The Left Needs More Socialism

[Karmadillo]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0331-22.htm

Published on Friday, March 31, 2006 by The Nation
The Left Needs More Socialism
by Ronald Aronson

It's time to break a taboo and place the word "socialism" across the top of the page in a major American progressive magazine. Time for the left to stop repressing the side of ourselves that the right finds most objectionable. Until we thumb our noses at the Democratic pols who have been calling the shots and reassert the very ideas they say are unthinkable, we will keep stumbling around in the dark corners of American politics, wondering how we lost our souls--and how to find them again.

I can hear tongues clucking the conventional wisdom that the "S" word is the kiss of death for any American political initiative. Since the collapse of Communism, hasn't "socialism"--even the democratic kind--reeked of everything obsolete and discredited? Isn't it sheer absurdity to ask today's mainstream to pay attention to this nineteenth-century idea? Didn't Tony Blair reshape "New Labour" into a force capable of winning an unprecedented string of victories in Britain only by first defeating socialism and socialists in his party? And for a generation haven't we on the American left declared socialist ideology irrelevant time and again in the process of shaping our feminist, antiwar, progay, antiracist, multicultural, ecological and community-oriented identities?

People who espouse these and a dozen other arguments against the relevance of socialism today may regard it as quaint that Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, leads the Movement Toward Socialism Party, or that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez intends to create a "new socialism of the twenty-first century." After all, socialist parties elsewhere, such as in France, Spain and Germany, or indeed Brazil's Workers Party and Chile's Socialist Party, have no intention of introducing anything like socialism in their countries. Still, the newest significant formation, indeed, today's equivalent of the nineteenth-century International Workingmen's Association, calls itself the World Social Forum. The name reminds those who believe "another world is possible" that it can come about only if it is global, only if it is guided by a loosely organized "forum" rather than a top-down party--and only if its character is social.

Among Americans it has long since become obvious that the left is doomed without a vision, a sense of direction and an effective call to arms. One of the reasons we are having such tough sledding nowadays is that we have been unable to develop our own compelling alternative to those created by the right and the center over the past generation and embodied in the politics of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. We need to point to a clearly different direction from the one in which the United States and the world are heading. We need to spell out a historical diagnosis and project, a strategy and tactics, and root these in widely shared ultimate values.

more...

[malaise]

1. I've been reading and rereading

Ellen Meikson-Woods books recently. Democracy against Capitalism is a classic. As she said what we need is democracy in the market and not liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is representative government and our leaders represent the market and not the people. We need both political and economic democracy. The market has all the power including selecting who participates in elections. Unless civil society fights the market and takes back power from the corporations, the capitalist state and their distorted interpretation of democracy, we are collectively doomed.

[Pharaoh]

2. hear hear!!

yes, unregulated capitalism is fatal to the planet.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I strongly disagree

While there are progressives who are socialist, socialism is inherently fascist and runs against much of what I believe in.

[American Tragedy]

6. Then I take it you're against Social Security, welfare,

and other inherently socialistic programs?

To my knowledge, an unregulated capitalist society hasn't existed in the industrialized world in decades. Virtually all of them are a fusion of capitalist and socialist principles, including the United States.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Social programs are not socialism

Socialism is an economic model wherein the desires of the individual are supressed in favor of the needs of society as a whole. That is not what we have in the United States.

I just as strongly oppose laissez-faire capitalism: I have no desire to return to the days of patent medicine and the world portrayed by "The Jungle." But regulated capitalism isn't socialism, either.

Added: I posted a list of definitions in this thread. Governance based on the individual comes in two flavors, feudal and democratic. I would say that capitalism likewise comes in two flavors, one based on the most powerful individual holding domination over less powerful (lassez-faire capitalism) and one based on the progressive ideals of an equalized society. I am a strong proponent of this second, "democratic capitalism" and oppose "feudal capitalism" and socialism.

[Mr.Green93]

25. Social programs are not socialism

Well said and needs to be repeated.

[rman]

35. Socialism, as Capitalism, is not a matter of either/or

As there are degrees of capitalism, there are degrees of socialism.

You have an odd definition of socialism. Here's the wiki definition on socialism:
Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are controlled by the people. I'd like to add to that: as opposed to controlled by corporations.

In socialism, the only desire that gets suppressed is the desire of a few to enrich themselves at the expense of society.

No-one here is calling for a total socialism where the state (as a representative body of the people) controls all of production.

The RW calls the Left socialist (or communist) exactly because the Left supports tax-funded social programs.

[calmblueocean]

39. "Democratic capitalism" = YES!

Now there's a phrase I can get behind.

I don't want government to own the means of production. I want them to define market rules that make any player in that market a just and fair player. I'd love to see more people embrace the description of liberal economics as "democratic capitalism".

(For what it's worth, I do think your definitions of "socialism" and "capitalism" are far too broad. Just making fair markets creates an economic system in which the needs of society are placed above the needs of the individual, but fair markets are not inherently "socialism".)

[David__77]

7. So you're saying fascists can be progressive?

That's the implication of your argument. If socialism is "fascism," then isn't a believer in socialism a fascist, and therefore not a progressive.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Allow me to define the words I am using

Progressive: A school of thought for improving society by equalizing the social, economic and political power of all individuals within the society.

Regressive: A school of thought for improving society by concentrating the social, economic and political power of society within the hands of a class of specialists trained to use such power. (Yes, my personal bias shows in this definition. I am open to suggestions for a less negatively charged word that fits the meaning I'm giving.)

Socialism: An economic system that places the needs of society as a whole above the desires and needs of the individual.

Capitalism: An economic system that places the desires and needs of the individual above the needs of society as a whole.

Fascism: A system of government that places the needs of society as a whole above the desires and needs of the individual.

Feudalism / Segnoralism: A system of government that places the desires and needs of powerful individuals over the desires and needs of less powerful individuals, creating a hierarchic structure. The desires and needs of the most powerful individuals are defined as the needs of society as a whole.

Democracy: A system of governance that is based on progressive ideals of an equalized society.

Aristocracy: A system of governance that is based on regressive ideals of a specialized governing class.

Social Program: An economic program that is based on progressive ideals of an equalized society. Social programs can exist in either a socialist or capitalist system. Most social programs work by providing economic assistance to individuals at the bottom of society's economic scale out of a pool of resources collected from the rest of the society.


Ok, I think that will do it. Within those definitions, it is certainly possible to be both a progressive and a proponent of socialism; there is nothing contradictory in placing the needs of the state ahead of the individual, and seeking to equalize power among members of that state. That is not to say, however, that all progressives espouse socialism; any move in that direction would alienate a very large number of progressives, probably a majority.

[EFerrari]

14. Where was this great lexicon when I needed it early this morning?

:spank:

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Umm... sorry this wasn't posted earlier?

:hi:

[pnorman]

34. The term"sociaism" includes "libertarian-socialism" (aka: anarchism)

Noam Chomsky come to mind. Check yourself out on: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ You might be surprised.

Take the test BEFORE you read the ANALYSIS portion, lest it unconsciously affect your answers.

pnorman
On edit: The term "socialism" has been hijacked for exclusive use, not only by Communists (Large "C"). but "Nurse Rached knows best" types such as the Webbs in England.

[baldguy]

12. Socialism is not fascist.

Its the acknowledgment that labor is at least as important to our economy as capital, if not more so.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. I did not say that socialism is fascist

I said that socialism is inherently fascist. Both systems -- one economic, one political -- hold that the state is significantly more important than the individual. Whether economic or political, is is a position I strongly reject.

[Pharaoh]

21. rephrase that to say

the whole is more important than 1 individual......

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. Rephrase that to say...

The need for a secure society is more important than the individual right to privacy :hi:

My point is that there are limits to how far I will go in giving up my rights in order to benefit society as a whole. I do not see an important distinction between economic rights and political rights. Socialism, as a system, limits individual rights in ways I can not accept.

[Pharaoh]

24. actually if

you took the best of both capitalism and socialism and melded them together, you might have a fairly good system, but you have to do it globally.

[baldguy]

26. That's a distinction without a difference.

Saying "socialism is inherently fascist" is saying "socialism is fascist".

Where there IS a difference is that in your definition of socialism the individual still has a voice. (America is a democracy, after all.) While in our current capitalist system, immortal corporations are significantly more important than either the state or the individual - and you have no say in how they conduct themselves.

With the rise of corporate power you have already lost your individual rights. You have more to fear from free-range capitalism than from a little common-sense socialism.

[rman]

36. Depends on whether the state is actually representing the interests

of of the people - if it doesn't, it's fascism (see Hitler, Bush).

If the state does represent the interests of the people, then the state's control = the people's control.

Characteristic of fascism is as Mussolini put it, that it is "a merger of state and corporate power".
Just look at the amount of control that corporations have over the government in our capitalist system.

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. Fascism and totalitarianism are not mutually exclusive

Fascism is a philosophy: the needs of the State above the needs and desires of the individual. Totalitarianism is an implementation of government: all power vested in a single individual.

It is possible to have a democratically fascist state: look at China and the Soviet Union. Both have implementations of governance which are more democratic than the United States (yes, delegates are first loyal to the Party; but that is the way most parliamentary governments work, even in countries like England, Italy, Israel, etc.)

The fusion of corporate interests with government is something entirely different. When profitable or "necessary for the good of society" corporations are nationalized, it is an expression of fascism (the needs of the state above the needs and desires of individual entrepeneurs and investors.) When powerful corporations effectively take over the government, which is what seems to be the case here in the US, it is an expression of feudalism (the more powerful rule over the less powerful, and the needs and desires of the most powerful are by definition the needs and desires of the state.)

[tomp]

38. self delete nt

[Karmadillo]

4. Link to "Towards a New Socialism" for anyone who's interested.

http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

This book (first published in 1993 by Spokesman, Nottingham, England) is our attempt to answer the idea that socialism is dead and buried after the demise of the Soviet Union.

The core of the book consists of a series of chapters spelling out what we believe would be efficient and democratic methods for planning a complex economy. We also examine issues of inequality and its elimination, systems of payment for labour, a democratic political constitution for a socialist commonwealth, the commune as a set of arrangements for living, and property relations under socialism.

The book "Towards a New Socialism" (TNS) is copyright (c) 1993 W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. The copyright holders grant you permission to copy and redistribute the English-language text of TNS as you wish -- in printed, electronic or any other form -- on the following conditions: (a) you acknowledge the authorship of Cockshott and Cottrell; and (b) if you make modifications, you distinguish clearly between the text as written by the original authors and your own modifications. Please note that this permission may not apply to translations of TNS into other languages. That is, the publishers of translations of TNS may assert exclusive rights to their translation.

From this page you may access:

Information on the printed book from amazon.com.

An HTML version of the Introduction.

An HTML version of the Table of Contents.

The complete book in Adobe's PDF format, or as a postscript file.

For your downloading convenience, a zipped version of the PDF file, or a gzipped version of the postscript file.

A Czech socialist website that has a translation of the book.


Some companion pieces to the book:

more...

[JanMichael]

10. It's an interesting book and I've traded interesting emails with Cottrell.

Also argued his position against those pesky Novites on the SPUSA email cocktail socialist sites.

Actually I may be meeting him for lunch one of these days time permitting.

Also you might want to give the "Reality" website a looksy. It has some wonderful limks and polemics.

PS~ I almost fell out of my chair when I saw somebody other than me post the link to TNS!

[malaise]

17. Thanks n/t

[David__77]

5. Absolutely correct! Socialism is good.

The neo-cons and neo-liberals would love to think it is dead and buried, but time and again, socialism will re-emerge to address the fundamental problems of society.

I honestly think that Chavez is leading the way, forging a new conception, in which pluralism can coexist with social control of the economy.

[Radio_Guy]

9. Problem is, socialism as a brand name won't fly

The way Chavez is doing things, reining in the coporations before they get too big and out of control, seems to be the best way to handle the economy. But to call it "socialism" is like nails on a chalkboard to the average person. They think of the old USSR, which wasn't socialism. When done right, pure socialism benefits everyone.

[BootinUp]

11. Maybe when the right starts putting "Facism!" in theirs, lol.

give me a break.

[EFerrari]

18. Okay, then call it good citizenship or the newest thing.

The Democratic Party used to be attentive to these issues. Before they got yanked to the right.

I miss those Democrats.

[BootinUp]

19. I would agree if we said

there are some issues we could aggressively go left on and frame that way. Healthcare, and other economic issues that are universal. On the other hand I believe there are some issues that should drop off our national agenda and be emphasized as State rights issues.

[EFerrari]

22. Agreed. It's as if we forget we have those options. n/t

[chicofaraby]

16. From another DU thread "I'm a Commie"

This came from the Communist Party via another thread here. It sounds reasonable to me.


It is shameful and unacceptable that any child should live in poverty, and that anyone should go hungry, homeless, without medicine, or without a living wage in our nation of such great wealth.

Meet the Needs of Working, Unemployed and Farm Families
- Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
-Unemployment insurance for all workers.
- Moratorium on farm foreclosures
- Labor law reform to remove barriers to workers who want to join a union.
- No privatization of Social Security. Increase benefits.
- Universal prescription drug coverage administered by Medicare. Universal health care system.
- Restore social safety net. Welfare reform that includes job training, supports and living wages.
- Full funding for equal, quality, bi-lingual public education. No vouchers.

Make Corporate Giants Pay
- Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
- Close corporate tax loopholes.
- Restitution to workers' pensions.
- Strong regulation of financial industry.
- Regulation and public ownership of utilities
- Prosecute corporate polluters. Public works program to clean our air, water and land
- Aid to cities and states. Federally funded infrastructure repair and social service programs

Foreign Policy for Peace and Justice
- No to war with Iraq - End military interventions
- Repeal Fast Track and NAFTA, stop Free Trade Area of the Americas(FTAA). No secrecy.
- Save Salt II Agreements, reject Star Wars and Nuclear Posture Review
-Abolish nuclear weapons
- End military interventions.
- Cut military budget and fund human needs.

Defend Democracy and Civil Rights
- End racial profiling.
- Repeal the death penalty.
- Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action.
- Repeal USA Patriot Act.
- Legalization and protection of immigrant>rights.
- Public financing of elections. Overall election law reform including Instant Runoff Voting.
- Youth and student bill of rights. Guarantee youth's right to earn,learn and live.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/

[jsamuel]

28. nm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I don't agree.

I think that many of the ideas that have been termed Socialist are ones that America would benefit from, but that to claim to be a socialist would be electoral suicide in America.

There's also the issue that socialism is not a well-defined term, as the acrimonious rows further up the page, where its detractors and proponents are clearly using completely different definitions of it, demonstrate.

Tony Blair and Mao Zedong have both regularly been described as socialist. Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, has denied being one. As such, the word is more or less meaningless. It is, however, widely feared and hated as a synonym for communism by many Americans.

I'm all in favour of better social security, publicly-funded health care and education, and higher taxes for the rich. But in America if it's referred to as Socialism it won't happen.

[rman]

37. You do agree

that we need more of it.
Just not that we should call it that, which is a fair point.

[jsamuel]

29. Socialism is a word that has been destroyed by the Right,much like liberal

That does not mean that the Right doesn't have a point.

However, what I think the Democrats need to do, instead of following a socialist platform, is make the public realize that some government programs REALLY benefit them.

The New Deal - FDR
The Great Society - LBJ

SOCIAL(ism) Security


Real people benefit everyday from US programs that have a "socialist" ideal behind them. However, we are not a socialist country and probably never will be. Our culture is not egalitarian. We certainly have elements of egalitarian life. Minimum wage for example re-enforces such ideas. However, our "American Dream" requires our culture to have hierarchy. Much like Social Security, I think that we already have somewhat of a Social Democracy.

[The Flaming Red Head]

30. Look at all the sneers here at DU about trailer park people

That says it all!

[Little Star]

31. Hillary is a socialist

or so says this site. I took the quiz and came out right over Hillary as a socialist. Try it it was fun. http://www.okcupid.com/politics

[stickdog]

32. And first on our list should be the fucking defense industry.

Even most libertarians understand why that industry is best nationalized!

[welshTerrier2]

33. Democratic Socialism

in the end, we should place social justice above any system that defines economic rules that allow and encourage money and power to cause massive suffering ... so much is wrapped up in the definitions that true meaning often gets lost ... suffice it to say that if one defines capitalism as a system of survival of the fittest, you can have it ... no social justice can derive from a system where hoarding and greed are the ultimate measure of success ...

the goal is not to flatten everyone and create a system that first and foremost demands absolute economic equality ... but a system that exploits money and power to acquire more money and power has become a cancer on all humanity ...

i hope you'll take the time to read this common sense essay about Democratic Socialism ...

http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

[Blue_Tires]

40. ttt n/t

[struggle4progress]

41. We need to spend less time on words and more on organizing

[Blue_Tires]

45. good point nt

[earth mom]

42. You are either for the people or for the greedy corporate whores.

It's a Black or White issue. That's the only way I can look at it anymore given the direction this country has gone ever since that bastard Reagan took office. :grr:

Obviously, I agree with the article-Thanks for posting it! :hi:

[DFW]

43. Here in Europe

There is a lot of what is known in translation as "Social Democracy."

In other words, a mixture of capitalism and social programs financed by high taxes.
This has produced a predictable mix of frustrated entrepreneurs, "worker-friendly (NOT!)"
laws that make it practically impossible to fire bad employees, and payroll taxes so
ounishingly high as to encourage big business to locate production elsewhere. On the
other hand it has produced nearly universal health insurance and free education. You give
some and you get some.

The trouble with pure socialism, as with pure capitalism, is that eventually power becomes
concentrated in the hands of a very few (capitalism: the robber barons that would eventually
rule, socialism; the state commissars that would eventually rule). When power becomes concentrated,
the public ALWAYS loses. There has never been a fully benevolent dictatorship (Chavez is a sham,
though a very clever one), and I doubt there ever will be. Our founding fathers envisioned a
separation of powers to ensure no concentration of power. This is why the erosion of that separation
is so dangerous under Bush. SEPARATION. Socialism says power to the people, but who are the people?
Under Socialism, it ends up being a tiny Politburo or Central Committee, or even a dictator who
says he's the people (le peuple, c'est moi, so to speak). With a separation of powers there are checks
and balances. I'll take the American system over socialism any day--as long as it is applied as
its principles dictate. Bush is trashing those principles, which is why we are sliding toward
one party rule and totalitarianism. One party rule sucks, whether it's the Republicans, the Socialists,
the Communists, the Fascists, and would eventually suck even under the Democrats, because absolute
power ALWAYS corrupts eventually.

No thanks to socialism, no thanks to one-party rule by a selfish, nasty Republican elite, no thanks
to power being concentrated in the hands of ANYONE who thinks they never have to justify their hold
on it to the voters at regular intervals, without manipulation or fear of manipulation.