are you a socialist?

[ButterflyBlood]

Poll question: are you a socialist?

just want to get a count, with some people coming out and claiming the term last night in my LaRouche vs. Bush thread, and the debate a few days ago.

[Blue_Chill]

1. I'd say no but then again you'd need to tell me

what definition of socialist you mean.

[CosmicVortex10]

107. Socialism requires initiation of force, unlike capitalism

Socialism requires the state invoke force on you to remove your wealth and give it to people of thier choosing.

Capitalism requires voluntary exchanges of goods and services

Anyone trying to sell you socialism doesnt do it out a desire for freedom, they do it to make you a slave.

[Keithpotkin]

109. in "capitalism" the system doesnt need force

since you either work or starve

that seems about as powerful to me.

[CosmicVortex10]

110. Go complain to mother nature that you cant lay on the couch all day

Poor baby, you have to work? Well what you dont have is a right to initiate force on other people, nor delegate that power(since you dont possess it). To do so it morally repugnant - whatever your rationalization.

[CosmicVortex10]

111. Thats not called called capitalism, thats called reality.

What you want is a system where someone else works and you dont starve.

[Keithpotkin]

122. or how about

everyone works who can, and every one eats, regardless

[CosmicVortex10]

126. Exactly how does everyone eat without initiation of force?

And initiation of force is immoral.

[Keithpotkin]

128. are u an anarchist?

.

[CosmicVortex10]

130. I dont assume any particular denomination

I just know theft is wrong... initiation of force is wrong, that force should only be used in self-defence.
I have views that some might consider anarchists, some might considers liberal, some might consider conservative.

[Keithpotkin]

133. what if collectivization takes place with free association

then no initiation of force is taken place...is it still immoral?...as an anarchist i would say yes..though to a lesser extent then pure capitalism

[nolabels]

163. Where one stands is often determined by where they sit at the table

Early Murphy

[nolabels]

166. Trees never come across that question

Some give fruit for us to eat and replenish them, while thier roots move rocks aside to extract from dirt others have discarded. Force is a subjective term much as Bill Clintons "is"

[sushi]

140. What about the people

who are seriously disabled and can't go out to work like able-bodied, healthy people?

[MacCovern]

132. How many people starve to death in the USA?

I would sure like to know. We have become a nation of obese couch potatoes.

Even the homeless are able to find a meal a day usually at a shelter or some similar venue.

[Solomon]

142. I don't like being restricted to your definition of socialism as state

enforced only. The attempts made thus far have not yet been successful. However, I believe that humans will one day evolve to the point of voluntary socialism.

[JVS]

153. How does one establish property without initiating force?

Ownership of land begins when an individual either forces others from a parcel of land or uses force to prevent them from entering the parcel of land. By doing this the owner initiates force.

[nolabels]

160. Ownership is a belief

E/M

[JVS]

171. Yes

[lancemurdoch]

181. Exactly

I always find it amusing when people say taxes and the like are based on force...like managers and owners taking profit from people is not based on force, like landlords taking rent is not based on force and so forth. If you go out West, some of the land was taken a century ago from Indians at the point of a gun...yet anyone who tampers with it now is doing so "by force".

[CosmicVortex10]

185. I could post 15 billion answers or I could point you to the resources

www.anti-state.com

There is the place to answer your questions. If the FAQ doesnt handle it, go to the forum newbie section and ask there.

[MaryBear]

182. Uhhh, isn't this argument a little "off"?

Socialism simply puts the common good ahead of the corporate good. Property ownership is not denied. Study up!

[JohnKleeb]

2. ummm neither

I dont consider myself one really but I dont hate them and I do share a little bit of their beliefs. That said I dont find socialism to be evil.

[JanMichael]

3. I think I've made my position clear on several occasions.

This should be an interesting thread.

[jiacinto]

4. This poll confirms it for me

It shows how often DU is out of the political mainstream.

[ButterflyBlood]

6. oh come on

it's been up for less than 5 minutes.

personally I think more people would be socialists if they knew all the benefits of socialism instead of just knowing it as an empty buzzword. But more people are socialists in America than expected, I think Jon Stewart once described himself as one, and the Progressive Caucus is supposedly made up of socialist Democrats.

[JanMichael]

7. 12 responses convince you of that?!

Oh dear, the heat is getting to you, run!

EDIT: It was 12 when I responded to your post.

[leftyandproud]

52. ok we have a bit more than 12 responses...whats the verdict?

hehe
;)

[Julien Sorel]

14. The popularity some of the candidates have here

is strong evidence of that.

[nolabels]

162. The military runs a socialist society

And everybody has to work together to save their collective ass and sacrifice individually for the survival of the whole

[liberalhistorian]

15. Carlos, if you don't mind my asking, and please

don't take offense, but you're always putting DU down for something or other, why are you still on here? You always seem to have a problme with DU.

[lancemurdoch]

31. What mainstream?

In Europe most governments contend between two parties - the Christian Democrats and the Socialists. In the UK the socialist party is called the "Labor" party, but it's more-or-less the same thing.

If you go back and read William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic convention of 1896, you'd probably be floored. No way would the Democratic party allow it's candidate to make so "socialistic" a speech nowadays (back then it was called "populism"). And that was over a century ago.

[ButterflyBlood]

43. The Labor party under Blair has basically become like the DLC

Now the Liberal Democrats are the main left party I believe, and the Scottish Socialist Party or something like that.

[Walt Starr]

56. I'm as shocked as you are

I had no idea there were so many Socialists here. I really didn't...

[lancemurdoch]

85. Hey man...

...just take a look at the economy. In 1999 I was working for a dot-com, was making a nice salary, had a decent amount of money in stocks and the bank, not to mention options, had headhunters calling me all the time begging me to go somewhere else and make $10k more...

...now, it's 3 years since the March/April 2000 stock crash started. I was not reading Das Kapital in 1999, let me tell you. I used to read Noam Chomsky pre-1999 (as well as less serious stuff like Abbie Hoffman), but it took the economy crashing down on my head to get more politically active, and to begin reading more about politics and economics...economics beyond what stock I should buy anyhow.

[sushi]

141. Did you know that

Jesus was a Socialist?

[Walt Starr]

57. I'm as shocked as you are

I had no idea there were so many Socialists here. I really didn't...

[Cheswick2.0]

64. no, it just proves a bunch of freepers are voting yes

to screw the results. The majority of DU hasn't even voted.

[deutsey]

Man, doesn't take much, does it?

.

[CentristDemocrat]

112. Yep

[dani]

5. it all depends upon what you mean by

umm... nevermind :)

[Clete]

8. Bonafide pinko here

although I believe government should be fiscally responsible. I just want our tax money to be used to benefit all Americans, not just a few.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. If Socialism Means

collective ownership of the means of production and centrallized planning than I'm not a socialist....

but if socialism means granny should get her teeth fixed for free if she has no money by the government than I am a socialist...

[JohnKleeb]

11. the former is Stalinism

the latter is what it is right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. the former is Marxism-Leninism

I am a welfare state liberal or a traditional liberal or a garden variety liberal .... Take your pick...


I think people conflate socialism with welfare state liberalism which has elements of socialsim and capitalism...

[sushi]

143. That's what I like

It should be possible to combine the two.

[Dirk39]

19. Historical you're wrong...

"collective ownership of the means of production" is what defines socialism. The modern welfare-state as you see it in Europe was a tool to fight against the socialist and workers movement. It's well known as "Zuckerbrot und Peitsche" (sugarbread and stick)-politics and was introduced by Bismark during the second half of the 19th century. While they introduced healt-insurance and other social-insurance systems, they started very repressing laws against the socialist parties and the unions ("Sozialistengesetze").
I don't want to be anal about words, but history means something and the northamericans seem to be the only people in this world, who relate to that kind of politics as being "socialistic". Later, when the socialdemocratic parties became integrated in capitalism, it became the official socialdemocratic strategy. But noone in France, Germany or GB would relate to the welfare state (that has become a thing of the past anyway, as "socialism". Socialism means to replace capitalism and to at least expropriate the key industries. And I thing esp. today, where Europe shows, that the socialdemocratic experiment has failed and that the ruling classes are not willing to compromise anymore, it's very important to draw the line between socialdemocracy and socialism.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[JohnKleeb]

20. sorry yeah thats social democracy my bad

sorry dirk my bad.

[grantdwilliams]

23. Either way it's theft...

Socialism, social democracy, communism, communtarianism, facism, etc, etc, etc... They're all collectivism.

They're all based upon the axiom that the individual should surrender his or her sovereignity, effort, and property to everyone else.

It's a philosophy of, by, and for parasites.

[Dirk39]

30. What about not watching to much Faux-TV and reading a good

book? Maybe you'd higher your chance to become an individual and not a slogan-repeating-machine?
Couldn't resist,
Dirk

[Blue_Chill]

74. (So capitalism = sheep) & (socialism = individual)?

lol. Think of what you are saying.

[Dirk39]

114. You got me right...

for Marx and in the tradition of socialism, it was about to reserve and enlarge individual freedom. For Marx the bourgois-existence was somehow limited, it was still a partial individuum, that was going wrong in universalizing its' character. Marx loved capitalism and Marx loved the civil society it has given to us. Wouldn't sheep be a very kind word for the 7 out of 10 (north-)americans, who believe Hussein was involved in September 11?
Dirk

[Narraback]

35. Kind of like Enron.

[grantdwilliams]

36. Yep, Kind of like Enron.

Theft is theft...legal or illegal.

[lcordero]

59. Returning the ill-gotten gains of these so-called "captains of industry"

back to the people who WORKED and EARNED it is JUSTICE. It is not theft.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Blue_Chill]

76. lol You can't win man

They don't accept you pointing out Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and the utter failure of that failed moronic economic system.

However Enron is considered proof that capitalism is a failure.

[grantdwilliams]

80. Yeah, Capitalism can't work because people are inherently evil...

...that's what the argument boils down to.

If left free to trade they will inevitably try to swindle one another.
As if reputation and long-term well-being are never considered.

Most socialists, and they're sympathizers are just scared that to be happy you might actually have to do something. And they hate the one's who aren't afraid.

[JanMichael]

86. Sorry brother but it's really, "Socialism can't work because....

...people are inherently evil", isn't it?

"Most socialists, and they're sympathizers(,(?)) are just scared that to be happy you might actually have to do something. And they hate the one's who aren't afraid."

Huh? What the heck are you trying to say? Just curious. I lost my special "Lucky Charms" anti-commie decoder ring.

[Keithpotkin]

115. our system today works alot like stalin's system

The government funds the crucial parts of the economy so they can compete globally. ie... in Russia the FASCIST dictatorship(not socialist) government funded the military industrial complex...the pharmaceuticals...the computer companies...all industry...

just like our government funds all those industries with our tax dollars. if they didn’t, IBM and GE etc. wouldn’t be able to compete globally.

Although the form of government is very far apart...quasi-democracy here.... dictatorship their.... the form of economy is very similar...so i wouldn’t be so quick to judge.... and to blame their (and our) form of economy for Stalin...mao etc.

[MacCovern]

129. Form of economy similar?????

PLEASE spare me.

The economic form of the old Soviet Union was not similar to the U.S. economy. There was no open competition in the USSR to develop new products. Somehow they couldn't find a way to solve this problem so they had the same crappy cars for decades, as well as your choice of only ONE for almost every other consumer good!

Our capitalist economy encourages innovative products, our economy has hundreds of thousands of small companies looking to grow, while the USSR offered the same old same old, with virtually everything owned by the government, no stock market, but total government control.

How anyone could say: "the form of economy is very similar" is in the Twilight Zone.

[Keithpotkin]

134. i was refering to the parts of economy that compete globally

arms...medicine...etc.

not things that are consumer products....because obviosuly america takes the cake

[MacCovern]

127. That's how you rationalize the evils of socialism?

Icordero,

Your post sums it up pretty well. In capitalism the people that work and earn the money are rewarded based on their skill and effort. Socialism distorts this and twists it around to make it appear that the average worker deserves a much bigger piece of the pie. In capitalism, the average worker is recognized for being average. The vast majority of "captains of industry" as you call it are extremely well educated, have innovative solutions, and are all around extremely capable people, but you label them as thieves. Of course, there are exceptions, like crooks at Enron and MCI, but capitalism severely punishes the crooks of the business world. Enron and MCI are the joke of the business world, and many of their former executives are facing criminal charges.

Socialism is a failure compared to capitalism, and no wonder the U.S. economy continues to dominate all others!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lcordero]

146. Enron and MCI are the RULE in the business world

not the exception. Working hard gets people no where. The American way is to lie, cheat and steal. The "captains of industry" were in no way innovative or well-educated, they simply lacked scruples.
Capitalism has in no way punished MCI or Enron, it has REWARDED them every step of the way.

[MacCovern]

159. Working hard gets people no where?

From my personal experience I have to say that I see hard working people getting somewhere everyday.

Speaking for myself, I have been at the same company for almost 13 years, and in return for my hard work, I have been promoted accordingly, although I'm still way down the ladder. I don't want to be a bigwig anyway. My personal experience isn't unique, it's something that happens to millions of workers: you work hard and you will get recognized.

As soon as the news broke about MCI and Enron cooking the books, the stock market brutalized the stock price of both companies. Auditors tied to the companies, like Arthur Andersen, have been disgraced and broken up. That's how capitalism punishes cheaters and liars.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

157. I Am Impressed By Capitalism As You Are

but it has to be buttressed by a strong welfare state to protect the least amongst us:

the physically challenged

the working poor

and the indigent elderly

My goal is a living wage.... An honest wage for a honest days work...

But if you can pull your weight you better pull it or you are a parasite in my book...

[RichM]

39. An excellent example of the ignorant American, completely unaware

that he knows nothing. Thank you for supplying this demonstration.

[grantdwilliams]

42. What am I unaware of?

pray tell.

[Blue_Chill]

78. Do you have anything other then insults to offer?

Or are you so completely unaware that you are unable to make a valid argument?

[Cheswick2.0]

69. wrong skippy

unfettered capitalism is the philosophy of parasites. Now go back to the JIMBOB rock you climbed out from under.

[grantdwilliams]

72. Very Intriguing...

...does that kind of mental sludge win arguments at Greatful Dead concerts?

[TreasonousBastard]

77. Uh-Oh!

What have we here?

Sounds a bit like a kneejerk reaction from Darwinian wing of the laissez-faire school of life.

Admittedly, pure Communism or Socialism does eliminate most private property for the good of the community, while Fascism requires "private" property in a corporate state.

However, none of these things, including pure laissez-faire capitalism, work in the real world. What we are really talking about is just what mix we should have in a modern mixed economy.

All individuals surrender a certain amount of property and sovereignity to the communities they live in. The question is just how much do we want to surrender.

It's actually not so much "surrendering" as "trading."

[grantdwilliams]

84. The best way to fix it is to pretend it's not a problem?

If there's no point in having goals when it comes to the proper organization to society, then what's the point in having goals when it comes to the proper organization of your life if at any minute some politician can draw a big red "X" through your plans and expect you to be OK with it?

[TreasonousBastard]

89. Ummm...

so can your wife, your boss, your biggest customer, or your next door neighbor.

No one is an island, and no one completely controls his own life.

[lancemurdoch]

92. Individual and parasites

In my workplace I already surrender my sovereignty, effort and property to anothr. And at home as well, where I pay a landlord for the privilege of having a roof over my head (others pay a bank interest money so they can co-own their house in a mortgage).

As for parasites I WORK FOR A LIVING. A real parasite like Paris Hilton, John E. DuPont, Andrew Luster and company sits on their behinds and lives off the dividends they receive from money created by people who are actually working. Workers create wealth, parasite heirs take a piece of that.

Only in the twisted logic of a country that has seen the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage fall over the past thirty-five years while fundamentalist churches pop up all over the place telling people to submit to heavenly authority and look for their rewards in the next life can workers who want to be able to keep the wealth that they create be called parasites, and lazy rich heirs who've never worked a day in their lives be calling them that. Plenty of us are well aware who the real parasites are.

[prolesunited]

138. Very insightful post

Welcome to DU, lancemurdoch. :hi:

I'm looking forward to seeing more of your posts.

[aneerkoinos]

150. You are mixing up socialism and state/polis

By your definition, every form of state/polis is theft. You pay taxes too, don't you, and benefit from collective efforts to build infrastructure etc.?

What you reveal is that you believe in the most naive form of the libertarian philosophy that denies society as defining the human race (like Aristotle said: anthropos politikon zoon esti - 'man is a social being').

Naturally your libertarian philosophy leads to democracy being impossibility (and in the end leads to totalitarianism). Democracy can take place only in the social sphere, in democracy decisions conserning everyone are taken in the social sphere through dialogue and decision making processes that are open to all members of society. Atomistic view of human being denies that social sphere: it does not exist and it must not exist, hence democracy is impossible and all that is left is robber barons and/or tyrant with absolute (usually divine) power... stealing from you and keeping the loot instead of giving you the power to decide with others how to use the loot.

Stealing you can't doo without, but in socialism/democracy you can play Robbin' Hood and take care of the weaker (who might be you), without socialism/democracy you are just plain robbed by the more powerfull (or worse, you become the bully robber...).

[BonjourUSA]

167. Are European dangerous bolcheviks ??

In the west European countries we live under a social democracy system. The state is responsible of security, health, education and others activities in the competing sector : transports, energy and have to bring facilities to everybody : phone, roads, water with its own means or with private compagnies under contracts with it. But we live under liberalism too. This liberalism can be so savage as yours.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. We Agree On What Socialism Is

Socialism=collective ownership of the means of production and centrallized planning...


We have a mixed economy in the United States as does most of Western Europe ... Heck there is not one pure capitalist or socialist country in the world....

[Dirk39]

104. I'm much more realistic, oops, pessimistic..

what we've seen before in Europe was a kind of "controlled" capitalism. It was about not to give up the chance for future profits in order for short-term profits that will do damage to the whole economic system in the long run. And the state was somehow used to control this. What we are facing now is a kind of brutal rogue-capitalism that has given up on this. The collapse of the electricity is the USA is just one of those signs. It's not good for anybody, at least not the corporations, but they don't care anymore. We are long away from cynical and realistic guys like Truman. These days we have leaders, who believe their own lies.
We have nothing but capitalistic societies these days, but they did even
give up their own rationality. And at least, when it comes to this I'm 100% a marxist: capitalism and the bourgeoisie was once the most progressive force in history. Marx loved capitalism, he was fascinated by capitalism, and socialism isn't about morals and it's completely different from offending individuals for making profits or benefiting from capitalism. Marx today would rather describe the societies we live in and the state the world is in as "barbarism".
Dirk

[aneerkoinos]

152. Actually

I don't think centralized planning is defining character of socialism, collective ownership does not necessarily require centralized planning. Not that centralized planning is a bad thing.

I support subsidiarity, decisions should be taken as close to those they consern as possible.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

158. I'm Just Using The Marxist-Leninist Definition

I'm trying to operationalize the word but I realize that socialism comes in all forms from Fabian Socialism to Trostskyism...

[David Zephyr]

71. Nice Words.

Where are you in Germany?

[Dirk39]

82. I'm in Hamburg...

the city with most millionares (and trees) in Europe. None of them is paying tax. Governed by socialdemocrats and Greens for nearly fourty years, 'till they were jumping so much on the right-wingers discourse against foreigners and for more police and security, that the people prefered the original....
Water, beer, millionaires and brothels everywere, still a nice place to be...
Tschüss,
Dirk

[David Zephyr]

105. This Socialist Is Jealous.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I love Hamburg and Berlin and Koln.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. I See France, the UK , Sweeden, Germany

as being neo-Keynesian welfare states....

Do you really think the masses in those nations would be better off if they junked those systems and embraced socialism....


I think welfare state capitalism is the fairest system because it allows achievers to achieve while providing a basic standard of living for everybody....

[Dirk39]

88. That's a thing of the past...

all of Europe is governed by neoliberals. And the "socialdemocratic" parties are the worst upon them. They said goodbye to Keynes long ago, while the french might have the most problems, 'cause the people there still try to defend, what they once achieved. Gotta love those people.
But all the former social-democratic parties have switched to neoliberalism long ago. Blair openly admires Thatcher and Reagan. And Schröder might be less elegant and more stupid than Blair, but at least, he's trying to be more neoliberal than his master. And they won't stop, till the last shithouse is privatised. Globalisation seems to be the issue for me, although I'd prefer to call it in a very old outdated manner imperialistic globalisation. Unless you won't subscribe to a big conspiracy theory, the only way to explain this, is that there is no way for single states to fight the corporations anymore or to force them to make concessions (what socialdemocracy was about in the past). It was like a contract: we protect you from communism and expropriation as long as you share a part of your profits with the working class. But they can't force them anymore. As long as the people don't find away to aggressivly and offensive attack the big corporations and make definitly clear to them, that they can't go on like this, it will just get worse, and we will see things in the near future that are worse than everything the last century had to offer.
And if you look at the social democrats and their history: they made WW1 possible, when they voted for the war-credits. They made Hitler possible, when they supported Hindenburg. They've led Germany into the first illegal war after Hitler with the support of the Greens (Yuguslavia). I'm finished with them for long... And as long as there will not be a real left and democratic party in Germany, I will never vote again.
Dirk

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. I Think Thatcher And Reagan Had Dynamic Personalities And Leadership

Skills but their "politics" sucked...


I am as you can see by my posts a welfare state liberal. I don't know how things are in Germany but most folks in America still work in small businesses(fifty employees or less)...Big business became that way because of economies of scale... You can't have fifty companies making cars......

As long as folks can make a living wage I'm satisfied with welfare state liberalism....


btw- can't you vote Green in Germany. They are the progressive alternative to the Social Democrats....

[Dirk39]

98. The Greens aren't progressive in any way...

all the people, who supported them once, have left the party, besides those making a career. The only difference between the Greens and the other parties is, that they undercut them in moral values in any way.
They came from the middleclass with all their ecological issuesand they've landed where they came from. In a way they've translated the issues of their "customers" that were once political issues into private issues. From their campaigns against big food corporations, the car-industry and nuclear-power-facilites to the campaign for an expensive bio-food-shop in the speed-limit-zone near you, were you bought your private house some years ago:-)
The Greens are the avantgarde of the worst of the 68-generation and the baby-boomers, the kind of progressive people, who started fighting for their private careers too late, but much more violent than any average middle-class citizen ever did. Noone has contributed more to the collapse of a progressive movement in Germany than the Greens.
I wish, it would be different.
Dirk

[JVS]

155. PDS?

I am having a hard time figuring out for whom you vote, since the SPD and the Greens are on your shitlist. Is it the PDS?

[Dirk39]

184. I don't vote anymore...

it's too idiotic. There are a few credible people in the PDS, but most of them are careerists and in a lot of regions in the former "socialist" parts of Germany, where they get a lot of votes, they even support the rassist resentments of their target group.
I don't think the party-system, as we have it now, has any kind of future. O.K. if a Bush-a-like would govern us now, maybe I would vote...
Greetings,
Dirk

[aneerkoinos]

154. Keynes was a neo-Marxist

didn't you know that? ;)

Also, to put post-Thatcherian UK on your list is blasphemy! :D

And to answer your question, I belong to the masses in one of those "neo-Keynesian welfare states", Finland. What I see is the social-democratic project has come to end because it is uncapable to give solutions to the challenges presented by neoliberal globalization which forces the welfare state to slowly crumble under privatization and leaves people powerless to decide on their future. Yep, because I believe democracy and solidarity to answer that challenge in the long term I don't see lot of other alternatives than collective ownership of means of production in the sphere of "food, clothes and shelter", to satisfy the basic needs of everyone. Other than that should naturally be left to market economy.

[Atlant]

12. It comes in varying shades of Red... (NT)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. democratsincebirth....bingo!

"collective ownership of the means of production and centrallized planning " is Communism and granny getting her meds and health care is socialism.

i am an unabashed socialist :pals:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. I Am An Unabashed Welfare State Liberal

I'd like a system where there are no unreasoanble restraints on individuals but there are provisions that the least amongst us are taken care of....


I want to see a society where every member can realize their full initiative...

Joe Kennedy used to tell his kids that the rich can take care of themselves but the government's role is to look out for the less fortunate....

[TahitiNut]

94. "Welfare State"?? Sounds like a "Commonwealth".

:wow:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. welfare state liberal=traditional liberal=garden variet y liberal

[ElsewheresDaughter]

96. joe kennedy was aokay ! sage

[JohnKleeb]

149. Thats interesting I didnt know that Joe was so enlightened himself

Well he did father some of the greatest American leaders ever so I can see.

[lancemurdoch]

81. collective ownership of the means of production and centrallized planning

You mention two things, collective ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. I think small-s socialism is a big tent with a lot of traditions. I would say the first part, collective ownership of the means of production, is a goal (for some immediate, for others, eventual) of all brands of socialism. The second part I would not say is a common goal, there are brands of socialism, like libertarian socialism or anarchism, or event variants of left communism like autonomous communism, which are against centralized planning in any manner similar to how the USSR ran from 1917-1990. Different strains have different ideas, the anarchist one is direct democracy - the workers who work in a factory own and run the factory collectively together. So I would not say centralized planning is inherent in socialism, just Marxism-Leninism and some other ones as well for big government even within "bourgeois" governments, which they hope will eventually, peacefully, transform to socialist ones.

As far as ownership of the means of production, property and so forth. Property in the US is a very expansive word, the FM, AM, VHF, UHF and cellular wavelengths flowing around me are owned by a corporation - they're property, although other parts of the spectrum like the colors blue, yellow and green are not considered property...yet. It used to be that theft meant you have a cow, I take your cow, now you have no cow and I have a cow. Now it means downloading MP3's off the Internet, a concept of theft that didn't exist in the mind or legally until a few years ago. The concept of property always grows, intellectual property is very large.

But anyhow, there is the concept of "possession" and "property", perhaps it would be better to call the latter capital or "means of production". Possession is what you have contact with - you wear your clothes, you live in your house, you possess them. Property would mean owning an apartment someone else lives in and renting it, or owning a factory. Of course, in American society, the hegemony is such to try to not split the concepts of ownership into two, and have one overriding concept of ownership, from owning a slave prior to 1865, to owning an apartment building, to owning the clothes you wear, to owning VHF channel 4 to owning a factory, to owning a piece of "intellectual property" that people are not allowed to share on the Internet. They want it to sound unified, as if the thing protecting someone from ripping your shirt and pants off is the same thing protecting these other things. One important concept in this is with possession, the house you live in and car you drive you possess. If you own many houses and rent them out, you own those and possess the one you live in.

I don't want to go overlong but a very tiny minority of Americans own almost all of the "means of production". How many people even own their own home outright without being a co-owner with a bank (e.g. a mortgage). The Federal Reserve ( http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/wgt95.pdf ) did a study on wealth distibution. If you look at something like bonds, 46.5% of them are owned by the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans, while the poorest 90% of Americans must divide up the 9.7% of the bond market that they collectively own (and I bet most of that is at the top of the poorest 90%). The average American owns no, or next to nothing of the means of production or capital or whatever you want to call it. Most of his money is tied up in the house he lives in and makes no money off of - and usually he co-owns it with a bank whom he is paying a mortgage with future earnings, the interest probably going to a wealthy person.

Most Americans make little money in way of rents, dividends, interest and so forth - almost all of the money they make is in terms of wages. A small elite own virtually all of "the means of production", and can afford to live off the wealth the workers are creating. I guess these concepts sound alien, but I think the economy over time will get worse and worse and people will begin to become more receptive to this line of thinking (with the alternative being they listen to national socialist type rhetoric of a Buchanan type, which in the US is very possible, but doubtful worldwide). The data is very interesting as well. There's the data and how to look at it...and even liberals like Paul Krugman are beginning to day the data, over the past few decades, would make people look at things in a more left view, with the idea that the capitalists are having a lot of trouble running the economy. And the real determinant is the market - if we go into a depression and monetarist and Keynesian remedies don't work - I'm right, if we don't - they're right. Depressions are one aspect, so is falling profit rates, rising long-term unemployment, bigger economic shocks like recessions, overproduction and so forth and so on.

[aneerkoinos]

156. Excellent piece!

n/t

[JohnKleeb]

10. Yes

I guess I am after much thought I realized I guess I am. I am more close to being a socialist than a free marketer.

[union_maid]

16. I'm a bit on the pink side

I don't believe in nationalizing everything. Or at least I don't recommend trying to. Likewise private property. People do like having their own stuff. But I believe in a single payer, national system for healthcare. I believe in a robust and strong social safety net. I believe in regulating trade where necessary to ensure a fair deal for labor, and obviously I believe in a strong and healthy labor movement. I'm fine with paying a high, progressive tax rate as long as we get services in return and in the case of economic downturns I think the government should be the employer of last resort if necessary. By today's standards, I guess that's socialist. OTOH, I'm aware that taken as an average, the American public is moderate. While I think the vast majority of us would be worlds better off with a more socialist system, at this point in time, I'd happily settle for changing our present course away from feudalism, which seems to be where the current administration would like to go.

[Flying_Pig]

17. Yes, in the Scandnavian mode...

n/t

[grantdwilliams]

18. I'd be a socialist if it weren't for the funny hats...

oh, and the fact that it's evil.

[JanMichael]

21. "Evil"? Really? Didn't the Bible say something about an eye of a needle?

Hmm.

[grantdwilliams]

25. what?

I'm an atheist... so you'll understand my ignorance.

[JanMichael]

29. So am I. Atheist that is.

Mark 10:21

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Sometimes even Atheists read the Bible...Mostly for debate tools.

[grantdwilliams]

32. If you're an atheist...

...why would you use a debate tool that you disgree with?

[JanMichael]

37. Haven't you ever heard the saying: Fight your battles on their soil.

I like chosing the field of play.

And since it's the prefered tool to be used against Non-Theism I like to turn it back on the offending parties.

Fun eh?

[grantdwilliams]

44. I guess.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Don't Forget The Eary Christians Lived In Communes

Here's Freidrich Engels

"The history of early Christianity has notable points of similarity with the working class movement."

[leftyandproud]

151. Didn't Jesus also consider tax collectors to be on a lower level...

than prostitutes?

I believe he did.
;)

[JohnKleeb]

26. on evilness

An absolute free market economy is bad too.

[grantdwilliams]

27. Why?

[JohnKleeb]

33. why because

You cant just let business do what ever it wants. Big business's cannot just hover above all and their workers and take from them so the CEO can get richer. Also I hate to spin why is socialism evil? Absolute free market economies are bad for those who dont make as much money while the rich benefit completely. I think you can learn why absolute free market is bad by learning about the industrial revolution, many suffered as a result of business having no limits.

[grantdwilliams]

41. Yeah, the industrial revolution sucks..I'd much rather live in a log cabin

Big business's can just hover above all and their workers and take from them so the CEO can get richer. And if the workers don't like it, in a free society... they're perfectly free to walk out.

[JohnKleeb]

47. I didnt say the industrial revolution was wrong

You cant just walk out its not that easy, people did this to support their families. The industrial revolution wasnt terrible but it wasnt the best thing that happened.

[grantdwilliams]

48. What was the best thing that happened?

[JohnKleeb]

51. during the industrial revolution

Well in plenty of ways the modern world was shaped. I think of the early trade unionists as heroes compared to people like Rockfeller, Vanderbilt, etc.

[grantdwilliams]

65. The trade unionist wouldn't have had anyone to organize against...

...had it not been for the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts. Much less anything or anyone to organize for.

[Darranar]

90. They were turning back the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts...

if they had never been there, labor unions wouldn't have been needed.

[grantdwilliams]

137. Exactly...

...and the labor wouldn't have been needed either. We would all still be herding sheep.

[nolabels]

164. That assumption would make Mother Nature evil too

and when were gone and our dust blows in the wind it will meet its maker.

[gristy]

22. Here's Webster's definition of Socialism:

"A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

And a socialist is "One who advocates socialism".

So, I guess I am not a socialist. BUT, I DO believe in the strict regulation of capitalist enterprise to the benefit of society. Unbridled capitalism in the face of the tremendous rate at which man discovers new ways to destroy our environment and our planet will be the death of us.

On edit: Yikes! That definition of socialism describes the capitalist neo-cons, does it not? So maybe the definition isn't very good...

[ButterflyBlood]

24. The freepers are probably going to link to this

HA HA LOOK! OVER 60%!

oh well, who cares what they think. I bet a poll over there would show over 60% being admitted corporatists.

of course, they probably consider anyone who's economically to the left of Ron Paul a socialist judging by how they throw the term around.

[grantdwilliams]

28. Economically to the left Ron Paul?

Anything to the left of Ron Paul ceases to be economics and becomes politics.

[CMT]

34. I voted no

I'm an FDR Democrat--and of course the Republicans called him a socialist, even though he wasn't. By the way, I think Norman Thomas was a Great Man--much of what he advocated was eventually made law.

[scarletwoman]

40. Voted "yes", although I don't know if I'm a socialist

in the strictest sense. But I gleefully voted "yes" just for the opportunity to help give the DU reactionaries fits. :evilgrin:

Basically I subscribe to David Korten's ideas for creating a "post-capitalist" economic structure, which do not seem to me to be particularily "socialist".

sw

[pasadenaboy]

45. the pie is bigger in capitalism

the pie is more evenly distributed in socialism

Therefore, I think there has to be a mix.

I believe in socialized medicine and socialized education. I believe in some form of socialized disability insurance.

Beyond that, I'm pretty much a capitalist, but you must guarantee an even playing field, and you must guarantee a healthy amount of competition. Capitalism isn't capitalism if there are only a few competitors, (Software operating systems come to mind!)

[Walt Starr]

46. Nope, I'm not a socialist

I'm a strong proponent of fair capitalism. Unbridled capitalism is just as bad as socialism, IMO.

I guess I'm pretty moderate, fiscally.

[lancemurdoch]

49. Socialist definition

I guess there are two socialists, big S (Socialist party) and small socialist. I guess the small s socialist describes everyone left of liberal - socialist, communist, anarchist, whatever. There's all kinds of left and right on the spectrum...one of Lenin's biggest books was called "Left wing communism: An infantile disorder". He was bashing people who were to the left of him - and they were enough of a force that he had to write a book about it (and Trotsky had to go and put down rebellions in Kronstadt as well as Makhno's anarchist army in the Ukraine).

I feel their are serious issues not being addressed. And I see the world economic condition long-term trend being so they will have to start being addressed. In the US from 1941 to the early 1970's, capitalism did so well for the working and middle class these issues could be glossed over (which they couldn't be during the Depression, and times previous to them). I see these old problems coming back - in fact, they started coming back in the early 1970's.

According to the BLS (http://www.bls.gov), the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage is below what it was thirty-five years ago. Think about that. The average worker in the US was making more per hour than they were thirty years ago. And in terms of world dominance or whatnot - the average French worker is more productive per hour than the average American worker. And with Europe under a common currency, China getting ready to really shoot up and so forth...things are changing.

But anyhow, I think things are not being addressed. My platform would be "A person is entitled to keep all of the wealth he works to create". This sounds fair, but it is actually quite radical, since if this was done, wealthy heirs living off the profits of others labor like Paris Hilton, Andrew Luster and John E DuPont would have to get off their behinds and go out and get a job. I think ideas like this are not part of the DLC Democrat conversation. I feel I'm entitled to the wealth I create, and beyond that I think there is a growing force that will be able to make some inroads regarding this. Aside from the fact that these people who own the economy are slowly running it into the ground.

[snyttri]

50. trick question

The Democratic Socialists of America led by Michael Harrington were good. John Conyers and Ron Dellums were sympathizers. Except for Iraq the New Labour socialists of Tony Blair are good.

[Clete]

54. Just because a party calls themselves socialists or workers

doesn't make them so. Does National Socialist German Worker's Party ring a bell? If not, think NAZI.

[TheYellowDog]

53. Nope

I'm a center-left Democrat.

[K-W]

58. This is not a yes or no question

as far as I am concerned.

[Cheswick2.0]

60. no

but I do think we need social programs and somethings should be socialized such as healthcare.
Well (very well) regulated capitalism is also good for the health of the nation and the global community.

[deutsey]

62. Read "The Long Detour" to see what socialism I believe in

www.thelongdetour.com

[RichM]

63. Capitalism has nothing to do with "freedom." The sacred point of

capitalism is simply to allow a small number of individuals to amass virtually unlimited wealth.

The rest of the theology about "efficient allocation of resources," "productivity," "maximizing choices," etc is all a PR campaign that was worked out by hired intellectuals (the spiritual antecedents of think tanks like AEI, Heritage, etc), to supply a fancy-sounding RATIONALIZATION for this type of socio-economic organization.

The insistence by the wealthy that the government should serve their interests; that they should suffer no impediment to their pursuit of further enrichment; that they should be allowed to use their wealth to buy power, & then use that power to procure yet more wealth -- this is what lies at the black heart of capitalism. The pious mouthings about "freedom" & "democracy" are just an attractive superficial decoration -- rather like putting a pig in a pretty dress.

[K-W]

70. Thats not true

Capitalism as an economic theory wasnt created to do that, like all systems before and during it, elites have been able to take advantage of the system. You seem to imply that before capitalism we didnt have individuals with massive wealth at the expense of the masses.

Capitalism like all ism's so far doesnt work in its perfect on paper form for many reasons.

Where you are correct is with the basterdized concept of capitalism that is used in modern America. Like many words it has been twisted by those in power as a rehtorical tool.

[TheBigGuy]

66. i am sympathetic to European social democracy, which ISNT socialism.

...as I understand it socialism is "wokers owning the means of production", which isnt really what the Europeans have.

[David Zephyr]

68. Yes.

But everyone here knows that.

[davsand]

75. I get called "Socialist Lite" some days.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the DSA views on things. They say, in part,

"...we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships..."

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

Those aren't bad ideas, IMO, and they sound pretty progressive to me. I've been an active member of the local Dem party, but I'm very lucky to be in an area where the Dems are VERY progressive. Frankly, if we lived in any nation EXCEPT the US we'd probably be Democratic Socialists or Labor party members. In any event, there wouldn't be nearly as much paranoia or stigma associated with using the term Socialist along with your own name.

I'm going to be very blunt here, so forgive me if I upset anyone, but do any of you really feel SAFE in standing up in most places and announcing you lean toward Socialism? I suspect a lot of people--in today's climate especially--feel unsafe saying that publicly.

Just my two cents and that is probably about what it is worth.

Laura

[JanMichael]

83. Safe? Most times yes.

However almost got into a dustup with a smartassed yuppie in a local pub when my friend made a huge announcement of my political beliefs.

Needless to say he was much more inebriated (figures) than I, so he wasn't that willing to push it any farther than he did, which was enough for me to prepare to show him some Lefty "Love".

Most times though it's met with a confused look on the face of the Intentionally Obtuse.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. Rationalist.

Or something.

If we're talking about the means of production, sometimes the government can do it better, sometimes private capital can.

Governments have proven themselves quite able to build roads, mass transit, maintain armed forces, police and fire departments, electricity production, waterworks, and other things where "competition" simply reduces to price competition and not quality or other factors. Many of these activities were at one time private, but price competition and duplication of effort reduced profits to unacceptable levels.

Waste is not a government monopoly.

[scipan]

91. re definition of socialism

Interesting, I read this whole thread and never saw my definition of socialism, which I got from college. I was taught that it was government control of the means of production.

Which could mean collectivist, but that's a stretch too far IMO.

And I thought communism was defined by the statement: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. A whole different thing.

And that we have a mixed (socialist/capitalist) economy.

Important to get the definitions straight.

[gristy]

97. That's Webster's definition too

See post #22

I was taught that it was government control of the means of production.

[scipan]

106. Yes, if the producers are the government

"A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

[diamondsoul]

93. Well, I'm no closer to being able to answer

the poll after reading the thread than I was before!

I agree with a couple of other posters in the thread who have said we need to start out with a level playing field, socialized healthcare and socialized education. My view is we need to start leveling the field from the ground up, that is preparing our kids to survive. How can we do that if they're already in survival mode before they even get through high school? They barely get a chance to be kids before they learn how hard life is, and some of them don't ever get to be kids at all.

I don't know, I suppose I'm just sick of the every man, woman and child for him/herself attitude. We ought to be helping each other out just because it's the right thing to do, so why the hell don't we?! We used to, when life was so much harder, when the country was relatively new, and somewhere along the way we just seem to have stopped. Gyahhh, it's beyond depressing!

[shugah]

99. poll needs one more option

"probably"

[Mass_Liberal]

100. And proud of it

a possible ancestor of mine led a peasant's revolt in Kent, England


Peace:kick:

[KG]

102. damn right I am!

and as far as being out of the 'mainstream', well, the 'mainstream, sucks rocks, and i want real change, dammit!

[Doomsayer13]

103. I still believe in Capitalism

[Keithpotkin]

121. well...almost every one else in the world doesnt...

the great depression proved its failure (pure capitalism that is)...today we are no longer capitalists...

america is basically capitalist for the poor, socialism for the rich (what with the government funding all big business so it can compete globally).

[Doomsayer13]

125. well, not unfettered capitalism

everybody's realized that's wrong, but most of the world still believes in private enterprise and a non-nationalized commercial sector in the economy.

[redeye]

147. Really?

Why, then, do I see few challenges to the paradigm of regulated capitalism?

[Keithpotkin]

108. All anarchists are socialists... : )

but sadly, not all socialists are anarchists.

[CosmicVortex10]

113. Except anarcho-capitalists

www.anti-state.com

They got tons of non-socialist anarchists there.

[Keithpotkin]

119. yeah....

but i dont think any anarchists consider them ...human. let alone worthy of our title

[Philosophy]

123. Hey, I'm an anarcho-communist

I'm still trying to figure out what it means exactly.

[Keithpotkin]

131. its basically whats called a

extreme libertarian in america ...though in europe libertarian means anarchist (of the socialist nature).

[MrPrax]

116. I Am A Socialist and I Call Myself One

I have done so for years for the fact that if I am going to be called names by 'bumpersticker' crowd, I am at least going to have my pride.

Since liberals,lefties, commies, pinkos, greens are all lumped into the same category, I like them to get the label straight and usually when I say it, they double take.

The Right and non-socialists are used to people being cowed into believing the Candide's motto, "This is the best of all possible worlds"

It is good to see so many people standing up for a change and getting tired of being described by reductionists who are not socialists.

[ElkHunter]

117. I was a member...

...of the Democratic Socialists of America (and it's predecessor organization, DSOC) for about 15 years. My politics haven't changed but the times have. In these days of reactionary conservatism socialism has no meaning when even liberalism is on the defensive.

[peterh]

118. I believe in a balanced system of both…

Capitalism and socialism. I don’t believe one can survive without the other and our system tends to stay healthy because of the constant tug-of-war between the two models. We’re in the part of the cycle that many of us on this board are not comfortable with. We were in a very Cap. mode in the `80’s and I don’t feel we got much of a swing back in the pendulum in the `90’s, hence, we’re swinging even further right this time.

I still have faith in the system…we’ll swing back, but not without a little more pain.

[not systems]

120. Not socialist.

I believe that public ownership of utilities
is a fine idea.

I also believe that regulation of buisness has
nothing to do with socialism and everything to
do with democracy.

I would say that FDR had it about right bringing
social security and other social welfare programs
into being.

I support public schools and a safty net for the
poor and sick.

I believe the free market is like fire a force of
nature that must be respected and controled or it
will burn the world down.

Yet like fire is nessary to cook with and keep
people warm capitalism is nessary to produce and
allocate goods, services, and resources.

I think the mixed market has done a ok job for the
last 50 years but is getting out of balance because
of privatization, deregulation, and the lack of
anti-trust enforcement.

[dobak]

124. I don't think there is a "real" definition for socialism

I like to think of the different kinds of economies as shades of colors. Just as there are many shades of blue, there are many different beliefs about which type of economy works the best.

I would consider myself to have some socialist beliefs, but I still think that regulated Capitalism works best.

Anyway, if you want to understand why unregulated Capitalism sucks, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair - not for the digusting scenes in the meatpacking plant, but for Sinclair's story of the immigrant family who is kept "down" by the rich.

[jeter]

135. I am a liberal, and in no way support the DLC

But anyone who believes in socialism after all that has happened is an idiot.

Socialism is only capitalism in a hurry.

[ElkHunter]

165. If you equate socialism with communism...

...then I agree with you. But most modern socialists reject centralized command economies and do not necessarily believe that the nationalization of industry is always progressive. Indeed, most democratic socialists today have concluded that the market, while imperfect, is still the best mechanism for the effecient distribution of goods and services. Current socialist discussion has been centered on the theory of "market socialism." Under this concept of socialism the economy would be divided into three segments: nationalized industries, worker owned co-ops, and small private business. All would be subject to the market. This is a much different concept of socialism than either Soviet style communism or Western European social democracy.

[CHIMO]

136. Hard to Answer

Do you mean do I want to have insurance companies?

[laura888]

168. very good !

I never thought of this as a form of socialism - but you're right, it is!

[BonjourUSA]

169. It's a good way of life

If I fall in my stairs today (just an example !), an ambulance very well equipped (almost a room of surgery on wheel) with a doctor will come to seek me. I would be led to the hospital (later, if I want, I could be transfered in a private clinic of my choice) and I would receive the best care than my wounds would require. I would remain at the hospital as a long time as necessary. All that is free.

I could also have a room only because my wife pays a complementary insurance (70 euros per month paid by it, 120 euros paid by her employer. For all the family, this insurance also allows refunding 100% of the drugs and the consultations in the doctors including the specialists, 90% for our glasses).

I would be paid completely until I work again.

We have to struggle to defend our medical care system.

France is not a socialist country, just a social democracy.

[laura888]

173. I always wonder about Europe's systems

So you live in France? It seems as tho you really have it made: free health care, free college education, 1-month vacations.

How much do you pay in taxes? I know I pay about 35-40% and have none of the above.

[BonjourUSA]

178. It's difficult to answer

To make simple : we work the morning to pay income taxes and social contributions (health, unemployment, familial allocationsÉ) and the afternoon for us.

A litle more vacation : between 6 and 8 weeks per year and legal work time : 35 hours per week.

I wanted to write "a single room", not "a room only" of course !

[TahitiNut]

179. Vive la France.

Remarkably enough, even with such egalitarian governace, the wealthy in France do not appear to be an endangered species -- nor do people seem any less motivated to become rich. :shrug: <-- a stereotypical gesture?

[sushi]

139. Can't answer this

I'm in the middle. I like a combination of both, which should be possible.

[artr2]

148. In the middle too.

I believe in public for infrastructure and private for everything else. Utilities should be owned by the people by having the government run them. Citizens will pay cost of production plus a fee for overhead. This includes water, power,sewage & trash collection, telecommunications by maintaining the internet backbone. Guarantee broadband communications for all at a small monthly fee. Telephone & cable companies would remain private.
This mixed economy would permit business to operate with reduced costs with could be used to raise pay checks and to add millions to the rolls of employment. Of course,these public workers will be union workers. We would repeal all right to work laws used to minimize the impact of the collective barganing process and used to bring in replacement workers to replace employees that were fired for organizing in that company.

[Ein]

144. Socialist to a large extent....

I want everyone to be equal. But on the same coin I think thre could be classes (capitalism), as long as everyone lives a good life. And with the money we spend on defense and pork, we could do easily in this country.

[redeye]

145. No

Planned economies can't work without political repression, and socialism can't coexist with a free market economy.

[Mairead]

161. Definitions of socialism

'Central planning' is more a characteristic, today, of Capitalism than of the most active branch of socialism (co-operativism). Co-operative socialism has distributed, networked planning.

'Collective ownership' is an imprecise term. It could mean--and, joined at the hip with 'central planning', typically does mean--'government ownership', i.e., 'state socialism', which from the standpoint of ordinary people (i.e., the people doing the work) is indistinguishable from state capitalism or even ordinary capitalism: the nominal owners --'the people'-- have little or no power to influence what's done with 'their' utility, railroad, factory, etc.

Which is why many prefer the terms 'distributed' vs 'central' ownership.

'Distributed' ownership is where everyone involved owns a share in their own right, and gets to vote directly for the delegates who will take the day-to-day decisions. 'Central' ownership implies that the group with the real power is a subset of the group nominally owning the resources, and is typically insulated from the nominal owners by one or more levels of indirection.

[JVS]

170. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This saying describes the difficulty of setting up a Democrati welfare state/ regulated capitalism. By allowing its members to accumulate massive wealth, regulated capitalism faces the problem of wealthy individuals being able to buy the government and eliminate the regulations out of their desire for more wealth.
It's like the German version of the Internationale says: "Es rettet uns kein hö´hres Wesen, kein Gott, kein Kaiser, noch Tribun. Uns aus dem Elend zu erlösen, können wir nur selber tun!"

[onehandle]

172. TROLLS

Yet another poll that proves that DU is full of them.

[JanMichael]

174. You're right! The Corporatists parading around as Liberal/Progressives...

...is nausiating.

[JVS]

175. It really is

They probably would even site questionable sources to attack socialists.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

176. I hit No. I hardly consider myself a troll

Maybe if there were something offered in between yes and no I'd have hit it but I do in fact agree with some capitalist principles.
Also, I hardly think there are over 100 "trolls" here. :eyes:

[lancemurdoch]

180. I'm not a troll

Virtually every European nation is divided between socialist and Christian Democratic parties. Hell, in Italy in 1976 the communist party received 34% of the votes.

Europe is a parliamentary system, so people can vote for whoever they want and be represented. The US has a winner-take-all system, so the far left winds up voting Democratic and the far right winds up voting Republican.

I come from a socially conservative Roman Catholic family that votes Republican. Very socially conservative. Nonetheless, I would describe myself at the age of 30 as a socialist, and I'll always remain one I gather. I have always had an aversion to self-proclaimed authority my entire life, thus the anti-authoritarian strains of libertarian socialism, or anarchism, are appealing to me. The "means of production" are controlled by a small elite, a vast majority who gained control by inheritance, I would prefer to see workers like myself owning and controlling the means of production. I've grown up and live in New York City, so that probably helps one form these opinions, I am exposed to lots of people from all over the world and lots of ideas as opposed to someone living in a small town. Of course, more conservatives live in New York City and Boston than people may realize - Archie Bunker is for real, as were events like the South boston riots over school busing - this relative openness can have the opposite effect on some people.

[GOPBasher]

177. No I'm not, but

I do think our nation needs to be a little more socialistic than it is. I think a midway point between capitalism and socialism would be ideal -- kind of like Canada and many western European nations.

[camero]

183. Neither really

But I think Capitalism should be tempered by socialist regulations with much better wage and labor standards than we have now.