It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Libs and Cons: Why Neither Side Has The Answer!

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:25 AM
I was inspired to write this after listening to the Karel show, on KGO 810AM, this evening with Alan Colmes, and his claim that liberalism saved America. I will probably ramble a lot, sorry.

The liberals, and the conservatives, both think they have the answer to solve our economic disaster. The conservatives want to reduce social program spending, what they call entitlements (as if they don't feel entitled). The liberals want to increase social program spending to offset the failing economy. Both Colmes and Karel, like most Americans, incorrectly think liberalism is 'socialism', simply because of liberalism's 'social' programs. Well news for you all, socialism has nothing to do with 'social' programs. Close, but no cigar.

Modern Liberalism (not classical liberalism) in 1800's Europe was basically a middle class Bourgeois movement to 'help the poor', whereas socialism was a working class labour movement for worker ownership, and the demise of capitalism. Modern liberalism came out of the conservatives, not the socialists. Marx started using the term 'communism' in place of 'socialism', simply because middle class liberals were appropriating the term 'socialism' for their own use. He didn't want his socialist movement being confused with the liberals.

(Of course this was when liberal and conservative were not political opposites)

The original intent of modern liberalism was to help the poor in order to lessen the risk of them revolting.

Winston Churchill for example was a conservative, who was also the Liberal Parties candidate for Dundee.

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be" Winston Churchill, 1908 as the Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, Scotland.

"Liberalism, is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom is not possible without equality. . .The criticism liberals direct at government consists only of wanting to deprive it some of its functions and to call upon the capitalists to fight it out amongst themselves, but it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence: for without the gendarme the property owner could not exist." Errico Malatesta, Italian Anarchist, 1853-1932, "Anarchy", p. 46.

"The liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey owner. He will do everything for the donkey -- care for it, feed it, wash it. Everything except get off its back!" Leo Tolstoy

But post WWII the state did turn liberalism into "socialism". Prior to WWII the working class was very organised, and mostly socialist (even in the USA), not liberal. A long story short, WWII decimated the solidarity of the working classes and the state pushed on them the idea of social climbing, instead of worker solidarity. This is what lead to the slow decline of our social community structure. I can still remember a time long ago when people knew their neighbours. When communities looked out for each other. Now people are more concerned with just being better than you. The working class has been conditioned to act like the Bourgeois, and thus are disorganised, confused, and fighting amongst themselves without the old common enemy of the capitalist class.

Anyway back to my point. We can't afford liberalism, and we can't simply take it away. Spending more money that we don't have is not a solution. Simply leaving the poor to fend for themselves is not a solution. The real answer to the problem is worker ownership. But people mistrust the idea simply because of all the BS that has been associated with socialism, and the labour movement itself. If people could just get past the emotional response and look at the whole picture, worker ownership makes the most sense.

What is destroying the economy? Basically it is capitalist owners removing their contribution to the economy because of their need to make profit. They do that in a few ways, from lay-offs to outsourcing to cheaper labour markets. Whatever they do it's the worker and the community that suffers. The capitalist economy, because of it's need to grow and make profit, can never be a stable economy. It always has it's ups and downs, boom and bust, the Business Cycle

Worker ownership could reduce unemployment to zero...

The system requires a section of workers to be unemployed. If everyone had a job, workers would demand higher wages and would not fear being replaced. The capitalists actually aim for a 4% unemployment rate—which they misleadingly call "full employment"—but this amounts to 5 million workers out of a job.

The capitalists only offer employment based on profitability. The capitalists will not spend their trillions of dollars in cash until they believe it can return a steady rate of profit for them.

Five reasons we need socialism to solve unemployment Only 58 percent of adults have a job in the heart of global capitalism

With everyone in full employment hours would be reduced, we would be able to produce what we need. Capitalism wastes resources producing garbage simply to make profit. Imagine what we could do if our labour resources were put to use for improving our communities? We are wasting our humanity making other people wealthy while our communities fall apart around us. Neither the liberals nor conservatives are doing a damned thing to solve this problem. You do nothing but squabble for power like kids on the school yard. It seems you all simply want to win, not fix anything.

Obama got back in, the capitalist controlled state did it's job, it divided Americans even more. They're setting you up to fail so they can destroy your economy to the point they can exploit you for cheaper labour. Until then your jobs will be outsourced.

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

At a basic – but critical – level, worker ownership creates and sustains jobs, production, and services, and offers possibilities for long-term employment stability and living wages.

Worker Ownership

All over the country, people—like the workers of Chicago’s New Era Windows—are building worker-owned cooperatives that root jobs in the communities that need them.

A New Era of Worker Ownership?

Shared ownership helps diversify rather than concentrate wealth – which is what we desperately need to do to revitalise our economy. It roots the value it generates in communities, keeping assets and resources from being transferred from local communities and low-wage employees to multinational corporations and their owners.

The key to global prosperity: worker ownership

Is it really such a crazy idea? Does anyone care anymore? Have the liberals saved America, or have they just applied an expensive band aid?

(I tried to be equally insulting to both libs and cons in order to reduce bias in the system)

"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid." Bob Black, b.1951-, American Anarchist, "The Abolition of Work", 1986.

edit on 11/12/2012 by ANOK because: To add some exciting and hugely relevant quotes

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:03 AM
There are a lot of answers here.

What is the question?

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:18 AM
reply to post by alumnathe

Do you think worker ownership could be a logical answer to the problems neither the Libs, or Cons, have solutions for?


log in