PJ Kennedy and the American Dream

[Tarun616]

Hi,

I know it's the second time I'm posting a challenge type question but I think this is something every Socialist should be able to respond to when this topic is raised by a rightwinger.

Background
PJ Kennedy, grandfather of President John F Kennedy, was the American son of immigrant parents in the mid 19th century. His parents left their home country incredibly poor and moved to the land of opportunity where they worked hard at low paying jobs but eventually managed to save up and buy PJ a college education. When this father died, his mother used her savings to buy the stationery store where she worked. Presumably, she ran that store and used its profits to pay for her son's education.

PJ got his college education, worked several small time jobs and eventually went to purchase a business of his own, run it successfully, buy more businesses and gradually amass enough wealth to become an influential politician.

Issue
My question therefore is this: when a rightwinger says that this is proof that capitalism provides the poor with the opportunity to better substantially themselves in the vein of PJ Kennedy, how do you respond?

Response
I would respond with the following example (please assess my argument and let me know whether there are any flaws in it):

In a Democratic Socialist society, if a need/ want is required to be satisfied, say the need for a bar (following the PJ Kennedy example), the people in a given area such as the local government level, would communicate this to their elected representative, after listening to for and against arguments would take this proposal to the democratically controlled investment board wherein all the representatives would vote on whether or not to use the existing pool of money to fund the opening of a new bar.
This way, the majority of people's want/ need is met and the proceeds get reinvested in society thereby making everyone richer instead of just one risk taker like PJ Kennedy (who took a calculated risk because in his unplanned economy, no one would have communicated to him that they wanted him to open a bar).

Also, since this form of Socialism is decentralised, the risk of a dictatorial bureaucracy like the Soviet-era nomenkaltura can be avoided.
I will agree however, that this assumes the following:
1.Participation from everyone in society,
2. A great deal of unity (i.e. not getting annoyed when the majority doesn't side with you), and
3. A motivated, committed set of workers to execute the plan.

[RedSunrise]

Issue
My question therefore is this: when a rightwinger says that this is proof that capitalism provides the poor with the opportunity to better substantially themselves in the vein of PJ Kennedy, how do you respond?


As far as the response, it seems fine. (Although, I am not pro-democracy/socialist)

My Own Response:
That is proof that capitalism is a lottery; It is a lottery of opportunity.

If EVERYONE had the opportunity to better ourselves, wouldn't there be more rich people? No, because I didn't strike jackpot on the dice throw of opportunity. From What Is Communist Anarchism, "Freedom only means that you have the right to do a certain thing. But it doesn't mean that you can do it. To be able to do it, you must have the chance, the opportunity."
Chances to do something are based off just that... Chance.

The only requirement to have all your needs met should be working hard. Fairies do not randomly bless men, neither should the economy. :grin:

To summarize: "provides the poor with the opportunity" Lie it gives 1 in 10000 poor an opportunity. We can't all be rich.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think it's also worth noting that, in America, you can't talk about class without talking about white supremacy. The material wealth of those who "make it" is premised on the theft of indigenous land and the labour of colonized peoples (internal and external).
So, sure, the Kennedys might have "worked hard at low paying jobs" but their success was still subsidized by settler colonialism and imperialism. The reason America (and not Ireland) was the "land of opportunity" wasn't because of some peculiar characteristic of Americans, but because of the "opportunity of land" - ie the violent dispossession of the indigenous population, slave labour, etc.

[Ritzy Cat]

Among American Literature, a common recurring theme (notably in the Great Gatsby) is the inconsistency, unrealistic-ness, and overrated nature of the American Dream. Ironically, it even divides those who inherited their wealth by family, to those who "worked their way up" such as Gatsby, despite through less-than-honest means.

The "Valley of Ashes" where the common people reside- notably proletariats, if you read it from a socialist standpoint, not only shows you the "ashes" they are bearing from the upper class/bourgeoisie burning the fuel they provide, but it is also a valley, being below the rest of the society.

That's how I take it at least.

Regardless, anecdotes never tell the full story. Statistics, information, are all what determines the widespread truth. And that truth points to the American Dream not being feasible, and more just a cultural idea that the politicians can use to help "bring the spirits up".

[Baseball]

Hi,


Response
I would respond with the following example (please assess my argument and let me know whether there are any flaws in it):

In a Democratic Socialist society, if a need/ want is required to be satisfied, say the need for a bar (following the PJ Kennedy example), the people in a given area such as the local government level, would communicate this to their elected representative, after listening to for and against arguments would take this proposal to the democratically controlled investment board wherein all the representatives would vote on whether or not to use the existing pool of money to fund the opening of a new bar.
This way, the majority of people's want/ need is met and the proceeds get reinvested in society thereby making everyone richer instead of just one risk taker like PJ Kennedy (who took a calculated risk because in his unplanned economy, no one would have communicated to him that they wanted him to open a bar).

Also, since this form of Socialism is decentralised, the risk of a dictatorial bureaucracy like the Soviet-era nomenkaltura can be avoided.
I will agree however, that this assumes the following:
1.Participation from everyone in society,
2. A great deal of unity (i.e. not getting annoyed when the majority doesn't side with you), and
3. A motivated, committed set of workers to execute the plan.

What is the nature of the risk that PJ Kennedy took, and your hypothetical Democratic Socialist community would take?
Loss of money- loss of assets, correct? yes.
So the objective would have to be to have more money, more assets as a result of opening this bar than existed prior to opening the bar.

IOW- the objective has to be to turn a profit. So its not enough for the socialist community here to simply identify a need for a bar. They would need to identify that it is more profitable than other possible uses for that space.
From my understanding, production for profit tends to be frowned upon in socialist circles.

[argeiphontes]

IOW- the objective has to be to turn a profit. So its not enough for the socialist community here to simply identify a need for a bar. They would need to identify that it is more profitable than other possible uses for that space.
From my understanding, production for profit tends to be frowned upon in socialist circles.

Nonsense. They could be subsidizing the bar due to their love of drinking. But what happens in capitalism? Does the space owner and/or the renter/buyer decide what the most profitable use possible is? No. Somebody just rents it to somebody who wants to open a bar. Markets aren't perfectly efficient, and signals are post hoc. If a bar is desirable at that spot, it will make a profit. Otherwise, it'll go bankrupt. A market economy isn't some utopia.

In a market socialism, it would have to be profitable, but not more profitable than something else. Just profitable for the collective running it to want to stay in business.

In any other socialism, it only has to have enough support for people to want to work there. If there aren't enough drinkers, they can repurpose the place into something else. But if its socially useful, it can be kept open as long as the community wants it there.

As for the OP, some people managed to escape from Nazi concentration camps. That doesn't justify the camps, though, does it? Statistics show that socioeconomic class is largely inherited.

[Baseball]

Nonsense. They could be subsidizing the bar due to their love of drinking. But what happens in capitalism? Does the space owner and/or the renter/buyer decide what the most profitable use possible is? No. Somebody just rents it to somebody who wants to open a bar. Markets aren't perfectly efficient, and signals are post hoc. If a bar is desirable at that spot, it will make a profit. Otherwise, it'll go bankrupt. A market economy isn't some utopia.

People presumably like to eat food and have their hair cut as well.
Of course, the community can choose the build the bar because more people voted for the bar than voted for the grocery store or barber at that site. But
ignoring profitability in making such choice either places the wealth of the community at greater risk, or it doesn't grow as wealthy.

Neither seem like good choices.


In a market socialism, it would have to be profitable, but not more profitable than something else. Just profitable for the collective running it to want to stay in business.

As above-- it means wealth growth more slowly for the collective with a greater chance of having a loss.

You can have a market. Or you can have socialism
You can't have both.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Funny thing, Baseball, that you're so much more into engaging with abstract economic arguments than concrete historical realities. I think this actually says a lot about why the question raised by the initial post comes up, and about the ideological, in the pejoritive sense, underpinnings of most pro-capitalist economic thinking. It's all like, "History? No math!" and I'm all like, "Uh, no."

[argeiphontes]

In a market socialism, it would have to be profitable, but not more profitable than something else. Just profitable for the collective running it to want to stay in business.


As above-- it means wealth growth more slowly for the collective with a greater chance of having a loss.


Are you criticizing capitalism? Because that's the same decision made by individual firms in capitalism. Or do business owners constantly scan for more profitable businesses, and bars suddenly turn into grocery stores and vice versa?

Maybe they give up their spaces so more profitable businesses can come in? "Oh look, your income statement is better than mine. Go on, take my space, I'll be out by Monday..."



You can have a market. Or you can have socialism
You can't have both.Can too! Worker-owned businesses work in capitalism, why not socialism? Why would they magically fail? You'll have to walk me thru it, I don't understand your logic. Maybe people are happier and drink less? ;)

[Baseball]

Are you criticizing capitalism? Because that's the same decision made by individual firms in capitalism. Or do business owners constantly scan for more profitable businesses, and bars suddenly turn into grocery stores and vice versa?

The owner of the storefront who leases it to the barowner might very jack p the rent at the end of the lease term since the property if the owner determines the property is ore valuable. The barowner would have to decide whether this is true from his end.


Can too! Worker-owned businesses work in capitalism, why not socialism? Why would they magically fail? You'll have to walk me thru it, I don't understand your logic. Maybe people are happier and drink less? ;

If the conception of market socialism is of workers owning the means of production, and nothing else, then your socialist critics are spot on: Nothing has changed- there is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry.

[argeiphontes]

If the conception of market socialism is of workers owning the means of production, and nothing else, then your socialist critics are spot on: Nothing has changed- there is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry.

Sure there is. It eliminates three of the following four features of captialism:

1) Market allocation
2) Private ownership of the means of production.
3) Wage labor.
4) Capture and distribution of surplus by a class that doesn't produce it.



In my view, socialism in the Marxian framework of analysis, refers to how production is organized. It means that the workers whose labor generates a surplus (an excess above what the workers themselves get back out of their output for their own consumption) are also identically the collective of persons who receive and distribute that surplus. Socialism is the negation of exploitation where exploitation is defined as an organization of production in which the people who receive and distribute the surplus are different from those who produce it. Examples of exploitative organizations of production include slavery (masters exploit slaves), feudalism (lords exploit serfs) and capitalism (employers exploit employees). If production were transformed from a capitalist to a socialist form - and exploitation were thereby eliminated from society the way slavery and serfdom were earlier - that would leave open the question of how society would distribute resources among productive enterprises and likewise how society would distribute the outputs of those enterprises. This could be done by markets, state planning, planning by other social institutions, and so on in an endless array of combinations. Markets have co-existed with every other kind of organization of production (e,g, slavery, feudalism etc.) and the same is true of planning. I would thus expect varying experiments with varying combinations of markets and planning would characterize the history of socialism once it was established broadly. Markets have always partly reinforced and partly undermined the organizations of production with which they coexisted. And I would expect the same if markets coexisted with socialist organizations of production.


Source: http://rdwolff.com

[Baseball]

Sure there is. It eliminates three of the following four features of captialism:


1) Market allocation

It does nothing of the sort. As yourself indicated, the objective is determining where the community places its funds. Its going to want to place it in an area where it will not lose it.
Its going to have to hew to market principles.


2) Private ownership of the means of production.

If the workers own a particularly factory, they own it. Nobody else does. Presumably stocks will not be offered.
Its privately owned.


3) Wage labor.

To some extent true-- but this would be a failing and a problem for the market socialists. Yet again, the community is going to want to have more resources at the end. It is in fact beneficial that it does so.
As such, wage labor will need to be used, regardless of what it is actually called.


4) Capture and distribution of surplus by a class that doesn't produce it.

Truth to this- at least to the extent as to how socialists misunderstand capitalism.
In the socialist community (especially market socialist), there will still be a need for people to either make decisions or recomendations as to how to the community ought allocate its resources. The community will find itself limited when such people cannot function as capitalists would in making or recommending economic action.

[ColossalButtwipe]

If the workers own a particularly factory, they own it. Nobody else does. Presumably stocks will not be offered.
Its privately owned.


You should know at this point that when we refer to "privately" owned companies we are referring to a hierarchical form of ownership. Co-ops are decentralized and collectively owned by the people that work it, and since the goods are divided amongst each other equally, the form of organization has a distinctly anti-capitalist character.

[Baseball]

You should know at this point that when we refer to "privately" owned companies we are referring to a hierarchical form of ownership. Co-ops are decentralized and collectively owned by the people that work it, and since the goods are divided amongst each other equally, the form of organization has a distinctly anti-capitalist character.

Yes. I understand how (some) socialists conceive of it. The co-op is not owned by the community at large, but rather directly by the people who work they. They, and they alone, assume the risk and reap the rewards. Those workers, and nobody else, can dispose of the property as they see fit. And in order for such ownership to be real, the community cannot direct and dictate production through laws or regulations according to how the community thinks production and distribution ought be done.

Its privately owned.

[ColossalButtwipe]

Let's say that you are right and that co-ops are a form of private ownership. But wouldn't it be private ownership with an anti-capitalist character, as there are no capitalist's making money off the wage-labor of others?