Are you a SOCIALIST?

[XemaSab]

Poll question: Are you a SOCIALIST?

:shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Hell Yes.

[alterfurz]

31. damn straight!

Socialism: If it's good enough for the bankers, it's good enough for the rest of us!

[ZombieHorde]

2. By today's use of the word, the vast majority of Americans are socialists. nt

[blondeatlast]

9. +1. If President Obama can be considered a socialist, I'm a raging one.

And the fact is, I'm not; I like capitalism provided there is a rock-solid, generous safety net for individuals and the capitalism is very well regulated.

[Honeycombe8]

26. Ditto. nt

[Philly219]

3. You betcha n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

4. Yes. And in the most radical sense of the word.

[bobbolink]

5. !!

:applause:

radix: root, like a radish.... to get to the root of the problem = radical.

[readmoreoften]

18. +1

[NYMdaveNYI]

6. It’s on my voter registration. I’m a registered Socialist.

Fuck Democrats and Republicans.


The Democrats have become nothing more than the Diet-Republicans.

[Cleita]

7. More accurately, a social Democrat.

I believe access to the basic needs of life and servicing our infrastructure should be socialized. Capitalism could be practiced in the private sector but I would prefer businesses be run like cooperatives. Also I believe business is here to serve the people, not the other way around.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I consider myself to be a green social democrat. :^)

[wickerwoman]

27. +1

Technically, "socialism" advocates public ownership of the means of production. I don't think the state is capable of rationalising and effectively managing production.

But I do support worker owned co-ops as a superior management structure. I think the role of government is to heavily regulate the private sector to protect the public interest. And I also support the government managing public services which do not follow a market model (education, health care, criminal justice, etc.) In any area where one person is given power over another person, that relationship should be either strictly regulated or managed by a government which accounts directly to the general public.

So yeah, social democrat, not socialist.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Odin2005]

11. Libertarian Socialist/ Anarcho-Socialist reporting!

[pnorman]

36. Same here too!

I was recently attacked by a self-appointed keeper of that all but moribund Socialist Forum on DU, for posting videos on "Anarchism in America"! Although an avowed admirer of the Scandinavian social-democratic model, he apparently had no similar problem with the pro-Stalinist postings that were also there! (sigh!)

My Obama avatar? It's my firm belief that we're just a few minutes before midnight, with several critical tipping points in play. If he's "primaried out" in favor of one closer to our thinking, Corporate America will end up back in the saddle and it could take many years to get back on track. We do NOT have all that much time!

[Ozymanithrax]

12. I'm a liberal, and socialism and liberalism are incompatible ideologies. n/t

[XemaSab]

23. Tell me more...

:shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

46. From its beginnings during the Renaissance, individual rights has been

the most important aspect of liberalism. The attempt was to expand individual rights to all.

Socialism, with its concepts of public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources denies the individual right to own the means of production. This makes the two ideologies incompatible.

That is no to say that socialism has many good ideas that can be used to enhance individual rights, especially by creating a social safety net. But when you begin taking away rights, you leave liberalism behind.

Both are left side ideologies.

The accusation that liberalism is socialism by Conservatives is just demonization for political purposes.

[pnorman]

73. "the individual right to own the means of production."

By the late part of the 19th century if not earlier, that was no more than a cruel joke in the US, as well as in most of the world.

Socialism, anarchism, and communism, all had the exact same roots as liberalism {and capitalism for that matter!). There was much similarities between them all, and claiming any of them to be "mutual exclusive" would require further discussion.

Q: Are you aware that Adam Smith could now be considered a "social-democrat" or even worse?

[Ozymanithrax]

83. Modern Conservtivism also shares those roots...

but the trees have grown in very different directions.

[baldguy]

98. The collective ownership of corporations, as it exists now, isn't included in that?

Individual ownership of the major means of production hasn't existed in America for 150 years. It's just concentrated in the hands of a few. Conservatism seeks to maintain & increase this concentration. Liberalism seeks to alleviate it.

Seems you've succumbed to conservative propaganda about just what "liberalism" and "socialism" mean.

[readmoreoften]

79. In economic terms, "liberalism" is laissez-faire capitalism.

And yes, they are incompatible ideologies. The idea that laissez-faire capitalism can be reformed into a better society is 2nd internationale social democracy. It collapsed when all the different social democrats aligned with their capitalists to fight WW1.

[jillan]

13. Hell yes! I drive on public roads, send my kids to public schools, use the public library, both

my parents got social security and medicare, I have a disabled daughter that gets benefits from the state, etc....

AND I am proud to pay my taxes in return.

[Honeycombe8]

28. Socialism means you get paid the same as the lazy schmuck who sits next to you

and goofs off all day, while you are the "go to" person who works hard and excels. Both are regarded the same, compensation-wise, since all monies go to the community as a whole.

So...does that describe where you are?

[TBF]

44. No, socialism means public ownership of the means of production -

renumeration can be calculated various ways. See wiki for basic definitions.

[Honeycombe8]

102. Socialism = the govt owns the money and land and production, and distributes it to the

community.

Individuals don't own the money and land and production, and reap what they sow.

Consult dictionaries, please. (Wikepedia is interesting, but as you know, not a valid source of information.)

[TBF]

107. Not always government ownership -

which dictionaries are you relying on? And no watching Glenn Beck does not count as research.

Here is Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Definition of SOCIALISM
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

[pnorman]

48. "To each according to their needs...."

There's actually scriptural "justification" for that, but it's still an irrelevant pipe dream. In the 'social-democratic countries" (regardless of which party is in power), the income spread is about 10 to 1, and ALL citizens are not only healthy, happy, but FREE! Here in the USA, before Reagan it was probably closer to 30 to 1. MUCH room for improvement, but FAR better than it is now, by ANY metric!

[Honeycombe8]

105. People in socialistic Russia were/are not "free." The govt also dictates....

to some extent what people do for a living. If the "community" needs more farmers, ba-da-bing, you are a farmer, despite what you want to do.

If the "community" needs more dancers, and you are talented, ba-da-bing, you're a dancer.

If the "community" needs more teachers, ba-da-bing, you are a teacher, regardless of what you want to do.

They are far from free. That's why they defect to a capitalistic country.

Socialism doesn't work long term, as far as I know. It goes against basic human nature. If you get what you need without having to work hard, then you don't bust your butt or seek to excel.

I've read anecdotal stories of visitors to Russia and those who have defected. They tell stories of even the simplest of workers just ambling along, not seeking to provide good service. There's no point. Excellence in a field is not rewarded. The workers sink to the lowest common denominator. If there's one lazy worker, they all become lazy, because the reward is the same.

The grocery stores are devoid of food and household item choices. There is no incentive for people to provide them.

This is one reason why Russian has partly gone to capitalism, so that entrepreneurs would be able to thrive and get some reward, so that it would better the community as a whole.

You see this in the animal community. If a leopard is better at hunting than the other leopards, he gets the reward. And so on. If he didn't, he'd just lie there all day and wait for someone to bring him his meal. No reason to hunt.

[Starry Messenger]

113. Oh boy, don't even know where to start there.

Please, read authors other than Tom Clancy about Soviet history. You are hurting my brain. http://russiatrek.org/blog/people/the-people-of-soviet-union-photos/








There is plenty of proof out there in the world that the Soviet Union was massively productive and that workers worked hard. Please, you are indulging in embarrassing caricatures. You don't put up the world's first satellite by sitting around on your ass. There are plenty of incentives other than the chance at obscene profit for people to work hard.

[pnorman]

119. Russiaa, China, as well as Cambodia, are poor examples.

During periods of EXTREME social dislocation & misery, an essentially alien formula was blindly adopted by leaders who were made fanatics by circumstances. In terms of "economics" only, Russia had achieved many striking successes (if you overlook the social cost).

But I had mentioned the here and now examples of most of western Europe. Can you comment on that?

[socialist_n_TN]

55. How is that different from the boss's nephew........

(or friend, or son, or lover, etc.)doing nothing of consequence and making MORE than the person who works hard and excels? Or for that matter the OWNER(S) of the company (if it's a capital owned concern) who do nothing and earn 400+ times the amount of the person who works hard and excels? Capitalism is NOT a meritocracy. It's a good ole boys club. At least socialism offers a SHOT at a MORE equal distribution of wealth produced by the people.

With the death penalty, I'd rather 100 guilty people NOT be executed rather than ONE innocent person be executed. Economically, I'll take 100 slackers for a more equal distribution of the overall wealth.

Anyway as others have said, just because it's a socialist system, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be checks on the slackers and rewards for harder workers.

[Honeycombe8]

106. One situation is government institutionalized and applies to everyone. The other

are isolated incidents. If the boss's nephew goes to work at your company, and gets paid more than you, even though he has the same job title and education and skill set, you are free to change jobs.

I have never seen such a thing, personally, although I know it occurs.

People are paid according to the field and job that they do, generally. Even though a teacher is very valuable and holds your child's future in his hands for a year, that doesn't mean a teacher would be paid more than, say, a low level scientific researcher in a lab. That's because just about anyone can become a teacher, and not many can or do become researchers. If a school needs to hire a teacher, they can hire a decent or even excellent one right away. No problem. If a company wants to hire a researcher, it's harder to find one.

The pay is not because of the value of the work. It's supply and demand. There's a reason there are lots of teachers and not many science researchers. Science is more boring, harder to take all those science courses in college. If you're going to go to college, it's just easier to become a teacher than a science researcher. (Although there is good job security in teaching.)

If a person wants to get paid more, he needs to learn to do something that there's a demand for and not a lot of people to hire. Ba-da-bing. That's a job that will probably pay well.

Slackers: All I'm saying is...socialism hasn't worked long term for any country, that I know of. By "working" I mean the people are happy and don't try to defect, and the country has a decent economy, there are food choices for the masses (and they can afford them)...things like that.

Dictatorships seem to work, but I wouldn't recommend that as a solution. Dictators truly "spread the wealth" to supply the needs of the masses, but only insofar as the dictator sees fit or decides what those needs are. The people don't have decision making power.

[TBF]

108. Have we seen ANY system yet which "works" - and by works I mean

equitable and caring for all members of society? I would argue Russia and Cuba are two countries in which at least there was some success in taking care of the least fortunate in society. In the United States there is a top 1% that owns and controls 40% of all wealth - leaving many in poverty. Sure they can change jobs - if they can actually find someone to hire them.

We can certainly learn from the past - I wouldn't advocate dictatorship either. But to argue that capitalism works for more than 2% of the population is dishonest and silly.

[Honeycombe8]

115. Russia and Cuba are not success stories, IMO, because the people there keep trying

to "escape." Apparently free health care isn't enough.

I've seen pics of Russian grocery stores. The shelves are mostly bare. One Russian described moving to some European capitalistic country and seeing a grocery store there for the first time; he said he started crying. He had never seen so much food in one place, so many choices, and he could actually afford to buy some of it. He described going to his local store in Russia to get bread, which was all he could afford at that time. But when he got to the store, it was out of bread. The stores only had a some food items, and a limited supply at that.

I'm a middle class woman. Capitalism has worked for me, and those that I know. There aren't many countries where women can make money and provide for themselves, including home ownership. Russia sure isn't one of 'em, and neither is Cuba, from what I understand.

I was in a situation that wasn't working for me. It was very hard, but I was free to make choices to try to turn things around. I did, to an extent. It involved hard decisions, like moving away from family, leaving a deadbeat husband, things like that. All I had to do was learn to DO something that someone would actually PAY me to do. Which I did. (I was a college dropout, sorry to say.)

Capitalism needs to be regulated. The poor need to be protected from abject poverty, lack of health care, things like that. There needs to be a safety net. But if a person is rewarded for excelling, that encourages excellence. That allows people to take risks, do things, shake things up, since there might be a betterment to that person's circumstances in the end. It's not just America. There are other capitalistic societies, like Canada, France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, etc. There's a reason Russians and Cubans try to escape their countries and go to a capitalistic one. It's because, for all its problems, the average person has a better life there.

[TBF]

116. All anecdotal "evidence" - people are trying to "escape" from

this country as well. Plenty have moved to Canada to get better health care.

Some facts as opposed to anecdotes:

Life expectancy: US 38th in world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
Health care systems: US 37th in the world (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)
Infant Mortality: US 33rd in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate)

Discussion on gap between rich and poor in US: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/income-gap-widens-census-_n_741386.html

[Enthusiast]

91. No, that's the Rush Limbaugh definition. nt

[OutNow]

14. Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no poor no more

And the funniest part is that my BIL, who doesn't have two nickels to rub together, is a Ditto head.
I work to make his life better while he works (well mostly talks not really works) to make my life better.

OK - everybody sing - Solidarity forever, Solidarity forever ....

[Honeycombe8]

32. There have always been poor people, and will always be poor people.

Boy, that's a deep philosophical issue. I didn't take philosophy, so I can't discuss much further, except to say that being poor appears to be a factor of humanity. It has always been there, is there now, and appears will always be there.

Of course, part of that is because everything is relative. Poor today in some countries is far better off than poor was in ancient times.

So if everyone's standard of living is raised, there will still be the poor, who are considered to be poor relative to others. Even though their standard of living is higher than the poor standard of living 100 years ago.

If you're talking about communism and socialism, where everything is owned by the community as a whole, that's never worked, that I know of. It's human nature. If you and I get the same compensation for our jobs, why would you bust your butt to excel, when I'm barely working at all, if there is no reward for you in it? You wouldn't. So productivity for the whole community declines. Innovation, intellectual capacity, everything, declines. Everything except what gives a person some internal reward and satisfaction, since there would be no monetary reward. Why would you kill yourself to plant two acres of corn instead of just one, if you couldn't sell it, but had to give it away to me, who planted only 1/2 acre? You wouldn't.

[wickerwoman]

71. You can't eliminate relative poverty,

but we are more than capable of making sure every single human being on this planet from cradle to grave has a roof over their heads, enough food to eat, clothes, an education, basic health care and clean water and air. The fact that we can't manage this for something like 70% of the Earth's population *is* a genuine failure of organisation, empathy and imagination, not a confirmation of the futility of eliminating poverty (in the sense of people who want basic necessities).

Communism has worked for small communities like kibbutzim in Israel, communes in Italy and in many tribal society which practice communal ownership of resources. The problem is that it doesn't handle complex economies well and it attempts to rationalize something which is fundamentally irrational (human desire).

Ever-increasing productivity is not a healthy goal for society. We live in a closed system with limited energy and resources. Why should I plant two acres of corn if half an acre feeds, clothes and shelters my family? What if everyone on the planet plants four times as much corn as they need?

Also, within a cooperative system there is still motivation to excel and to innovate. It's just that the rewards of that innovation are distributed to the workers, not to management. Why, within a capitalist system, should people bust their butts to excel when the only person who benefits is the CEO? The only thing increasing productivity in the capitalist system is the fear of getting fired and then not having food, shelter or health care for your family. And fear is actually a much worse motivator than a sense of ownership and empowerment about your work. You only do just enough not to get fired.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[strawberryfield]

15. I am more of an anarchist than anything

I have considerable contempt for the capitalist oligarchy, but I also don't fancy putting my future in the hands of a socialist collective either. I am more inclined to a Jeffersonian type utopia of farmers and trades people as their own bosses. I know that we can't get back there as a society, but I am trying to live my personal life that way.

[old mark]

16. Not really - I dislike the rigidity of "real" socialism, but I approve of the

European style social programs-such as those in France - and I am amazed that many people in the US think they are terrible ideas when so many here have nothing to rely on if they are ever sick or lose their jobs.

People in the USA are against unemployment insurance, equal pay for women, minimum wage and health care, government inspection of food and safety regulations in the workplace...they consider THAT to be socialism, which is just plain stupid. We got lots and lots of stupid.


mark

[TBF]

17. Our only hope in saving this planet is getting rid of Capitalism. nt

[readmoreoften]

19. CMC vs MCM' = the devaluation of all reality into profit.

Capitalism is, by nature, a hysterical system that commodifies people's labor into profit machines for the owning class. It makes all commodities a means to an end, and that end is increased profit: hookers, oil, food, drugs, intellectual labor, weapons, diamonds, salt, college courses--it doesn't matter so long as it can be converted to cash for the owners.

Labor lives in a C-M-C paradigm, capitalists live in a M-C-M' paradigm, and we have nothing real in common. The M-C-M' paradigm needs to be ended as a mechanism.

Hell yes I'm a socialist.

[XemaSab]

25. I'll add to that

that capitalism is a system that puts no value on things UNLESS they are commodities.

Clean air, clean water, healthy forests, wide-open deserts: the first has no value; the second is only valuable insofar as people can catch fish and sell water; the third is valuable dead and in the form of timber; and the last is valuable for minerals, livestock, or development.

Can you explain the C-M-C vs. M-C-M' paradigm?

[readmoreoften]

76. Sure, happy to explain C-M-C vs M-C-M'

In Kapital, Marx explains three basic paradigms for exchange:

(1) C-C: The Barter Economy. You exchange commodities for commodities. This is often romanticized. But in reality that means, if I have 400 carrots and I want a shirt, and the person making the shirt doesn't want 400 carrots but a pair of shoes, then I have to go to the shoe maker. But she doesn't want carrots either, she wants leather. The guy who makes leather wants a half a cow. The guy who has the cow takes the carrots.

This is obviously a pain in the ass. So everyone agrees that there should be a "universal commodity" that has a fixed exchange value: it could be gold, paper verified by a state, diamonds, oil, wood, salt, etc. So long as it doesn't inherently rot (like, say, bananas.) That "universal commodity" is money.

(2) C-M-C: Simple Exchange Economy. This is the paradigm most people mistake for capitalism because this is the paradigm ALL laborers are in, but it's not capitalism at all. This is the early exchange economy with money: I have carrots; you give me gold which is equivalent to 1000 carrots; I go pay my rent. Labor itself is a commodity on the market: I have my labor commodity which I sell for a fixed rate to an employer (C) my employer gives me money (M) and I pay my rent (C): C-M-C. But who is this boss? And how did they get the money in the first place? Under feudalism we knew who the boss was and we knew who owned all the gold: the King. But why does my boss have the money?

(c) M-C-M': Capitalism. The old canard about capitalism is that the capitalists' money comes from hard work. Meaning: someone uses their labor commodity to get lots of money to invest wisely in other commodities. But Marx points out that this doesn't make sense for two reasons. Reason 1 is historical: That's just not how it happened. How the early capitalist class got their money was using their power as merchants (and their wiles got from traveling) to steal common property from peasants in the 1600s. This theft was called "The Enclosure Movement" and Marx called it "primitive accumulation." Naomi Klein calls it "disaster capitalism" but that is really just another name for ALL capitalism in Marxist terms. It's how capitalists start. (Some Marxist economists would say, for example, that the privatization of the public school system is a form of primitive accumulation others quibble with this, etc.) Enclosure had another effect: with no land, the peasants had no way to sustain themselves and they became the original labor force for the new factories. They hated it so much that many of them hid out in church basements or became vagrants because it was preferable to laboring for the capitalists. The monarchs came down on the side of the capitalists (seeing the writing on the wall) and enacted Work Laws: either you worked or you went to jail. This was the origins of the working class. So whereas Adam Smith said the capitalists just earned their money from hard work, Marx said that this is historically completely inaccurate.

But Reason 2 is systemic. Marx argued that all value comes from a SPECIAL type of commodity, the labor commodity, and that the labor commodity is the source of all profit. He shows that capitalists don't make their money from a C-M-C commodity trade of buy-low-sell-high because everyone would invest in the same thing and no one would buy. Why is one thing high and another low? Because of the labor commodity. Why are diamonds high? They are labor intensive. Why is spice high? It is labor intensive and must be transported by more labor. Why is land expensive? Because it is expensive to clear or it has value if you put farmers to work on its soil. So, profit comes from the difference in the sale price and the costs, and all costs are essentially labor (You buy your employees' labor, but then the labor that made the trucks the labor that made the widgets the labor that mined the elements in the wigdet, etc.) What you skim off the top of this is profit, or M.

So while workers are in a C-M-C cycle selling their labor for money to pay rent, capitalists are in an M-C-M' cycle. They start with the money (from the bank or their family fortune, which also comes from past labor) and they buy commodities (hedge funds, workers, gold, stocks, porn empires, foodstuffs) with the goal of making more money: M' (called M prime). The "C" or the commodity is reduced to the exchange value. Its use value is meaningless: the capitalist doesn't care if he's buying people or water or food or weapons or gold or oil or pollution. Moreover Marx goes on to prove that it's not a matter of individual capitalists being "bad people" but rather that this is what this system produces. If they don't constantly expand their M', they will indeed fall into the working class.

In other words, capitalism as a system degrades commodities into catalyst for profit for the capitalists. Regular working people are in the C-M-C scenario, capitalists are in the M-C-M' scenario and these two groups are in different classes.

That's a start. Sorry if it's too long! :)

[XemaSab]

80. Thank you so much!

This is a real education, and I greatly appreciate it! :D

[readmoreoften]

81. It's not one that they give in the US school system anymore.

If you want good videos and podcasts that explain Marxist economics--and everything else--wearemany.org is an amazing, amazing resource. Also Professor David Harvey's online video lectures on Das Kapital (I think it's davidharvey.org or davidharvey.com) explains everything.

I've watched this information be systematically wiped out of the US education system for twenty years now.

Glad you found it helpful. If you ever have ANY questions I'll do my best to help via PM.

[ConsAreLiars]

Too short since people need to read and understand more about the labor theory of value, but too

long for the willfully ignorant.

Another aspect Marx and Engels, the latter in particular, is that Capitalism as a system must expand to survive, Some expansion is by driving down the costs associated with labor, the variable costs that the class struggle represents, some by cannibalism of the weaker within the system, some by imperial expansion, and some by commodification of the commons.

[ConsAreLiars]

84. dupe deleted

[Donald Ian Rankin]

104. The examples you quote don't work at all, and there's another serious flaw too, I think.

I think there are (at least) two major holes in this.

Firstly, the examples you quote simply aren't true.

The reason diamonds are expensive is that they are a status symbol, and the reason they are able to remain a status symbol is that they are rare - if they were common everyone could have them. The cost of the labour involved in producing a high-quality diamond is a miniscule fraction of its value.

The reason land is expensive in some places is that everyone wants to live in the same places and there isn't enough room for them there; in other places land is cheap. Again, the cost of clearing land in a desirable area is a miniscule fraction of its value.

Spice I know less about. The famous one is saffron, which was expensive because mainly it was very land-intensive and hence supplies were limited and so, as with diamonds, it became a status symbol (also, as you say, it required transportation). The fraction of the retail price that was due to labour costs here is larger than in the other two cases, but still not large.

You've listed three cases of goods which became expensive because demand exceeded supply and so competition pushed the prices up, and incorrectly attributed their expense to labour costs.





Secondly, your distinction between CMC and MCM cycles falls down once you notice that both are just subsets of an infinite CMCMCM... cycle.

The distinction which *is* meaningful, which I think your CMC/MCM distinction is groping towards, is between having to spend all of one's money on goods which one intends to consume oneself in the short term, and having enough left over to invest (i.e. purchase goods which one does not intend to consume oneself but rather to resell at a higher value later) with the goal of being able to consume more in the long term.

However, anyone with enough money to put some in a bank is doing the latter. The distinction you try to draw between "capitalists" and "labour" should actually be a continuum rather than a discrete thing - the distinction is "how much of one's income does one need to consume as living costs, and how much is left over to invest"; all but the poorest have at least some of their wealth in what you characterise as an "MCM cycle".

A capitalist in the sense you give is someone who is rich enough and/or good enough at investing that the return from their investments is greater than their living costs, and so they don't need any other source of income for their net wealth to tend to increase rather than decrease over time. However, I think (I'm not 100% confident) that most of the rich are not pure investors in this sense, and that there are more millionaires whose wealth comes partially from a very high salary than there are millionaires whose wealth comes purely from playing the market.

[socialist_n_TN]

56. Yes. It is becoming more and more a matter...........

of self defense. A capitalist would trade the end of the world next week for profit today. Capitalist shortsightedness is killing us all at a more and more rapid pace.

[lunatica]

20. Socialist Democracies are the best governments. Proven.

What can possibly be wrong with an equal access to a good education, good medical care, housing and basic human needs?

[felix_numinous]

21. Social programs built the middle class

out of poverty and now we are confirming this by witnessing the process in reverse.

[EFerrari]

22. Maybe, given that the party has been lurching to the right for 30 years or so.

I'm still exactly where I always was but now, that seems to be an "extreme" position. lol :shrug:

[Greyhound]

24. Thanks to a multi-generational misinformation campaign, you'll have to define 'Socialist'.

But all the great ideas to 'fix' our problems are socialist in nature.
:kick: & R

[TheKentuckian]

29. I haven't earned the title but heading that way, capitalism is a fraudulent failure

unable to exist without socialism to clean up after it other than as a devastating runaway case of cancer.

I think the folks who essentially say they are believers in capitalism as long as socialism is strong enough to absorb the downside are negotiating with themselves to maintain complete, utter, and dangerous failure for most human beings in this world (not to mention the other creatures we share it with) to protect or in hope of catching some upside personally.

Competition between worker cooperatives is all the "free" market we need and can sustain.

[Hydra]

124. I'm pretty sure you're right

Almost every defense post of capitalism boils down to 2 themes:

"There's no merit system in socialism."

Paraphrase: I've got mine(or think I do) and screw the rest of you!

or

"Capitalism is the only system that works"

Paraphrase: I'm afraid of trying something that might actually work because someone else might benefit

Capitalism breeds selfish blindness. Most people would do much better under a socialist system, perhaps everyone below the top 2%, and we could get some of our heart and soul back in the process.

We can't have that now, can we?

[Blue_In_AK]

30. I don't do well with labels.

I think I'm kind of a libertarian socialist.

[socialist_n_TN]

57. For Blue and Kentuckian, I know people who...........

are happy considering themselves "anticapitalist". It a legitimate label for self identifying.

[Blue_In_AK]

61. I'll take it. :)

[shireen]

33. A "Bernie Sanders" Social Democrat

He's an inspiration. A true advocate for social justice.

[mvd]

34. Same here

I think the U.S. should be like Europe, minus any right-wing tilts that have happened lately. I think a degree of capitalism is ok, but mixed with a good deal of socialism.

[Dappleganger]

42. His views most accurately reflect my own.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[jonnyblitz]

38. looks like capitalism is FAILING quite nicely as well. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

40. You mean, like the genocidal Danes?

The mad-bomber Finns?

The bloodthirsty, power-mad Norwegians?

[mudplanet]

94. Don't you know that Sweden and France are socialist hellholes?

[Jackpine Radical]

110. Yes, I'd heard that.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Um, what?

I think it is you who are in the wrong place.

[Klukie]

37. Socialist and Capitalist

Yes we can be both ...Socialize the social and Capitilize on the capital.

[TBF]

39. No we cannot be both - and it is not because of the socialism. nt

[Klukie]

43. Why not?

[TBF]

45. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production -

while Capitalism is private ownership. Profit drives everything in Capitalism and there is no regard for anything but profit.

[Klukie]

49. Well why can't we as a society define what is off limits in terms of privatization and profits

while at the same time allowing private ownership of the things that don't pertain to the general welfare of the people. I think that basic food sources, energy, health care, water supplies all fall into the category of things that we should socialize. The necessities of life. All the extras can be capitalized on. I still don't see why we can't do both.

[Starry Messenger]

50. Because the privatizers could give a fuck what we define "off-limits" as a society

See: Education reform, capitalization of

[TBF]

51. I'm not sure how else to explain it - the drive for capital is not going to allow the

kind of delineation you're suggesting. The way capitalism thrives is by production and profit. We can see it right now with the bankers trying to take over our public educational system and retirement. Capital has so much power due to the profit that they are easily able to buy out the government (complete influence) to continue to take over anything and everything they see that has a potential for profit (think resources - oil, coal, even water - look up fracking). There is no way we can keep our necessities of life safe if capital is present and decides to go after those resources (which they always do).

[Klukie]

59. So you do think that Capitalism could survive if it was effectively limited to the extras in life?

I really don't believe that it is a beast that can't be contained.

[TBF]

62. No, I don't believe Capitalism can be contained at all.

It functions by producing (or rather over-producing) so I don't see viable means to constrain it. And why would we even try? It's a system that's unequal by definition. In order to prosper you are stepping on others (whether intentionally or less covertly by pillaging labor, resources, etc...). I see no reason that such a system is in the interest of anyone but those at the very top of it.

[Klukie]

67. So what about the guy who invents some gadget and decides to produce and sell it?

Is he stepping on others simply because he created something that he is able to sell and make a profit from? He may provide jobs and he may pay a decent wage. His business may provide the resources for others to sustain economically, so I don't see how his profit is the monster that you make it out to be.

[TBF]

70. Where is he getting the resources to manufacture the product?

It may start out small but there's always the push to expand and up the profits. "Provide jobs" "decent wage" - this is all romanticizing wage slavery.

[Hydra]

125. "Capital cannot abide by a limit"

All the limits put in place to control Capitalism have been or are going to be eliminated.

Do you think that was a coincidence? Do you see a way to prevent that now or in the future?

[socialist_n_TN]

58. But by your definition, you ARE a socialist............

Maybe not a SWP socialist, but still a socialist. And you're partially right. Even V.I. Lenin allowed what we would call sole proprietor type businesses after the October Revolution to continue basically unchanged. However, once they get to a certain size, it becomes time to regulate and perhaps nationalize. Or at least encourage a co-op style of management.

[Enthusiast]

92. It can.

First the power of the corporations must be reined in, particularly in the area of campaign contributions and media fairness.

[Jackpine Radical]

114. That is true of certain types of socialism.

Particularly the Marxist versions. It's not necessarily true of the nordic Democratic Socialists. They don't have any particular problem with private industry, but try to regulate it so that it doesn't take over everything. Those countries tend to have much less spread between the incomes of the rich and poor, and put resources into ensuring the public welfare. But just think of Husqvarna or Mærsk, and you will realize that they tolerate very large and profitable corporations.

[alfredo]

47. I'm partial to the Social Democracies like the US and Europe.

[TBF]

52. For the silent comrades who checked in but didn't comment -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DTbashsKic

[XemaSab]

60. I googled the video clips

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

:patriot:

[TBF]

63. Here is the origin of the song -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale - it is amazing how many languages you can find it in.

[pnorman]

68. I have the DVD on that song.

It was composed shortly after the fall of the Paris Commune in 1871, and is the now primary song of socialists, anarchists, and communists. The former Soviet Union had no exclusive claim to it, and in fact is considered by many to have disgraced it. Of particular interest in that DVD, was a newsreel clip during the Tien An Mien days in Peking. There, the rebellious students were facing up to the armed troop, and guess what song they were singing? Yes, you guessed it right!

Here's that DVD at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Internationale-Billy-Bragg/dp/B000HXDENK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290301829&sr=8-2

[readmoreoften]

77. And in Arabic, Turkish, Hebrew, Spanish, Urdu/Hindi, Bengali.

In Turkish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0VngszKccY&feature=fvw

In Arabic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDnJLU7wOcc

Hebrew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDnJLU7wOcc

Spanish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ8DhXgPjfg&feature=related

Urdu/Hindi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywCW1-HlT4&feature=related

Bengali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWx9nfeD2xs&feature=related

Solidarity!

[maryf]

112. The human race needs uniting...

at least 98% of it anyway...

Thanks for the sing along! Solidarity sister, :fistbump:

[socialist_n_TN]

53. Yep. Public ownership of the means of production...........

above a certain level. Public ownership of ALL the "general welfare" industries with elected boards of workers running the day to day operations. The only less than public ownership I would want would be if ALL of the workers of a concern owned the concern collectively. I would also allow the "kopeks" (small, sole proprietor type businesses) to run pretty much uninterferred with provided they did what they were supposed to as far as general welfare.

In my small "s" socialist paradise, it would basically mean that the government actually ran things for the people, not the corporations.

And tangenitally, this is one of SEVERAL polls that I've seen over the last year that I've been on DU and the "socialists/Socialists/communists/Communists/Marxists gain new ground EVERY time. It seems that the true, capital "L" Left is gaining ground. Going old school! :)

[upi402]

54. I've been the same for decades, DEMOCRATS turned far right

and left me where I was. Now, in the new political continuum, I guess I'm a socialist. Never woulda thunk it! I'm pro business, anti red tape, and demand immigration laws be enforced on businesses and workers alike. So I'm in both camps in some areas.

My Republican dad would NEVER support the corporatist crap the new "Democrats" are pulling.

[eridani]

64. These days in the US, "socialist" just means that you believe in public goods n/t

[Unvanguard]

65. Yes.

And I'm a "Socialize the means of production" socialist, not a "Yay welfare state!" socialist (though I support the welfare state too, as an intermediate step at least.)

[racaulk]

66. Yes ma'am, and proud of it!

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. Depends what you mean by "Socialist".

At the point where Tony Blair declared that he was a socialist and Ken Livingstone declared that he wasn't, I kind of gave up on the word.

I am definately a socialist by the standards of the American Right, and definately not by the standards of the Chinese.

I think that the best way to run a country is with a capitalist economy, relatively high levels of taxation on the better-off, and provision of good public services by the government.

[readmoreoften]

89. You're a Keynesian.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. Largely, yes, but whether Keynesianism is socialist is debated.

According to the American right, a mixed economy with socialised provision of healthcare etc is socialist; according to the Chinese a capitalist economy is not socialist.

Both usages have enough supporters that calling either of them objectively wrong doesn't work, in my view.

[xchrom]

72. Yes -- and it's appropriate to move on from strict

19th century definitions.

[c14444c]

74. Yes Yes Yes

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

In the words of Eugene V Debs:

In this country — the most favored beneath the bending skies — we have vast areas of the richest and most fertile soil, material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their labor to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child — and if there are still vast numbers of our people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing struggle all the way from youth to old age, until at last death comes to their rescue and lulls these hapless victims to dreamless sleep, it is not the fault of the Almighty: it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity…

I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.

These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United Sates. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.

I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and misrepresentatives of the masses — you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.

Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself, but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.
Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality, but by the higher duty I owe to myself. What would you think of me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death?

The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.

The man who seeks to arouse prejudice among workingmen is not their friend. He who advises the white wage-worker to look down upon the black wage-worker is the enemy of both.

The man who seeks to arouse prejudice among workingmen is not their friend. He who advises the white wage-worker to look down upon the black wage-worker is the enemy of both.

[TransitJohn]

75. Other

Communist Anarchist....but that shit'll never fly in this country. I usually vote Democratic, not that it matters living in Wyoming.

[Lucian]

78. Hell yeah I am.

[applegrove]

82. Something like universal health care actually works better than the private model.

So I am a socialist in that case for example. But we all live in mixed market economies.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

85. I accept some forms of socialism as capitalism will be with us for a long time to come despite what

some say otherwis. We need enough socialism to keep a society stable we need enough capitalism to give people aspiration.

[ConsAreLiars]

86. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

I checked communist, knowing that the original meaning has been buried by a mountain of Corporatist bullshit and fear-mongering. But that quote defines both the world I want to help build and the values I want to want to live by. From Marx and before him, back to the New Testament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

But Marx and everyone else paying a bit of attention knew that getting there required a process of changing which class and whose interests prevail, and a transitional stage of socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism, and such needs to begin. So in that sense, I am a socialist, and could have equally checked that option.

For those who have not read it or might want a refresher, read the Manifesto of the Communist Party. 150 years old, only 50 years since the US became independent, a few years before the of the slaver states launched the Civil War. A bit dated in a few references, but more accurate ands insightful and relevant than anything you'll find watching Corporatist TV 24/7/365: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

A bit too optimistic, to be sure, but a good read.

[Ted_White]

87. I am a socialist, but not a statist. Many "socialists" are statists.

They believe that the state should own the capital rather than the people. I rather have the people own the capital as in worker cooperatives.

[readmoreoften]

88. Only Stalinists and Keynesians are "statists". And Keynesians aren't socialists.

For Marx, the State is a capitalist entity. Period. It is the collusion of the capitalists with their police force. The goal of a socialist society would be to smash the state, seize its mechanisms to fight the reactionaries and the capitalists. The reactionaries and the capitalists are real factions. They are be hard to beat and without turning the military against them (i.e. seizing the state apparatuses) good luck. Even after the state is seized in one nation, the capitalists of other nations will attack. This is why internationalism is crucial and this is why the Russian revolution ultimately failed after the German socialists failed to throw off their own state and failed to stand in solidarity with the Russian workers.

A big part of the failure of the Russian Revolution was the Second International's acceptance of what we would now call "social democracy" over socialism. They turned Marx into the foolishness that the Chinese use currently: "capitalism will transition to socialism so capitalism is a step to socialism." This is anti-Marxist and statist. Russian revolutionaries called this "opportunism". It was disastrous then and it is disastrous now.

All socialists want to end the state. Stalin was such a reactionary that most active socialists today reject Stalinism, and many consider it a capitalist state reconstruction. In other words, the "state" functioned as a "big business" that exploited the workers.

The reason why the working class needs to seize the power of the state is because the capitalist state is an incredible enemy. Organizing cooperatives is awesome. I would love to live in such a society. (The word Soviet means Worker's Council.) But right now cooperatives will have to sell their wares on the market. They can't make a dent in the system.

It's basically an irony: you can't smash the state without seizing power. Seizing power is a tricky situation. But when power isn't seized, you end up with what happened in the Spanish Civil War--the anarchists and socialists won, but refused to take power because "power" was the problem. So in stepped the fascists.

Kind of reminds me of a certain election in some ways...

[Enthusiast]

90. I think all forms of energy

production and distribution should be nationalized and owned by the public. I believe in strong environmental protection and the development of clean efficient energy alternatives. I believe all medical care and drug production should be non-profit and owned by the public. All water resources and distribution should be owned by the public. I like organized labor and think it should be encouraged. I believe the military should be of a size and scope that reflects the actual threat to the country and not built to some manufactured imaginary threat. Aside from that I like the concept of well regulated capitalism just fine. If this makes me a socialist, frankly dear I don't give a fuck.

[TBF]

95. The problem is with "regulating" the capitalism.

By "regulate" folks generally mean force more constraints on companies - such as environmental guidelines, safer workplace, and higher wages for workers. That is not a bad idea, but unfortunately it doesn't work. Capitalism thrives by production (and over-production). The goal is always more profit, and the Capitalists will do whatever they have to in order to get that growth/profit. If it means ignoring regulations (paying off inspectors), cheaper labor, raping the earth of resources - they will do it. That's why Capitalism can't be run on a "small scale" or in a friendly way - it is the nature of the beast that prohibits that from possibility.

[ProfessorGAC]

96. It's Already Highly Regulated

And that's as it should be. So, the idea that we don't or shouldn't regulate capitalist activities is ridiculous.

I don't accept the "unfettered" capitalism. It has never really worked for any extended period of time, and in this country's history (as well as that of Britain) every period of time when regulation was diminished, the result was recession or depression.

So, anytime someone tells me that the economy would work better if it were less regulated, i ask for proof. Since there isn't any, i'm safe.
GAC

[TBF]

97. And how is that working out for the majority of the country right now

(and no I do not mean the top 5% in the suburbs still hanging tight to their jobs)? How is that working for everyone else?

[ProfessorGAC]

99. If You Have A Point, Make It

Your post made no sense. It seems you're actually agreeing with me, and adding snark because you mistread what i posted.

I'm suggesting that capitalism NEEDS to be highly regulated. Read more carefully, before you disagree with something.

I'm saying there is NO track record of unregulated or lightly regulated capitalsim succeeding for more than 2 or 3 years at a time. And given the cyclic nature of large macroeconomies, the success can be as much a matter of coincidence than causualy linked to reduced regulation.

The facts are clear: Every period of relaxed regulation has resulted in recession, monetary panic, or depression.

Which part of that is your source of disagreement?
GAC

[TBF]

109. My disagreement, to be clear, is that we have not been able

to successfully regulate capitalism. Snark was not intended, sorry if it came off that way. Right now we've got roughly 1% of the country owning/controlling 40% of the wealth. Here is a recent article on the stark gap between rich and poor in this country: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/09/28/us_census_recession_s_impact_1

"Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. "More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy."

[socialist_n_TN]

120. My take is that capitalism CANNOT be regulated........

over any long period of time WITHOUT A SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE. The unregulated capitalism that we have today as the goal of the capitalist elites IS capitalism because it's what the capitalists SAY it is. In addition, capitalism by it's NATURE will try to throw off any restraints placed on it.

Trying to regulate capitalism is like herding cats. One or more will always escape.

IF there's even a SEMI vaiable socialist alternative then the capitalists HAVE to reluctently regulate themselves or they face extinction because of the WIDE disparity between the numbers of capitalists and the workers. But without that alternative, we have what we have now. It's not a coincidence that the rise of unregulated capitalism came about after the USSR collapsed and broke up.

[Starry Messenger]

121. Excellent post socialist_n_TN.

Herding cats is a good way to put it. I think of it like kudzu.

[socialist_n_TN]

128. Self delete. Dupe

:)

[socialist_n_TN]

129. Kudzu's good too. It always has to be pruned...........

or it takes over everything. As any Southerner knows! :)

[leftstreet]

134. +1

[Enthusiast]

100. This is why corporate power

must be reined in and neutered. If we have to nationalize the air waves and the cable media so be it. We are in a state of crisis right now.

[Azathoth]

101. The results of this poll mean one of two things

Either DU is way out of the American mainstream, or there are a lot of DUers who don't know what "socialism" actually means.

[Bucky]

103. Well, why not?

It's not like anyone on the right knows what "socialism" is and isn't either.

[Upton]

111. It's both..

DU is waay to the left of the American mainstream and there are definitely a lot of DUers who don't know what socialism means. I'm not sure about the socialism part myself, as there seems to be several different definitions..

[Onlooker]

117. What is socialism?

I'm certainly socialistic, but the word socialism has so many meanings now that it's essentially meaningless. Besides I have nothing against extreme wealth, as long as we have the right to take a large share of it to help those who live in poverty or pain.

[Onlooker]

118. What is a socialist?

I'm certainly socialistic, but the word socialism has so many meanings now that it's essentially meaningless. Besides I have nothing against extreme wealth, as long as we have the right to take a large share of it to help those who live in poverty or pain.

[TBF]

126. The definitions don't change, but yes you'll definitely be confused if you listen to MSM on the topi

Socialism is public (state or community) ownership of the means of production, rather than private ownership.

Certainly the MSM and especially the republicans have demonized the term, but that's what it means.

[superduperfarleft]

133. It's not that the word has different meanings, it's that people are ignorant as to what it actually

means.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

127. Workers should participate in the direction their companies take more than most do now

But I don't really think they should always literally own the entire means of production, and I certainly don't think the proletariat as a whole should.

[RoccoR5955]

130. Capitalism has failed so many times...

Time to bring the means of production into the hands of WE THE PEOPLE, and out of the hands of them, the corporations.
Damn straight I'm a socialist. I haven't worked for a corporation since 1976.

[TBF]

135. There are probably many more of us than we realize -

who aren't duped by this stupid inequitable system and want something new. Somehow we've got to organize.

[RoccoR5955]

131. self delete

[RoccoR5955]

132. SELF DELETE