I'm no socialist, and am not sure whether Hook ever solved the dichotomy between socialism -- which is by nature confiscatory -- and freedom. But he must be admired for his opposition to totalitarianism and his precise, logical arguments against the excesses of those such as Noam Chomsky.
AND Hook is absolutely spot-on about suppression of free thought in higher education. Recall as well that he was speaking out thus more than a quarter-century ago, for he died in 1989.
Hook says that socialism meant collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production before WWI. He is right about this. He is also right about the fact that most socialists didn't pay much attention to economics. And that's where the "socialism" of Hook and his fellow social democratic workers eventually became convinced that to use Margaret Thatcher's formulation: There is no alternative (TINA). Hook remembers the leader of the Socialist Party, Norman Thomas, reflecting on the fact that FDR basically used the reforms developed by the Socialist Party, folding them into his New Deal. There was no alternative to the rule of Capital over wage labour in the minds of Hook's socialist comrades or Roosevelt. What is meant by TINA is that the wage system is the only possible system that collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production can exist under. Conservatives laugh at such a scheme and as it would take severe restrictions on civil liberties to implement such a reform of the wage system, it would and did become very unpopular amongst most workers. TINA was the inevitable outcome, even amongst social democrats. One has only to reflect on Tony Blair's New Labour embrace of TINA, now going under the rubric, "neo-liberalism". As for the Marxist-Leninist offshoot of social democracy, it never resulted in anything other than the wage system under another name. But it is precisely the wage system which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were taking aim at in their critiques of political-economy, the very critiques which social democrats failed to read, grasp or employ when they achieved political office and developed programs and policies either in unions or in the political State. What socialism means is a change in the way wealth is produced and distributed from one where wage-labour is hired to produce commodities for sale with a view to profiting a tiny class of owners aka capitalists or even State bureaucrats, to one where a free association of producers democratically control social wealth and distribute it on the basis of need. Socialism is not the wages system under new management. Socialism is the emancipation of the producers from the bondage of wage-labour and their own establishment of common ownership and democratic control over the collective product of their labour. The means of production are part and parcel of that collective product.
But it cant be done because your saying that the collectove can allocate, which means 3 things: - Man is capable to reaching collective utopia. - The new order therefore instatiates the individual as subserviant to the collective and is thus owned by the collective and can be regulated by all means nessecary to serve the collective. - The collective can allocate better, and therefore solve the Problem of Economic Calculation more accurately, than the action of individuals. Heres the kicker though.....none of these have ever been shown to be true, and inching toward them has universaly lead to greater degrees of suffering for most people, in spite of the declarations that it is the one true system of social salvation. "Emancipation from wage labour"....you mean, emancipation from scarcity? All requires labour, and no labour is done unless there is realized a margin of profit of the subjective value of the venture; the gain or satisfaction as realized by the investors of the venture. Anything else, becomes waste, the state/collective/party/society collapses due to the misallocation of the division of labour for what is regarded as value-less, or rather "more value-less" that what would have been achived via the market signals generated by the individuals looking to improve there lot. The rejection of marginal profit at all nessecarily implies the rejection of marginal profit everywhere, including for the individual. By definition, value cannot grow, society becomes poorer, and the bastard state shows more in incapability and pigishness in the marshalling of any resources whatsoever. These improvements always neglected and unachiveable by a central authority, or mob direct democracy...both end up in the same seat, both are judged by the Nature of Economization, and yet all of society will get dragged to the gallows with them, the sociopathic coersive narcissists.
@@razzberry6180 human individuals are capable of establishing a democracy. The people who say they aren't capable are the ones who want some individuals to control or own what the majority of humans produce with their labour time. Those people should be shunned, made fun of and ruled through reverse dominance democratic praxis.
@@ZOGGYDOGGY "Own the majority of human produce". You dont understand the problem of economic calculation because this youve stated is inherently fallicious and doesnt stand as a critique of a free market is. Also, democracy is only good as long as it is limited by every means nessecary. Somethings need to be beyond vote, such as speech, self defense, and property rights. A random mob doesnt suddenly get to arbitrate based on its might, at least not under any framework whoch attempts to proclaim a respect for rights. One of the many self contradictory windfalls of so-shall-isum.
@@razzberry6180 where do you get the idea that you have the right to own what someone else produces? What drives you to call the rule of the people, the rule of the mob? Could it be your class interests in maintainng a top down, bureaucratic power structure? Your tin horn appeals to the 'right' of power mongers like yourself to rule the rest of us are pathetic.
Another provocative Hook quote that I recall, but alas, for which I have no referent: Professor Hook asserted that intelligence is the best means for resolving human problems (AND this quote I remember clearly), "to the extent that they are soluble." Thus Hook, ever the realist, suggested some problems of humanity might be beyond solving.
What this man is saying here makes perfect sense to me. He has lived through many changes in political ideology over a lifetime which, in my opinion, gives him a unique perspective worth noting. Socialism certainly sounds better than it has proven to be (welfare/totalitarian state). Also, the original intent of affirmative action has morphed so as to lessen our freedoms over time...!
Have you not read any of Hook's work? Even in his later years, he supported the continuation of the welfare state in America. The fact that he opted for pragmatism over revolutionary Marxism does not exclude Hook from the democratic socialist tradition.
SocialDemocrat01 Obviously you have not taken the trouble, made the effort, to read any of Hook's books, late, early, or middle. To say that he "supported" the war, without any qualifiers, is simplistic to the point of major distortion. Hook was not a "fan" of Reagan or of anyone else.
SocialDemocrat01 Care to offer up any citations? Because as someone who HAS read all of Sidney Hook's writings, I can tell you unequivocally that Hook was a lifelong social democrat. I'm curious to know what it is about hook that has given your shoulder such a chip. Is it his rejection of dogmatic orthodox Marxism in favor of pragmatism? That's it, isn't it? Hook blasphemed your prophet and now you're butthurt.
