How much change is enough change?

More thoughts on the March on Wall Street South.

It didn't take me long to notice many of the crowd were not friends of Obama. They had signs about socialism and even communism. When I got on the bus in Detroit I was handed an 8 page newspaper from the Workers Party. In Charlotte I saw t-shirts with the name and image of Fidel Castro. Various groups listed various "crimes" the Obama supposedly committed -- leaving Guantanamo open is one that comes to mind. They said the Democrats were as much under the influence of corporate money as the Republicans. No, they say, Obama is not on the side of the worker.

This is not to say they liked the GOP. That party was barely mentioned. The opinion seemed to be the GOP is dangerous to workers and their rights, it's obvious, let's move on to a more useful discussion. Obama is seen as a greater threat because he appears to be the president for the working man and in their eyes he isn't

All that talk of communism and socialism did make me wonder if I was amongst the right people. But I've already said in previous posts that I've wondered how much Obama is under the influence of corporate masters. All that talk did get me thinking about other economic systems. And with all that time on the bus not sleeping I was able to do a lot of thinking. So here is an attempt to organize that thinking.

First, a disclaimer. I did not study political science in high school or college. I think I have a basic understanding of various political and governmental systems, but I'm not an expert and may have important points wrong. I welcome replies from someone more knowledgeable.

Second, the working premise. The current system of government, and perhaps the current economic system, isn't working. Yeah, if you're part of the 1% (or the 0.1%) it works very well. But for the rest of us, we fall further behind and see less hope that our prospects, and that of our children, will improve.

Third, the question to be explored. What minimum amount of change will set things right? Is it enough to tweak the edges? Or must the whole government/economy system be rethought? Many Americans look for a bit of tweaking and hope or trust that Obama will do it. Many people at the march are convinced the current system needs to be scrapped and a new one instituted. The continuation of that question is if the system must be replaced, what do we replace it with? I'm well aware that those in power will not allow the current system to change without a fight. And that fight could be bloody.

Is it enough to…

* Tax the rich? Increase income, capital gains, estate, social security, corporate income, and whatever other taxes the rich are paying less now than they were in the 1980s? Yes, this step is necessary to replenish our national shared resource, properly educate everyone, and restore a lot of what was lost over the last 30 years (discussed elsewhere). But I don't think that is sufficient because once the tax system is overhauled the rich will continue to use their political influence to get Congress to reconstruct various tax reductions. Which will happen the next time the GOP controls the government.

* Get money out of politics? I see it is vital that we add three amendments to the Constitution:

* Declare that corporations are not people and can be regulated.
* Declare that money is not speech and political donations can be regulated for amount and transparency.
* Declare that campaigns will be completely publicly financed.

Again, necessary, but not sufficient. Even if a politician is not influenced by a campaign donation, those with money can (and have) hired an army of lobbyists to "explain" things to politicians. Those without that kind of money simply won't have the presence in Washington to have enough influence to counteract such an army.

I'm not sure what other kinds of tweaks can be made. I'm open to suggestions. Without those suggestions I now turn to a deeper, more fundamental change to or system of government and economy. What follows is the second version of what I wrote. I realized I needed to know a bit more, even if it is Wikipedia.

Capitalism is a system in which goods and services are provided for a profit. There are a number of flavors of capitalism, depending on how much and what kind of support or intervention comes from the government. The advantages of capitalism are economic growth, self-organization (no need for a central planning committee), and support for political freedom -- the lack of a central committee diminishes a tyrant's power to coerce. Put another way political freedom needs capitalism (though China shows capitalism does not need political freedom).

But capitalism has problems. There is little concern for the worker and the environment, or more generally, the wellbeing of all people. Whatever is best for profits is what will be done. Karl Marx describes the difference between the wages paid a laborer and the value the owner receives for that labor. This becomes part of the owner's profit. There is also a big imbalance between the seller and buyer. It may be difficult for the buyer to accurately assess the quality of the merchandise and the market may reward dishonesty. Capitalism leads to unfair distribution of wealth and power, something we see a lot these days.

Even so, the worker has (some) freedom in taking his skills to whatever employer he or she sees as the best match of compensation and work satisfaction. The employee has incentive to work harder or better because his compensation should increase.

The first thing I learned when looking up Communism is there is a difference between a communist society and a country with a communist government. I think my fellow marchers were referring to the first, not the second, though from the number of Fidel Castro shirts, maybe not. The definition of communism is, "a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political, and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

There is a lot of discussion on how to build the various institutions (food distribution, education, etc.) that exist under capitalism. Some think that the workers can be trusted to develop the necessary administrative bodies.

It seems we haven't had a true large scale communist society. There have been local communes, such as monastic communities. Whole countries don't make it to communism because those who win the revolution (the battle that gets rid of capitalism) and are supposed to guide the people to a truly shared society keep power for themselves.

The problems of communism include slow or stagnant technological advance and reduced incentives and prosperity. There is also the problem of feasibility -- is it possible to create and maintain a truly shared society without serious violation of human rights? What does the community do if a member doesn't agree that all is held in common?

There are serious problems attributed to communist governments. Famines and purges have resulted in death counts far exceeding other kinds of government.

So communism supposedly takes better care of the worker, but that worker has lost incentive to work, since his labors have become separate from his compensation. It would supposedly also take care of the environment, but communist states have an abysmal environmental record.

I talked to a couple people during and after the march about communism. One said that someone (probably well known by those in favor of this system) has studied what Karl Marx wrote, how that got implemented, what went wrong, and how to avoid those problems in new communist systems. The other said that a central planned economy worked well in Russia between the end of the Revolution and when Stalin seized power. Alas, I don't know any more about either statement.

There is this shining goal of a communist society. But it is doubtful it could actually be achieved and whether achieving it would be the paradise envisioned. And attempts to get there have always been circumvented by the powerful resulting in a hellish place to live.

There are two descriptions of Socialism, one as a steppingstone from capitalism to communism and the other is a system in its own right. In the latter it is an economic system organized for common ownership where goods are produced for current human need and not private profit. Distribution would be based on individual contribution. The worker gets full value for the labor contributed. In addition the worker would not feel alienated by the work. Each worker could develop personal interests and talents rather than laboring for others. There are a wide variety of organizing principles to accomplish the goal of common ownership and proper allocation of resources.

Socialism as a word has been used to refer to various other things. This includes a generous welfare state in Nordic countries that keeps capitalism but adds extensive benefits and income redistribution, promotion of labor unions, and promotion of egalitarian ideals. Other uses of the word have nothing to do with socialism, but have been used to mask pro-capitalism ideas.

Yes, socialism has problems too. It also suffers from reduced incentives and prosperity. Again, there is a question of feasibility -- there is a problem in accurately pricing goods and labor. Another problem is it can't be as efficient as capitalism and social governments have budgeting problems.

Some of these socialist systems sound better than communism. There doesn't seem to be as much of a problem of human rights (though what happens when a worker insists on profit or doesn't want to share?) and a worker does have incentive to work hard, and perhaps even work at an enjoyable task.

I've heard (though don't have sources to back me up) that suicides are higher in Nordic countries because the ever helpful state blunts ambition and leads to boredom.

I contemplated the idea of a socialist corporation, in which the workers own it. The corporation is part of a capitalist system. I've found it is called a worker cooperative. The workers decide what is best for them and the cooperative, and it may not be to maximize profit. Since the workers are the owners there is no exploitation of the workers. As I pondered this idea (while on the bus and without the help of Wikipedia) I wondered how the cooperative raises money for expansion. They can't do it by selling stock to outsiders because the cooperative would then not be worker-owned. They can get loans from banks or they set some earnings aside for reinvestment. When banks get stingy with loans it could be difficult to expand the company.

While there are serious problems with capitalism, there are also serious problems with communism and socialism. I don't want to go with either of them. However, worker cooperatives sound like a good idea. This appears to be enough change. The question is how do we support them and how do we move away from the form of capitalism we already have?

I may not have studied Political Science, but I just got a lot more knowledgeable.