progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Telmarc Group 7.2.2 Current Political Views PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL The current view of what socialism is can at times be confusing, again, because unlike Marxist Communism, there is not codex written and left unquestioned. It is a fluid ideology but has some underpinnings. The best view of the various forms of government is provided in the late 1940s by Schumpeter. Schumpeter defines socialism as follows 203 : "By socialist society we shall designate an institutional pattern in which the control over the means of production and over production itself is vested in a central authority - or as we may say, in which, as a matter of principle, the economic affairs of society belong to the public and not to the private sphere." The essence of this is central control and that the sphere of influence over the means of production, whatever they may be, is in the public sphere not the private. From a late twentieth century main line socialists we see a critiques of some of the many pre-conceptions. This is from Irving Howe. Howe has addressed three classic assumptions of Socialism and discusses how they are in error 204 . These are three key point and we state them as follows 205 : "1. The assumption that the proletariat would serve as the leading agency of social transformation. History has vetoed this idea…. 2. the assumption that nationalization of industry would, if accompanied by a socialist winning in office, smooth the way for a new society. Significant socialist text can be readily citied that make it clear that nationalization is not necessarily to be taken as an equivalent or even pre condition of socialism…Serious problems have arisen in the operation of such industries, some of them due to the inherent difficulties of functioning by a calculus of profit while trying within an economy still largely capitalist to satisfy social goals. 203 See Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper (New York), 1975 p. 167. 204 Howe was born in New York and educated at CCNY. Since his CCNY days, Howe was committed to left-wing politics. He was a member of the Young People's Socialist and then Max Shachtman's Workers Party, where Shactman made Howe his understudy. After 1948, he joined the Independent Socialist League, where he was a central leader. He left the ISL in the early 1950s. As the request of his friend Michael Harrington, he helped co-found the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the early 1970s. DSOC merged into the Democratic Socialists of America in 1982, with Howe as a vice-chair. He was a vociferous opponent of both Soviet totalitarianism and McCarthyism, called into question standard Marxist doctrine, and came into conflict with the New Left after criticizing their unmitigated radicalism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Howe 205 See Howe, Irving, Socialism and America, HBJ (New York) 1985, pp 188-191. Page 198
The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL 3. the assumption that economic planning is a unique aspect or virtue of a socialist society, ensuring both justice and orderliness in economic affairs, such as unplanned economies are not likely to match. By now we have learned otherwise. Planning does not necessarily offer an encompassing method for the solution of socio-economic problems." The third false assumption as Howe states it is an interesting one. He wrote this in 1977 and revised it in the mid 1980s. Thus in many ways it is reflective of the post 1960s radicalism and is also reflective of the generation of the teachers of the Baby Boomer generation, namely the initial indoctrinators. In contrast is the strong pro-central-planning ethos as advocated by Galbraith in his New Industrial State. Now Galbraith states in his New Industrial State 206 : "For most socialists the purpose of socialism is the control of productive enterprises by the society. For democratic socialists this means the legislature. None, or not many, seek socialism so that power can be exercised by an autonomous authority. Yet this is where power must reside." Galbraith then goes on to analyze British Socialism post World War II and seek out its most favorable characteristics. In the biography of Galbraith by Parker, the author presents clearly the major Theses of The New Industrial State. They are 207 : "Thesis 1: The giant corporation…is the characteristic organization of modern capitalism… Thesis 2: Shareholders, the nominal owners of the corporation, have little power over corporate decision-making…members of the "technostructure" …have the power to shape culture, goals, and behavior… Thesis 3: The members of the technostructure … do not own blocks of stock themselves and disliking uncertainty….seek to reduce risks by giving up classic "profit maximizing" principles…in favor of growth with predictable profits… Thesis 4: In lieu of classic "profit maximizing" the giant corporations pursue their ends of survival and independence by concentrating on steady but maximal sales growth, consistently predictable earnings…and insulation from …interference (though not assistance) from government… 206 See Galbraith, J. K., The New Industrial State, Signet (NY) 1967, p. 111. 207 See Parker, R., John Kenneth Galbraith, Univ Chicago Press (Chicago) 2005, pp. 439-441. Page 199
Page 1 and 2:
+++ The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM
Page 3 and 4:
The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
The Telmarc Group Preface PROGRESSI
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
The Telmarc Group 4.1.3 Hobbes and
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
The Telmarc Group 4.5.2 The New Fre
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148: The Telmarc Group Hofstadter contin
Page 149 and 150: The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 197: The Telmarc Group PROGRESSIVISM, IN
Page 223: The Telmarc Group and the Progressi
show all

progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?