Are you afraid to seem positive towards "Socialism"?

[patrice]

Listen for linkage of Socialism and Progressive and get out ahead of that one by educating: Socialism basically recognizes the responsibility of the Group to each of its Members and vice versa, a codification of a contract, the details of which are determined by the participants in that contract, ****ALL*** of them.

Progressivism begins with the assumption that there are "solutions", which we can identify and the process known as "Rational Empiricism" is a very useful tool for doing so in Groups of "Outcomes' Stake-holders". These tools for Solutions are the basic tools of what "we" refer to as Progress. It is constructive and goal oriented, i.e. practical.

Progressive Socialism could be a good thing, especially in locally based, ownership - if you will, economie.

Solidarity!
Harebo!

[mike_c]

1. absolutely not....

Just the opposite, in fact-- the older I become, the more I question the wisdom of the dog-eat-dog and the devil take the hindmost capitalist mindset that is revered in American politico-economics. We've simply created a new and improved ruling class founded upon successful personal greed.

[wtbymark]

4. Capitalism is an economic game in which one wins and one loses

What is the "End Game" of capitalism? Logic would dictate that when all is said and done, one person has all the chips and everyone else has none. There IS an end to the philosophy of capitalism.

Socialism, on the other hand, doesn't have an end, per se. It's "means" IS it's "end".

This is the only way that civilization can survive.

[DuaneBidoux]

27. This simply is not NECESSARILY true.

But it can be. It is true that there will always be those who are better at "playing the game" (forgetting those of course like Shrub who were born into the game a predetermined winner) and eventually they tend to own everything and the rest who increasingly get shafted and end up in constant debt and struggling to get along. When this happens to an extraordinary degree we end up with a Depression.

I consider myself a capitalist but government must at some level work constantly to redistribute wealth (without going so far as to eliminate incentive) and level the playing field or indeed democracy will cease to exist. It's like a kids game of marbles with one great player. Eventually one kid will have all the marbles and when he does it's "game over."

[LostinVA]

2. No.... but I'm a card-carrying member of DSA!

[RevCheesehead]

3. vs. what - - capitalism?

Give me socialism any day. The corporate monster is destroying us.

[eallen]

5. Being a liberal, I'm a supporter of capitalism.

I don't think socialism works. At least, not socialism in the sense of nationalizing industry, outlawing certain kinds of cap structure, etc.

I'm not afraid in the least to support various kinds of social programs, from public schools to health care. But those don't change the nature of the underlying economy.

[Wordie]

6. Yeah...a kind of socialist capitalism...or capitalist socialism.

I'm being serious here. Some sort of combination of the two seems the best solution to societal problems.

Which is somewhat like what we have now - some social programs/ definite capitalistic bent - the issue is how to keep the two balanced. Bush wants it to be all capitalistic; if you have a problem, let some faith-based program solve it for you (like your local church is gonna find the money to upgrade the levees for a Cat 5 hurricane, right?). Others tilt the other way. I think a combination of the two is the best, although it makes for constant arguing, which gets tiresome.

Edited to add: the EXTREMES of any system may not work.

[eallen]

11. Personally, I'd like to see a change of rhetoric.

A majority of Americans realize that capitalism really is the goose that lay the golden eggs. When they hear people opposing capitalism, they think "that's nuts." The right does everything it can to reinforce this logic, pretending that every social program necessarily is a slide away from capitalism, when in fact most social programs can be implemented almost entirely on the consumption side of the economy, not hardly affecting the means of production.

I think it would be easier to get support for social programs, and to get liberal politicians elected, if we worked from a rhetoric that clearly supports capitalism. Yes, capitalism is the essential economic system. But people are not just workers, investors, and consumers. The human life cycle includes infancy, children, lovers, the healthy, the sick, the aged, and those in the prime of their years. In order for a capitalist economy to best serve the people who participate in it, and to work well, it requires a legal framework and social programs that are attuned to the human lifecycle as well as the market. Good public education is a necessity if society as a whole is to keep up with the rapid pace of change that capitalism brings to the economy. Healthcare is both a moral and practical issue. Anyone who doubts such claims should consider that Toyota just chose to open new plants in Canada instead of Alabama, because the work force there is more educated, and healthcare there alleviates a variety of employment issues. Toyota gave up larger tax breaks Alabama offered, for these other considerations.

[Wordie]

14. Here's what we need: HUMANISTIC capitalism. (All though the far right

would never buy that, maybe it would make sense to other Americans.)

[jokerman93]

17. Fundamentalism comes in all flavors

Fundamentalism comes in all flavors and is an attractive way to deal with social and historical changes that are far too complex to comprehend rationally. Enter fundie religion: internalize a few simplistic dogmas or psychological principles and you're saved or enlightened. Enter fundie terrorism. Enter fundie republicanism. Enter fundie capitalism. Enter simplistic, destructive childish thinking.

Fundamentalism is absolute by its nature. It divides the world into black and white. Fundie Capitalism is no different. I think they use the slogan "Free market capitalism". It's fundie code for the economic version of the law of the jungle. Notice it's the ones that have been convinced they're the winners that promote or support such philosophies.

Problem with old "only the strong survive" philosophy is that, in the end, the beast at the top of the kill chain begins to devour itself and starves to death.

So yeah. Capitalism promotes healthy competition and ensures meaningful work and quality of production as long as its guiding principles support the public good in a humane and enlightened way.

IMO capitalism is a useful system for the production and trade of services and goods, but there must be a common wealth, a common ground of discourse and a source of revenue to take on the great problems of developing, maintaining and defending a free civil society.

Socialism is good, and I expect a balance will be found once more Americans recognize our greatest chance of regaining prosperity and security as a nation lies in ensuring the security and well-being of "the other guy".

Like anything else, IMO, socialism is a good idea when used as a tool, not when it becomes an absolute faith.

Final note on fundiethink: You can tell a fundamentalist by how damn sure they are of everything. The way the world works is patently clear to a fundie, but reality sets in at some point and the meltdown isn't always pretty.

[Wordie]

18. Excellent analysis...now what does one do to communicate with those on the

left who are also, seemingly, fundamentalist? (Or maybe they just don't recognize a "divide and conquer" response and get caught up in it.)

[jokerman93]

20. I know what you mean

I kind of see it like this: these days we're all living in an abstract battlefield landscape while a maelstrom of words and memes is blowing all around us. There's a war going on over who controls the script for public "consensus reality". Propaganda, lies, half-truths, rumor, innuendo are all weapons that are being used to determine who gets to write the history books. It's confusing and even maddening at times. The knee-jerk response is to harden ourselves into a simplistic ideological stance that can give us some degree of false comfort. "Liberals" aren't immune from that tendency either I guess.

I don't know what the answer is though. I just keep getting out there and talking to people; sometimes making an ass of myself in the process, but that's the price we pay fighting the propaganda war I guess.

"Truth tellin' is hard work! Hard work!"
~Jokerman

:hi:

[Wordie]

25. I suppose it has always been so, but liberal "friendly fire" is a bit much

to take. Maybe we've all been guilty of it, though. Passion can lead to speaking without filtering for the audience, and then we're in a mess.

[AndyTiedye]

12. It's not capitalism anymore when robber barons buy the government

[magnetism]

33. I agree with your post

socialist capitalism or capitalist socialism. Good post.

[Liberaler]

7. I'm not a socialist but a

Social Democrat

[bvar22]

8. Capitalism is a FAILED economic system.

See American History, 1880-1929.

Democratic Capitalism or Social Capitalism (Capitalism regulated by the PEOPLE through their government) works well.
Some would incorrectly call this Socialism.

[MN ChimpH8R]

10. Many do make that error intentionally, including

virtually all of the Repuke party. For them, any regulation = socialism. As for me I proudly call myself a European style Social Democrat.

[zbdent]

9. Are you implying the "either-or" situation, or are you allowing that

you can take the parts that work in one system and use it with another system and make one better system instead of two failed systems?

Kinda like the fact that you can take a blanket out of the bedroom and use it to keep yourself warm while driving in a car . . .

[patrice]

19. My default state-of-mind is opposed to false dichotomies.

There are many more dimensions to what could happen on various levels.

But one "dimension" I was thinking about was WPA and comparing it to the type of socialist subsidies that are handed out to certain tax-classes, and to churches, and to war profiteers, not to mention things like bailing out Silverado, nor the GI Bill etc.

[rniel]

13. Look at it scientifically

There's been a lot of experiments we've done for thousands of years to find a good form of government that is best for ALL

We should use whatever works best no matter if it's been negatively labelled. The republicans want to drag the old ones out that never worked (like feudalism) from a few thousand years ago and slap a new label on it.

[chaska]

15. Capitalism will eventually destroy us. I'm a proud Socialist.

[Kazak]

16. Nope...

They can't stigmatize the word for me. :shrug:

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. Yes, petrified.

[welshTerrier2]

22. capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist

the idealized form of democracy is an egalitarian state where each and every citizen has the exact same amount of power and influence over government ... well, we don't expect to fulfill the ideal but we also don't expect to have such radical imbalance in the structure of power that many or even most citizens ultimately are not represented by their government at all ...

any economic model that by definition values the amassing of wealth more than the benefitting of society cannot, in the end, promote an "acceptable" form of democracy ... when certain citizens form business ventures that are hugely successful as profit generators, these citizens have always gained more power and influence, well really control, over the direction of the government than less well-to-do citizens ...

the equation is very simple: money=power=inequality=bad government ...

now some will argue for a "properly restrained" economic model that idealizes competition as some form of productivity enhancer but "has its cake and eats it too" by forcing commercial ventures to obey the will of the citizenry ... this is a very nice model that some have called things like: social capitalism ... there's only one little problem with this model: it NEVER works ...

if we institutionalize entities like corporations with their sole mission being the amassing of wealth, a failed democracy is inevitable ... and so, in the US, we really do now have the best democracy money can buy ... and the sad truth is, that's no democracy at all ...

i'm not big on labels but i will say that any economic system that puts people before profits is fine with me ... the citizens should never yield power to any economic system that encourages commercial entities to turn their backs on the best interests of the country and its people ... and wealth must be capped ... we cannot allow either individuals or business entities to amass sufficient wealth to corrupt our democracy ... what that amount is remains to be seen ...

[applegrove]

23. Nope. Some things work and some things don't. Socialist medicine

works. That is why all western nations except the USA have it. Socialism does not make for the job market the markets do.

[DuaneBidoux]

26. Agree with you perfectly. (see my post below)

[DuaneBidoux]

24. I support capitalism with the rough edges ground down...

In fact my take on how government should function is that it really should pretty much let markets function freely if it doesn't involve theft or safety. What to do? Use tax revenue to redistribute out the gross inequities that inevitably result from capitalism. In other words make business and anyone else pay in taxes to offset the costs of what they do to/in society.

Pollution is a perfect example. I'm less for regulating emissions than I am for taxing them until the true costs (asthma in hospitals, etc.) is paid for by the people generating the costs in the first place. I have a funny feeling that most of the generators of pollution wouldn't generate it if they were forced to pay the true social costs involved. This goes for any industry or even individuals(you know...the idiot who dumps his garbage on the side of the highway).

[deutsey]

28. No. I'm a leftist (socialist), not a liberal.

[ulysses]

29. nope. n/t

[mntleo2]

30. American Is Already Socialist - For The Rich

...they take our collective taxes and are the ones who benefit the most. This administration just do not want us to see this...

Cat In Seattle

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Right on the mark.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. I'm a democratic semi-socialist

That is, I believe that total state ownership, as in the Soviet Union, produced a hugely inefficient and inflexible system. If you have a central state economic authority deciding which factory should make how many units of what per year, you end up with too much of some products and not enough of others, and no ability to make adjustments midterm.

On the other hand, total capitalism is brutal and leads to glaring inequalities. We've all seen it.

There needs to be room for entrepreneurship, small businesses, and cooperatives, but not for corporations that are large enough to pull the strings in the government.

There should also be a safety net that guarantees equal access to the necessities and to the opportunity to reach one's fullest potential, but without putting up disincentives to productive participation in the society.