Thinking too much again

I’ve been reading about various types of governments and various theories for the best kind of societies. Right now, I am trying to absorb a bit more of Karl Marx’s vision for humanity. I can only absorb Mr. Marx in small doses, so it is taking me a while to get it. Personally, I don’t think Karl paid enough attention to human nature. That’s just my opinion. His ideas seem to be working well in Greece, of course, and well enough to where France is going to try it on for size now, I hear. The current batch of leaders in my own country want very much to play the Marx game too, have made a downpayment on it, would do more but for the pesky Republicans. It is working here too, slowly but surely, as more and more people begin to think that working is for suckers.

If one attempts to define an ideal society, or if one sets out to establish an “ideal” government from scratch, it would seem that the first thing one would have to do would be to come to an agreement about “human nature.” That is, you would first have to know what it is people want their lives to be like. Once you know this, you can begin working on inventing a structure that would meet the requirements.

It seems to me that if a survey were taken from a random sampling of 1000 people in varying circumstances, asking them to write down 20 or so things they would definitely want to see in a new society or new government, most of the things on that list would be similar. Certainly the survey-taker would be able to come up with a “top ten” concensus that the new society or government would have to include in its structure. Beyond that top 10 or 15, though, we would start getting more things on the list that were specific to the individual’s dreams or wants, and the list would no longer be general enough to define a society or government that would be workable or be responsive to the vast majority of the people’s most important wants and needs. You would have to draw the line somewhere as to what a society or government can or can not logically include in it’s basic framework.

The word “Utilitarianism,” when used to describe a particular political system or society of people, refers to the doctrine that “actions are right if they are useful to or for the benefit of a majority.” Some might go further and assert that “an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness” and “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people should be the guiding principle of conduct.” Those things which only benefited a minority of people would have to be paid for by those who wanted those things. [Quotes from a dictionary definition of Utilitarianism. Non-quotes are my own words.] Of course, this concept would not allow for a zillion empty handicapped parking spots or costly ramps to places nobody ever goes in a wheelchair. No more Affirmitive Action, either. So Utilitarianism wouldn’t work in our society today.

I’ve thought a lot about my own idea of a perfect society or government if I were setting one up from scratch. My conclusion is very likely different than yours, but I think my idea would be an individual living free on his own land, taking care of himself and his family if he had a family, getting along with his neighbors and helping them when they needed help, pooling resources when some community project was needed. Whatever an individual wanted beyond this would be provided by teaming up with like-minded people who wanted the same thing, and otherwise leaving other people alone to work on their own life desires. In my mind I would see a society or government facilitating these desires, providing protection, and minding its own business on a larger scale. I don’t see a government or society which feels its duty is to compile a list of things it thinks would be best for “Its” people, and then forcing them to work and pay for the things on that list.

Odd: it strikes me that is the kind of society that the settlers of this country wanted too, and why they fled Europe. I wonder if there is some way that original concept of personal freedom could be extrapolated over hundreds of millions of people? Probably not.

The original pre-white-invasion owners of my country worked out a system of living that served their own needs and strived to provide for their wants. Their society was a bit harsher for people who didn't want to work, I suppose. But, as any Native American will tell you, incoming numbers soon get hard to absorb. The individualistic kind of life I've yearned for above most likely is not going to work for 300 million plus people. At least not for the non-farming New Yorkers. I suppose that means we have no chance of starting over and doing it right this time, but perhaps we can make positive changes to what we have. The only way to accomplish that kind of massive change would be to, again, ask ourselves exactly what it is we want. Unfortunately, my own "survey list" includes things like taking care of the helpless and genuinely needy, so I am not one to preach. Call me an idealist. That's better than calling me bear snot.

I must admit that I do have daydreams of a government benefit office where all the folks seeking welfare assistance and fake disability checks were instead given access to a few acres of land, a bag of seeds, and a couple of hogs and told to work or starve. But that’s another story for another time.

Labels (again)

I was rereading a bit of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto the other night (one should read this from time to time, I think, especially at various ages and stages of your life - it is surprising how your views change over time. Even (especially?) after living for many years under the "good guys" of democracy.

In this post I am not really meaning to speak only of Marx's original labels, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, but more about some of our modern labels we like to  stick on each other here in the USA.

Marx was right (though it was hardly an original thought or earthshaking discovery) that the history of mankind, from earliest times, has been a history of class warfare (as the current crop of Republicans like to label it) - the poor and the rich, the exploiters and the exploitees, the haves and the have nots, the workers and the bosses, the... well, you know. Marx gives many more boring and redundant examples, long after you've gotten the point. He probably was afraid his little manifesto book would not be thick enough to be taken seriously. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he was just naturally verbose and boring. It doesn't matter.

 Our labels today haven't really changed that much in the past several decades. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives and Marxists. Greens, reds, whites, blacks, rainbows. And so many more - far too many to ridicule in this one post. Not that anyone's earnest beliefs should ever be ridiculed by such as me. All views are important to our colorful family, and deserve the appropriate consideration, I say.

Definitions.

Democrats and Republicans are POLITICAL PARTIES. Political parties are organizations whose goal is to manipulate our political system and put people (lackeys? Scumsuckers?) into positions of power who will best further the special financial interests of certain groups. "Special Interest Groups" we call these puppeteers. "Special Interest Groups versus the Downtrodden Masses" as Karl probably wished he'd thought of instead of me.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Read any of the donkey literature and you will soon learn that the Dems are for the working man, the downtrodden victims of the rich. Unions. The handicapped. GaysLesbiansTransgenderedsUndecideds. The elevation of African-Americans, preferably through Affirmative Action programs which will begin working just any day now. Unborn babies? Not so much. Republicans are "for" the rich, anti-union, anti gay, racist, workhouse-loving monsters who, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, want women to die from back-alley abortions and would have the elderly and infirm die in the gutters of starvation and lack of basic health care. Republicans hate blacks, of course. Mexicans? Forgedaboudit. Read the elephant literature and you will discover that Republics are grossly misunderstood and severely maligned. They are good decent salt-of-the-earth folk who just have different plans to reach Marx's shining Utiopia on a hill. Parity. But they gotta earn it, goddammit.

Of course there are many more POLITICAL PARTIES, all espousing their own mish-mash of descriptions of equally cockamamie paths to proletariat salvation. You have your Greens (the tree huggers who want clean energy, but don't have any actual workable or affordable alternatives available just yet, and who haven't even THOUGHT about Iran) and you have your reds (commies) and you have your Libertarians (do your own thing, man, and keep the government the hell out of everything) and you have your Socialist Workers and your American Independents. Probably the Prohibition Party is still running candidates in Mississippi and northern Wisconsin, and maybe California Dreamers (they dream that by spending more money on health care for illegal aliens they will eventually get out of debt.) No, I made that last one up.

Heavens, but there is SO much more ground to cover! I just HAVE to tell you my opinions and definitions of those who are labeled liberals and conservatives and progressives and such. And I am not even CLOSE to sharing my thoughts on Reverend Al and Trayvon. However, I fear those tidbits (and more) will have to wait for a future post. That pesky artery in my temple is starting to pulse again, signaling time for a blood-pressure pill and a brief lie-down.

Taxes, Tourists, Kias, Socialism and Stuff

For a large society to function properly, long-term, people must be able to earn an income to live on which is independent of the government. Or, conversely, a government must be able to get an income from outside sources other than it's own people.

Government cannot really solve unemployment by simply hiring everyone to work for the government. To avoid stagnation and the eventual gridlock that is pure socialism, there must be an influx of actual "new" capital into the system.

There are two groups of people who are working for the government. First, there are actual workers who go to work each day doing the business of the government. Second are the people who are receiving monthly checks from the government as benefits or help of some kind.

Mostly, a government gets the money to meet these various "payrolls" by (1) making some of it's citizens pay certain taxes, and ALL of it's citizens pay other types of taxes; and (2) by taxing everyone indirectly through the back door by making their money worth less.

We certainly have socialism, to a degree, a large degree, in the United States. That is as it should be, I believe (except I think the proportion is too large right now.) Certainly, some things can only be done by government, and, just as certainly, our more unfortunate brothers and sisters need us to help them get by. We help these fellow citizens by each of us giving some money to the government, and then having the government pass out that money in proportion to need. (Like Karl Marx said.) That's socialism pure and simple, and there is nothing wrong with it unless and until it gets totally out of hand.

Where the danger comes in is when the government tries to take too much upon itself and forgets that "fresh" capital - that which is not simply being recirculated by the government - is necessary for the survival of the system. The second thing that must happen in order for the system to survive is for the government to keep the money supply reasonably finite and not expand it until it is worthless.

What is "fresh" capital? Fresh capital is "outside" capital. It is money a person earns or receives from sources other than the government. And it is money received by governments that they get from sources other than their own citizens - for example by selling natural resources it owns. Examples? When tourists from Japan and Germany visit the U.S. and spend money to eat and sleep and travel and to get into our national parks, that's fresh capital. When Saudi Arabia sells oil to the world that it gets from under it's ground, that's fresh capital for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't have to tax its citizens highly (or even at all, probably) because it has this fresh source of income. Saudi Arabia also, one assumes, does not have to make it's money worth less and less every day by "creating" more and more of it on the printing presses. [Incidentally, pure socialism would probably work in Saudi Arabia since the government is making enough money - now, at least - from the outside. Unfortunately a "royal" few are keeping most of it.] When a Canadian farmer sells wheat to some country elsewhere in the world, that's fresh capital for Canada. When China sells plastic toys to the world, that's fresh capital for China. When South Korea sells Kias in the U.S. (as President Obama noted in his recent jobs speech) that's fresh capital for South Korea. I might add that when a country agrees to protect South Korea or Canada so they don't have to pay for the size of army they would normally have to pay for, that is also fresh income for South Korea and Canada (or whatever countries do that.) North Korea could probably cut the size of its military by about 80% and use that money to buy food for its people, and all it would take is for North Korea to start being nice to the rest of the world. There are all kinds of possibilities for "fresh" capital generation. Don't buy U.S. Savings bonds - that's silly to lend yourself money and then pay yourself interest. Invest in British municipal bonds and make Londoners pay you interest instead. See? Fresh, non-governmental, capital for you and me.

Any money you get from sources outside your government is fresh capital. Any money your government gets from sources besides its own citizens is fresh capital. Fresh capital is an object of desire. Fresh capital creates "real" jobs and makes you pay less taxes and makes your money worth something.

In my opinion, one major goal of a government should be to facilitate the influx of fresh (non-tax) income. In my opinion, when the government "borrows" more money and uses that money to hire people (even through private companies) to build bridges and roads, those are fake jobs. They are fake because the workers are getting paid by the government (by proxy) and because the contractors are getting paid by the government (directly.) Good has happened but nothing fresh has really been produced. All this is just another example of the government "churning" tax money.

In order for socialism to work (we have already agreed - at least I've said it - we need some socialism) there must also be some capitalism, some incoming of NEW money. How do we do this? Well, tourism was a good example. Work it more. The government should facilitate tourism more, and it should also encourage private travel companies to aggressively seek out tourists from overseas. Each state has unique attractions. Each state should be working hard to get foreign tourists to come there, not only American tourists. Some already are, of course, but all could probably do more. And food. We need to go back to selling food to the world. We need to stop paving over farmland and start growing crops that other people in other countries want to buy.

And we need to start manufacturing goods for sale again. Somehow we (and most of the rest of the Western World) have got this complex in our heads that cheap is the answer and only China can do that. Well, cheap is NOT the only thing! Innovative quality products are the thing. We can sell farm tractors to the world even if they may be more expensive than China's tractors, if they last longer or if they can do things China's tractors can't do. Inventive countries can always stay ahead of, and beat, copycat countries.

The other night, President Obama made a speech to the nation about how to create jobs. One of the good points he made is that our goal should not be to see who can get to the bottom by making things cheaper than everyone else, but by aspiring to get to the top by making things that are better and and more innovative and thus more valuable to buyers around the world.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

According the author of this blog title, Karl Marx, every person should contribute to the society they live in to the best of his ability. Everyone should consume FROM that society only what he needs (not in proportion to his contribution.)

That doesn't sound bad. Communism is deceptively attractive to the people in any society who feel "left out"; who feel they never seem to be getting a piece of the pie. It is easy to look for quick fixes. It is easy to blame others for your own failures or for where you are in your life.

The French communist Morelly wrote 'way back in 1755:

"I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws."

Even the New Testament seems to teach the validity of the above concept.

"32. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35. And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

The above is, of course, at the heart and soul of socialism, or, more specifically, Communism. The title to this post, in fact, is probably the most famous quote that ever came out of Karl Marx' mouth.

And yet, through the years, we have seen there is something lacking in this seemingly utopian prospect of how people should live and interact with one another.

If you understand what that ingredient is that is missing from the communist credo, then you at the same time will understand why the United States of America, until recent history, has been a consistent producer of excellence rather than mediocrity throughout its relatively short history. Western Europe, Notably England and Germany, too.

Have you ever noticed how some theories look very good and reasonable on paper and sound very good in speeches, but when they are tried out in real life they just don't produce the expected end result? This is because something has been overlooked in the formula.

I ask you to take a look at two neighbors: North Korea and China. The one has a history of determined text book communism and the other has had a recent epiphany and no longer follows the road of intransigent subjugation of the personal spirit. I never thought I would say that of "Communist Red China" but it is true today.

China has discovered what the USA discovered in its early beginnings. But China has the advantage of knowing the mistakes the USA made along the way.

At the same time China is going through the birth pangs of a vibrant new future - surely within just a few generations from being the new leader of the world - at the same time we see the USA forgetting the thing that caused its own greatness.

Also ironically, the fall of the USA is due to its abandonment of what it once knew and practiced so well, and its not-so-slow conversion to the silly, always-failed, past forays into socialism. The USA is a little behind its European counterparts in this foolish slide into socialism, but catching up fast.