and that's just the nature of the system. It's possible that you just don't actually like capitalism - healthy!
In general, employers do not want to offer higher wages because they predict it will be very difficult to lower them later down the line. They feel if they can weather the current storm, things can get back to "normal" as far as wages go. In places like the restaurant industry, they just carry on with short-staffing, putting more pressure on the remaining employees.
So if your explanation is right, then we should also expect to see only a tiny effect in the practical use of math, reading, writing, etc. between people who went to school and people who didn't. Because only 2 cared enough to pay attention. Right?
Who are you and why are you doing this?
So you agree, socialism would be good - it's just not possible because of the predictable ruthlessness of the capitalists.
It's disappointing when I talk about planning the economy, and many technologists who are otherwise quite excited about difficult engineering problems dismiss it as entirely impossible because of something they read once from the 1920s. Clearly, it is possible at some scales. Why are creative people not thinking about how to scale it up? It is a utopian discussion until we actually overcome the resistance of the 1% to such a project, but it would be good to have more programmers on the side of socialism.
I agree, I just think you said it wrong in your original post!
Did you mean "unlike under Lenin"?
There is not going to be a Capitalism 2.0. Capitalism was progressive for a time, but it has gradually created the conditions for its replacement by democratic socialism. Those conditions are highly socialized production processes (not individual crafts) plus a gigantic class of wage laborers with an interest in a collective approach. A democratically planned economy is entirely possible and would outpace the massive waste and duplication of efforts that capitalism requires to function. Even the bureaucratically degenerated USSR grew to an economic superpower. Imagine what genuine democracy in the plan could accomplish in terms of meetings peoples' real needs.
It's their class interest, which drives them to view the world in a certain way. So as others are saying, it's ideological. But that ideology isn't a coincidence, it comes from justifying the sort of "work" that they do, day in and day out.
Agreed. It must be a strange time to be alive for people who are not Marxists! Today's political polarization in the US is rooted in the 08 financial crisis, followed by a weak recovery, combined with skyrocketing inequality, and now a pandemic absolutely mishandled by the US administration, plus now a new recession! How could we expect people's political views to stay the same after such experiences?
Exactly right. The working class has power because we are the ones who make society run. In the case of teachers, a strike creates a complete crisis in the city. For private sector workers, they can completely halt profit-making by their employer. Unfortunately we are largely unorganized and taking this kind of action requires a lot of organization. We also do not have a political party made up of workers and representing workers genuine interests. So I see how journalists with no real understanding of the labor movement can get confused.
Red State Revolt (referenced in parent) has material in it showing how in practice class battles have the potential to cut across other social questions like party loyalty for example. There was a new-found unity in the teachers strikes. Economics is the sturdiest division in society because it is most rooted in the day to day life of everybody. Some people are bosses, and some people have to work for them 8+ hours every day.
Interesting article. I don't agree with a lot of it, one point I think is straightforward to respond to as a Marxist:
"Marxist interpretation of the 20th century is much more convincing in both its explanation of World War I (imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism) and fascism (an attempt by the weakened bourgeoise to thwart left-wing revolutions). But Marxist view is entirely powerless to explain 1989, the fall of communist regimes, and hence unable to provide any explanation for the role of communism in global history. The fall of communism, in a strict Marxist view of the world, is an abomination, as inexplicable as if a feudal society having had experienced a bourgeois revolution of rights were suddenly to “regress” and to reimpose serfdom and the tripartite class division. Marxism has therefore given up trying to provide an explanation for the 20th century history."
It's true that the dogma of the official communist parties has no explanation for this, but their theory degenerated and became distorted by the need to justify all the twists and turns of USSR foreign and domestic policy. A genuine Marxist view of the 20th century is that the world revolution began in 1917 in Russia, the "weakest link" of capitalism, but was not able to be completed in the industrial centers. There were a number of reasons for this, for example the growth of reformism in the German SPD, but the result is in reality a failed revolution that won a few outposts and held on to them for 70 years. As a useful example, the Paris Commune is another example of a failed revolution, although it only held out for a few months. It's not a Marxist view that a single country can "go socialist" in a world dominated by capitalism. So there was no "regression" back to capitalism.
"But the NYT chose a neo-Marxist rather than liberal path to make a very specific claim: that slavery is not one of many things that describe America’s founding and culture, it is the definitive one." Well, the author does know what liberalism is, but definitely does not know what Marxism is!
Marxism does have a good answer to the original question of the piece: "How can an enduring “ideal” — like, say, freedom or equality — be “false” at one point in history and true in another?" - Marxists argue that ideas can be progressive at one time, and become reactionary at a later stage of history. Ideas do not determine history, but are in general a reflection of class forces. When capitalism was progressive, in the founding days of the country, the ideas that upheld the system of private ownership were progressive ideas! The forces these ideas represent helped defeat monarchies and slavery. Today, advocates of the free market play the opposite role, of holding society back, because capitalism is in a deep crisis and socialism has become socially and technologically possible.
There are measures we can take against climate change, they just go against the structural needs of the capitalist system. If governments continue to put the continuation of the system above the needs of the environment, then of course we won't see serious action. The author accepts that this is a permanent state of affairs and attributes it incorrectly to "human nature" when in reality it reflects the present weakness of the anti-capitalist movement. There is hope, but it's not in liberal politicians and eco startups, and I get why you'd be hopeless if that's where you're looking for change to come from.
Some form of socialist planned economy will be necessary, you're right that world capitalism can't do it.
And what power does a local representative have over Jeff Bezos? He is willing to threaten to leave whole cities over small tax increases on his company. Capital represents a lot more power than local government!