What now?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well it's not luxurious, but it's enough to live from.

And my last statement is neither racist (since I wasn't referring to any race) nor bigoted - higher educated people tend to encourage their children more to get high educations themselves. How is that controversial?

$9,000 a year is considered well below poverty level in the US for one person (and barely above half of the poverty level for a family with 1 child). http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html

"Social liberalism" as practiced in the Netherlands doesn't seem to exclude many families living in what would be considered in the US extreme poverty.

You are being disingenuous; a disproportionate number of the those in low wage jobs in the Netherlands are minorities (as the comment about "Moroccans" indicates) and the idea that people who make lower wages don't care whether their children get a higher education is a stereotype and an insulting one at that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
$9,000 a year is considered well below poverty level in the US for one person (and barely above half of the poverty level for a family with 1 child). http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html

"Social liberalism" as practiced in the Netherlands doesn't seem to exclude many families living in what would be considered in th ...[text shortened]... hether their children get a higher education is a stereotype and an insulting one at that.

There is poverty in the Netherlands - and if it were up to me, there would be more redistribution of wealth.

You are being disingenuous; a disproportionate number of the those in low wage jobs in the Netherlands are minorities (as the comment about "Moroccans" indicates) and the idea that people who make lower wages don't care whether their children get a higher education is a stereotype and an insulting one at that.

I never said they don't care. Just that children of parents with low wages tend to be less encouraged to do well in school, for numerous reasons. If they were equally encouraged then there would be an equal amount in universities, which is (sadly) not the case.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is poverty in the Netherlands - and if it were up to me, there would be more redistribution of wealth.

You are being disingenuous; a disproportionate number of the those in low wage jobs in the Netherlands are minorities (as the comment about "Moroccans" indicates) and the idea that people who make lower wages don't care whether their childr couraged then there would be an equal amount in universities, which is (sadly) not the case.

Shut up. This thread is about 'Mutualism'. Nobody is interested in your opinion of social liberalism. If you want to bicker with No1 about it, then go start your own thread.

Originally posted by rwingett
Given that Marxism (with or without Leninism) has been a catastrophic failure, what road should socialists advocate in a post-Marxist world? One avenue would be to re-examine some socialist approaches that were on the table before Marx set the movement on the disastrous path toward Stalinism. One in particular would be Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his theory ...[text shortened]... oting Marxism over the last century, we'll be well on our way toward building a better world.

While I might not accept that Marxism has been a catastrophic failure, I think progress can be made if socialists are less dogmatic in their positions, and prepared to work alongside people who they have enough in common with.

In the past, we've had the People's Front of Judea syndrome on the 'traditional' Marxist left, with constantly splitting groups claiming to be the one true voice of Marxism and everyone else is a traitor to the cause. Just nonsense, but counter-productive.

Recently though, we've seen more organisations growing out of poltical alliances - most recently the NPA is France, but the SSP in Scotland is a good example too (and I know a bit more about that one...).

When we got 6 comrades elected to the Parliament, one of them said in an interview that she'd never read a word of Marx, and didn't intend to - her background is in environmental campaigns.

So, perhaps the solution is in how we organise - accepting that we can be in the same grouping as people we might have differences with, but we share objectives.

Originally posted by rwingett
Given that Marxism (with or without Leninism) has been a catastrophic failure, what road should socialists advocate in a post-Marxist world? One avenue would be to re-examine some socialist approaches that were on the table before Marx set the movement on the disastrous path toward Stalinism. One in particular would be Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his theory oting Marxism over the last century, we'll be well on our way toward building a better world.

whatever system you pick, how is it going to rise to power without a charismatic leader? or if using such a leader, how to prevent the leader going bad?

how to rise to power without fomenting nationalism, classism, and racism?

Originally posted by normbenign
Cuba is doing well? Lack of trade with the US is devastating? Cuba trades freely with most of the rest of the world, but it's economy doesn't produce anything, not even it's cigars are as good as pre Castro.

If Cuba were such a shining light, there might be people trying to sail small boats from Florida to Cuba instead of the other way around. Cuba ...[text shortened]... ersal substandard housing. And if you verbally disagree with the government you can be shot.

It's not under Batista anymore. Times change. You can dissent.

By the way, the refugees are mostly right-wing Batista supporters.

Originally posted by rwingett
Shut up. This thread is about 'Mutualism'. Nobody is interested in your opinion of social liberalism. If you want to bicker with No1 about it, then go start your own thread.

Then the thread is misnamed.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
whatever system you pick, how is it going to rise to power without a charismatic leader? or if using such a leader, how to prevent the leader going bad?

how to rise to power without fomenting nationalism, classism, and racism?

Rise to power? There doesn't need to be any 'rise to power' at all. Political solutions will never solve anything and no change in politics is even necessary. At best, all that is required is that the political institutions be supportive of worker owned businesses and at worst by not being hostile toward them. Whatever else happens in the political sphere would be irrelevant. The actual changes will happen at a grass roots, economic level where the businesses would be owned and managed by the people who work there.

As long as worker owned businesses are given the same level of institutional support as more traditional capitalist businesses, and if the public is given a greater awareness and access toward them, then worker owned businesses can compete on the open market for public support. This is 'market socialism' whereby they grow by providing a better product and not through a coercive revolution.

I believe that in a world where the public is growing increasingly wary of the anti-social practices of multi-national corporations that there is a growing market for this sort of thing. There is a growing support to 'buy local', or to boycott corporations like Walmart. More people are waking up to the fact that buying everything 'made in China' may be saving them a few pennies up front, but is destroying their communities in the long run as all their jobs are being shipped overseas. As I say, if the general public had greater access to and awareness of worker owned corporations, I think a great many would throw their support behind them and change the very nature of capitalism itself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then the thread is misnamed.

Yes, I realize that now. However, my initial post should make its intended direction clear. My apologies.

Originally posted by normbenign
It can't be said that any system works, just because it is implemented, supported by the State by force, and hasn't collapsed in chaos yet.

On that basis, Leninism "worked", and Stalinism "worked". If eliminating an upper class is the goal, collectivism "works". If the goal is prosperity for the worker, it doesn't.

Mutualism is an interesting conc ...[text shortened]... promises, while taxation, regulation, and limitations on liberty and choice grow.

Rec'd

Originally posted by Redmike
While I might not accept that Marxism has been a catastrophic failure, I think progress can be made if socialists are less dogmatic in their positions, and prepared to work alongside people who they have enough in common with.

In the past, we've had the People's Front of Judea syndrome on the 'traditional' Marxist left, with constantly splitting groups cl ...[text shortened]... e in the same grouping as people we might have differences with, but we share objectives.

Well, there's the political sphere and then there's the economic sphere. Your socialist parties obviously operate in the political sphere with the intent (among other things) of influencing the economic sphere. A Mutualist approach would operate in the economic sphere, with little regard (at least theoretically) for the political sphere. In the former you have political democracy coupled with workplace autocracy. In the latter (given any success) you would have both political and economic democracy.

It is my contention that economic democracy would have a far more profound impact on people's lives than mere political democracy. The great failing of western political systems is the built in assumption that to have a political democracy is the full extent of a democratic system. Having a political democracy but workplace autocracies leaves people being only half free. Or less than half, as I see it. Having worker owned businesses, where they have a direct vote in the running of the industries in which they are employed, would have a far greater impact on people's lives than voting for politicians and would lead to a full flowering of democracy across the board.

So I have mixed feelings about the efficacy of political solutions. At worst they are a chimera and at best are only half the answer. The problem is that everyone in a particular country operates under the same political system. You have parties on each side pulling in opposite directions. The result, typically, is a meeting somewhere in the middle that pleases neither camp. In the economic sphere there could be a multiplicity of approaches in operation simultaneously, with each geared toward a specific audience. You could have traditional businesses with one owner (or a few), you could have some worker owned businesses, and you could have some that are somewhere in between. Everyone would theoretically have access to an approach that works for them. It would offer tangible results to people NOW, rather than having to wait for the mythical revolution, or for the time when they hope to gain a majority of seats in Parliament.

I just think the battle is currently being waged in the political sphere almost to the exclusion of the economic sphere. I would like to see that imbalance corrected more the other way.