A Real Human Bean
and a real hero
source
-----
I'll also repost the content from an older thread that provides some supporting information (also from Gar Alperovitz):
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/soci...ocialism-conservatives-can-get-behind.339702/
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ public defense of socialism in the Oct. 13 Democratic presidential debate has kicked off America’s first major discussion of the idea in more than a generation. Columnists, talk show hosts and Donald Trump have all joined in. Most of the discussion, however, has been wildly misleading, and almost all of it has bypassed some of the most interesting forms of a very American and practical form of socialism emerging throughout the United States.
Sanders was clear about what he meant by socialism, pointing to Denmark as a positive example. But Denmark is a capitalist nation with a record of welcoming and supporting private business investment. The word “socialism” is used there — as it is in many European countries — to describe a strong welfare state that includes comprehensive health care, a solid safety net, generous retirement benefits, day care and many other programs that almost any American progressive would support.
The American term for this kind of system — capitalism with a strong welfare state — is, in fact, liberalism or, perhaps, when combined with very tough taxes on the rich and corporations, populism. Socialism, on the other hand, historically has gone far beyond progressive welfare state measures by asserting that a democratic society can be achieved only if it includes democratic ownership of the economy.
In many European countries, strong labor movements committed to socialism as strong liberalism have helped counterbalance the power of capital by supporting a stronger welfare state. However, this option has always been constrained in the U.S., where union membership has declined from 35.4 percent of the labor force at its peak in the early 1950s to a mere 11.1 percent today. Racism and other factors historically have weakened and divided the American labor movement and almost entirely prevented union organizing in the South.
In sector after sector, corporate lobbyists strongly influence political outcomes in connection with everything from health care to prison and poverty programs. Ownership is concentrated: The 400 richest Americans control more wealth than the poorest 186 million — and as modern election and lobbying studies all too regularly show, with that wealth comes political power.
The environmental implications of this power are particularly grave. Regulating the big oil companies to reduce global warming is even harder, politically, than regulating the banks. Large Wall Street–financed corporations must show consistent growth; in the case of the oil companies, unrestricted growth is increasingly understood as ecologically unsustainable.
Sanders’ comment during the debate that “Congress does not regulate Wall Street — Wall Street regulates Congress” speaks to this reality, but his hope that breaking up the big banks will solve the problem is fundamentally liberal. A traditional socialist would more likely argue that only by nationalizing the banks could their power truly be curbed.
These challenges point to the need for some form of social ownership not dependent on growth or on Wall Street. What traditional state socialists often did not understand — and what traditional conservatives and anarchists saw all too clearly — is that government ownership of corporations brings with it other problems, above all, excessive concentration of political power in the hands of the state. If liberalism has faltered since labor’s decline and if nationalized ownership of wealth would result in excessive state power, might there be any other progressive way?
A possible answer is quietly emerging in many parts of the country. Like traditional socialism, it involves changing and democratizing who owns productive wealth, but unlike traditional socialism, it does so in a radically decentralized, populist and very American form.
It hasn’t yet gotten much media attention, but approximately 130 million Americans are members of one form of cooperative or another — the classic one-person, one-vote form of ownership. More than 10 million men and women work for companies that they own in whole or in part. About 25 percent of electricity in the U.S. is supplied by cooperatives and municipally owned utilities. And the nearly century-old state-owned bank in conservative North Dakota has become a model of public ownership being explored in cities ranging from Philadelphia to Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Mayors in many cities are supporting other new forms of cooperative development. In Cleveland, a highly sophisticated neighborhood- and worker-owned group of cooperatives, in part supported by the purchasing power of universities and hospitals like the famed Cleveland Clinic, has become a development model for many cities. In Boulder, Colorado, an attempt to establish municipal ownership of the electric utility has received strong public backing in two major referendums. Neighborhood-based community land trusts are commonly used in attempts to resist gentrification.
One of the largest publicly owned enterprises in the nation is the Tennessee Valley Authority, a huge corporation that produces electricity and helps manage the Tennessee River system. The authority is supported by Democratic and Republican members of Congress in Tennessee and Alabama, a number of whom have voiced their opposition to privatization.
These and other forms of public ownership are quietly expanding by trial and error as the failures of the capitalist system continue to generate pain and as the standard political answers continue to falter. State and local governments are serving as laboratories of democracy, as they did in the years preceding the New Deal. We live in an era of experimentation, a time when none of the old ways offer answers to the problems millions of Americans face. These tentative new approaches may well presage potentially far-ranging change.
Taken together, the steadily evolving localist forms of democratic ownership confront the traditional socialist questions and begin to answer them in novel ways. They could pave the way for a new politics aimed at a pluralist commonwealth reflecting a diverse, practical and very American approach to democratic ownership.
-----
I'll also repost the content from an older thread that provides some supporting information (also from Gar Alperovitz):
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/soci...ocialism-conservatives-can-get-behind.339702/
THE great 20th-century conservative economist Joseph Schumpeter thought the left had overlooked a major selling point in pressing the case for public — i.e., government — control over productive capital. “One of the most significant titles to superiority,” he suggested, was that public ownership produced profits, which means not having to depend on taxes to raise money.
The bulk of the left never took up Schumpeter’s argument. But in an oddly fitting twist, these days the mantra of public control in exchange for lower taxes has been embraced by a surprising quarter of the American political leadership: conservatives.
The most well-known case is Alaska. The Alaska Permanent Fund, established by a Republican governor in 1976, combines not one, but two socialist principles: public ownership and the provision of a basic income for all residents. The fund collects and invests proceeds from the extraction of oil and minerals in the state. Dividends are paid out annually to all state residents.
Texas is another example of conservative socialism in practice. Almost 150 years ago the Texas Permanent School Fund took control of roughly half of all the land and associated mineral rights still in the public domain. In 1953, coastal “submerged lands” were added after being relinquished by the federal government. Each year distributions from the fund go to support education; in 2014 alone it gave $838.7 million to state schools. Another fund, the $17.5 billion Permanent University Fund, owns more than two million acres of land, the proceeds of which help underwrite the state’s public university system.
Similar socialized funds — sometimes called sovereign wealth funds — are common in other conservative states. The Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund, with a market value of more than $7 billion accumulated from mineral extraction, is almost a direct expression of Schumpeter’s doctrine: Socialized ownership has helped to eliminate income taxes in the state.
Such “socialism, American style,” can produce odd reversals of conservative-liberal political alignments. One of the largest “socialist” enterprises in the nation is the Tennessee Valley Authority, a publicly owned company with $11 billion in sales revenue, nine million customers and 11,260 employees that produces electricity and helps manage the Tennessee River system. In 2013 President Obama proposed privatizing the T.V.A., but local Republican politicians, concerned with the prospect of higher prices for consumers and less money for their states, successfully opposed the idea.
Although state forms of public ownership have not been a major goal of the modern left, activists have begun to pick up on the idea that owning wealth in ways that benefit local communities is important. In Boulder, Colo., climate-change activists have helped win two major victories at the polls in a fight to municipalize the current utility owned by Xcel Energy. Publicly owned utilities also commonly return a portion of their profits, socialist style, to the city or county to help supplement local budgets, easing the pressure on taxpayers.
There are, in fact, already more than 2,000 publicly owned electric utilities that, along with cooperatives, supply more than 25 percent of the country’s electricity, now operating throughout the United States.
In one of the most conservative states, Nebraska, every single resident and business receives electricity from publicly owned utilities, cooperatives or public power districts. Partly as a result, Nebraskans pay one of the lowest rates for electricity in the nation.The list goes on. More than 450 communities have also built partial or full public Internet systems, some after significant political battles. Roughly one-fifth of all hospitals are also currently publicly owned. Many cities own hotels, including Dallas — where the project was championed by the former Republican mayor Tom Leppert. Some 30 states directly invest public funds in promising start-up companies.
Moreover, contrary to conventional opinion, studies of the comparative efficiency of modern public enterprise show rough equivalency to private firms in many cases. (They aren’t perfect, of course: Many public agencies, boards and corporations that control enterprises are not fully accountable or transparent in their operations.)
With skepticism about capitalism growing among minorities and young voters, will we see more such endeavors in the future? Pendulums have a way of swinging, sometimes very sharply, when big economic tsunamis hit. It is possible that in the next big crisis, both sides might see the wisdom and practical benefits of public ownership, and embrace Joseph Schumpeter’s point even more boldly than they do today.
