What would it take for American-style capitalism/socialism to work?

[Beaker]

The path we're currently on is starting to look more and more unsustainable to more and more people. Is there some kind of "tweaking" that could be done to stop the current "race to the bottom" for workers' wages and quality of life?

Personally I think that there should be some kind of "maximum wage", or maximum wealth for individuals, or maximum size for corporaions. After all, without a "maximum wage" on the top end, does a 'minimum wage' really have any meaning?
I'm not saying that it has to be a ridiculously low number, but there should be some correlation between the high end and low end salaries/wages in a corporation.

Any thoughts? What can we do to make it keep working?

[Selwynn]

1. Get rid of "american" style capitalism alltogether (nt)

[Tansy_Gold]

3. At least make sure there's an inheritance tax.

It's the ONLY thing that prevents an obscene accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very tiny few.

It's not a "death" tax -- you can't tax the dead.

It's not an "estate" tax -- estates have no feelings

It's an INHERITANCE TAX -- it keeps the non-working from getting huge unearned wealth, you know, just like welfare. Except the people who gain from the lack of an inheritance tax aren't struggling just to get by; they're struggling to make sure none of the rest of us get by.

[ShaneGR]

57. And, um, what would you propose is put in its place?

Seriously, what exactly is your alternative? Should we let the government own everything, and be told where to work and where to live? Or are you looking for something in the middle?

Just wondering.

[durutti]

72. Here's One Alternative

But by no means the only one.

Check it out here: http://www.parecon.org/

[Frangible]

2. The problem really isn't that there is a max salary cap

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Seriously, people in the US have a ridiculously high quality of life on average relative to not only the rest of America, but America in the past. The amount of land ownership, personal wealth, etc, is really quite high now.

Granted, Dumbya has fucked that up, but if we can dump him and stop some of this country's hemorraging I think we'll be better off.

Personally, I think outsourcing is a far greater evil-- one corporations receive a tax cut for, and is encouraged by both Dems and Repubs. Sad. Truly sad.

[Beaker]

12. But it is broken, that's the point.

It's becoming fairly obvious that the ever-increasing 'quality-of-life' you speak of, that most of us have grown up enjoying simply isn't sustainable.
Changes will have to be made.
Changes that are going to end up hurting some group of people.

[Frangible]

14. Why?

Why is it not substainable? And do you really want a socialistic system? That's a horrid quality of life because it's so ineffecient and provides no incentive for innovation or hard work; look at socialist East Berlin compared to capitalist West Berlin, who had the higher quality of living?

Why on earth would you trade something that works for a failed broken experiment? I'm fine with some social programs, that's all good, but reverting to socialism... man, that'd be one giant step backwards.

[Beaker]

15. In the 60's, a family of 4 or more could live on ONE blue-collar wage

Now, it's a stretch to do it on 2, 3, or in some cases more jobs and paychecks...and those jobs used to have much better medical benefits attatched to them. Corporations are only focused on higher profits and higher market share each quarter after the next...it doesn't take a genius to see that that is simply not possible to sustain.
High-paying manufacturing, and now tech jobs, continue to bleed out of the country and the economy. And despite what some people seem to want to believe, this time it's not 'cyclical'. Those jobs aren't coming back this time around, and a lot of the people that used to hold them are not easily trainable in new careers. more Americans are in more debt than ever before.
Maybe you see a way out of this, but a lot of people can't...
Maybe you could enlighten us?

[Frangible]

25. As I said

Outsourcing is a serious problem, and all your favorite democrats and republicans ALL back it. That's where the blue collar jobs went, and why they won't be coming back.

As for the standard of living being worse, that's simply false. See http://www.cameron.edu/academic/business/brc/STANDARD.PDF

Socialism doesn't, nor has it ever, nor will it ever, work. Capitalism with some sane controls on business abuse and some social programs are what work.

I agree health care in the US is broken, and would like to see it moved to a national program similar to Canada's.

[Beaker]

33. Who said that the 'standard of living' is worse?

I didn't.

and I also didn't call for full-blown pure Socialism, I said "American-style" capitalism & socialism...because as you pointed out, PURE Caitalism won't work either- you need to have tariffs and regulations for it to come close to working at least for a little while. but it simply isn't sustainable the way we've been doing it, and still provide for maintaining the quality of life Americans want for themselves and their children.

what "social programs"(i.e. "american-style socialism") do you support?

[Frangible]

36. If that's the case

Probably the same ones you do :P Although perhaps not to the same degree.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
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


Y'all are discussing capitalism with some social programs, not socialism. Textbook definition socialism is evil incarnate and what you saw in the USSR. Capitalism with social programs are what America needs.

[Beaker]

43. Pure capitalism is not what the U.S pratices,

anymore that pure socialism is what existed in the USSR...it wasn't.

what we have- what you call capitalism with social programs, is more of a mixing of the two.

Why do people see the word "socialism" and automatically assume that it has to mean By The Book, full-on Marxist type socialism, but they're free to toss around the word "capitalism" to include every particular brand of regulated and un-reguleted variety there is?

[Tyler Durden]

81. WRONG!

COMMUNISM doesn't work. No one has given true Socialism a chance. Yet.

Comparing E. German style Communism to Socialism is like comparing apples and streetcars.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

65. *sigh*

"so ineffecient and provides no incentive for innovation or hard work?

By the way, Germany - West Germany - is one of the most socialist countries in the world, so your comparison is completely bogus, isn't it?

[Nederland]

67. By what measure? (nt)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

69. social ownership and input into business

Let's see, they have a strong social safety net, great social security, publically owned infrastructure, and their corporations have labor and community representation on their boards.

[Nederland]

74. That's not an answer

I'm looking for an objective measure that you can quantify and compare against other nations.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

75. Nederland, whatever you are looking for I hope you find it

I also hope you get to live in a capitalist free market paradise someday.

[Nederland]

76. A suggestion

How about percentage of GDP controlled by government?

[IrateCitizen]

77. A counter-suggestion...

How about doing away with the "GDP" measurement altogether, and instead moving toward something a little more indicative of overall well-being of a society. The GDP is perhaps the most misleading indicator of societal well-being that we could ever come up with.

An example of this would be the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). You can take a look at it by going to http://www.rprogress.org/projects/gpi/.

[Nederland]

79. Confused

How could the GPI be used to measure the degree to which a country is socialist?

[IrateCitizen]

83. How can GDP measure that either???

I don't think that GDP is much good for measuring ANYTHING, other than the total number of dollars spent, per capita, over the course of a year.

IOW, it's a statistic that is probably less valuable than the paper it is printed upon.

[Nederland]

86. In this case, that's what we want

I don't think that GDP is much good for measuring ANYTHING, other than the total number of dollars spent, per capita, over the course of a year.

That's precisely what we want in this case. For example if you consider what percentage of GDP is controlled by government and compare the US, Germany, and Cuba you get a fairly accurate measure of how "socialist" those countries are relative to each other. If my memory serves, you find the percentage of government control to be 24%, 50%, 85% for the US, Germany, and Cuba respectfully. That's pretty much what you would expect: the US is the least "socialist", and Cuba the most.

[IrateCitizen]

87. But here's where the misleading begins...

You assume that "socialism" is monolithic. It isn't. The US practices what could probably be more accurately termed "corporate socialism" than capitalism, because it's a system in which the risks are increasingly socialized and the profits are privatized.

For instance...

Your equation fails to take into account anything like massive tax breaks for certain industries, such as fossil fuels. It also does not measure public expenditures that actually benefit the public at large (such as school construction/renovation, highway repair, downtown regentrification projects, etc.) in any different way than measures that benefit only a narrow interest (nuclear power plant subsidy, building of roads to access remote oil drilling, etc.).

Once again, you are choosing to compartmentalize economic analysis from a host of other factors that are either directly affected by, or directly affect said economics. That is why the GDP is a grossly inaccurate measure of just about anything, and why a new measure must be used.

Rather than worry about labels, why not concentrate on forming a system that best benefits society as a whole? If you look at some of my other responses on this thread, you'll see that's what I am trying to steer discussion toward.

[camero]

66. It isn't broken?

CEO's getting 500 times the wage of thier lowest paid worker and you think the system isn't broken? And it will only go higher, so where is the end?

To me, there are only 2 ways to stop this trend. One is very high progressive rates on the upper tier. The other is an outright maximum wage, with a higher one for employee-owned corporations where the CEO and boards are elected by the floor workers.

[IrateCitizen]

80. Think outside the box, camero...

You're looking at this as something that only big-government can get us out of. While government certainly has a role to play, I'd say it's a much different one.

Decentralizaton is the key toward any long-standing change in our economy.

Look at it this way. It's easy for a CEO to get away with making 500 times what the average worker makes, when he's living in a gated mansion halfway across the country. It's also easy for him to undercut locally-owned businesses, bust up unions, and so on.

HOWEVER...

What if we were to move toward an economy that did not offer all these advantages to large corporations, and instead focus on local development. There is no way that a CEO can get away with this kind of stuff, when he/she has to face the people directly affected by these practices. Additionally, profits made by locally-owned businesses are not shipped away to some far-off headquarters, but are actually re-invested in the community.

If you want to reorient the system, that's the way to do it, IMHO. While it will require the busting up of huge corporations by the government and enforcement thereafter, it is the only option that truly returns influence back to where it belongs -- the people. And that is the only way that meaningful change will occur and keep hold.

[camero]

85. It would also mean busting up the media

I agree mostly with your assessment of the big picture but we must also include avarice as a national crime and not just a local one.

Wages are subjective in that we only pay people in terms of the value that society places upon that particular occupation. That is why we see a baseball player making millions while a teacher makes a miniscule amount.

Also, I see a CEO making 500 times the rate of the lowest paid worker as a form of embezzlement, as it takes funds from the company that could very well be used for other things.

Correction: I do like your idea of local control (e.g. the Green Bay Packers being owned by the county as one example) but the key to controlling the effects of capitalism is keeping it in a box also, much like you keep a monster in a cage.

[IrateCitizen]

89. Capitalism is simply a system, same a socialism

Both can be used for public benefit. Likewise, both can be used toward quite immoral ends.

The key does not lie in keeping it "in a box". Rather, the key lies in changing the way that people view the world around them. If selfishness and greed and accumulation of massive amounts of wealth are no longer viewed as desirable attributes, then people will no longer seek to reinforce such practices, but rather to shun them. And by keeping these "systems", along with the institutions they include, within reach of the people, you then can maintain control over them simply by allowing the people to ensure that the values that society holds up (I would hope that hard work, compassion, cooperation and empathy would be among them) will be reflected in those institutions.

[camero]

90. We cannot change human nature, we can only harness it.

The one constant over the course of human history is man's desire to have more than the person next to them. No amount of pull by society (in a broad sense) will ever change this fact. All we can do is reduce the ability of people to injure each other in one form or another. Hence, "the box".

[IrateCitizen]

91. Hardly a constant, camero

There are still cultures on this earth in which cooperation is valued higher than selfishness.

Sorry, but I fail to acknowledge the "hopelessness" of humankind that you describe. Within all people is the capability for selfishness (obviously, based on our society) but also cooperation and compassion. It's a matter of seeking out ways to reward cooperation and compassion while penalizing selfishness at the expense of the common interest.

Anything else is really only going to be the equivalent of placing a band-aid on gangrene. Those with the means will find ways to break out of the "box" and rend it to bits, unless we do something to address the root causes.

[camero]

92. A maximum wage penalizes selfishness

It is one way to get to the point which we are trying to attain.

I don't really see a major advertising blitz for compassion when the media is in so few hands, even though I acknowledge your point that there are still some societies in which cooperation is valued over selfishness, Western Europe being one.

To paraphrase Rummy of all people, it will be "one hard, long slog".

[IrateCitizen]

94. And focusing on "wage" is where you make your biggest mistake

From http://www.lcurve.org

If we divided the income of the U.S. into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the U.S. into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)

So, the problem isn't really "wages", as you mistakenly point out. The problem is with amassed wealth -- people who amass so much wealth that they are able to live off of the "income of the income of their investments" and, even worse, hand this kind of obscene wealth down to their progeny.

I'm not trying to pick on you here, it's just an all-too-common mistake to confuse high income with excessive wealth.

[camero]

95. I know you're not picking on me, you're right

But maximum wages are a good first step, it won't be done in a day.

I'll be honest in that I don't know the way to curb amassed wealth besides a tax surcharge on net worth, which right wingers would decry as "punishing success". Which we both know is not true. It's "curbing greed".

And maximum wages will help keep the disparity at a sustainable level.

[elfwitch]

4. you'd have to...

You'd have to completely rid the society of the Puritanical ethics system that drags us all down. That whole Protestant work ethic thing would have to go. Socialistic Democracy only works when people don't believe that the less fortunate desrve to be so because they have sinned or offended God in some way. Our entire system works on the Puritanical ideals of material wealth as a reward for piousness. That is why the conservatives are so against the social welfare system. They thing the poor are lazy and desrve to be miseeable for it. All of they psycho religious net in the White House are extreme examples of that belief system. They sincerely think that they are rich and powerful because they are more godly than everyone else.

[Frangible]

8. No offense

But I have a lot of IRC friends that are extremely bright and talented, and are unemployed by choice. I like them as people, I really do. However, they mooch off people, and are just lazy, and admit as much. I've offered them jobs at my company, I'm all about hooking friends up. I've offered many good suggestions about what to do. But they sit around playing video games and doing nothing productive, and are happy to do so.

Sorry, but as much as I like them, I am not willing to pay for that. I'll accept some social welfare to a point, but laziness should not be rewarded.

For every down-on-their luck person genuinely needing it, there's a lazy guy sitting there playing video games. I don't even know how tell them apart from an administrative point of view, but I don't want to see 75% of my income that barely substains me go to funding their laziness.

Just my evil, unpolitically correct opinion.

[toddzilla]

19. anecdotal..

please don't use anecdotal information to debate actual issues... it's just plain stupid.

"i know a guy".. blah blah blah...

our profit-driven system sucks immensely. tell me why you need to make a profit on medical care? Don't tell me for research because it's already subsidized as it stands.

[Frangible]

22. The fact is

That was an example of what happens quite often; the point is, a lot of people who are unemployed, are that way by choice, and once again, I'm sorry but I don't make enough money to fund their laziness. They could at least make an honest effort to get / hold a job.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. "Why do you need to make a profit on medical care?"

Because you need to incentivize people to become doctors...

Nobody is going to stay in school till they are thirty,strive to finish in the top one percent of their college graduating class, work seventy two hour shifts as an intern without sleeping, be on call for the rest of your life for ten bucks an hours....

[Bombtrack]

5. you either have capitalism or socialism, and socialism is not viable

ever.

The democratic party is a left-center capitalist party. And mainstream democrats get tired of being called socialists alot. If you want socialism, you aren't going to get it in America in your lifetime and probably ever.

This goes for all the DUer's who speak of socialism glowingly: This is a democratic party board, maybe that talk would be best divulged somewhere else.

This is not some McCarthyite threat, it's just a complaint.

[elfwitch]

9. works pretty good in Sweden

I work with a guy who is Swedish. He admits freely that there are problems with their system. But he also say that their way kicks the ever lovin crap out of our system. The only reason why he lives outside of Sweden is that he says it's too damn cold and the country doesn't have the technology base to support the type of job he does. With all the siliness that is going on here, he is keeping his options open for heading back home. He is worried for his kids.

[Bombtrack]

23. Sweden has 3 percent of the US population and hasn't

faught a in war in 200 years.

There system worked for a while but now they've got high unemployment and a declining influence in world markets

[Beaker]

10. So- You don't consider Social Security/Medicare-

to be just a little bit of American-style socialism, or are you saying the programs should be abolished.

[elfwitch]

13. not at all

I think we should do more. Sweden has a really good system on a lot of things. They have guaranteed college education for anyone that wants to go. They have government funded job training for those that don't want to go to college. They have subsidies for working parents that allow one parent to be available for their kids at all times, by paying employers to allow the parent to have the same work schedule as their kids school schedules. Their version of FMLA makes ours look like a joke. Their medical care system is phenomenal. They have subsidies for the elderly. Basically, they take care of their people from birth to the grave. I only wish we could have half as good of a system as they have.

[Beaker]

17. Actually, that question was directed at Bombtrack

I agree with you.

[Bombtrack]

16. they are entitlements

Socilism calls for the means of production and distribution of goods to be owned by the government, and/or where there is no private property.

I don't think that SS and Medicare should be abolished, but I wouldn't be apposed to mean's testing for medicare and some sort of bi-partisan social security reform, somewhere along the lines of Jim DeMint's plan, if they can garentee that the implementation wouldn't cost the money other privatisation plans would.

[Beaker]

21. you might want to notice-

I tried to make a distinction between the dictiuonary definition of "Socialism" and "American-style" Socialism. By putting means testing into the equation would make it even more Socialistic, especially in the eyes and small minds of the rabid right.

[Bombtrack]

27. There is no such thing as "american style" socialism

because we've always been a market-based economy. There is cold war and post-cold war Cuban style socialism, Soviet socialism, Chinese socialism/communism, the theocratic socialism practiced in many Arab/islamic countries over the years,

but there isn't an American style socialism.

And about mean's testing, I believe it's a group of republicans who are advocating it now.

[Beaker]

34. ummm- what you call "Soviet socialism"...

other people call "State Capitalism".
A lot of people on the right refer to FDR's programs. for instance, as 'American socialism'. and a lot of them would also call putting means testing on social security "socialism".

[Bombtrack]

39. i'd call it Communism, because that's it's definition

People on the right call any liberal capitalism socialism and they are wrong.

Because socialism has a negative connotation to the vast majority of americans, including most democrats.

The democratic party's core economic ideology since FDR has been that of John Maynard Keynes, and the GOP's since that time, but particularly since Reagan has been that of Milton Friedman.

In other words, mainstream American political thought and practice has ranged from Keynsian capitalism to supply-side capitalism

[Beaker]

44. Not really.

Their propagandists called themselves Socialists, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, and our propagandists called them "Communists", as in "those dirty Communists bastards", when in reality they were neither. what they practiced was "state capitalism".

I could be wrong, but I don't think that pure versions of Socialism, Communism, or for that matter Capitalism have ever been attempted large-scale. Can anyone enlighten me otherwise?

[Bombtrack]

50. Large C Communism, was the official name for the USSR's ideology

or any political party with that supported the USSR's ideology and the "liberation of the proletariat

[TimeLord]

59. Soviet Communism was anything but socialism...

especially during Stalin's era. Actually, Soviet Communism was anethema to anything referring to Socialism. During Stalin's era and to a lesser extent through all the Premiers up to Gorbachev, a more accurate and appropriate word would be Totalitarianism.

There can be a nice balance between Capitalism and Socialism where the state/people and the individual benefit. Socialism does not automatically mean that there is no freedom as GOPers would have everyone believe.

Capitalism and Socialism can both fall prey to Totalitarianism. In fact Facism doesn't have to be the opposite of Socialism. Stalin's Russia could be considered a Facist state; being the state and Stalin were absolute. Hitler's Germany were ruled by the National Socialists, however, they were nothing but a bunch of Facists.

I remember seeing a diagram of this on line somewhere. I'll have to find it. I'll post it if I find it. If anyone would like to make some comments on my post or correct me where I might have erred, I'll certainly welcome it.

[0rganism]

48. The definition of Communism

Since you seem confused:

com·mu·nism n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

2. a) A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
...b) The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

(courtesy of dictionary.com)

Communism is, in 2a, indistinguishable from authoritarian socialism. 2b refers to the final portion of a theoretical Marxist revolution, in which absolute authority of the proletariat is achieved and class warfare ceases. To my knowledge, this has never happened.

so·cial·ism n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

(ibid)

I've underlined part of number 1, because it's important to understand that this doesn't apply narrowly. Socialism is a broad concept. Our own central government has been known to plan and control the economy to a significant extent, from time to time.

[Bombtrack]

52. but the overwhelmingly accepted idea of socialism

in america is that, unlike capitalism, which has existed in various forms since ancient times, socialism has it's roots in the writings of Karl Marx.

Of course there has been all sorts of collectivism and what not, and some might call that socialism, but that isn't the predominant connotation

[0rganism]

55. So because people are confused, we should deny the label?

This might just be a brand new form of logical fallacy, congratulations. How to describe it...

Argument ad idiotum: because X is commonly misunderstood, it must be referenced as not X.

If you look at aboriginal tribes and even some primate groups, there is a very solid recognizable spirit of socialism at work. The notion of trade, let alone trade with an intermediate exchange currency, is new by comparison.

Marx wasn't applying the word "socialism" to some brand new phenomenon in the industrial age. Fourier and Owen precede Marx in direct application of socialist principles to post-enlightenment central government, IIRC.

[Monte Carlo]

26. That's _C_ommunism, not socialism.

Communism, with a capital C, is the system where everything belongs to the government with no private property. Socialism is a collective, nationalized effort, much like health care in Canada, Europe, etc. Central gov't control is a part of it as well, but that is as good as we make it.

[Bombtrack]

30. No, C-ommunism was the brand name, if you will, of

the official ideology of the USSR. It's a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.

It's just another brand of socialism.

And socialism would never likely be accepted as the official ideology of the USA, and it probably wouldn't work.

[Monte Carlo]

56. Official ideology? Do we have one now?

Stop me if I'm wrong, but I do not think it is written in law that we are capitalist, nor democratic for that matter. These are ideal terms.

Whatever you want to call it, pooling resources to reduce risk is the whole idea. Programs like Social Security and Medicare really work the same way insurance companies do. I see no reason why I should shy away from the term 'socialist' when I think it's the accurate term.

[elfwitch]

61. that is not entirely true

The Socialist Democracy model practiced is Sweden allows for a great deal of private ownership in industry and manufacturing. The industries that are owned by the government are those that are necessary for the public good (electricity, phone, water, fire, police, hospitals, schools, etc.) Private business is allowed to thrive because they do not have to worry about providing things like heathcare to their workers. They have stable pricing on utilities and such so they don't have to raise prices with market fluctuations in basic services. there are many VERy successful companies based in Sweden that operate quite well in the international market. (IKEA)

[0rganism]

20. yet firm regulation is the only thing that makes the free market viable

By now, it ought to be PAINFULLY apparrent, even to the dimmer bulbs on DU, that unrestrained deregulated capitalism would turn our country into a 3rd-world banana republic within a matter of decades. The only thing keeping competitive markets competitive is anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations. Otherwise the Capitalists can and will accumulate sufficient capital to acquire their competitors, transforming competition into oligopoly and monopoly.

Further aspects of socialism, such as social security and various other poverty supports (pitiful as they may be these days) are the concessions American capitalism makes to socialism that avoid all-out class warfare.

Capitalism without regulation is every bit as "not viable" as socialism without commerce. The two exist in America and elsewhere in a tenuous balance -- a balance that is dangerously close to tipping in this country.

[Bombtrack]

32. I'm as pro-regulation as they come

I don't think that well regulated is by any fair definition socialism.

My understanding of the negative effects of deregulation is one of my core drives for being a democrat and not an independant, because as some people might have noticed, I'm not a party-line, red-meat loving, hard-lefty.

I can be all over the place really. But I think that more informed JFK style democrats are what this country needs and I just reject this posters idea that socialism is A: entitlements(or your idea that regulation is socialism), and B: that real socialism would work

and I think the accepted acedemic reality is that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. and moderate yet committed democrats get tired of defending our selves as non-socialists

[Beaker]

35. when did I ever say or imply that "real socialism" would work?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??

[0rganism]

42. nor is regulation capitalism, by your exclusive definitions

Simply because you deny something as ideologically unpleasant
does not make it false.  Let us consider, briefly, the
spectrum of who owns what in which systems:

Socialism: 
Government owns or controls all means of production 
minimal, if any, private property 
government enforces a distribution of wealth
(e.g. N. Korea)
   +
   | 
   |
   +-- Socialism with some open markets (e.g. China, Cuba)
   |
   |
   |
   +-- Strong regulations and constraints on markets,
   +-- but private ownership of some means of production 
   +-- is possible
   +-- (e.g. most of the industrialized world)
   |
   |
   |
   +-- Capitalism with some regulation, public property 
   |   (e.g. USA, Mexico)
   |
   +
Capitalism: 
all means of production are privately owned and controlled
minimal, if any, regulation or collective bargaining
government preserves a concentration of wealth
(e.g. Guatemala)

The two philosophies are not mutually exclusive in any
practical way, they are balancing forces.  Society is not
merely conducted on the basis of affirming absolutes, but
rather on adjusting the matter of degree to which regulation
trumps open commerce, public ownership compares to private
ownership, and wealth is distributed or concentrated among the
population.  

It's similar to how one might say that greed and altruism are
mutually exclusive, but most of us have a mixture of both.  To
say that "true socialism is not viable" is no
different from saying "true capitalism is not
viable"; the living examples of both are certainly less
than ideal by my standards, but most of us have worked out a
compromise.

[Bombtrack]

46. This is getting silly

we're clearly getting bogged down in semantics.

What leftists(and I kind of consider myslef one) need to understand is that the american political fabric and mindset is hostile towards the idea of socialism or any offspring of marxism, which socialism, as originally named in the 19th century is.

and it sort of seems that sort of like in the way black people have adopted "nigger" and gay people "queer", that some American liberals, having been called socialists, just accept the label, when I believe they shouldn't.

[wuushew]

49. Socialism was once popular

surely you have read Sinclair's "The Jungle"

[0rganism]

53. Great, call it whatever you like. It's still socialism

It may be hard for you to swallow, take your time. Marx didn't invent the idea of Socialism, he just described its role in a dialectic relationship to Capitalism.

Nor does it matter to me that leftists are recognizing that some of their ideals are exactly Socialism. We don't need to make up new names for these things, just call it what it is and forget the negative connotations. To much work goes into packaging socialism to avoid the label: New Deal, Great Society? Eventually the rightwingers figure it out and brand its supporters dishonest as well as socialists.

[Ficus]

6. just an idea on maximum wage

Maximum wage is an okay idea, but not like a "cap." For example, maybe a CEO shouldn't make more than like say (just throwing out a number here) 7x what the lowest paid worker makes. Right now I believe that the average CEO makes 450+ or so times what the average worker makes.

7 x (5.15) minimum wage = 36.05 per hour

There is something to say for competition and wanting to make more $$$, though. nothing wrong with that, but you just shouldn't be able to do it at the expense of others.

:smoke:

:dem: :dem:

[Beaker]

47. That's kind of what I meant when I said:

"there should be some correlation between the high end and low end salaries/wages in a corporation..."

CEO's and executives should NOT be earning triple digit multiples of the company "grunts".

[Mountainman]

7. My answer - what would Christ do?

I'm not religious but I hear a lot about the fact that this is a Christian nation. I saw a preacher on TV who said that it is wrong to bankrupt the government so that there can be no social spending.

If the churches would change their message from supporting the administration to seeing social justice as the Christian thing to do there could be change.

[elfwitch]

11. social justice

Not just a Christian thing, but a Jewish thing too. All of my rabbis have always been very loud in their support of social justice programs. I think the big problem with the churches getting involved is that there are too damn many of them that are big contributors to the A-holes in office.

[proud patriot]

18. A true Labor Party

:hi:

[leftofthedial]

24. make it more like German-style capitalism/socialism

or better yet, just make it socialism.

[Kamika]

28. I don't think it would ever work

Americans are by culture too individualistic (that a word?)

[MrPrax]

31. Income re-distribution!!

The government can be used as a device to re-distribute income. Poverty could be eliminated simply through the tax system (minimum income provisions)...
I consider myself to be a 'responsible' socialist...in that it won't happen in my lifetime.
But there can be a move towards socializing the profits. I see two distinct categories...
Things You Need - food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education
Thing You Don't - most of the other crap produced by a consumptive capitalist allocation
The free market is great at rationing 'crap' you don't need and very poor in rationing the things that most would consider the basics of life...
1) Cap profit taking in one area of goods and force the speculation/innovation into the other areas of the economy.
I don't care if someone makes a million on a better mousetrap, I care they made their million off of renting out slums or jacking the price of drugs to sick people.
It's immoral and not EVEN under a capitalist ethos a 'earned' profit.
2) the system produces abundance (locally and globally), so the Protestant work ethic makes no sense. Working has become degraded and so their really should be simply a way of winding down 'full employment' theories (both Left and Right have a problem dealing with this notion and still develop theories around the 'over-utilization' of labor power) Why bother--just give people the bucks and tell them to say home.
This can be done by recognizing that even in macro-theory something like Inflation (Non-accelerated rate of inflation) has a 'economic benefit' and the cyclical unemployment (pocket, bubble, structural, etc etc - bs) and so why should people who are 'unemployed' suffer 'no income' The fact they are out of the workforce is produces efficiencies, so why not pay people and rationalize the labor market.
3) provide 'market' disincentive to Duplicities; no need for resources of any kind to be wasted on consumer diversity for groups of products that essentially DO the same thing--penalize the 'overlap' and reward real 'convergence' that pays dividends in resource management effiiencies and use that money to offset 'unemployment'
4) fully account for private sector expenses--paying MJ a huge contract to put his name on a shoe, or fleets of lawyers, or high-rotation advertising are NOT a legitimate expenses and shouldn't be born by the 'price' economic system.
As such ascertain the real value and profit of private business (reasonable return on investment) and then incrementally tax the excess. Companies lard themselves with debt because money is too cheap...in other words, force them to BE capitalists again.

The system that is running now is not either socialist or capitalist...just corrupt

[Tansy_Gold]

37. The US has been paying farmers not to grow crops. . . .

. . . .for decades. In that context, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying workers not to work?

[Nederland]

78. This is what's wrong

If you could get paid to do nothing, why wouldn't everybody do nothing? Doesn't sound like a workable solution, does it?

[Tansy_Gold]

82. It's perfectly workable, even if it doesn't work perfectly.

We already have it in one form, the form I just mentioned -- allocations to farmers not to grow certain crops because there's an excess, or because the price is too low.

It's part of the regulated economy.

The same *could* be applied to workers -- those who are surplus in an area where no more similar labor is required. Companies who want workers would have to pay more than the dole in order to get people to work, and while there would be lazy people who would sit around and do nothing and take the dole, there would be others who would be attracted by higher "wages" to go to work.

If everyone sat on their behinds and did nothing, there would be nothing produced to sell or to buy. Individuals would be "incentivized" to make things or grow things or do things, if only for their own survival.

This isn't a perfect world. There is no John Galt. But neither is there a Ruby Stearns.

[Nederland]

84. Assumptions

And you assume that working people will be perfectly happy to dish out a portion of their income to people that are perfectly capable of working but simply choose not to? This is naive. People don't mind having a portion of their income being diverted to people that are genuinely disabled and incapable of working, but they aren't too keen on seeing their hard earned money head toward people that aren't working simply because choose not to.

A far better solution is to reduce then number of hours in a work week so that everbody has the opportunity to pull their own weight.

[quaker bill]

38. Strong Labor

A strong labor movement is critical. Very progressive taxes are critical. Trust-busting is critical. Expensing of stock options is critical.

A law in regard to the maximum multiple or the number of times more a CEO is paid above the lowest paid worker is critical.

A very substantial increase in the minimum wage is critical.

An end to corporate and personal off-shore tax havens is critical.

Corporate reform so that piercing the "corporate veil" is simple when officers and directors perpetrate fraud is critical.

An end to corporate welfare and competitive tax incentive bidding for business is critical.

The list goes on.

[Zorra]

40. Start by electing Dennis Kucinich

His platform proposes greater balance between corporate and worker power. Unless we elect leaders who believe in and promote a much more socially oriented capitalist system, little or nothing will change for the better.

[leftofthedial]

41. Absolutely! DK is the ticket.

But we all know he can't win.

NOT!

[Beaker]

45. But shooting down all those pigs, and paying for thawing out Hades-

will be overwhelming burdens on the Kucinich administration.

[Zorra]

54. Very, very true.

It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

[Nederland]

68. Dennis couldn't do jack...

...with the current Congress, 95% of which will be re-elected.

[Armstead]

51. Here's a lot of ideas from William Greider

Here's a guy who thinks like I do -- but he's a lot more informed and articulate.

He addresses exactly the question you're asking in his new book. You can read more at his website http://williamgreider.com

Here's a press release from the website. (No copyright involved here.)


THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM
Opening Paths to a Moral Economy
by William Greider

In his previous bestsellers, Who Will Tell the People? and Secrets of the Temple, William Greider laid bare the inner workings of American politics and the Federal Reserve, revealing how they often work against the interests of the majority. Now, in THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy (Simon & Schuster; September 9, 2003; $28.00), Greider examines how the greatest wealth-creation engine in the history of the world is failing most of us, why it must be changed, and how intrepid pioneers are beginning to transform it. Public outrage over crooked corporate officers, the looting of pension funds, the defrauding of stockholders, and the wholesale firing of hard-working employees has reached a new high. Yet Greider argues that our anger actually has much deeper roots, as he analyzes how our relentless pursuit of unprecedented affluence has eroded family life, eaten away at our sense of personal and professional security, corroded our communities, impoverished our spiritual lives, and devastated our natural environment. The solution, Greider contends, will not come from the politics of the past, or from more government regulation, but from a fundamental realignment of power that is already underway on many fronts.

A new moment in history
We are living in a new historical and economic moment, Greider maintains. Nearly all Americans, with the notable exception of the very poor, have achieved self-sufficiency in basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. We have solved the ancient economic problem of scarcity known to every previous generation. “Yet the United States pushes on,” Greider writes, “like a long-distance runner who has won the race yet keeps running beyond the finish line, not looking back and not quite sure who or what drives him on. . . . The point of overwhelming abundance is now plainly in our face and beyond argument, yet seldom discussed as the new central premise of the economic condition. The incompleteness at the core of American life, I believe, is also about this new fact of history. Our situation is unique — learning how to live amidst endless plenty and, ironically, how to live well in spite of it. Our ancestors never had to face such a struggle. We cannot escape it.”

As people come to terms with this new condition, they are raising many fruitful and provocative questions. What, for example, now justifies the harsh personal sacrifices imposed on people’s lives — like ever-longer working hours and ever-less time for family, friends, and community activities — in the name of expanding the abundance? Why does capitalism continue to defend or ignore its many forms of social injury — especially ecological destruction — when the pursuit of greater accumulation is no longer a matter of human survival? If there is plenty to go around (as there clearly is), why does the economic order still require a permanent subcategory of the poor and dependent? Why must society accept a capitalism that persists in generating bigger inequalities from one generation to the next? If ever-greater concentrations of wealth and power are the inescapable result of our economic system, then what future is there for achieving genuine democracy instead of an elite plutocracy? These and other systemic problems are usually blamed on human nature, on the failure of schooling or the political system or society itself. The only remedy, we are assured, is achieving still “more.”

The reformers
Yet as Greider reports, many Americans no longer believe this line of reasoning and are starting to create a new kind of capitalism. They are experimenting in localized settings, convinced that alternatives are possible — not utopian schemes but self-interested and practical changes that can serve broader purposes. The reformers in THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM are surprisingly diverse, ranging from conservative business managers to small-town civic leaders, social agitators, ecologists, labor leaders, and ordinary citizens. They are turning their attention to a number of key areas in the economy, including:

Work. Our current system regularly puts people — even very successful people — in conflict with their personal values and human-scale aspirations. Others simply turn off their brains and do as they’re told. The remedy includes changing the terms of employment so that workers become owners — holding a real stake in the company and participating as insiders in its decision-making, rather than serving as rented tools of production. This reform has already been achieved, albeit unevenly, in thousands of employee-owned companies.

Finance capital. The financial system, as front-page stories of recent scandals have demonstrated, concentrates both economic and political power. Using other people’s money, Wall Street makes decisions that vastly alter the terms of American life, yet the great majority of those people are never consulted. Profound changes are beginning to unfold, however, as individuals and new financial institutions figure out how to withdraw their money from standard investment vehicles and use it to target social objectives. Paradoxically, while personal wealth has become more concentrated among the few, the broad ranks of working Americans may now have greater collective leverage through their pension funds. The institutions that hold retirement savings now essentially own the stock market — some 60 percent of the thousand largest companies, for example. And they are gingerly starting to assert their power, championing social values that neither Wall Street nor corporate boardrooms can afford to ignore.

Consumption. The concept of “more” started with the Pilgrims. Greider traces how our acquisitive values are deeply embedded in the American character, not just American capitalism. Nevertheless, people are beginning to recognize that patterns of consumption have to change, since the destruction of nature they produce is ultimately threatening to life itself. Ecologists argue that nothing short of industrial transformation is required to avert a crisis. Many companies, large and small, are demonstrating how it can be done.

Corporate power. The modern American corporation is relatively young and ripe for re-invention. Greider examines the privileged legal position of the corporation and how this protected status figured in the recent corporate scandals. He also explores how corporate governance and structure can be reformed while preserving the positive corporate qualities of efficiency and innovation. Resourceful companies show that concentrated, self-aggrandizing power is not required to function profitably and responsively. The challenge is to forge these rare exceptions into a general trend.

Public works. From the earliest canal-building projects, government has always participated in economic development. But the modern state, embraced by corporate political influence, has become a fountain of special indulgences and favors. Most do not actually advance development in any real sense, but merely enhance the profitability of individual firms or sectors. Meanwhile, government subsidy helps to foster many of the same social abuses its regulatory laws are supposed to curb. Greider explores the prospects for a “redevelopment state” that confines itself to long-term investments that authentically promise to reform society.

Greider acknowledges that the approaches taken by many of the reformers he profiles may seem remote from the current preoccupations of big politics and big business. But the margins are where society’s deepest reforms have usually originated in the American past. In fact, many of the reforms Greider proposes are old ideas that failed to take hold in earlier periods of history. Nevertheless, they all exist successfully within capitalism right now. In fact, one of capitalism’s great virtues is its tolerance for odd exceptions and deviations, its open space for invention. Indeed, capitalism is always reinventing itself — trying out new methods and ideas that if successful will be absorbed into conventional practice.

Toward a healthy, humane future
As Greider documents, the process of capitalistic re-invention is being refocused, here and there, to address social complaints the system has long ignored. He believes that we are at the very beginning of what will prove to be a long and difficult era of discovery and reform. But he also believes that American capitalism can be altered fundamentally so that it is aligned more faithfully with what people want and need in their lives, and with what American society needs for a healthy, humane future.

THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM is about making big changes in the way our economy functions — and malfunctions. Although deeply critical of the current system, it is above all optimistic. Brilliantly perceptive and sweeping in its analysis, it is also hard-headed and practical. Greider assures us that it is within our power to reinvent capitalism so that it works for us rather than against us. First, however, we must take responsibility for the system (and for ourselves) by exercising our capacity to shape the future we desire. Most people feel powerless to even consider such questions, since they know they are currently cut out of the big economic decisions that control so much of their lives. But Greider explains why we are not powerless as he shows us where our leverage is located, how others have used it, and how we can follow their example.

In THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM, one of our most eloquent populist spokesmen describes how reformers are finding ways to reconfigure the world’s mightiest economy so that it works for people as well as profits. In a nation no longer willing to allow the business and political elite to shape the economy to suit themselves, William Greider’s ideas and urgency are certain to find an enthusiastic audience.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
William Greider is the bestselling author of five previous books on apparently inscrutable institutions that govern our lives, including One World, Ready or Not (on the global economy), Who Will Tell the People? (on the decline of democracy in America), and Secrets of the Temple (the first inside report on the Federal Reserve). A reporter for forty years, he was a national correspondent, an assistant managing editor, and a columnist for The Washington Post, as well as a columnist for Rolling Stone. He has also been an on-air correspondent for six documentaries for Frontline on PBS. Currently the national

[JanMichael]

60. Sounds like he's a half step from Market Socialism.

http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm

Some Socialists are appaled by this, IMO a quantum leap into the future, but I think it has promise.

Lange would simply be the next step after Junker's model.

I just don't get why so many people are afraid of being economically/democratically empowered (No, I don't mean having a pressure cleaning company either. I'm talking about the corporations that are de facto monopolistic providers of employment and services)...I guess it's the unknown?

[brainshrub]

73. Next time, just post the link. n/t

[notadmblnd]

58. One of the things I have been thinking about

is requiring countries that American corporations do business with to pay their labor wages comparable to Americans wages. If a company chooses to do business with countries that support the slave labor system, then I think the company should have to pay fines/import fees or a higher tax rates to sell the goods here.

Another problem I have given some thought to recently is the illegal imigrant problem in this country. Corporate America has these people over a barrell. This forces them to work for lower wages and virtualy enslaves these people. I believe this is contributing to the systematic elimination of the middle class in america. I think it could be stopped if these peoples were here legally. They could demand higher wages and stregthen the middle class.

[ComerPerro]

62. How about some morality and honesty?

Especially among our CEOs out there. That is all it would take. Throw in some compassion.

But conservative greed, hatred, and fear of progress always gets in the way of that.

[Terwilliger]

63. distribute the wealth!

lift all boats!

[IrateCitizen]

64. We've moved increasingly toward corporate socialism in the US...

Just look at the amount of direct corporate welfare that is handed out directly to large corporations and industries. For instance, the airlines would never be viable without public expenditures on airports. Car companies would never be viable without public expenditures on roads. Computer companies would never be nearly as successful without government investment in technology. Big Pharma would never be quite so big without government investment in research.

Then, you get to issues like oil company subsidies, which go further than just direct tax breaks and such. When oil companies get drilling rights, they get it for pennies per acre on public lands. Then, public expenditures are used to build the roads necessary to even get to the drilling areas. Ditto for the pipelines to move the oil out.

In all instances, it is increasingly becoming a system of public investment and private profit. That's socialism for corporations and their biggest shareholders, and capitalism for everyone else.

Personally, I think a lot of these problems could be solved through massive decentralization. The manner in which large corporations display no loyalty to workers or communities highlights this issue perhaps better than any other. It is localized businesses that are compelled to co-exist in a mutually-beneficial relationship with the communities in which they operate. Same principle goes for small farmers vs. agribusiness. The biggest problem right now is that the playing field is so massively tilted in favor of these huge corporations, aided by their patrons in government, that such a seismic shift has little or no chance of currently succeeding.

I could go into specifics, but it would take far too much time right now. I'll just say that decentralization should be a cornerstone of any true economic reform, and a great deal of that has to do with actively busting up these hyperextended and grossly inefficient large corporations.

[brainshrub]

70. The only reason American-style Capitalism "works"

is because most major commodities are traded in US Dollars.

"When commodities are valued in dollars, the US needs do no more than print pieces of green paper to obtain them: it acquires them, in effect, for free. Once earned, other nations' dollar reserves must be invested back into the American economy. This inflow of money helps the US to finance its massive deficit."George Monbiot (2003)

The strength & dominance of the US Dollar is why poor governments are so deeply in debt: If they don't have resources to trade for dollars, they must borrow them from American banks in order to fund any kind of infrastructure.

I like the term "American-style Capitalism." It implies that there are a wide range of free-market economic solutions that won't destroy peoples lives to benefit the few. We don't need to choose between deprivation or institutional corporate oppression.

[Beaker]

88. This is also one of the BIG reasons for Smirk's foray into Iraq-

If not THE reason.
Saddaam committed the unpardonable sin of accepting Euros for oil instead of dollars.
If OPEC switches fom Dollars to Euros, our economy could become even more fucked up- one more reason that the Boy King would be quite happy to perform analingus on any member of the House of Saud.

[durutti]

71. My Take

Ultimately, I think this country would be better off if it adopted socialism. By socialism, I don't mean a central government bureaucracy controlling everything. I mean the ownership of the means of production and exchange by society as a whole, workers' self-management, production according to need, etc.

That's not going to happen in the near future. So, in the mean time, I advocate national, single-payer health insurance, a real progressive income tax, an end to corporate welfare, progressive reform of currently-existing social programs, raising the minimum wage, taxpayer-subsidized higher education at public institutions, and universal pre-kindergarten.

[mmonk]

93. The problem is

the Republicans are destroying any safety net and they don't spend any tax money on contracts and job training that have anything to do with the overall economic structure, just defense. We have the world's largest production of capital with our businesses.