Anyone here a socialist of any stripe?

[Ellen Forradalom]

I am wondering why socialism of some sort isn't getting a renewed examination in the wake of the multiple capitalism-induced catastrophes (war, mortgage crisis, recession, offshoring and outsourcing, health care crisis, etc.) What's the state of socialism in America today? Does anyone have any experience with any of the socialist-flavored groups in the US (Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Party USA, etc.)?

[ThomWV]

1. Title Delete so as not to offend

Don't confuse a social system with an economic system.

[Ellen Forradalom]

2. There I go again?

Excuse me? What is your problem?

[ThomWV]

6. Just a phrase

[stimbox]

8. Some people still believe the Big Lie I guess.

The American people have been bombarded with anti-communist/socialist propaganda since the October Revolution of 1917, so it's understandable.

[Boojatta]

53. Do you mean bombarded by propaganda equating Bolshevism and socialism?

I notice that you didn't mention a revolution earlier in 1917 or the revolution of 1905. What's special about October 1917 besides Lenin and that "wonderful Georgian" Uncle Joe?

[stimbox]

69. No, the other big lie.

communism and socialism are evil.

[Boojatta]

70. What does the word "communism" mean to you?

[stimbox]

72. It doesn't mean Stalinism.

Or totalitarianism.

[Boojatta]

74. How long after the October 1917 revolution did things start to go downhill in your view?

[skooooo]

3. That's what it is..and economic system.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I think a socialist government works best

but I have no experience with socialist parties per se.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. I am very intrigued by Socialist Democracies

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. They work fairly well in Europe, despite the narrative.

The biggest problem now is that their money is too strong!

Damn them!

[Vadem]

7. I really love Bernie Sanders and all that he stands for!....... n/t

[ngant17]

9. try the idahosmith.com website

and these links for the latest "Fundamentals of Historical Materialism" document and some online audios:

<http://idahosmith.com/page2.html>
<http://idahosmith.com/fhm1.htm>
<http://idahosmith.com/fhm2.htm>

Feel free to contact Dr. Jason Smith, PhD., Anthropology, for more info.

Nathan Gant

[Warpy]

10. The SWP in Boston used to field the best candidates

although I found their Trotskyite perspective to be less than salubrious.

Personally, I don't think anything but a mixed system will work well, will deliver reasonably priced consumer goods and humane services while remaining competitive with the rest of the world. I like the balance they have in Europe and wish we could duplicate it here.

Pure socialism, as in the nominally communist governments, seems to be a transitional government and economy from a near feudal society ruled by a wealthy oligarchy to a mixed economy ruled more or less democratically.

Even China is quite democratic at the local level, although they've run into the same wealth maldistribution that plagues the US since they've failed to maintain enough socialist enterprise to keep it humane. It's the latter that will probably sink them in the not too distant future, as it is likely to sink the US.

[cynatnite]

Doesn't France have a mixed system? n/t

[Ellen Forradalom]

24. It does

Although Sarkozy and his friends would DEARLY love to dismantle it. I tell all my French friends, You don't want what we have. TRUST ME.

On edit: French voters just slapped him hard in the municipal elections. That should calm his pugnacious little ass in a hurry.

[Warpy]

36. All of western Europe does. Eastern Europe is still

struggling a bit to find the right mix.

[readmoreoften]

11. Yes. /nt

[asdjrocky]

12. I was a member of

Democratic Socialists of America for a couple of years, more as a protest than anything else.

[kestrel91316]

13. I'm probably most like the European-style social democrats.

[patrice]

14. I think society OWES each individual the price of his/her cooperation with society.

I don't think that price is money, because money is a result of the cooperation between societies and individuals, in other words, if there is money then the cooperation is a given and I'm trying to assume that individuals have choices to cooperate or not, so if you say money is your price, you've already agreed to cooperate with society, no matter whether the price is right or wrong.

I think there is a non-monetary price, that I set, for my cooperation, which, if society expects my cooperation, it must also expect to engage in negotions with me regarding my non-monetary price and once society agrees to that non-monetary price, it OWES me and I owe it my cooperation.

Because I believe society owes each individual a non-monetary price that they agree upon, I am a "Socialist" of somesort.

[Ellen Forradalom]

20. I do believe in some notion of a social contract.

If I follow the rules and work to society's benefit, then society's resources--hospitals, housing, food--should be employed to aid and protect me where I cannot help myself: I become disabled, aged, or sick; or similarly with a family member. This should apply to all equally.

If there are resources to kill people, there are resources to help people. (In whose sig line did I read something like that?)

[patrice]

35. The counter-point goes something like this: Society owes you nothing. If you work, you will get

paid money. That's your social contract.

But my position is predicated upon the fact that no money would exist if it weren't for work/cooperation, so if money is the only price for my work, there is NO choice, no freedom to engage in economic cooperation on your own terms. In Capitalistic terms, my body is my capital and by refusing to meet my non-monetary price for my body (and what it does), society is a theif and the only recourse I have is to insist by whatever means possible that society owes me my price. Perhaps, because I am saying the economic relationship/social contract BEGINS with that debt, rather than ends with it as in Capitalism, I am a Socialist.

[glowing]

15. I see socialism as more of a Utopian society where everyone is equal.

Everyone finds their "calling" and expounds on it because of their desire to exceed at what they do... However, I doubt that many would find a calling in picking up trash or working for the sewer. And I'm not sure how long any project would take, like roads or buildings.. I would assume in a socialistic model, people would tend to want to work less, and take more time with their families. AND would the farmer get up at the crack of dawn everyday to grow food and tend to livestock? I don't know.

It would have to be a model that the whole world accepted. It would have to be a model that allowed for country lines to fade so that all the people in the world could move and traverse. We would all have to be 1000 times more accepting of different people's, lifestyles, religions, colors, gender.. the whole nine yards.. And we'd have to be careful of anyone we put in charge.. Totalitarianism can take over easily.

BUT we do need more socialistic ideals in this country. We must embrace the idea of security of health, home, and education for everyone. We must lose the sense of entitlement. We must also embrace the aspects of creativity in arts and music and thought to achieve the higher goal. AND we must push the capitalistic pigs that want to herd us into submission out of this world.

[Greyhound]

43. You would be quite surprised, there are many people, my dad for example,

that given the choice to make a decent living at it, would love nothing better that to be a trash collector. Some significant number of Mensa members hold custodial positions because it is simple and allows them the time to pursue other varied interests, and so on.

Or course there would be a large re-ordering of compensation for various jobs, the cliché of the lettuce pickers comes to mind, that are grossly under-paid in relation to their importance to society. When the social structure meets all of the basic necessities of the individual, it becomes impossible to coerce people into doing something they don't enjoy just to survive, just as it becomes impossible for individuals to amass grossly disproportionate amounts of wealth.

[killbotfactory]

56. Why is it that we treat the people who literally feed the world so poorly?

When did farming become an ignoble job?

[Greyhound]

60. When the ruling class declared that it would be so.

One of the greatest ironies of the myth of capitalism and their unsubstantiated faith in their God, "The Market", is that we so happily ignore all of the evidence before us, and buy into the system that allows the very few to steal most of what the many produce.

The production of food is essential to the survival of any civilization, but it was far too diverse and distributed for them to steal outright (their normal M.O.), so that sector of industry had to be devalued until they could gain a stranglehold on it. This is the plan 'B' and it is used consistently to great effect, witness the WTO, IMF, scam that is forced on the smaller nations in order to steal their assets.

[juno jones]

16. I consider myself to be sort of anarcho-socialist

Or perhaps a social anarchist.

I think we should cooperate and pool our resources, but I I'm not really a party joiner.



I once was given a red flag on May 1 by a communist at pike place market. Does that count for anything? :)

[sharesunited]

18. It's a Pavlovian word, inasmuch as the spittle it produces

from the right wing and center right. But you can advance the ideals with stealth.

For example: Let's allow the Social Security Trust Fund to own stock in Fortune 500 public companies, and to vote those shares to control boards and direct corporate policy in the public interest.

There. Big step but one which calls the bluff of conservatives who want to privatize Social Security so they can invest their own retirement funds in American big business. Perfect compromise, eh?

[Ellen Forradalom]

25. Oh, now that would be a riot

Granted, I am no economist, but I like your thinking.

[Wednesdays]

28. Public funds invested in corporations?

Now there's a real socialist idea...NOT.

[sharesunited]

31. It's a way of leveraging public funds

by commandeering the private sector to serve public oriented objectives.

Think of it as the reverse of what Bush did with the military. He commandeered it to invade Iraq so he could plunder its oil and give out contracts for the benefit of his buddies in the private sector.

I propose the old switcharoo.

[Greyhound]

63. No, it's not, and it would be disastrous.

Think about it. A political appointee is suddenly placed in charge of the largest pile of chips in the game, with the authority to choose where those chips are placed and to what end. The inevitable end is that a single person gets unlimited power to control any result.

This would be the ruling classes wet dream.

[pretzel4gore]

17. can common logic ever displace the big lie?

America is one of the most 'socialist' countries on earth, if you measure the military budget, its size and the necessary tax collection that must be used in support of it alone, yet the piggy decries socialism! America's military budget is 1/2 the entire world's military budget. But only when tax monies are spent on people are they thought of as socialism. The GI bill was socialist (but shhhhh!) and almost the entire dubia dubia two generation can thank the GI Bill for the leaps and bounds the national economy made, in conjunction with labour unions, in post war years, and the amazing standard of living achieved by masses of ordinary families (a single income family once dreamed of and obtained the 'father knows best' lifestyle; though admittedly all that sacharine resulted in, well, for one, the New York Dolls, thank Jesus!)

[Ellen Forradalom]

29. Yep, our investment in our people

together with the favorable fact that our infrastructure was not destroyed in WWII really pushed us ahead in the postwar era.

It's a different world, but returning to the idea of investing in our people, all of them, from birth to death can really move us forward.

[Critters2]

19. I was a very active member of the Socialist Party, USA in college.

Volunteered on the presidential campaign, paid dues, went to meetings, etc. I really liked the people. Tolerant (yes, more so than Dems), dedicated, progressive.

When I was active, the candidate for pres was David McReynolds, an openly gay pacifist. The VP candidate was Sr. Diane Drufenbock, a Franciscan nun and Christian Socialist. These really were my people! I miss those times and the hope it gave me.

I wish the SPUSA were a viable party. *sigh*

[Ellen Forradalom]

23. Yeah, the mathematical properties of our electoral system suck.

Stable unto fossilization. The politics of the creamy center, that's what I call it.

[Critters2]

27. Exactly. The "electability" issue.

:puke:

[sharesunited]

21. It's a Pavolovian word inasmuch as the spittle it produces

from the right wing and center right. But you can advance the ideals with stealth.

For example: Let's allow the Social Security Trust Fund to own stock in Fortune 500 public companies, and to vote those shares to control boards and direct corporate policy in the public interest.

There. Big step but one which calls the bluff of conservatives who want to privatize Social Security so they can invest their own retirement funds in American big business. Perfect compromise, eh?

[pinto]

22. Former Socialist party member/voter in local Massachusetts politics, Dem. otherwise. I left it to

register as a Dem when I realized that better met my goals - and held more promise across the board.

[citizen snips]

26. I thought Marx was interesting

until my common sense kicked in.

[Ellen Forradalom]

32. Care to elaborate?

[citizen snips]

37. Sure

Let me first start out with my own background. I am part of the bourgeoisie middle class, and parents are from working class background. My own interest in Marxism is my affinity for history. However, Marx created a noble theory of a classless society, but in reality his theory as a practice has never existed. I believe it can never exist,due to natural evolutionary behavior, in practice and purely. The fist supposedly marxist country the Soviet Union was one of the most oppressive countries in the world. I can go into more detail if you want. I wrote a research paper on the October revolution and concluded that it was military coup d tat not a revolution. China was once a proclaimed marxist country until it embraced capitalism.

[Ellen Forradalom]

38. Okay, I get ya

I tend to be leery of citing 'natural evolutionary behavior' since that's so often used as a club over women's heads. I agree that agreeing upon a definition of, much less implementing, socialism is a very tricky thing.

[bean fidhleir]

77. Your affinity for history shouldn't have stopped only 150 years ago

If it had continued back, or even led you to look around, you'd have seen that anarchic socialism is the usual form in "primitive" societies.

When corporate England started invading and colonizing North America, the corporations (more like partnerships with the Crown as a partner) lied to get people to come and do the grunt work. The conditions were so terrible that some colonist-laborers would run away. Where did they run? To the Indians, because the Indians didn't have a ruling class that exploited everyone else. They had socialism. (When some of the runaways were re-captured, the deputy governor of the colony, Sir Thomas Dale, paid them back for their unwillingness to work themselves to death "for other mens profite": "Some he apointed to be hanged some burned some to be broken upon wheles others to be Staked and some to be shott to deathe, all thes extreme and crewell tortures he used and inflicted upon them To terrefy the reste for attemptinge the Lyke.")

The same anarchic socialism can be found in small societies today in Africa and southeast Asia. There was an article a few years ago about an anthro living with a SEA community. The community members, who had almost no contact with the "civilized" world, nor any need of it, were nevertheless curious about it. When he told them about homeless people, the members of the community were appalled. They wanted him to invite the homeless people to their community. They would be happy to build them houses, plant gardens for them, and welcome them just as they had done for the anthro when he came. He had a very hard time breaking it to them that there was probably no way to bring homeless people 8000 miles or more from the US to their village. To the people of that village, letting someone go without the necessities of life is the worst sort of inhuman perversion.

[otherlander]

30. Reluctantly.

I really despise the concept of The State, but yeah.

[pansypoo53219]

33. mccarthyism

the right sreams commie!

[Greyhound]

34. I am an economic socialist, sort of. I believe that for our society to

survive and prosper a foundation of minimal livelihood must be established, i.e. each citizen has a right to have the basic necessities met (food, water, shelter, education, health care, and justice) and as rights these needs must be met by society with no profit motive. Other areas that should fall under the auspices of government are those essential services and products that are vital to national sovereignty and security, things like energy, transportation, and infrastructure, these things should be controlled/regulated by the government for the smooth operation and to prevent an industry from being able to hold the nation hostage.

[Ellen Forradalom]

40. Boy, that last statement is key

"to prevent an industry from being able to hold the nation hostage." Like the way Enron stuck it up California's ass a few years back. Disgraceful.

[marmar]

39. I'm kind of a socialist-capitalist hybrid, ala Northern Europe.

n/t

[El Pinko]

41. I am, and I think there are two main reasons...

Number One is that our educational system completely ignores and/or distorts the nature of socialism and obscures its significance in the US political movements of the first half of the 20th century. Few people today even realize that there were VIABLE socialist political parties in the US before World War 2. We are also told that FDR's New Deal programs, which borrowed heavily from socialist ideas (and which were designed to politically neuter the socialists of the time) were less responsible for America's recovery from the Depression than was the war. That point is debatable, but the fact that New Deal programs continue to generate economic benefits TODAY is beyond dispute.

Number Two is the fact that we have a political system financed almost entirely by corporate donations and a news media financed entirely by corporate propaganda funds. The corporate propaganda that sandwiches our TV shows has been telling us since infancy that if we will only buy X product NOW, we will be younger, happier, healthier, stronger more loved, sexier - etc. IE we are conditioned from an early age to think that the answers to all of life's products held by corporations, who are kind enough to sell them to us for a bit of change. We've been taught that the ability to buy these things is synonymous with "freedom" and "choice", and this consumer mentality has even been brought to the political process. With extreme right-wing anti-poor gimmicks like "school choice" (IE private school discount coupons for the rich at the expense of the poor) taking hold in the political discussion. All manner of things that were once a part of the commons (water, public areas, the airwaves) are increasingly commodified. People today think nothing of spending $1.50 for a bottle of WATER (usually well water or filtered tap!)


My answers were kind of long, but that's it in a nushell. We live in a matrix of lies designed to keep us ignorant to the benefits of collective effort and collective democratic control of society.

[Ellen Forradalom]

42. Amen to what you say.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Yes. There are some industries which are better publicly owned.

In my area, I am a customer of a Public Utility District. Although under constant assault by the federal government (17% of every dollar I pay them gets sent directly to subsidize the private utilities who do not serve me in any way) they provide good service to rural areas that otherwise would never have been hooked up.

It is inherently socialist, and I'm okay with that.

[KitSileya]

45. I am a democratic socialist.

But then, I'm from one of those Western European countries that are socialist democracies. I have absolutely no problem with paying my taxes (36%, tho' in reality a little less because of graduated taxes) because I know I get more than value for my money. (Health care, education, social security, welfare, and on and on.) I also pay the taxes on goods and services with a light heart (with one exception - the limit of toll-free goods when bought abroad has not been raised in over 3 decades, which is ridiculous with the advent of the internet.) Do I agree with all the things my government decides to spend money on? No. Do I feel like I have a voice in society, and that these politicians will be held accountable for their actions should they do something wrong? Yes. Do I feel like my taxes go to support others rather than me? As a single 33-year old with a good job who rents rather than owns, definitely. Do I mind? No.

I may be the fact that three generations back, I had communists on both sides of my family, and that the next three generations (myself included) we have been active in trade unions - but I have been raised in the belief of the common good, and that as a citizen, you have duties and benefits, and the duties are paying when you can afford it, so that those who can't, can get a decent life too.

[Perry Logan]

46. If you don't like socialism, get off of my sidewalk.

[Orsino]

47. We all are, I assume.

We tend to love socialized retirement, socialized fire and police protection, socialized medicine and other things too numerous to mention.

We're mature enough to have learned that unregulated capitalism is simply feudalism. Capitalism requires socialism if it is to survive.

[defendandprotect]

48. There are still people who hear socialism and think "NAZI" . .. because . ..

Hitler actually took over a legitimate socialist party --- which was feminist and wholly progressive . . . and he immediately changed it to a fascist organization.

I have no connection or knowledge though with any of the current groups and would be interested
if anyone here does --- ???

[T.Ruth2power]

49. Right here

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

More here:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

[Mika]

50. Too bad our government bans us from going to Cuba to see what's going on there.

Most Americans have to rely on knee jerk down the memory hole US gov/media anti Cuba propaganda. :(

I've been there many time and Cuba is nothing like the brutal dictatorship US propaganda describes.



Before the 1959 revolution

75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.

More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.

85% had no inside running water.

91% had no electricity.

There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.

More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.

Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.

The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.

45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.

25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.

1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).

27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.

Racial discrimination was widespread.

The public school system had deteriorated badly.

Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.

Police brutality and torture were common.

___



After the 1959 revolution
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.

-

It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.

By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;

Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.

Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.

“Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”

Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.

“Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”

It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.

There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.

The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.

“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”

Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.

The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.

“What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.

No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care needs to be forced on any population. Castro didn't give it to them either. Together, nearly all Cubans worked hard to create the social infrastructure and systems that they felt were essential for any progressive system.

The Cuban people wanted universal health care for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, and organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a fair and complete h-c system.

The people of Cuba wanted universal education for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a complete and world class ed system, and they have it.

Cubans want to assist the world's poor with doctors and educators, instead of gun ship diplomacy.. and that is what they have done WITH their government, not at odds with their government.

Can Americans make this claim about their own country? I'm afraid not.


Cubans want normalization between the US and Cuba, and they have thrown their doors open to us, but, it is our US government that prevents what the majority of Americans want their government to do - normalize relations. Worse yet, the US government forbids and has criminalized travel to Cuba by Americans - something that Cuba hasn't done.



--

[leftofthedial]

51. capitalism is a disease

and its practice is criminal

admitting to being a socialist is grounds for being placed in a gulag (or soon will be)

[LWolf]

52. Yes.

I am closer to some democratic socialist ideals than I am to business as usual in the U.S., anyway.

[killbotfactory]

54. I am

I think businesses and our society should be run democratically, and I think the natural resources of the world belong to, and should be used to benefit, all of us.

A better world is possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB8_wPei2ZM

[KG]

55. you have nothing to lose but your chains, comrade.

[roamer65]

57. I like European-style democratic socialism.

Capitalism is a beast that needs to be controlled and managed.

[Thickasabrick]

58. I guess I'm a socialist in that I think tax monies should be used

for healthcare and education (including college). I don't think anyone should have to pay for college if they want to go. We should totally finance that - I wouldn't mind my tax dollars going for that.

[LeftishBrit]

59. Yes, I'm a supporter of Europaean-style socialism

Mixed economy, with acceptance of tax-funded public services, and a strong social safety net to prevent severe poverty. The Labour Party in Britain used to follow this position, but sadly not any more.

[libodem]

61. The Cheneybush administration

only it's for corporations kinda like fascist Italy around the time of Mussolini. Stalin would adore this group of pigs.

[stranger81]

64. Former British SWP member checking in . . . . .

If its US branch was worth its salt (I used to attend in Berkeley for a while), I'd still be a member. But the real momentum of the party remains centered in England, where I no longer live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(Britain)

As far as ideology, I still share most of the SWP's positions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. I'm an Anarchist and can hum the "Internationale".

My Irish grandmother was a socialist, as was my hillbilly father.

As for me, Socialism is just a better idea than capitalism, but Socialist bosses can be just as corrupt and brutal as capitalist bosses.

[bean fidhleir]

78. "Socialist bosses can be just as corrupt and brutal as capitalist bosses."

I think that's a key insight. Any time we allow bosses to exist, we risk getting one that's only in it for himself/herself

[CANDO]

66. I'm a union member.

That is a form of socialistic restraint on capitalism. And I'm damn proud of it!

[nomorenomore08]

67. I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by "socialist."

Am I a Marxist utopian? No, and in fact I think the idea of the "perfectability of man" is potentially very dangerous. After all, if all human behavior is purely the result of social construction, then it would follow that any negative tendencies can be "bred out" through the proper ideological conditioning. And once an image of the "perfect human" is agreed upon by those in power, it's just a hop skip and jump to suppressing anything judged to defy or compromise that view - from burning books to jailing "enemies of the people." I see these authoritarian tendencies in some on the Left, and it scares me.

On the other hand, all these political quizzes I've taken place me as a strong liberal bordering on socialist, and I'm way down in the lower-left corner on the Political Compass test - which I guess would make me a kind of libertarian socialist, or socialist libertarian, as contradictory as that might sound.

[Echo In Light]

68. Yes. There was an excellent thread quite similar to this not long ago

Libertarian socialist.

[stimbox]

73. Isn't that oxymoronic?

That's like being a Capitalist Communist.

[killbotfactory]

75. Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

The US tends to have different terminology for political views than the rest of the world.

[Echo In Light]

79. Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism: Contradicting terms?

"You're right that the terms I'm using are contradictory in the U.S. But that's a sign of the perversity of American culture."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE

[stimbox]

80. HA, HA, HA...

Thanks for that.

[Echo In Light]

81. No prob. The focus being against centralized corporate/state power...

Which is what we have here, an oligarchy/plutocracy.

[entanglement]

71. I'm a socialist

I believe in the unity of all working people, everywhere in the world. I reject imperialism, racism, nationalism, religious bigotry, and oppression of every kind. I believe working people worldwide should enjoy the fruits of their labor, not a tiny group of oligarchs and assorted parasites. I believe everyone deserves decent jobs with good benefits, health-care and safe working conditions. I believe global capital, with its right-wing hangers on, faux reformist 'liberals' and the abetting corporate media have no solutions to the serious problems (food, health, energy, environment) that face the world today. (In fact, they stand in the way of a solution).

I believe the working class is under attack not just economically, but politically as well. It is kept divided on the basis of race, nation and religion, subjected to endless right wing propaganda by the ruling class to keep it from realizing its best interests. Even the modicum of freedoms and liberties enjoyed by it are under attack (And these freedoms were not 'given', they were fought for and attained after long and sustained struggles). But by far the biggest problem facing the working class is lack of class awareness.

Well, I could go on and make this a ten page post, but I'll stop here. :hi:

[REP]

76. Fabian

Not New Fabian, but Shavian Fabian.

[galledgoblin]

82. boo!

I'm an admitted scary socialist of the 5'4" feminine type.

I think we are seeing some calls already to shift back to socialism, although mainly in "well, DUH" type moves like calling for some regulation and social programs to establish a basic standard of living.

if we do get a dem in the white house this year, we're going to see a lot more called for.