Revolution Now!

[dolgoruky]

Let's face it, capitalism is a big bag of shite. Everything the market touches sooner or later turns in to a Frankenstein's monster. I hear a lot about liberal democracy, but to me that's nothing more than the grim reaper of capitalism having a day off cos he's tired. Unless we remove the cancer that is fucking things up for all of us, i.e., private ownership of the means of production, distribution and, exchange, we're doomed.

Roll on socialism and the 3 day week!

[KG]

1. i'm down wit' dat, comrade!

:)

[Loonman]

2. Communism does not work

Never has, never will.

[dolgoruky]

3. That's original

Did you work that out for yourself? Or did somebody tell you? I'll bet you can't even remember.

[Loonman]

No, I've known it for a while

I have no patience for Reds.

[mdmc]

68. Well, we'll be patient with you

Glad to have capitalist on DU

[hippiechick]

4. I believe he said 'socialism', not 'communism' ....

you do know there's a difference, right ?

:hippie:

[Darranar]

16. Communism and socialism are actually different things...

socialism is worker control over the economy, communism is government-enforced economic equality (in theory.)

[Loonman]

21. Socialism

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[Darranar]

27. And the state is supposed to be representative of the workers...

since that had never occurred in any of the so-called "socialist" systems in the world, claiming that socialism has "failed" already is innaccurate.

[cryofan]

53. In the USA, means of production are controlled by owners AND state

You telling me I can run my business ANY WAY I want here in the USA? Look, I used to have the same beliefs as you do. Live and learn....

THe best way is probably democratic socialism, as is (still) practiced in NW Europe. Use the social status drives and greed of humans and heavy taxation to fund plush welfare states. That works well to deliver the best quality of life, as study after study has shown.....

[mdmc]

66. I read that in third grade

Next to, why blacks shouldn't marry whites.

[baldguy]

74. How do you KNOW it has or has not worked?

Its never been tried. Don't bring up Stalin or Lenin or Mao - they are not communists.

[Dirk39]

152. capitalism does work?

Two Worldwars
Ausschwitz
Vietnam
Columbia
All the names alone could fill a book
More people dying every year now from capitalism, than during the entire second Worldwar

If you want to wipe out the human race, capitalism works pretty well
We could do so much better,
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. The three-day week

LOL

[camero]

87. That one got me too

I would just enjoy a five day week. :)

[Loonman]

6. No incentives in socialism/communism

You just sit around on your ass and get government handouts.

Why bother to do anything if everything is paid for?

[EXE619K]

8. Maybe...

To further the cause of humanity?

I guess charities are "commie-pinko" organizations too?

[Walt Starr]

11. That assumes "the cause of humanity" is the driving social force

in homo sapiens.

It is not as evidenced by the level of violence in the world.

[EXE619K]

19. We don't live in the "ideal" world...

But, I'll bet if the Communist Regime gave every man a Jaguar in the garage and $100k/year in "govt hand-outs", no would complain about being a "Pinko".

It depends on the perspective for each individual.

[Walt Starr]

22. It is economically impossible for that to happen

The problem with absolute communism, as is also the problem with absolute democracy, is that it depends upon people being perfect. Human beings being imperfect as they are, these systems cannot work as evidenced by the collapse of most Communist governements.

Fortuantely, representative democracy with a capitalistic base, flawed though it may be, still works.

[EXE619K]

28. like I said....

It depends on the perspective of each individual.

Walt, I was just trying to make a point there guy!

And stop "hackin" on other Dean supporters...geez, treating me like a Kerry supporter in a Dean rally!

[dolgoruky]

9. Yes, isn't that terrible...

...Destroy the work ethic and us poor stupid humans will have absolutely nothing to motivate us. Michaelangelo was only in it for the money, Copernicus too. In fact all the most beautiful creations of civilisation have been created solely for money.

Yes, keep us enslaved in jobs that we hate otherwise we might harm ourselves.

Yes, your reasoning is very logical.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. They both chose to work for themselves

You also have that option. So do we all.

[Karenina]

134. Ah, the American "myths"

Set up any businesses recently in the ghetto yourself, Mr. Muddle?
The society in which Michaelangelo lived cannot be compared in any way shape or form with today's America. To suggest he was somehow an "independent contractor in business for himself" is the height of absurdity and ignorance. Many of his works are unsigned. Hmmm... wonder what THAT was all about. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

175. He was an inventor, an artist

He had patrons and he did things on his own. He catered to the intersts of many different employers and took on jobs, but on his terms. That's an independent contractor by any gauge.

I lived in the ghetto. I got out. But I have worked as an independent contractor and probably will again. So?

[GringoTex]

17. Your argument about a system for the masses is in trouble

when you have to rely on rare examples of genius to support it.

[Loonman]

18. What about the ditchdigger?

What about the common man or woman who is not a great artist?


Your reasoning is illogical.

Highly illogical.

[LeahMira]

113. Why would you think...

What about the common man or woman who is not a great artist?

... the common man, i.e. the ditch digger wants to be a great artist? I've found that people tend to be pretty realistic about their own potential and aspirations.

[earthman dave]

37. He's kind of got a point

You need the threat of starvation to make people work in factories, in shitty jobs they hate. How else would our Glorious Masters make their massive profits? Wage slavery is good! (If you're one of the investor class)

[Comadreja]

107. Southern slave owner:

Ain't no white man gonna work in my fields for free like our darkies. I bought 'em and paid good gold, so they's mah propitty, pro-tected by the Constitution. They's some white cotton farmers that pick their own, but they cain't compete on the cotton market and afford the new gins. Tough! That's the rules of cap'talism. The bottom line is to get the damn bales to the docks at a price that the market will pay, an' we needs our slaves to do it. If the damn libruh Abolitionists and yankees don't like it, let 'em start a revolution, hee hee hee (puffs cigar).

[Karenina]

124. See, that way

Anyone with a creative spark and a grand idea will be forced to toe the line. All those pansy, pinko artistic types, thinking they can express something of importance, lift the spirits of others or build a better mouse trap, fie on them! If they're not a cog bringing cash to the capitalists coffers they don't deserve no consideration.

And while you're at it make sure the culture disdains intelekshulism, vishul arts and those funny folks all dressed up like penguins playing stuff that's too long to listen to. What time is "Survivor" on tonite?

[Nlighten1]

24. So..let's see...

What are the incentives in a capitalist environment where large multi-national corporations control most of the wealth?

You said that communism doesn't work. I say Capitalism doesn't work but let me clairify that statement. Unchecked Capitalism - that is Capitalism for Capitalism's sake - does not work. Capitalism's ultimate goal is to channel the wealth into a few hands while the rest of us fight over the scraps.

No "pure" system, be it Capitalism or Communism, will work...what we need is a hybrid system...one that promotes Capitalism and Socialism. It is possible but large changes will be needed.

[LeahMira]

44. This is probably the weakest argument against socialism...

You just sit around on your ass and get government handouts.
Why bother to do anything if everything is paid for?

... because there is absolutely no evidence that people like doing nothing. Are you actually trying to make a case for the idea that if people didn't have to work for a living they wouldn't work at all? I truly don't know anyone who doesn't want to do something or to produce some product. Even the very wealthy, who do as little as possible, take some fiendish pride in managing to manipulate the capitalist system for their own benefit. Then they go out and take golf lessons because they want to be able to actually do something with their hands and do it well. Everyone wants that sense of accomplishment.

[Terwilliger]

48. Paul Krugman said the Horatio Alger myth is dead

WHERE'S THE INCENTIVE NOW??

[rman]

69. to much incentives in capitalism(-as-we-know-it);

to much incentive to "grab what you can and screw the rest".

there's no reason why social policies could not be combined with a controlled, regulated form of private entrepeneurship. it's just that you couldn't get rich beyond your wildest dreams - which obviousely isn't enough for *some* people.

[gate of the sun]

151. I agree capitalism actually

promotes creediness......When will people realize capitalism isin't inherently good. It's just what you know.....This is " created" reality. There are alot of other possibilities that could leave the world more harmonious, with much less suffering etc......It doesn't have to be a capitalism versus socialism ......people are too limited in their viewpoints. I believe a society that is based on what holds the good of everyone in mind would be a great improvement over Capitalism.

[mdmc]

72. works in star trek

what would the flerengi do?

[cprise]

84. Star Trek is awesome! And yes, its social-democratic

...as well as humanistic. Gene Roddenberry was rather preachy about it, too.

There are right on the same page as Albert Einstein.

We also owe our current anti-war movement to the popularity of Star Trek.

[Comadreja]

102. I've lived and worked in Germany

The workers there are highly productive. They are rewarded well with decent pay and social benefits (instead of threats of layoffs and union-busting). This results in happier, more stable and healthier workers, who continue to produce well. Novel concept, isn't it?

[Karenina]

126. Social democrats, anyone?

I just love it everytime the word "socialism" comes up! The Amis couldn't be more confused, ill-informed, brainwashed, myopic or out of touch with the reality, but as you can see by some of the pontificating posts on this thread, they know ALL ABOUT IT and it's bad, bad, BAD.

What cracks me up is it's so OBVIOUS that those who cite their slanted b/w textbooks have never spent any time out of the country. :shrug:

[gate of the sun]

153. It's brainwashing pure and simple

Our government wanted everyone to be a staunch Capitalist and brainwashed everyone as best they good into believing anything else is "bad". Wouldn't it be better if everyone had a home to go home to....then to be able to have the biggest one on the block? It's about humanity....what's the most humane for all?????That's obviously not capitalism.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

110. Maybe because doing things is more interesting

than sitting around on your ass whether you're getting a check or not.

[moez]

7. But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao ....

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

[EXE619K]

10. easy there buddy!

I heard Mao was a "chick magnet"!

He was groovin' wit the homies long before you was born!

[catzies]

160. He's quoting John Lennon, welcome to DU!

Those two lines are from "Revolution" on The Beatles' White Album!

[Darranar]

12. Question...

I'm half-socialist myself, but people need some incentive to work. Under a purely socialist system, what would that be?

A better model is social democracy with greater worker power.

[La_Serpiente]

26. Someone told me Sweeden or some country

in Scandanavia is like a socialist state almost.

Is that an example of a social democracy?

[Darranar]

30. Yes - it is not socialist, but more so then some...

Here's what the CIA World Factbook says about Sweden's economy:

Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Agriculture accounts for only 2% of GDP and 2% of the jobs. The government's commitment to fiscal discipline resulted in a substantial budgetary surplus in 2001, which was cut by more than half in 2002, due to the global economic slowdown, revenue declines, and spending increases. The Swedish central bank (the Riksbank) is focusing on price stability with its inflation target of 2%. Growth remained sluggish in 2003. On September 14, 2003, Swedish voters turned down entry into the euro system, concerned about the impact on democracy and sovereignty.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

[spindoctor]

65. Lots of social democracies in Europe

Labor parties are big throughout Europe, although they have all shifted to the right in recent years.

Whenever a socialistic party is elected or heads a coalition, the country becomes a socialist democracy. In some cases even a democratic socialist monarchy (like Sweden or the Netherlands).

[bryant69]

14. Point to me where Communism works?

It's not like it hasn't been tried, is it/ I mean I know that none of those countries actually got to "Real" communism or socialism, but they tried, didn't they?

And once you or whoever else you put in power for the transition got in power, how do we know you'd give it up? It's not like there's a history of that? In fact there's the opposite history.

A managed Capitalism works. Communism has no record of working. Before I turn my (hypothetical) children's future over to you, Comrade, you're going to need to make a stronger case.


Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[dumpster_baby]

100. The first few automobile prototypes did not work, either

But my car works fine today....

[bryant69]

137. Yeah

But of course the first autombile prototypes ddin't kill hundreds of thousands did they? Remember purges? Forced Labor Camps? The Cultural Revolution? The Khmer Rouge?

[LeahMira]

117. Works?

A managed Capitalism works. Communism has no record of working.

Depends on what you mean by "works." A good case can be made to support the assertion that capitalism does not "work" and never has.

[bryant69]

136. Make it then.

Life is better even for the Poor in America than it has been for almost any other people at any other time. I'm certainly not saying we don't have some more work to do; there are still a lot of problems. But the solution, in my mind, isn't to junk the system that works for one that doesn't seem to.

But if you want to make the case that Capitalism has never worked, make it.

[dpibel]

167. American Success

It's a bit simplistic to lay the better conditions for the poor in America purely at the feet of capitalism.

America started out with an embarrassment of natural wealth; a geographically huge, sparsely populated country with enormous resources of arable land, minerals, timber, water power, coastline, and a huge river in the middle navigable 'way up north. When the country gained independence, the latter three were critical--the coastline served international trade; the Mississippi permitted easy transport of food and raw materials, and the water power along the eastern fall line powered textile mills.

After the Brits developed railroad technology, the US was able to build an intercontinental railroad by virtue of giving away vast chunks of land; the brave and bold heroic entrepreneurs who struck out to carve the railway out of the wilderness were making a pretty good bet when they getting every other section of land along the rail line.

Similarly, when came the switchover from whale oil, coal, and wood to petroleum, the US had rich supplies of that.

In short, it is possible that the US would have somehow not managed to get rich under some other economic model, but we'll never know. And to simply say, "The US is capitalist and rich, therefore capitalism causes wealth," is to engage in a causal fallacy. The fact that two things exist simultaneously does not prove causation.

The best comparative case is Russia, which is also resource rich. It existed as a feudal state while the US was getting rich, but I don't think anybody argues that feudalism is superior to capitalism. In addition, Russia is not so well situated as the US climatically; its water transportation is vastly inferior.

You could also make an argument that Africa is about as rich as the US. But that natural wealth has never been under the control of a single country. Ditto South America. Not to mention that both of those continents were controlled, and economically strip-mined, by colonial powers until the last 75 years.

Finally, the US has parlayed its natural wealth into economic and military power, both of which it has used to good advantage globally. How many of the little skirmishes post-WWII (for that matter, excluding the two world wars) have really been about "freedom and democracy" and how many have been about enforcing economic rights for US (now transnational) moneyed interests. If you say, "one," you need to check your facts.

To a large extent, those fortunate poor in the US have got that way because they were lucky enough to be born into a rich country and, like it or not, because their country works hard to make all those less-fortunates in other countries even poorer.

Check out the figures on the wealth gap and the race to the bottom. The poor in this country may be better off than those in the third world right now, but that may not last for long.

And while you're pointing to the American poor who should thank their lucky stars for being poor in the US instead of Bangladesh, why don't you make the more legitimate comparison: How do the poor in America stack up against the poor in other western, industrialized nations. If you look into that, you might discover that the poor in the US aren't perking along quite so peachily as you seem to believe.

Edited to remove an extra thank.

[bryant69]

177. I'm not saying pure capitalism

And I certainly think we should move closer to what some of the western europeon nations have in regards to how they take care of their poor. But that's not a call for a marxist or any other kind of rejection of Capatalism.

I mean let's not muddy the waters. What the base post calls for is an end to capitalism. I oppose that. But that doesn't place me on some sort of opposit position where I am 100% behind capitalism.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[gate of the sun]

155. My sentiments

exactly.......Capitalism is working for those corporations you know.....There's nothing like huge corporations making billions of $$$$$$$ off of phoney wars profiting the corporations while people in a country can't get enough to eat or have proper housing and medical care.....that's what capitalism can do for you.

[Loonman]

15. Explain to me how Cuba is a Utopian Paradise

Even China is a quasi-market economy, now.

[EXE619K]

25. I don't subscribe to the "communist" ideology....However,

Could it be that Communist ideology puts emphasis on isolationism and the capitalism stresses more on agressive expansionism?

Who says "market domination" is not the ultimate goal of capitalism?

[dolgoruky]

29. Stock responses

Wow, your education system really is uniform. Are you all in the same room, or what? Not one of your so called anti-socialism "arguments" has any thought or imagination behind it at all.

[Loonman]

33. That's not an answer

Explain how Cuba is the ideal political model.

[dolgoruky]

39. Exactly where did I say...

...Cuba was a perfect model? Show me.

[Solomon]

51. Please don't use Cuba like that.

We did everything we could to make sure they failed. Embargoes, sanctions, etc., then we point the finger at them and say, "see, it doesn't work". I hate that. Despite all the shit they've been through they have the best educational and health care systems in the world. Americans blow smoke about education and health care, but we really aren't serious about it.

[JohnnyFianna1]

32. Communism

This is one of the reasons that I sometimes wish to change my party affiliation to independent. This is ridiculous, this isn't Socialist Underground, this isn't Communist Underground, and this isn't Maoist Underground. This is Democratic Underground. Plus Communism offers no real incentive (other than passion for your career or the government) to work. Some of us like getting ahead, like working hard and enjoy the pressures of success. That's one of the reasons some of us vote Democratic, in order to insure that getting ahead in the workplace is easy for someone who is willing to sacrifice time and effort (without "retooling") and not an impossible jump because your overtime has been cut, and your social security company has been privatized and corporate welfare has helped give rivals the edge in the Stock Market (which causes the stock options you've been building up to turn to mush).

[rman]

105. it's better in some ways then the hell-hole the West is being turned into

and nobody claims Cuba is an Utopian Paradise.

[krkaufman]

20. Not that far...

"Capitalism" isn't evil, nor good; just a model. Toss a qualifier in front of it like "free market" and you get the cancer to which you're referring. Free market capitalism needs to be stopped, and turned around into a more socially-conscious model. Of course, unchecked it will be stopped, by itself; it's not sustainable.

Stein's Law: "Things that can't go on forever, don't."

Free trade must go; give me "fair trade" in its stead.

[LeahMira]

119. A socially conscious capitalist?

Free market capitalism needs to be stopped, and turned around into a more socially-conscious model.


But why would a capitalist even want to be socially conscious? There's no incentive.

[earthman dave]

23. You won't get far with that kind of idea round here

We love our corporate masters! Work, or starve! It's the Murrkan way.

[bryant69]

31. You know what

That's right. You shouldn't get too far with that idea around here. The Democratic Party is a Capitalist party. Now obviously I'm in favor of Socialist or Communists voting for the candidate. But in reality there are socialist and communist parties in the United States. If you want a party that reflects your anti capitalism values, why not go join one of those parties?

[gate of the sun]

157. democracy doesn't equal capitalists.

N/t

[gate of the sun]

156. You've made a good point and I agree with you.

and as far as I'm concerned you can hang here all you want.

[reprobate]

34. You're right about Preditory Capitalism. It's gonna take a revolution.

As the defenders of capitalism here show, we have been so brainwashed to glorify the wonders of capital that we can't even hold a decent conversation about it.

All that's necessary to see the future is to look at the past. In evey society where the income disparrity approaches what we have today in the US, a revolution occurred. Anyone who thinks this won't happen here is ignoring the human condition. The only questions are what form will the revolution take, and what form the society will take afterwards.

Just think about what is happening here:

Overtime premium pay is a thing of the past, but no media talks of it.

More and more of our citizens have no health coverage. And it's growing.

The country is homorrhaging jobs to lower labor cost countries which will lower the wage scale here. But not management pay.

The voters are feeling less and less in control of gov't.

All branches of gov't are now controlled by the very wealthy.

And we all know that the "War on Terra" is nothing but an attempt to keep our minds off everything else. Things will either change for the better here, or we'll have a happy revolution. Anyone think the ones who hold the power will allow things to get better for the common people? It's never happened before. With power comes arrogence. It's just human nature.

See you at the barricades.

[JohnnyFianna1]

36. FDR

FDR had to deal with a situation like the one you are describing and he managed to come out of it alive I'd say. In fact this is the first time I've ever seen a Du'er (I've been a lurker here for a while) talk about a revolution or civil war, isn't that the job of RW internet boards.

[mdmc]

115. Welcome to Du , Johnny

:dem:

[dolgoruky]

38. Great!

I'll bring my pitchfork!

[Comadreja]

104. It's happened here before

And King George was in power then, too!

[Az]

35. The problem with socialism

Implemented with the proper technological assistance socialism may be the ideal system. However at this stage of development there are still too many inefficiencies in our technology. Thus production and distribution lag behind societies needs and the shortfall is balanced on the backs of the people.

Socialism introduces the tyranny of the society over the individual. That is an individual who for whatever reason does not wish to partake in activity within the societies structures becomes an enemy of the state. This goes hand in hand with the issue of lack of insentive.

There will always be people that want to partake in moving the society forward. But there will also always be people that are not interested in participating as fully in society. This is simply an aspect of human nature. If it were not for the shortfall in production and distribution these individuals would not be problematic. But because the inefficiencies must be addressed or the entire society suffers, tyranny must be imposed on those that do not participate fully.

Once technology improves to the point that excess of resources is available socialism becomes more viable. Till then the best we can do is create a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Focusing the areas best suited for each system as needed.

[dolgoruky]

40. Socialism=uniformity

Another old chestnut...

Strange how people who put forward this arguent against socialism don't complain anout the uniformity of poverty in capitalist societies, or the uniformity of culture, or the uniformity of politics. Stop listening to the man. Think for yourself. You are no longer a child. Mummy or daddy or teacher won't smack you anymore for being deviant.

[Loonman]

42. Socialism is not about thinking about or for yourself

There is no "I" in socialism there is only "We".

There is no need nor reason for the individual in socialism.

[LeahMira]

46. What's wrong with "We"

There is no "I" in socialism there is only "We".

Now you need to explain why "I" is so essential or good and why "We" is so less than.

[Loonman]

49. Socialism by nature, assumes everyone is the same

Socialism does not allow or encourage individuality.

It assumes eveyone has the same needs, wants, and goals.

Socialism does not work, because, while capitalist decisions are made by individuals and firms that know more about their "market share", need for specialized workers, quotas, productivity and manufactory output than anyone else could possibly know.

Socialist administrators of State functions(everything belongs to the State) can't know or predict as much about the persons and situations they deal with and are forced to make and enforce general rules that apply the same to different people and different circumstances, regardless of individual needs and/or wants.

Socialism does not work.

People object to being stripped of their individuality and having the State determine their destiny and happiness.

You don't pursue anything in Socialism, the State makes, controls and distributes all.

Every thing that is done, is done for and by the State, not the people, not the individual.

Socialism is not about fulfilling individual needs.

[earthman dave]

55. Do you know what "socialism" means?

You seem to be confusing it with soviet-style state capitalism. Is this deliberate?

[Loonman]

58. Socialism requires central planning to be implemented

Central planning is a tenet of both socialism and communism and both require it to be administered to the people.

[earthman dave]

59. You seem very sure of yourself

Your statements are all flat, this-is-fact statements but it doesn't look like you actually know whereof you speak. Studied socialism a lot, have you?

[Loonman]

60. Yes

With a few exceptions, everywhere socialism has been instituted has resulted in consumer shortages, lack of productivity and government oppression.

[earthman dave]

61. OK, let's try this again

Socialism != communism. You've been told this enough times. You are *deliberately* missing the point. Why?

[Loonman]

62. I'm following the dictionary definition of socialism

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=socialism&x=20&y=14

[earthman dave]

67. So all that stuff in your earlier posts

...came from that dictionary definition? Way to read between the lines. The fact that you're so sure of yourself should be a warning to you. If socialism is as you describe it, why do so many support it? Are we eevil? Do we <snicker> hate ourselves and hate Murrka? You speak assuredly of things you know nothing about. Have you never said something, and later found you were misinformed? Or would you simply refuse to acknowledge your mistake?

[Loonman]

94. I'm not the one getting hot and bothered

I'm just pointing out the shortfalls of socialism.

Sure of myself and my def of socialism? Yes I am.

[earthman dave]

97. Your definition of socialism is different to others

And when you say, dogmatically, "socialism IS this" or "socialism IS that" it seems you're just trying to force YOUR definition down everyone else's throats. Now that we've established what "socialism" means in your private vocabulary, what word do you suggest the rest of us use to describe what we think of as socialism? You're not pointing out the shortfalls of socialism, i say again, you are dogmatically insisting that socialism is what you say it is. Can i have my language back, please?

[LeahMira]

132. No one else is "hot and bothered" either...

A dictionary definition of socialism is extremely limited, as well you know. In order to educate yourself about socialism and how it works you need to read a few books. They would help to flesh out the particulars and specifics that a dictionary isn't really meant to do.

[Tyler Durden]

70. Try something other than Miraim-Webster.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=75392&dict=CALD

When you're defining a concept that the RED/WHITE/BLUE Webster doesn't even recognize as valid, go to the source.

And stop being so paranoid. Nobody is coming to steal your goodies, or lock you up in the LUBIANKA. Socialist Society just means that if you're Bill Gates, then you have to pony up a little more for your priveliges: it's called paying your way at the going rate.

[Loonman]

81. I'm not saying that

About my "goodies".

Socialism punishes the individual and individual contributions to society.

[Karenina]

130. Bovine feces.

.

[Tyler Durden]

140. MUCH more politely than I would have put it.

As a person with enough PoliSci and History to have a minor in each, I think of my choice to be a Socialist as a reasoned and rational approach to the salvation of the species in particular and the Planet as a whole.

[cprise]

78. What do you expect

...they are capitalists. You'll need more than a dictionary definition to deal with this issue, anyway.

The most successful societies in the world right now are social-democracies. They incorporate as a founding principle that a democratic state must assume some responsibility for the economy. Some of their most successful industries are partly-owned by the state, and in some cases developed by the state. Japan, South Korea- the Asian Tigers in general- all would be 3rd-world status providing desperate, cheap labor to capitalists if their governments hadn't nurtured (even protected) industry for their countries' own interests. THAT keeps entrepeneurs and power brokers local and accountable to (and interested in) the people that work for them.

Today food, shelter and healthcare are human rights issues in these countries. This is how socialism considers people to be all the same; certainly we are in our basic needs.

[Az]

63. Not sure anyone is trying to equate that

Simply stating that a socialistic system runs into trouble when production and distribution run into shortfalls. The determining factor on whether a shortfall will occurr is affected by a number of things but as we cannot upgrade the humans the most humane thing to upgrade is the technology. Thus at a defined tech level insufficient to meet production/distribution levels the system falls away from its ideal position and as a matter of survival places the burden on the backs of the people in increasingly oppressive levels. As the oppression increases, stress increases and efficiency decreases exasterbating the situation.

[Az]

56. Incorrect

Socialism does not initially deny individualism. In fact it is based on the notion To each based on their need, from each based on their ability. Unfortunately it is inherant inefficiencies in our levels of production and distribution that give rise to a need to press upon the individuals to conform more.

It is not the desire or expectation of socialism for individuals to conform. It is simply a regretable outcome.

[cprise]

64. I'll bite- Socialism works!

...it just doesn't work by itself. It is a set of economic principles centered around the idea of collectivism.

You, and many others here, are assuming that socialism implies extremism, that the whole theoretical framework has to be implemented before it can be considered to exist.

In our society, heading toward extreme capitlism the idea of 'We' has been almost totally oblitterated in the public mind. We externalize the costs of our greed and apetities as suffering on the rest of humanity (and eventually ourselves). That's what Free Trade is all about: The impulse to return to a subjugated labor force that our investors can profit from as directly as possible.

So taking the same standards used in judging socialism, we find that capitalism "is evil". It truly is, taken to its extreme.

Oblitterating either the self or the community is just sick.

The Left in this country must begin to stand up for socialist principles as a way to balance the blind spots and excesses of capitalism. You can't have a functioning society for long without both individual responsibility and collective responsibility.

[Az]

71. Agreed

Until such a time as an individual can exist within a socialist system unfettered by shortages inherant to it and not constituting too large a burden to warrant their "Free ride" it will be problematic. Same too for capitalism. In its pure form it destroys society and turns the people into self centered social darwinists bent on beating each other.

In my mind Capitalism is what we need to escape from. But it serves its purposes until we can create a system to escape too. Till then chipping away at pure Capitalism and creating a hybrid (with increasing distancing from Capitalism) is the way to go.

[Loonman]

80. Fair enough, I can do collectivism, too

Collectivism, although not a bad idea on paper, would not work in reality.

For instance: let's assume that an individual, Billy Bob, is a member of a socialist collective. Imagine that that there are 1,000 members of the collective and that the output is divided equally among all it's members.

Suppose that the production of the collective totals 100,000 bushels of wheat/corn/whatever per year, which averages to 100 bushels per member.

Let's say the collective's output is bought by the state at $5.00(Dollars being used for simplicity) per bushel. Total receipts for the collective is $500,000, or $500 per member. The rub is: How is Billy Bob likely to behave? Will he work hard or will he slack?

Let's assume that Billy Bob is industrious, socially conscientious and proud of himself and his collective. He is concerned about the overall good of the collective and wants it to succeed. Because he's a model citizen, Billy Bob works very hard and increases his personal production from 100 to 150 bushels of wheat per year.

This pumps up the annual output of the collective from 100,000 to 100,050 bushels. Priced at $5.00 per bushel, the income of the collective increases from $500,000 to $500,250. Since total income is divided equally among all the members, the income of each member rises from $500 to $500.25 oe year.

Now, because of his extra work, Billy Bob's personal production increased 50%, however, his "share", or personal income increased by 25 cents. Moreover, the income of the other 999 members of the collective also increased by 25 cents even though they did not work any harder and their personal productivity did not increase.

Obviously, Billy Bob's vigorous productivity benefitted everyone in the collective except for himself.

The other 999 collectivist's income increased without raising their output or quota. Billy Bob's income increased only 25 cents despite increasing his work load by 50%. While the benefits of the extra production were distributed equally throughout the collective, the costs were concentrated on Billy Bob.

Given the distributional policies of the socialist collective, it is safe to asssume that Billy Bob's decision to increase his work was pointless, and it is unlikely that he would continue his exertions, thereby subjecting himself to continued exploitation by the other members of the collective(we're all human, rememeber?).


One could draw the conclusion that collective socialism penalizes industrious behavior.

[cprise]

96. You require extremism to make your point

Using your standards for socialism, capitalism neither works nor exists. When the success of private enterprise is built on public infrastructure, can they be said to have a successful capitalist system? I would say yes, but that socialism also succeeded where, say, the state controlled the means of power production needed by private businesses.

Your POV requires a double standard where black and white logic is selectively applied.

All the inverse arguments can be made for a totally capitalist environment where a few rich individuals command all the power of collective bargaining (ex: hiring for a job). Eventually, real income and living standards suffer irreparable damage even as the economy is GROWING for the benefit of a tiny slice of the population.

Billy Bob's collective would reasonably exist in a society were market pressures also exist, and in this country we call it a co-operative. The reasons for joining a co-op always involve self-interest, but almost never to the exclusion of group interest. Most of the co-ops I know of centered around renewable fuels work very well.

Using taxes to re-invest through education and health is collectivist.

The jury system is collectivist.

The BBC is a collectivist organization and is a fantastic success.

The Canadian grain producers are collectivist... (and I won't mention their health system or their prescription drugs).

(Oops, I mentioned them.)

[rman]

109. Socialism is about laying the foundation for any individual

to fulfill his/her needs.

(Assuming these needs are not excessive, as in 'needing so much that there's not enough left for the rest of us'.
There's only so much stuff to go around, and there's no reason why anyone should 'need' a significantly larger piece of the pie then the rest. not a 10, 100, 1000 or a million times larger piece.)

That foundation is the social circumstances which provide for basic security wrt to the existence and development of the individual, ie living wage, healthcare, education. This is achieved by means of the support of every individual by every individual that is part of society; ie tax and spend on the common good (who decides? society does - that's what democracy is for).

If and when the individuals that make up society want variety and choice (and who doesn't), then they can democratically arrange it so that they can have that variety and choice.

[LeahMira]

131. You are repeating what you hear from capitalists...

Socialism does not allow or encourage individuality

Individuality is not something that the state "gives" people. People are unique. Those whose ideas contribute to the general well-being are respected for their contribution, but those who simply do a small job well are also respected for theirs.

It assumes eveyone has the same needs, wants, and goals.

And we don't? Don't we all need food, shelter, and clothing? Don't we all need to feel that we are making a contribution to our corner of the world?

What socialism eliminates is the jealousy and resentment of those who are on the top of the pyramid because there is no pyramid. If people together decide that they want health care, for instance, then they plan and work together to get health care for everyone.

Socialism does not work, because, while capitalist decisions are made by individuals and firms that know more about their "market share", need for specialized workers, quotas, productivity and manufactory output than anyone else could possibly know.

That's not some esoteric information given only to the chosen few. It comes from simple experience of the sort that anyone can acquire. There are plenty of employee owned and operated businesses right now in the U.S. that do quite well. They are not multinational businesses operating in worldwide markets, but those are the kinds of businesses that are screwing the American worker right now, so how bad could it be if the employees made decisions for the smaller companies that they would own?

Socialist administrators of State functions (everything belongs to the State) can't know or predict as much about the persons and situations they deal with and are forced to make and enforce general rules that apply the same to different people and different circumstances, regardless of individual needs and/or wants.

And just who is "the State?" In the U.S., "the State" is wholly owned and operated by the citizens... or at least that's how it's supposed to be. You are talking as if "the State" is one or two or a dozen people who make the decisions for everybody in the entire country, but in a democratic society "the State" is US. I do think that if people believed that their opinions and ideas mattered at all and that they were not really powerless, they would take a far more active interest and participate far more fully in "the State." But really, "the State" can be the nation, the region, the state, the county, the city, the village, and so on. There are decisions made at each of these levels right now that pertain to just the people who live in the particular designation. If it works politically, there's no reason to think that it couldn't work economically.

People object to being stripped of their individuality and having the State determine their destiny and happiness.

That's just ridiculous. Each person has a talent or ability to contribute. The problem now is that capitalism and corporations determine which talents or abilities are rewarded most highly. Hence the term "starving artist." Because all talents and abilities are not valued equally in a capitalist society, you do have people who are dissatisfied because they cannot follow their own happiness and manage to survive at the same time. Yet any community needs its art museums and theaters, its public parks and lakes, every bit as much as it needs its banks and pharmaceuticals manufacturers. So why should there be "starving artists" and wealthy CEOs? If I am doing the work that I love doing, whether it's performing in a dramatic play or running a bank, I will do that work to the best of my ability as long as it provides me with a modest and dignified living. The "incentive" is the part about doing work that I love to do. I pursue nothing more.

Socialism is not about fulfilling individual needs.

Nope. Socialism is not about fulfilling individual wants. Not all the world's nations that operate under a socialistic system are characterized by poverty. There is not the obscene wealth that a few in the U.S. have managed to acquire, but there is also not homelessness and starvation and poverty such as we see in the U.S. either.

[hexola]

164. Do you actually live in the United States???!!!

Socialism does not allow or encourage individuality.It assumes eveyone has the same needs, wants, and goals.

Uh - have you ever been to Wal-Mart, Mc Donalds? Capitalism is homoginizing society BIG TIME!!!

[Az]

54. I is essential

because "We" are comprised of "I"s. Replacing one tyranny for another is no solution. While Socialism may attempt to act upon higher ideals, without the assitance of technology it is too inefficient to allow for the very wide breadth of potential each individual is able to bring to the table.

People may have equal rights but we do not have equal capabilities. While Socialism attempts to base its ideal on the notion Each according to their ability this falls apart without assistance. Eventually the inadequacies the arise in a chaotic system place a burden upon the society as a whole. And to this it must respond by requiring more from the individuals. Thus the tyranny arises.

Only when a technology is in place that can supplement production and distribution can a true Socialism be put in place that can respect all individuals equally. Till then we must chip away at the beast known as capitalism and attempt to drive it in the correct direction to develop the technology we need to implement a fairer system.

[Tyler Durden]

50. As long as you're into definitions, try the ENGLISH one.

After all, it was practially invented there. From the Cambridge University Press:

socialism
noun
the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country,
or the political systems based on these beliefs.

Simple. To the point.

And by the way, if "WE" don't get it together, "WE" are freaking DOOMED.

Socialism is NOT about not thinking for yourself, it is thinking about someone else once in a while, unlike the miserable selfish Capitalist Neo-Darwinist Bastards we've become in this country.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earthman dave]

47. You're wasting your time, mate

These *people* apparently get their definition of socialism from the Rush Limbaugh show. "Socialism? Isn't that where Stalin eats your babies whilst you work in a prison camp?"

[mdmc]

75. lol

I read it in Websters!

[Az]

52. Not just a chestnut

Left to its own a socialist system would gladdly respect the individual to do as they please. It is due to the burden created by the lack of efficiency in production and distribution that creates the tyranny. Thus as a matter of survival the society is forced to place pressure on the nonconformists to get in line or suffer(usually both).

Do not misunderstand my position. My goal is to get to a time and place where a socialist system is viable. But we are not there yet. I find the capitalistic system to be a horrendous tyranny. I advise extreme measures of introducing socialist concepts into capitalism as a means of balancing it till such a time that we can cut it off. I suggest entire aspects of society are ready to make the shift now.

I want socialism when we have the ability to implement it correctly. Not before.

[rman]

76. society = the individuals

you'r saying socialism is the tyranny of society over society, the tyranny of the individuals over individuals.
I think that's a whole lot better then the tyranny of corporations over society.

your statement reminds me of Richard Perle's complaint that democracy is the tyranny of the majority. it's hardly a secret that Perle would prefer the tyranny of a powerfull minority (which includes him).

[Az]

79. Not quite

The problem is one of hopes vs effects. The intent of Socialism is one of respect and community. However it is the shortcomings of a variety of issues that force the system into a less functional format. Technology seems to be the fairest method of shoring up these shortcomings and we do not seem to be there yet.

Keep in mind that a structure that attempts to maintain its progress by means of controlled balance is very easy to disrupt if intentionally done so. Thus individuals that feel oppressed by a system such as that will find it very easy to disrupt. Thus the reason the reaction to those that do not conform becomes increasingly overbearing.

Until such a time that the excess of production allows for those that do not participate in the productive aspects of society to enjoy the benefits of being part of that society without undo burden upon the society there are going to be problems. It is simply a problem of human nature. You can want everyone to participate but biology, psychology, and a host of other issues can create circumstances where some simply will not participate.

[rman]

103. couple of comments

"The problem is one of hopes vs effects. The intent of Socialism is one of respect and community. However it is the shortcomings of a variety of issues that force the system into a less functional format."

As in when it gets corrupted/hijacked? (communism: stalin, democracy: hitler). Capitalism has the same shortcoming, more then that, its founding philosophy encourages greed and corruption.

"Technology seems to be the fairest method of shoring up these shortcomings and we do not seem to be there yet."

Which technology would be a method to fix socialism (or the failings of human nature)?

"Keep in mind that a structure that attempts to maintain its progress by means of controlled balance is very easy to disrupt if intentionally done so."

That does not mean it is better to have an unbalanced system; that comes down to letting disruption reign free ('because we can't stop it anyway').
Even capitalism has/had some balances (ever less), in the form of regulation (ie wrt environment). Things such as deregulation is disruption of that balance.

"Thus individuals that feel oppressed by a system such as that will find it very easy to disrupt. Thus the reason the reaction to those that do not conform becomes increasingly overbearing."

Any system can be disrupted, it all depends on guarding that the people who operate it follow the rules. Apparently we can not be "forever vigilant" (the price of liberty), which would be why every single system thus far has failed. This, and not lack of technology is what hampers socialism.

"Until such a time that the excess of production allows for those that do not participate in the productive aspects of society to enjoy the benefits of being part of that society without undo burden upon the society there are going to be problems."

There already is excess production, it's just that a powerful minority is hoarding most of the wealth that it represents.

Many of those who do not participate in the productive aspects of society, do so not by their own choice or fault. their jobs depend to a large extent on decisions made by the minority in power, that minority tends to make decisions to its own advantage, at the expense of many who already are less well off - ie off-shoring/out-sourcing/low-wage immigrant workers. It's hardly fair to say the victims of these (predatory capitalist) policies are an undue burden on society.

"It is simply a problem of human nature. You can want everyone to participate but biology, psychology, and a host of other issues can create circumstances where some simply will not participate."

"Host of other issues" - yes, like the policies made by the minority in power, who benefits from its own policies at the expense of... etc. That's human nature alright, the nature of a minority of people, coupled with the apathy and naivity of the rest of humanity (also human nature). But i think it can be fixed, not by technology but by cultural development.

[Az]

108. Hybrid till purity can be attained

Noting that absolute purity is unlikely.

My personal view of the current situation suggests that we should be much more invested in a socialistic system at the current time with some capitalistic systems still in place. Unfortunately the minority that benefit from stronger capitalism have a throttle on socialistic advances. Furthermore the advances in technology that would enable us to free ourselves from the capitalistic hold are deliberately targetted and squelched by the corporate interests. That which frees the people from the tyrany of the corporation is seen as a threat.

Unfortunately this thread was started with a cry for a revolution to bring about socialism. This implies a complete makeover with a pure socialistic system implemented. This is what the negative comments are directed towards. Attempting to cold start a socialist system is a bad idea. Sticking with a capitalistic system is a worse idea. Strive for balance and move forward.

[JanMichael]

41. Now? Nah. I'd rather wait until sometime mid 2006.

Give me a buzz then and I'll be ready.

[KG]

45. why not until '06?

need to find a place to park? :)

[JanMichael]

57. Parking should always be considered. As well as the required...

...permits. Wouldn't want to throw an unpermitted Revolution now, would we? Code Enforcement would have a cow.

[Terwilliger]

73. DEATH TO CODE ENFORCEMENT!

:nuke:

[Indiana Democrat]

77. This is a joke, right?

If not, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[RandomKoolzip]

82. Revolution NOW?! But I just got a new job!

Sorry, capitalism is still the best system/economic model as long as it's regulated well. Unfortunatley, there hasn't been the kind of regulation necessary to prevent mass exploitation, but there's still hope, at least IMHO.

Socialism or Communism has about as much chance of catching on in this country as cricket does. It ain't gonna happen. There's too many people making too much money and occupying too much real estate for your "Worker's Paradise" to ever occur. And the American people for the most part, are happy with capitalism. Hell, I'm a proud member of the working class, and I'm okay with the system! I think wage increases for the poor would help out; I'm all for a living wage. But Socialism.....? Er, no.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

85. We have always had reds on here

...and many people have socialist-related avatars, if you haven't noticed.

BTW- This is DemocraticUNDERGROUND,

...not DemocraticPartyUSA, DemocraticBridgeClub, or democrats4corporaterule


Go nip at the heels of some libertarians. There are plenty here, and having Republican economics, they have some of the most un-democratic beliefs I know.

[October]

90. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them

[earthman dave]

86. "Democratic", as in, "Agree with ME or leave!"

Look out, the commies are everywhere...

[Loonman]

88. Doesn't bother me

People can extoll the virtues of socialism all they want, doesn't mean I'll agree.

[earthman dave]

95. Yeah, i know, i was taking exception to...

October's "suggestion" that the poster shut up or get out.

[October]

91. Don't pin that crap on me

I merely disagree -- which is supposed to be allowed in a democracy --even encouraged.

[Terwilliger]

92. EXCUSE YOU?

Did you not just say "Take your 300 posts and start your own website."

You merely disagreed, and told the poster to go elsewhere. Sounds like YOU are the one who doesn't encourage democracy.

[October]

98. Yes, and I'm sorry --

Really I am.

[Indiana Democrat]

112. Curious...

...Just releasing the thought that's bouncing around in my thick skull right now...

While I don't have the right to tell someone to leave, I do wish posts like this didn't exist on this forum...I think they make us look bad. Personally, I look at posts like these in almost the same light as racist posts...Or even somone praising fascism. Of course that's just my opinon.

So...

What's the proper way to express that thought on a public forum like this? Should I just keep quiet? I assume the owner of the site is OK with posts like this otherwise it wouldn't be here, so I guess the answer is to just keep quiet?

[earthman dave]

118. Try to persuade the admins to ban any approval of socialism, then.

I don't think they mind people disagreeing (rather than ordering others to leave), but I do wonder, if socialism upsets you so much, why not just not read these posts? It seems a bit extreme to want to not only not read them yourself, but to also prevent others from reading them. Are you really serious when you say it's as bad as racism or fascism? If so, how?

[Indiana Democrat]

120. I think they make us look bad.

This is DEMOCRATICUnderground.com.

If we were on a site where a bunch of us buddies were hanging-out just throwing around ideas and having discussions, it wouldn't bother me at all.

Maybe it's a bit hard to explain...

[earthman dave]

122. I make you look bad? Nice.

Once again, if you want a say in site policy, i suggest you put your case to the admins.

[earthman dave]

129. On a slightly less sarcastic note...

I totally disagree with the idea that you can't say certain things in case they upset people, especially when the people they'll upset are not on "our side" (broadly speaking). DU does not speak for the Democrat party, and anyone who comes here will realise that. The only people who are gonna get real upset about socialist ideas on DU are the freepers, and why censor myself to avoid upsetting those f*cks? This *is* a site where a bunch of people hang out and throw ideas around. It's not an "official" Democrat party site, and i don't think anyone believes that it is, and if they do, then tell them otherwise, rather than trying to stifle debate to please the freepers.

[Indiana Democrat]

139. Only "Freepers"?

You just slandered a lot of good Democrats with that statement. Congratulations.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indiana Democrat]

142. Conversation over.

Go call someone else a Freeper.

[Karenina]

143. You'll excuse me I hope

for my opinion that "good Democrats" have open enough minds to discuss issues with someone who presents them intelligently. Your posts clearly indicate no point of reference to understand where earthman dave is coming from. I offer you a challenge as you are both new posters to me. Where do YOU think he lives? :evilgrin:

[Indiana Democrat]

145. Let me make myself clear...

...Like I said elsewhere...

This site is called DemocraticUnderground. Personally, I reject Socialism. Also personally, I think the promotion of Socialism on a site called DemocraticUnderground makes me and others look bad as Democrats.

That being said, it's not my site. Thus my first question in this thread.

[Karenina]

150. Babykins, you have NO IDEA

of what socialism really is and are exhibiting the failure of the American educational system to promote critical thinking. How a discussion about socialism somehow makes YOU look bad in any way shape or form is truly beyond my comprehension.

[Indiana Democrat]

159. Well Sweet Cheeks...

...I do know that Socialism has never been successful. And Capitolistic America is the single greatest nation on earth (Even with all our warts and crazy uncles).

I believe in results, not what woulda, shoulda, coulda.

[Karenina]

128. Huh?

Look "bad" to whom? :freak:

[Indiana Democrat]

133. Americans...

...Who happen to be Democrats and recognize the simple fact that Socialism is a failure at best and anti-American at worst.

[earthman dave]

135. LOL

Anti-american? Are you for real?

[Tyler Durden]

144. Simple fact?

Never have I been dismissed by someone who espouses "Democracy" like that before.

Your answer smacks of "God said, I believe it, that settles it."

Defining political science in your terms is not very appropriate. There are people who disagree with YOUR premise. I suppose that makes them failures and Anti-American.

Bull.

[Indiana Democrat]

147. Where has Socialism succeeded?

[Karenina]

146. BINGO!

Your post has won a position on Karenina's Top 10 list of myopic, idiotic, Amicentric ramblings. :bounce:

[Indiana Democrat]

149. Yes.

I am proud to call myself an American.

We're the greatest country in the history of Man.

Current resident of the White House not withstanding.

[Karenina]

154. Pride goeth before a fall.

There's a great mansion up in the Pacific Palisades overlooking the ocean above PCH. I'm SURE you'd feel right at home in it!

[October]

138. I'm probably not the right person to ask...

<blush>

But I think you did just fine with your post.

I honestly didn't mean to judge the "guy" on how many posts he'd had (You'll notice I have the same amount.),or even to tell him to leave. But it sure "read" like that when I suggested he take his posts and start his own website, and so I am embarrassed.

Two of my nieces are from China, and I have a lot of respect for all cultures. As an artist, I've even made special paintings with Asian themes for the girls to display proudly. It's their heritage and I never want them to feel ashamed or degraded.

Frankly, I was reacting to the poster's word "revolution" more than anything -- which is a strong word -- and one I feel should be used judiciously. I don't mind an intellectual discussion on different political persuasions, but I took offense to someone calling for a revolution in the name of it. I should've just said that I guess.

People can curse like crazy and insult like crazy, and just be all around crude and rude and disrespectful to others around here
-- which confounds me at times. For example, I've seen a lot of threads casually throwing around words like sluts, whores, bitches, etc., over and over again, which can be terribly offensive to at least 50-53% of the population, but I guess that's acceptable as long as you don't "suggest" they leave DU (or start another site!).

Still learning.

[dpibel]

168. Don't say the "R" word!!!!

Next thing you know, somebody'll take you for the kind of crazy bastid who would write documents that start out, "When in the course of human events. . ."

[Terwilliger]

169. You think socialism is criminal? I think capitalism is barbaric.

I'm right.

[earthman dave]

93. You "merely disagreed" by telling the poster to leave

Can you pin crap? Eat less fibre, man.

[October]

99. I realize my error

[earthman dave]

101. Then i apologize for being snarky. nt

[October]

106. I feel bad

I didn't realize what I'd "said." It was totally uncool of me.

[camero]

89. What you're forgetting

The cancer of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are the same. Power and Privilege. Until we can figure out a way to solve those problems, no system will work as designed. Though I am much more comfortable with Social Democracy than the mess we have now.

[sandboxface]

114. Cybernetics???

I agree with what your comments on the 'isms'. I think the only way we can get out of these countless messes is to embrace each other, something most governments prevent at all costs. Take a look at this speech made by Gregory Bateson:

http://rawpaint.com/library/bateson/formsubstancedifference.html

[Az]

116. In essence

What is needed to make any system work flawlessly is one that does not impose undo burden on any individual yet provides enough resources for anyones desires. This is not realistic in a utopian sense without some labor force that has no desire to not work. Thus it becomes a question of technology.

Robotic concepts seems to be a viable path to this (as long as we don't goof up and make them sentient).

[camero]

127. Not a bad theory

Of course it would involve a revolutionary change in our way of thinking. I was commenting more on Pancho Villa's statement when he was asked if he would like to sit in the President's chair.

He said, "No, I would like to burn it so as to get rid of ambition."

We are all different and at the same time linked together is what I got from reading that speech. Which is true.

[Merrick]

121. There is no

such thing as an ideal civilization, since civilization inherently breeds inequality and power structures orchestrated inevitably by the ruthlessly ambitious who're driven primarily to expand their power. Since some jerk about 10,000 years ago got greedy and inplemented a division of labor, we're stuck now. Neither pure socialism nor capitalism is viable, in my opinion, but I agree that a more legitimate social democracy should be strived for.

[camero]

125. It would even ruin social democracy

If the greedy and powerful get ahold of it. It too would descend in to totalitarianism. Even if there is less chances of it happening. The key is to contol greed and ambition and embrace humility.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

111. its time to revamp our universities..

.. to teach kids how to be entrepreneurs rather than letting the corporations grab our best minds. in a truly capitalistic society, we would. BUT, the Corps(es) dont want the competition from small business. hence, our colleges teach us a little of everything, rather than teaching us how to take out the Corps(es).

[catzies]

161. OutlawCorporatePolls, welcome to DU!

I'm intrigued by that idea you presented and I'm going to give it some thought.

[durutti]

123. I agree.

It's communism or extinction.

[Cleita]

148. Instead of the marriage amendment that Bush proposes,

we need an amendment outlawing supply side, trickle down, laissez faire economics. The fortunes of the common person would change dramatically if this happened.

[LostInTheMaise]

158. Ok, bring it on! Who's leading this charge?

Is it ok if I buy stocks in pitchforks and torches first?

[Indiana Democrat]

162. No.

That would be Capitolism.

[Mass_Liberal]

163. this is about the only issue I'm in the center of

democratic socialism all the way. Dictatorial societies however, always fail, once the leaders are corrupted. Which happens inevitably. So go for democratic socialism, workers rights, equality, AND the people get representation. Booyah!

[Snappy]

165. Democratic Socialism

I would move to Sweden or Canada but I hate cold weather. I am researching or a country that is a Social Democracy that has warm weather the year around. Any suggestions?

[dumpster_baby]

166. I have looked into moving to a democratic socialist country

As for warm weather demo-socialist country, Australia is about, and it is not really a dem-soc. But not too far from it: tax funded universal health care, welfare and unemployment much more accessible. In general, people do not have to work as hard there as here (that from what I have read and what visitors have told me).

The only real dem-socs are in NW Europe.

Moving to a dem-soc: it can be done: Australia will take you if you have a tech/science degree and are under 45 yo.

THe real dem socs in Europe are pretty hard to get into. Getting a job there and then getting married to a resident is the best way. They don't really take immigrants.

Actually, not many countries DO take immigrants, except the USA to some degree. Paraguay does basically take all immigrants, but it is a hot free market poverty stricken hell hole.

See my sig URL for links about Democratic socialist countries...

[Terwilliger]

171. what sig?

:hi:

[cryofan]

176. oops...THIS sig

see below

[Terwilliger]

170. Brazil

or Venezuela...although you may have to do some actual fighting if you go to Venezuela.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

[Broken]

172. socialism--schmocialism

"Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer. . . .The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -- voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery." {The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 187-188}



Everyone here who supports capitalism on the basis of liberty is, in my opinion, dishonest, or ignorant.


How can capitalism be based on liberty when the worker is told the conditions of the work "agreement". The employer tell's his/her worker when to show up and when to leave. When to rest, when to eat. When a worker needs to shave or needs to cut his hair. Controls what clothes you wear. Even sometimes controls when you are allowed to pee. In some work places workers are literally spied on by supervisors, a dossier is kept for each worker. The worker may not talk back to his/her employer. In fact if you disobey your employer you will likely be fired for insubordination.

INSUBORDINATION let us think of that. The worker is in fact paid to be subordinate to the capitalist or his/her middle management. The worker is in fact paid to check his/her liberty at the door of employment and to become in control of another human being. When the capitalist says to do this, the worker must do this, when the worker is told to do that, he must do that, when the worker is told to come here, the worker must come here, when the worker is told to go there, the worker must go there. This is in fact the reality of liberty to the worker it is an utter falsehood, it is something to be sold, it is a commodity. For capitalism is based on property, on ownership in the "free" market where everything can and is a commodity. So the worker who "owns" himself has "the right" to become a commodity and be rented by the capitalist for about half the day.

The worker has no other choice to "agree" to this relationship. If the worker does not "agree" to this relationship the worker will in all likely hood go homeless and hungry. This is the gun to the head of the worker, "your money, or your life". This condition is caused by the ownership of land, machinery, homes, apartments, warehouses, office buildings etc. etc. and etc. This is private property, it is not the basis for freedom to the worker but servitude. It is only "freedom" to the property owner to enjoy the fruits of anothers labor. It is a bourgeois 'freedom' of the stronger to exploit the weaker. This will upset people, but it is the truth.

I'm neither a Marxist, nor a socialist----in consideration of the ignorance of what socialism actually is to the self declared socialist........Socialism has been so watered down that today it simply means more crumbs for workers.

I'am neither a communist, for communists do not care about the "I, in we"...the liberty of the worker.

I'm not a liberal because they want even less crumbs for workers.

Nor am I a "Libertarian" in consideration of "Libertarianism's" authoritarianism.

I'am only me, a worker, who wishes to no longer obey, wether it be Liberal, Communist, Socialist, or "Libertarian", person or government. I know longer want to compartmentalize my liberty I want it all day, everyday.

"The Great are great, only because we are on our knees"
I think it's from Mx Stirner

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

173. no war but the class war

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=694059

[Broken]

174. what it is

Socialism is about workers being in control of the "means of production" which is currently in the hands of a small amount of monopolists which we call private property. This is different the your personal property like your car your clothes your personal things you use for personal use.

Private property is the ownership of Land, Machinery, Buildings, and such which is owned for the purpose of making a profit off the labor of workers.

EVERYONE who calls themselves a socialist must be against the private ownership of the means of production. Socialism does not mean welfare or any such nonsense that "socialists" prescribe for workers.

Authoritarian socialists want the state to be in control of the means of production. Through dicatorship, or some form of representative govt. Workers will still take orders from above by buearocrats, which in fact is class above and over workers. It is in fact private property owned by the state.


There are other socialists who call themselves libertarians (long before libertarian capitalists) and declare that workers should disobey any and all authority, ignore the state and take over their places of work.


What socialists are trying to end is the working class's dependency on selling ones labor power to another class of people who are legally privileged in owning property that gives them the leisure of living off the labor of the worker.