Philosophers do not govern the world, “Wants and their Satisfaction” do: A Case For Socialism
- This topic has 23 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What exists in the world? Socialism? Capitalism? Communism? A man will support what gives him what he “WANTS”. Be it Socialism or be it Capitalism or be it Communism. If socialism can satisfy a man’s wants, socialism will, ultimately, find its way into the society. If capitalism can do that job, capitalism will be established in the society. The world and its realities are not governed by the philosophers and the academicians. World is governed by what human beings aspire for and what they want. Ground realities are what matter the most. An empty stomach doesn’t understand and doesn’t care about ‘socialism’ or ‘capitalism’. Food is what a hungry man wants. You feed the man and he will tell you what is right and what is wrong. Even a thief knows that stealing is wrong but the satisfaction of his wants makes him justify stealing. The existence and dominance of capitalism clearly shows that it is more acceptable in the today’s world. When I say that capitalism is more acceptable, it doesn’t mean that I am in its favour. It simply implies that capitalism has been able to satisfy the minority (neoliberalists and crony capitalists) and appease the majority (the rest of us) of the mankind for it to continue in existence. Again, “appeasement” here doesn’t imply that the majority is happy with capitalism or they have been benefitted by capitalism. It simply means that capitalism has been able to satisfy the wants of a few and give hope to the rest that it is only system that can ostensibly provide an amicable environment wherein their basic human instinct of “affinity to wealth” can sustain and even be realized. This statement of mine doesn’t undermine the importance of “socialism” and neither does it deny the existence of “cracks in capitalism”. We all know of the movements, revolts, representations against capitalism. But these actions against capitalism are going on because of the very fact that ‘capitalism’ is in existence. Its dominance indicates one more thing: we all are coping up with capitalism. Reason: that ‘hope’ it generates in us- a hope that somehow convinces us that someday we will be able to amass wealth like the minority that is already living this ‘hope’. A human being, inherently, is a selfish creature. Amassing wealth or property is natural to man. We have discussed the basic human instinct of “affinity to wealth” in one of our write-ups at Socialist Center’s blog. Every human being “wants” and any system that satisfies these wants is brought into existence by the mankind. We clearly see this logic applying in the case of those who own means of production and those who are rich. But how does this logic applies in the case of people who are being exploited under capitalism? Well, it does apply. How? Lets see. Capitalism serves the rich and gives hope to those who are being exploited. It presents a mirage of opportunities to ‘have-nots’. This hope sustains in the miserable living conditions created under capitalism because it gets strength from the basic human instinct of “affinity to wealth”. Every human being wants to amass wealth and it is only this capitalistic system which gives them the ‘hope’ that they, ultimately, will be able to satisfy that very instinct if they keep on serving under the capitalism because the socialism (as defined by some of the philosophers) is totally against fulfillment of such tendencies. However, this “hope” being harbored by the ‘have-nots’ will never materialize because of many reasons; the most significant of the reasons being limited resources from the benefits of which the “haves-not” are excluded. The resources are limited and therefore, the process of amassing of wealth operates to the exclusion of other and, therefore, to the detriment of those who are, thus, excluded. If the intellect could weigh over the basic human instincts, the natural urges and the ‘hope’ generated by ‘capitalism’, socialism would have been established long ago.When will socialism come into existence on a wider plank? This will happen when the ‘hope’ of people will break. Will it ever break? Yes. Well, ‘hopes’ do break every now and then. This is the reason we see those mass movements, small revolts and strikes. But the question here is “will the ‘hope’ break to such an extent that the foundation of “capitalism” will shake and give up? I think the power of ‘hope’ that strives under capitalism cannot be underestimated. It will always strive and the beneficiaries of capitalism in connivance with their puppet governments will throw some “appeasement” bone to the “have-nots” enough to revive their hope and stop them from totally overthrowing capitalism. If this is going to happen, will the ‘have-nots’ always suffer? Yes, if they do not see any alternative. What alternative? Socialism? Yes. Socialism. But there are “socialism” oriented alternatives in the world. Have they been successful? No, Why? Because they hold hard and fast notions of what socialism is. They propound academic versions of socialism – versions that have been put forth by some renowned philosophers. I am neither questioning nor denying the credibility of the philosophies put forth by some of the greatest socialist minds the history has ever produced. But I am a practical man who wants to see democratic socialism save the world from the claws of the cruel neoliberalism and crony capitalism. A man is a man first before being a constituent of society. Society does influence and control a man’s behavior to a great extent but in order to ensure that man complies with the society’s rules and regulations, those rules and regulations should be comforting and be able to satisfy man’s individual wants to an extent that such said compliance could be ensured. Otherwise, socialism will also fail. Individual interests should be protected but not against the larger interests of the society. Priority should be given to larger interests and the individual interests should be able to survive as subservient to the larger interests. Socialism cannot diminish individuality and its wants. Individual interests have collective nature and their survival is important for the survival of socialism. If socialism will not pay heed to individual interests, the collective aspect of individual interests will not let the socialism survive. The movements against capitalism that we see today are not by those who are super-rich, they are by those who have been treated badly by the capitalism. Need for a change brings the change and change is desired and brought by those who are not happy with the contemporary state of affairs. Those who are happy with the current scenario will never be a part of the change brining process. It clearly implies that those people who are getting their wants fulfilled have nothing to do with the struggle of those who are striving hard for their existence and rights. In this scenario, the role of government becomes important. Not only socialism is important but the manner in which socialism is made operational is also crucial for its existence and further success. If you let anarchy prevail, individual interests will over-power larger interests. Therefore, importance of institutions cannot be denied. We need order in the world, an order that works in the favour of each and every human being.
Published at Socialist Center's blog here
You can follow on twitter at @LawyerParamjeetYou can email at: socialistcenter@yahoo.com"Socialism: It is not 'theoretical', it is 'practical'. It is not about "Philosophers'. It is about 'PEOPLE'."Hi Paramjeet. In a Socialist society we will not have laws, as you know them today but we will most assuredly not have anarchy. What we will have, is an administration of "things", not people. The structure of laws that exist today, do so to protect the monopoly and ownership of the tiny minority (the Capitalists) of the means and instruments for producing and distributing what we need, as humans, to live.What you need to bear in mind and keep at the forefront of your mind, is that Socialism can only be and will only be, brought about when a majority want it and moreover understand it and work to bring it about. On this basis you can see that we will have a "clued up" mass of people, who cannot be duped nor sidetracked. As this movement grows, it will of necessity, have discussed the implementation of societal change and put plans in place for the changeover.No anarchy but class conscious driven change.
Greetings Steve. Thank you for your comments. All I know is that we have capitalism in the world and we do have many problems because of the capitlism in the world. Regardless of problems, capitalism still exists. Why socialism doesnt exist? You might want to read: Why is it “almost” impossible to bring Socialism into the world? We need to address this: neither by our individual perceptions nor by what our philosophers taught us; rather, we have to address it by seeing the reality, accepting it and then striving for the solution. I bet "practical" socialism ( a good one; one for the welfare of all) does have a huge scope to exist and solve all the problems that the world face today.
SocialistCenter wrote:…we have to address it by seeing the reality, accepting it and then striving for the solution. I bet "practical" socialism ( a good one; one for the welfare of all) does have a huge scope to exist and solve all the problems that the world face today.I'm afraid the issue of 'seeing the reality' is a huge philosophical problem for us, Paramjeet. By 'us', I mean both 'humans generally' and especially 'socialists', who want to 'change the world'.'Practical Socialism' will prove to be a conservative method, and will hinder us.
We, as Socialists, see the "reality" all around us, every day. We do not find it a very edifying sight, nor one that is in the best interests of the majority of humans on the planet. When a tiny, infinitesimal amount of people, live in unalloyed opulence, whilst we, the majority, live in varying degrees of want, squalor, poverty and insecurity and as aware, class-conscious individuals and moreover, a Socialist movement, we are moved to act and put forward the alternative, a society based on common ownership, where the world and everything in and on it, belong to us all. It is incumbent, therefore, for anyone who shares our "goals", to stop sitting on the sidelines and to get involved in the nitty gritty of working vfor and organising toward, a new and better society!!!Steve Colborn.
steve colborn wrote:We, as Socialists, see the "reality" all around us, every day.Yes, I agree, Steve, but that is because we use the same framework of reference (or ideology) to understand that 'reality'.'Reality' does not tell humans what it is. If it did, we'd have been successful in the 19th century. As soon as capitalism took shape, everybody would have clearly 'seen' what 'reality' was.They didn't, and still don't. Unless we socialists address this philosophical problem (which affects 'science' as much as 'politics'), and help to shape and offer this framework to other workers, then the 'reality' that they 'see' will be the same one as the 'capitalists' see.It's the road to reformism, comrades. We can predict now where Paramjeet will end up, on their present course.
Another load bollocks from LBird. Same rubbish on every thread. edit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbdsX-Xmqk
Vin Maratty wrote:Another load bollocks from LBird. Same rubbish on every thread.I'll leave Paramjeet and Steve in your capable hands then, shall I, Vin?
By the way LBird I didn't flag your last two posts. You must have offended someone else, lol
LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Another load bollocks from LBird. Same rubbish on every thread.I'll leave Paramjeet and Steve in your capable hands then, shall I, Vin?
Is what you say 'true' or 'True'? I can't be certain. Only having a bit fun with you, comradeGetting a bit of my own back
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Is this what is called moderation. Where have you been all day? On holiday. Do you moderate others or am I your favourite I have took a load of crap all day and you have done nothing.It is about time some members put their prejudice and hatred aside and let me be an equal.
Reminder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
I have sent you private messages but you ignored them and allowed the attackes against me to continue.How else do I communicate my disatisfaction and ask that the attacks be dealt with?Why don't you answer my private messages and explain why you have allowed this to continue Why dont you simply warn the perpetrator ?
Moderation Rule Bookrule 1 Call marattyy whatever you want, feel free we will do nothing as he already has a bad name around hererule 2 Soon as maratty responds issue a warningrule 3 this will piss maratty off enough and the EC will never let him back in and it will be proved that we were right all along
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.