Thoughts about Socialism, What Do You Think?

[Liberate]

I dont know much about socialism but from what I interpret Its very similar to democratic idea's. I do believe in capitalism because I feel as though if you work hard enough to run and own a corporation then it should belong to you, and not the public unlike what socialism says.
I love the idea of free school, and free healthcare like socialism promotes, but can this happen without extremly high taxes? what do you think.

[classics]

1. What do you want any government for then?

Just to protect you from the poor whom you use to generate wealth?

The kind of extreme capitalism practiced by the US is just that. Every man for himself, kill or be killed, and a squad of police to make sure the poor never reach their rich masters.

[Liberate]

4. not true

I think youre making a bad generalization of me. I myself am not wealthy nor do I support the rich making there money off the poor and balancing everything on the backs of the poor.
I believe that im looking for a combination of socialism and capitalism that maple mentions below, not the current system.

[geomon]

24. Nice post

very well said.

:)

[zoidberg]

29. I'd hardly call the US system 'extreme capitalism'

WIC, welfare, medicare, public education, Pell Grants, unemployment insurance, OSHA, minimum wage laws, overtime laws, child labor laws and HUD are hardly institutions and protections that exist under 'extreme capitalism.' You can argue that those aren't enough, but you can't argue that this is a killed or be killed society.

[StopThief]

31. Shhhhhhh. . . . .

You might expose the big lie.

[rman]

39. no, it's die or let die

a kinder, gentler version of extreme capitalism.
do you know of any nation that has a more extreme form of capitalism than the US?

[ieoeja]

59. Sure.

Lots of third world countries have a more extreme form of capitalism. Europe and the United States can afford better.

[classics]

135. Lets not pretend those programs are part of the current agenda.

Those programs all have their heads on the block under Emperor Bush.

They are remnants from a a less dark time.

[Maple]

2. What you're looking for Liberate

is the 'Third Way' a combination of both socialism and capitalism.

Canada and most of Europe use it.

[JasonBerry]

62. Thank you, Maple....My thoughts exactly. N/T

~

[mitchum]

3. It is the only workable system (and I will welcome it's arrival here)

Questions about your corporation owner:
Did he do ALL of the development?
Did he do ALL of the labor?
Did he build the roads in front of his corporation?
More and more questions could follow...

[Clete]

5. My idea of socialism?

Well, we all pay taxes, don't we? Why not spend the taxes on something everyone can benefit from like health care? You will never get away from taxes because even if you get a cut on one kind, it will appear in another form. The trouble with taxes is they usually go for making a few guys rich. Of course those rich guys tell you if you get a few social programs that it is going to cost you so much in taxes. If the taxes collected in my lifetime had gone for social programs, we would be living in a much more peaceful and healthy world today.

[Terwilliger]

6. In fact, Mr. Kucinich has a plan to reorganize government spending

away from the military-industrial model, and along the way of a social-welfare model, where the security of the state is defined by the overall education of its people.

[Clete]

7. I hope eventually that happens for the future.

I won't be here, but I hope you young people will stop being as passive as past generations have been and demand it.

[leftyandproud]

9. Kucinich is hardcore

I LOVE this man. And socialism does provide stuff FREE for most people...because it takes the money from the rich through a progressive tax system. Raise the top bracket 10% and everyone else gets free healthcare and 50% college tuition subsidized. The entire country will be better off and the rich will have higher quality workers to hire...meaning more profits for them. Everybody wins. We just need to get the ball rolling.

[salmonhorse]

8. Socialism doesn't provide 'free' stuff...

In theory, Socialism would provide access to services for the greater, better percieved well-being of society. But much like Democracy and free market capitalism here in The States, it has never even been tried and so therefore remains: an academic concept.

[acerbic]

10. Yet another thread full of misuse of word "socialism"...

Stupid, illiterate Americans. :-)

A system which allows private enterprise and has universal healthcare, subsidized college tuition etc. is not socialism. This is socialism:

1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

[rman]

11. which points to a problem with socialism/communism

"producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"

It's practically impossible to have it truely "owned collectively"; so the government owns/manages it on behalf of the collective.
Then for all intents and purposes, government=business. Can you say "merger of state and corporate power"?
Thus socialism (more so communism) is one of the roads leading towards fascism, as Stalin demonstrated.

Which is not to say socialism does not have some merit. Put society first as opposed to every man for himself; are we in this together or what? What -is- the measure of success of a nation? *Average* standard of living, *maximum* standard of living?

[Terwilliger]

13. maybe you should put the dictionary down

and tell me what "the New Deal" was all about.

Socialism isnt about Karl Marx...its about social welfare...sociability...social responsibility and sharing. The common good, general welfare, etc. etc.

[acerbic]

14. Nope.

The common good, general welfare, etc. etc.

Common good is common good. Why would you call common good "socialism"? General welfare is general welfare. Why would you call general welfare "socialism"?

Actually, I get the point with the word magick. A typical example: both right wingers and far left wingers like very much to call public healthcare "socialism". Right wingers do it because they try to make public healthcare look bad. Far left wingers do it because they try to make real socialism look good.

Alas, the magick doesn't change the reality: public healthcare is not socialism, it's just public healthcare. Collective/state ownership of means of producing and distributing goods is socialism.

[redeye]

16. 'Zackly...

...I guess that you can determine the scale of capitalism vs. socialism on the basis of government expenditure as part of the GOP. On one extreme, there is absolute libertarian capitalism with no government whatsoever, i.e. G = 0. On the other extreme, the government does anything and then distributes goods to the people as it sees fit, i.e. G = 1. The USA is very capitalistic, with G being about 0.2; Sweden, on the other hand, has G at about 0.5. I presume that G being circa 0.3 is the best middle ground; taxes aren't prohibitive at this level (a 50% marginal income tax rate is possible here, but only with double taxation in the form of additional sales and corporate taxes), but the government can do reasonably well here.

[jafap]

18. should that be a D

or is this another definition of GOP of which I am unaware?
The idea that all government spending is socialism is a Republican one. It might have some validity if you looked at government spending on social services and infrastructure. Two big chunks of our G are defense spending and interest on the national debt, both of which function in practice as transfer of public wealth into already wealthy private hands.
Socialism aint about the government, it is about the people, particularly the little people. You know, those who are double taxed by first paying 7.65% payroll tax, and then paying income tax on that income which they never even saw.

[redeye]

19. It's a definition from economics classes

And anyway, all government spending can be said to go to private hands. The difference is what body decides how and where to spend: corporations or the government?
Also, I don't think that double taxation is all that bad - I read and was convinced by an article called "the case for double taxation" a few months ago. I can't give you a link because it's in a private forum that has banned me since, but the basic idea is that the only way to avoid all double taxation is to reduce all taxation to federal income tax, which is absurd. I only pointed out that it had to exist in a system where G = 0.3, that was all.

[jafap]

21. having taught university economics classes

It is a new one to me, but then again, I am old, and out of touch. The most up-to-date economics text in my house is a 5th edition Samuelson which is one year older than I am.
And with Cheney in office, who is deciding how and where to spend - corporations or the government? My point is that government spending can hardly be characterized as socialism unless it benefits the public at large, rather than benefitting a small group like the top 5% or investors in the Texas Rangers. If government decides in favor of the corporations, it is hardly socialism.

[Terwilliger]

37. yes it is...corporate socialism

Mussolini called it "fascism", whereas most call it "corporate welfare"

[MaverickX]

44. its actually called...

Mercantilism where the government is in the business of protecting industry from foreign competition. It's not just a conservative thing, trade protectionist liberals are mercantilists too.

[Terwilliger]

36. what the hell does that mean?

On the other extreme, the government does anything and then distributes goods to the people as it sees fit

No, really, what the hell does that mean?

[Nederland]

86. I Think

he meant to say this:

On the other extreme, the government does everything and then distributes goods to the people as it sees fit

[redeye]

93. Yeah, you're right

My mistake, sorry.

[Terwilliger]

35. socialism...cripes sakes I'm not talking about Marx

ANY SOCIAL ENDEAVOR THAT GOES TO ASSURE A SOCIAL SAFETY NET IS SOCIALISM

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Nederland]

45. Response

socialism...cripes sakes I'm not talking about Marx

ANY SOCIAL ENDEAVOR THAT GOES TO ASSURE A SOCIAL SAFETY NET IS SOCIALISM

Why is that so hard to understand?


The only thing that is easy to understand is that you wish to redefine the word socialism so that it is completed divorced from its historical meaning. Historically, socialism meant exactly what acerbic defined it to be: a system in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Sure, the meaning of words change over time, but in the end the meaning of a word is determined by its usage by society as a whole. In that regard, your definition is simply wrong. Most people do not define the word the way you have, they define it the way acerbic does.

What is curious is why you seem to have such an attachment to a mere word. It seems to me that the word socialism has so much baggage at this point you should be eager to drop it from your political language. If increasing the social safety net is your goal, it makes sense to drop the word socialism and use something else, if only to avoid the negative connotation the word has now acquired. Consider these two proposals:

1) The US should institute socialized medicine.
2) The US should provide better health care to the poor and elderly.

I guarantee you that if you were to poll the American people, you would get a much more favorable response from #2 than you would from #1. Given that the two proposals basically mean the same thing, why not simply drop the word from your vocabulary? After all, its just a word...

[JVS]

12. Capitalism

Caption: "The fundamental principles of modern capitalism can be put this way: Guaranteeing maximum profits through the exploitation, ruination and enslaving of the majority of the population of the given country, through the systematic plundering of the people in other countries, in particular the undeveloped nations, and finally through war and economic militarization. All these contribute to high profits."
Words that are as true today as when they were spoken over 50 years ago.

[geomon]

25. excellent

great graphic!!!!!!!!

[Terwilliger]

41. oh no JVS...dont you know?

neoliberals want to transform the world through better capitalism...doesn't that sound like a noble cause? :shrug:

[Ignoramus]

15. Ideals

I think the difference between absolute socialism and absolute free-market capitalism is that in the first, the means of production are owned by a giant govt. bureaucracy, and in the second the means of production are owned by a giant corporate bureaucracy.

Democracy is really independent of who owns the means of production I think, i.e. in the abstract, collective ownership of the means of production is not exclusive of the idea of establishing government policies using some form of democracy.

It seems to me that corruption due to massive corporations is a problem, whether they are directed by the government or by some other elite. I like the notion of worker run companies, but the image I have of that applies to rather small organizations, like a bakery. A massive company would end up requiring layers of management and regardless of worker control I think corruption would creep in more than it would with a smaller company.

So, democracy obviously is the way to go. But, I want to learn about semi-direct democracy and other forms of democracy that include a mechanism to address the tyranny of the majority issue. And, I want to explore what could be done to promote localism, and what parts of socialism could be implemented if they were to end up being less destructive than free-market capitalism.

As an example, I think a collective running a bakery should be able to operate independently of govt, in terms of what it produces, but they should perhaps be resticted in some way to prevent them from becoming starbucks by reproducing themselves all over. Some sort of restriction on size and requirement for localism, could perhaps be done in a way that is not oppressive. I wonder.

I'm not opposed to the idea of limiting growth. People's various talents should be able to give them whatever advantages that gets them, to an extent. No one should own a billion dollars. No one should be able to base their decision to start a business on the expectation that they can pay employees less money than is required for the employees to support themselves.

[jafap]

17. I am the only certified astronaut on board

As a long time student of socialism, I strenuously object to your definitions of socialism. And you can quote all the dictionaries you want - they were not written by socialists.
Socialism is not primarily about who controls the means of production. Ownership of the means of production is a means, not an end. The end is a more co-operative, peaceful, and happy society.
I finally found my quote from E.F. Schumacher's biography p 293
"The great line of outstanding writers and artists who exercised a decisive influence upon the socialist movement is in itself sufficient indication that 'socialism' was by no means primarily concerned with economic matters. It was man's entire personality, his humanity, that was at stake; indeed, one might even say that this was a religious issue, a battle for the soul of man ...
British socialism began, and is only to be understood, as a movement of protest and rejection. It set its face against the exploitation and pauperization of the masses - an economic critique; against the degradation of the individual and deprivation of his rights - a political critique; against the uprooting and debasement of people and their standards - a social and cultural critique; and against the entire system of values of capitalist society - a predominantly religious and ethical critique."
The socialist author of "Small is Beautiful" was certainly not in favor of giant government bureaucracies.

[rucky]

114. The best way to stop Corporate Homogenization...

...Is to vote with your $$$$. I am fortunate enough to live in a city (as opposed to a suburban strip-mall wasteland) where I can exclusively support small & local businesses and regional chains that have ties to the community. That's the "American Dream."
The type of corporatiziation that I'm concerned about are the ones that CONSUMERS have false choices through drawn-up regional monopolies (cable/telecom/utilities), collusion among corporate giants in regulated industries(Healthcare/Biotech/Pharma/Media/Finance), or absolutely no control over (defense/energy/security): in the form of-Bid and exclusionary government contracts, which BushCo is dolling out like party favors at a family reunion. Add a few free passes for offshore manufacturers, and we've got ourselves an iron ceiling that keeps competition (and investment) of emerging companies, and entrepeneurship to a minimum. And if the trend of "privitazition" continues...pretty soon the government will be in bed with "faith-based" and for-profit private schools and social services in the same way. If these programs were run by the government (TAXPAYERS), then wouldn't that in a sense be more "free-market" than having them controlled by corporate contractors? then at least - if Democracy really worked - the consumers (taxpayers) would have a say.

[Mairead]

20. Socialism is *NOT* about giant bureaucracies!

If you want to see socialism in action, join a credit union or co-op, make some food and share it at a potluck, give up a weekend pounding nails and painting walls for Habitat, spend your evening at the City Council arguing for better funding for libraries...these are all socialist activities.

'Giant government bureaucracies' are the degenerative state-socialist form of socialism, indistinguishable from fascist state-capitalism. Real socialism is about distributed ownership and responsibility, not centralised. Capitalism is about concentration, socialism is about distribution.


One of the biggest lies Capitalism and its minions put out is that someone who succeeds in business does so completely on his or her own merits and thus deserves all the fruits. That totally ignores the quiet, unnoticed contribution of everyone else in society. A good test for whether someone has really done it all on their own is to ask whether they could have done it in Somalia or Chechnya, Palestine or Liberia. The answer, of course, as Warren Buffet points out, is 'No'. They couldn't. They'd be eaten alive. Our willingness to behave in a lawful way, to not force Capitalists to live in fear behind barricades...that lawfulness is an immense contribution for which we receive no compensation from the Capitalists whatsoever.

Socialism is not about not having capitalism, it's about not having private-profit capitalism. Socialism distributes both labor and its profit. US-style Capitalism concentrates the profit. That's the difference.

[MaverickX]

42. it looks good on paper...

But in practice it puts a select group of people in charge of distribution. This clearly will lead to an authoritarian state. Socialism requires a heavy handed state in order to carry out its goals. Marx even called for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Mairead]

51. Check your facts

There are over 700M people in the world (as of 1995) quietly enjoying real socialism without a politburo or commissariat in sight. An entirely distributed, networked, grassroots system.

[Ignoramus]

53. Err. never mind...

... misunderstood... delete delete delete

[MaverickX]

76. where is this at?

Social democracy in Europe isn't socialism. Socialism means government control of the market.

[Mairead]

78. Socialism does NOT mean government control of the market!

What's the matter with you?

[MaverickX]

79. sure it does

Public ownership of the market and resources.

[Mairead]

82. No, it doesn't

Try to imagine the case where the number of shares of stock in every company was mandated to be equal to, say, the number of workers at the company. Everyone could own one, but no one could own more than one.

That's public ownership, but it is not government ownership.

[MaverickX]

90. The govt needs to take the business

From its owner and give it to the public, correct? Let's not sugarcoat it.

[Mairead]

95. Sorry, but you really need to check your facts

I'd express myself more strongly, but that's not allowed here.

[MaverickX]

96. well you're defining socialism on paper..

Not in operation.

[Nederland]

46. Capitalism is *NOT* about concentration

If you are going to complain about people misusing the word socialism, the least you could do is define Capitalism properly.

Capitalism is about the existence of a marketplace in which multiple producers compete for consumer dollars in an environment mostly free from government interference. The key there is the word "mostly". Take that word away and what you have is laissez-faire, not Capitalism. As any good Capitalist will tell you, take the idea of competition away and the entire system crumbles. As any good Capitalist will also tell you, government has a role, and that is to insure the continued existence of a competitive marketplace. By consistently allowing unfettered mergers that reduce competition, the Republicans (and to a similar degree, the DLC) have neglected that role.

[Mairead]

52. No, actually it's not--read Adam Smith

[Nederland]

84. Yes it is, read MIlton Friedman

Reading Adam Smith and assuming that he is the final word on Capitalism is like reading Isaac Newton and assuming he's the final word on physics. Yes, Adam Smith is a crucial figure in the development of the theory of Capitalism, but he merely laid the groundwork. To say that his ideas have not evolved and been refined in the 200+ years that followed is pure ignorance.

[Mairead]

87. Sorry, but that's crap

Capitalism is a system designed to allow the amassing of capital aka excess wealth, period. To define it in any other way is as surreal and Orwellian as 1984. Capitalism hasn't a damn' thing to do with free markets. That's one of the most gigantic lies ever perpetrated.

[JanMichael]

88. WTF? A DU'er pushing Friedman? He's a real Liberal/Progressive.

:eyes:

[redeye]

92. He is on social issues

"The government has no right to legislate morality."

Somebody please tell that to John Ashcroft.

[JanMichael]

94. That'd be great if this discussion was solely about social issues.

From what I've noticed thought it isn't.

Friedman is NOT a friend of Liberal/Progressive/Left Economics, period. To reference him is telling, don't you think?

[Mairead]

97. yes indeedy

and I do agree that it is a telling reference, a real litmus test.

But then again, the quite-far-right orientation of some people here is hardly a secret, is it.

[Nederland]

98. I can tell

you've never read Friedman.

[JanMichael]

118. Wrong again.

.

[Nederland]

126. Ok

What specifically do you not like about "Free to Choose"?

[JanMichael]

129. I do not believe that unfettered Capitalism/"Free Market" is an....

...inherantly "good" thing. He does.

When it comes to who sleeps with whom, or who eats, smokes or reads what, I actually agree with Milt.

But economically I believe his policy views to be the basis for the sort of insanity we see today.

He's said time and time again that "unfettered" capitalism (He has also suggested in interviews that he'd like to be an Anarchist http://zader.com/mudita/archives/000114.html ) is his philosophy, that leads (I would guess 99 times out of 100) to an entrenched Aristocracy/Plutocracy/Corporitist system.

I would classify Milt as a Libertarian Capitalist and myself a Libertarian Socialist.

He thinks my way destroys "Freedom" (A subjective term if I've ever heard one) and I think his destroys "Equality" and "Progress" (Both somewhat subjective themselves.).

He is also a Republican which, IIRC, is not a terribly welcome label in these parts.

[Nederland]

132. Response

Above all, Milton Friedman valued competition. It is at the heart of his entire economic philosophy. Just consider the title "Free to Choose". The system he advocates allows individuals a choice in everything. Obviously you can't have choice if there is no competition.

I think therefore that in this case applying the term "unfettered capitalism" to Milton Friedman is a mistake. Friedman was a strong opponent of monopoly power, and believed that it is government's role to prevent monopolies from forming. The fact that most of the time he talked about monopolies he was talking about government monopolies like public education should not distract you from his main point: monopolies are bad. Indeed, any situation that results in consumers being unable to choose is a bad. In this way, as others here have pointed out, Milton Friedman is a classic liberal who believes in the supremacy of the individual and individual liberty.

[JanMichael]

136. I suppose if one thought that the late eighteenth century was the....

...end all for Economic/Societal Organizational thought then Milton is your man.

I see an imposibility for an unfettered "Free" Market to not result in a consolidation of both Economic and Political Power into the hands of vultures. It must be regulated, wealth must be regulated, or you end up with people like Dubya getting "elected" for goodness sakes.

OTH concepts like "averaging", collectivising/monopolising, are the best for equalizing certain activities that we all need and share in. A post office letter is a good example. It certainly takes a great deal to deliver a letter from Miami to LA, yet it costs only 37 cents, that same letter could go to the house down the street for 37 cents, how is this? It's not magic. You know that a private company doing the same thing for an entire nation would quickly pro-rate every thing, in order to earn profit, and that one block mailing would almost certainly exceed 37 cents within short order.

Also Capital will get concentrated in fewer and fewer hands in Miltons "Free Market", ultimately spilling into the political system and making that so called "freedom to choose" rather moot.

I don't see the political "Freedom to choose" that a dollar a vote system brings.

[redeye]

110. Getting back on topic...

...Nederland quoted Friedman as an authority on what capitalism was. Almost all influential thinkers - and, like it or not, Friedman is an influential libertarian thinker - are authorities on the definitions of their own philosophies; I won't look at Ayn Rand for a definition of socialism, and for the same reason I won't look at Debs for a definition of capitalism.

By the same token, by the way, he could've referenced either Kristol (William or Irving) as a source about neo-conservatism and what it means. You don't have to agree with his philosophy to know that he's an authority on it; he has to agree with his philosophy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. Milton Friedamn is A Liberterian

On social issues he's one of the good guys.


but on economics

he's way too much of a free marketer for my taste.


* Free To Choose is a good read... And he didn't win a Nobel prize for nothing.

[Mairead]

101. Anyone who is in favor of cap-libbism isn't 'one of the good guys'

Or not in my book, anyhow. Social and economic issues are not as disjoint as some would like to paint them. Which is why I take strong issue with those who go all starry-eyed over 'fiscal conservatives'.

[MaverickX]

104. that's the problem with socialism..

It divides a country between the good and bad and demonizes all political opponents.

[Nederland]

105. Glad to know where I stand

...in your eyes.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you like, of course. I would simply remind you that if you took all the people in the Democratic Party that are in favor of the free market economics favored by people like Milton Friedman you would loose every election held outside San Francisco. I think that if you are as hard core about economic issues as you appear to be in this thread, perhaps you should think about joining the Green Party or Martin's Socialist Party. Perhaps they are closer to you idealogy.

I'm not beiong a smart ass here, I'm totally serious. The Democratic Party has been making a consistent rightward shift on economic issues for the last 20 years. Despite what you read here at DU, most Democrats are perfectly comfortable with the idea of a market based economy with sensible environmental and safety regulation provided by the government. Sure, its not what Milton Friedman espouses, but its a hell of a lot closer to him than it is to Karl Marx or Eugene Debs.

[MaverickX]

106. The Democratic party...

Should espouse Keynesian economics. We shouldn't become too laisezz-faire on economics.

[Nederland]

111. I Would Agree

But the ideas expressed by Mairead on this thread are not Keynesian, they are more along the lines of Marx or Debs. I give you this example in post 82:

Try to imagine the case where the number of shares of stock in every company was mandated to be equal to, say, the number of workers at the company. Everyone could own one, but no one could own more than one.


This is not a market based system by any means. Its is a system of collective ownership that delibrately prevents a person from trading their ownership in a company for something else that they want. Its a fundamental restriction and redefinion of the term "ownership". While Mairead is perfectly entitled to hold that opinion, it is *not* Keynesian and it is way left of positions held by the Democratic Party as a whole.

[MaverickX]

113. oh I agree...

Keynes was pretty anti-socialist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. Most Democrats-I'd Venture to Say >80%

would be comfortable with the idea of a market based economy with sensible environmental and safety regulations a-n-d a strong social
safety net.

I

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. Milton Friedman Is A Classical Liberal

[redeye]

112. No, he's not

Liberalism is a humanistic philosophy. Friedman's notion that "the only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders" is very corporatistic and anti-humanistic. Otherwise, though, he's pretty close to Lockian liberal (the other kind of Classical Liberal is moralistic liberal, such as those philosophers who believed that the government should force people to be free).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. Locke Was A Classical Liberal

We would call him a liberterain today.

btw-Milton Friedman still calls himself a liberal.

We used to call them conservatives because they wanted to conserve classical liberalism like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Rousseau

coined the term "forced to be free"

By free he meat freed from your selfishness and greed. It's really a totalitarian concept that you will be compelled to think a certain way or else you are not "free"


Rousseau was not a liberal. He was an odd mix of conservative and socialist.

The Social Contract and The Origins Of Inequality are great reads.

Also, classical liberalism is about more than shareholder's rights. It's about total autonomy for the idividual in the economic and social sphere.

IMHO, that's only good if you're on an island.

[redeye]

121. Social Contract/moralistic liberalism...

...is different from Lockian because Locke believed in natural, inalienable rights rather than a social contract. Now, I'm not trying to protect Lockian liberalism; I'm only saying that Milton is not a liberal because he favors corporate and shareholders' rights over people's rights. Liberalism, being a humanistic philosophy, is incompatible with the mode of thinking that corporations should do what's in their best interests rather than what's in everyone's best interest. I know Jefferson was Lockian, but he was also very decentralistic and agrarian and was far from believing in the extremely complex societies that capitalism (and also progressivism nowadays) requires.

[Aaron]

131. This Friedman?

"The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003)."

[Nederland]

134. Yes (nt)

[MSchreader]

22. Here we go again

(Sigh!)

Liberate, if you want to know more about socialism, this discussion board is not a good place to find out. Between the economic house slaves and anti-socialist trolls that live for threads like this -- since it allows them to wave their dicks around -- you will not get much of an honest answer.

I used to put aside a time to take on the trolls. But, lately, I have become quite disgusted with this board and, at this point, prefer to lurk, rather than spend so much time playing with the cabal of appeasers and class traitors.

So, feel free to PM me about such things. Just don't expect much of an honest or well-thought-out answer from some of the self-appointed "experts" here.

Martin

[redeye]

32. I see your point...

"Everyone is deluded or a propagandist, but me. Don't listen to them; they have no idea what they're talking about. Don't even bother reading what they have to say; I have the sole truth. They are all class traitors, cabal appeasers, capitalist snakes, and oppressors; I am here to liberate you."

[Nederland]

47. LOL

Yup, that's a description of Martin for you.

[MSchreader]

128. Whatever

It's easy for trolls to snipe. It's all you've got.

Martin

[MaverickX]

43. don't expect a straightforward answer

On socialism from college students whose contact with Marxism is with their commie college professors. Marx himself called for a dictatorship.

[Ignoramus]

49. dictatorship

Well, I'll just point out that I think you are not understanding the phrase dictatorship of the proletariat. Democracy is RULE by common people. Does that sound oppressive? It's not really because it is an attempt to enforce recognition of the equality of people "common people".

Dictatorship of the proletariat means essentially the same thing: RULE by the workers. The difference is in distinguishing workers from common people. So, what's a worker? Someone who performs work. It's not sweating people holding sledge hammers in a steel mill necessarily...

It is lazy to make the leap from stories about Stalin and then conclude that one implies the other.

So, how would anyone enforce this rule by the workers? The exact some question applies to democracy? Enforce means force by implied or real force. It is not correct to imply that it is vicious to protect people's equality.

[MaverickX]

60. it can be...

Socialist dictatorships do tend to do some vicious things in the name of equality. Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't denote rule in general, it denotes a specific kind of rule(a dictatorship). Socialism in practice and democracy cannot coexist.

[MSchreader]

127. Son

I work for a living. I'd like to see you do what I do full time.

Martin

[sweetheart]

23. the public should be on your board of directors

you work hard enough to run and own a corporation then it should belong to you

That sounds nice, but it omits the reality... that the public has paid a great deal to prepare the ground for your corporation, and that public has an interest in your corporation supporting the public interest(s). The public paid for the schools that educate you and your employees, the roads you use to get to work, the sewage that takes the shit away, the electricity grid you use, the street lighting, the legal system for your contracts, the court system for your fights, the research from military development that will likely inspire your "new idea".... that to claim the private individual creates a company all on her own is bunk.... and given that, how should the public interest be represented in the corporate governance?? Should it merely be a police man that slaps you down when you pollute a swamp or something like that.... or should it proactively engage in the boardroom of your company that the company steer a course in light of its true stakeholders?

Socialism is at odds with the mindless ignorance of primitive capitalism... and perhaps the tweak should be instituted in the very ownership structure you claim to support.

[deutsey]

26. Read The Long Detour

www.thelongdetour.com

I'm currently reading this historical analysis of the American Left.

Here is a good quote; speaking about Marx, the author writes:

Socialism, he implied, required a fully developed civil society--a society of citizen associations that bring people together to participate in the process of making their own social lives and history. And he suggested that in socialism the state's coercive (police) power would be reduced to the minimum required for the administration of things that cannot be coordinated locally or by informal associations...

In short, for Marx socialism was to represent the fulfillment of the democratic promise inherent in the capitalist development...



The author (who is a socialist and former Communist) then goes on to show how the early socialist movement in the US reflected these values and how the Russian Revolution in 1917 helped to derail the progress the American Left was making.

[southern_demo]

27. what does public education have to do with socialism?

just because a government provides a service doesn't mean that you have socialism. go read Adam Smith. more than 200 years ago he understood that free markets are not the answer to issue.

government providing a service (for examples roads and education) is often a very efficient market. Government can buy roads far cheaper than any private company, due to competative bidding and the size of the projects (what private mechanism could have financed railroads or interstate highways or most school districts)

[JanMichael]

28. It's a collective action for the common good.

Same with SS, MediCare, Police, Fire Protection, Most Utilities, Public Schools, Roads, etcetera, etcetera.

There is a ton of Socialist ideas running amok in America, most people just refuse to acknowledge the good that it's brought.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. We Have A Mixed Economy

[MaverickX]

33. socialism and communism suck...

My family owns a business and if we put businesses under the control of the people who work there it'd run the business into the ground. Also this removes the incentive to start a business in the first place. Free education isn't necessarily socialist since capitalism recognizes the existence of public goods that the market has shortfalls in producing. Nations who've tried socialism have a lower standard of living than nations with mixed systems as well. I just don't see the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism or socialism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. There

has never been a nation that has had a command economy and a democratic polity.

And before my fellow posters consign me to the reactionary camp I am an advocate of the welfare state.

The state should guarantee a level of existence that leads to a decent life where your basic needs are met. After that you are on your own.

[redeye]

50. Yeah, I guess I agree...

...basically, I see the whole debate between capitalism and socialism as a way to maneuver between two oppressive apparatuses: government and corporations. The more socialistic a country is, the lesser the scope for corporate oppression is and the greater the scope for government oppression is, and vice versa for capitalism. The idea is to juggle between the two, so that the government ensures the corporations don't rule the country and the corporations are there to ensure that the government doesn't pull a 1984 on us (in the sense of planned economy).

[chadm]

55. EXACTLY!

Guarantee the basics so that we can take more business risks, get more educated, etc. Just a small cut in the military budget could do this.

[mandyky]

34. I think you have socialism confused with communism

Personally I feel a pure capitalist/free market system promotes way too much greed. Any society needs to remember it is only as strong as its weakest link. Corporations should pay their fair share of being able to do business in this or any other country with a decent rule of law.

[MaverickX]

38. no...

I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist but you must realize self-interest drives an economy. I'm a supporter of making a level playing field and legislation designed to protect consumers, workers, etc. We need the government to be a referee but socialism allows the government to run the game rather than be an impartial judge.

[mandyky]

56. Having social programs does not

make a government socialist. We need social programs to educate children, care for the elderly, disabled, and down on their luck type folks.

I think we have given way too much power to corporations. I'd abolish most of them if I had the power. Small businesses and true entrupeneurs are the backbone of the country, corporations are the puppeteers who put in office people like the current administration.

[MaverickX]

58. uh not all corporations are Big Businesses

Small businesses can incorporate too. You can't abolish private property and be a free nation.

[mandyky]

65. Incorporation is just a way for businesses

to NOT be held accountable. I'd dare say that all these corporations partaking of coporate welfare are BIG BUSINESSES.

[MaverickX]

66. not really...

Incorporation is a way for businesses to operate without their owner personally facing liability for things that happen to his/her company. What do you define as corporate welfare?

[mandyky]

71. Read Arrianna Huffington's

Pigs at the Trough

Corporations get huge tax breaks and then we let them go offshore or outsource jobs or go to other countries and not pay people a living wage. Corporations buy access to people like the Bush administration and then have access.

Tell ya what Kenny Boy Lay should be rotting in jail now, corporation laws or not.

[MaverickX]

75. I just got the book but...

Don't you realize small businesses write-off business expenses too? Without those write-offs my family's business would have alot of difficulty surviving.

[mandyky]

85. Tax write offs are one thing

milking the system and putting nothing back is another.

Corporations should not be allowed to contribute to campaigns either, one person, one vote, one campaign contribution.

[MaverickX]

91. corporate donations is already illegal...

It has been since about 1917. I forget the name of the law.

[sirshack]

48. Socialism is a pretty lousy idea....

I liken it to someone who wants to own or control a business, but doesn't want to have a stake in it (financial or otherwsie) when or if it fails. And that's just not conducive to sound economics.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

54. Couldn't agree more.

Capitalism, with its incentives for hard work and invenstment, is the superior system . . . warts and all.

[chadm]

57. I'd like you to try to explain

that analogy. I'm not seeing it.

[Mairead]

63. That's because there's nothing to see

[sirshack]

68. Here 'tis....

Let's say you start a company with your own money. OBviously, you have the ultimate say over the policies of that company, within the law. You can pay whatever wage you desire to the workers, make whatever you want, house the company wherever you want, etc (forget for a moment competing with other businesses on the level of wages or products...it's not really important to our example).

Control of business, in socialism, is purported to fall to the worker or to the government with the idea that people will be motivated by the good of the group to work hard and make the business successful (not profitable mind you). But no one truly holds a real stake in it, because ultimately that work doesn't come back to the individual worker, it's filtered to the group as whole.

[Mairead]

77. Check your facts

Look at any credit union, co-operative business, or mutual insurance company. Ownership is fully distributed, and the profit is as well. Everyone has a stake, and typically around 75% of those eligible vote on issues and in elections.

[sirshack]

81. Credit Unions, Insurance Cos.,USAA

Are not socialism, nor are any of those industries socialistic. Socialism is redistribution through economic control...it's a system of government. CUs and the like are not forms of government, and do not have the same powers as government (I know CUs inside and out...worked in the industry). For instance, you can redeem your shares in credit union at any time, as you can with a share of stock. Socialism affords no such thing. You cannot sell your share of control or ownership in whatever industry or business it is you are purported to own under a socialist system.

[Mairead]

100. Sorry, you should check your facts

They are socialism. The basic principles of socialism are democracy and fully distributed ownership of the means of production. Ask any socialist at DU. Credit unions, co-ops, etc. meet that definition. I know because I've been an owner-member of co-ops and credit unions for years.

[MaverickX]

103. credit unions are private entities..

They're only socialist if the government owns or runs them. If credit unions are socialist then country clubs are socialist.

[sirshack]

107. They are not...

I know because worked for a credit union regulator for years. I can go on about NCUA, CUNA, the NCUSIF, Field of Membership, state and federal charters, corporate credit unions, low income credit unions, revolving liquidity facilities....try me.

In fact, you even proved your own argument wrong:

The basic principles of socialism are democracy and fully distributed ownership of the means of production.

A credit union does not produce anything. it does not meet your definition. Additionally, credit unions are membership-oriented institutions (you have to meet field of membership requirements to join a credit union). Socialism is not. Credit unions are chartered institutions, not actual forms of government like socialism.

[tomp]

61. at the very least...

health care (including pharmaceuticals), education, and energy production and distribution should be socialized. no one should be able to buy better health care or education because they have more money than someone else. and energy is just so basic as to be no different from highways and bridges.

i'd be happy to start there and it's my minimum demand.

edit: p.s.: i really don't care what you call it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. If I'm Smarter Than Somebody Can I Go To A Better College?

[redeye]

67. Not according to Martin Schreader...

...whose Class Warfare thread in DU1 (GD archives #2, IIRC) advocates forcing all public universities to have an open door policy. Carlos said that the platform advocated there in general would make the Democrats win only in Berkeley, Ithaca, Cambridge, and the like; and I would go on and venture and say that this is the easiset way to make Berkeley become Republican.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. If You Have Open Enrollment

what is the incentive for me to work hard in school?

[redeye]

74. Don't ask me

I don't support that. I wouldn't ask the question of hard work at school, mainly because I'm one of the few whose school record was pretty bad but because it was too boring rather than too hard. I would ask another question: one of the benefits of studying at Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and so on is that the average intelligence level of the students is very high, relative to the international average, so you don't have the average and just-above-average people hindering your progress. In other words, you study at a pace that is very close to yours. With open doors, you don't, but rather haev all the 1100-SAT guys pulling you backward.

[jafap]

125. I can understand that a little bit

I quit going to my college economics class after some other student asked the teacher to explain something for the third time. But you fall into the schoolastic trap if you think that school is the only place you can learn. When I went to graduate school, I got more from
the books I read on my own than I did from the exercises in regurgitation and grammar (classes).
John Dewey said that the best education is the one that makes the student want to learn more. As to why you might want to work at school, for one answer look at the meaning of the word "philosopher".

[Terwilliger]

123. you have no idea what you're talking about

and listening to Carlos just undercuts your credibility

[MaverickX]

69. ok so why should rich people...

With more money be able to buy more luxury of food than me? I understand your point but education and healthcare will never be totally equal for rich and poor.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. I Agree That Everybody Should Be Entitled To A Certain Level Of Medical

Care but if I want better care and am able to pay for it that is my right.

[jagguy]

72. what we have is a conflicting set of definitions for socialism

Marx stated what socialism is. Others coopted that term as a description for something else. Ergo the disagreements on this string.

Best thing for you non-Marxist folks to do is come up wit your own name. What you preach is a little bit of socialism mixed in with a whole lot of something else, say social-conscience'ism. We'll call it something akin to what you see in some euro states.

Socialism is a failure everywhere. This other thing can be argued either way but is currently a problem for the states using it (can't afford it with the lovely economic downturn we're enjoying).

Lets come up with better terms. Right wingers will always freak out when hearing about socialism as they see the true Marxist rendition.

[jafap]

120. Karl Marx is not the boss of me

There were socialists before Marx, and non-Marxist socialists after Marx. It is supernumerary to have socialism mean the same thing as Marxism.
However, as a former Commie prof, I am well aware of the insurmountable difficulties in re-defining terms. You can talk about the Webbs, Eugene Debs, Albert Parsons, Norman Thomas, Michael Harrington, etc. and your audience is still going to answer socialism=Marxism=Communism=the Soviet system. It's like trying to get water to run uphill to change that mindset.
Probably it is better to go with Lutz and Lux and just call it "humanistic economics".
"Socialism is a failure everywhere" is also considered a truism. Yet, even the Soviets were better economically than they have been under capitalism. A quasi-socialist state like Cuba does very well in education and health care, and probably would do much better if its huge "capitalist" neighbor would buy its sugar instead of being so committed to its destruction. The first thing that happened after the Soviet revolution was a British invasion. Capitalism is pretty good at attacking alternate systems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

138. I Liked Michael Harrington

He influenced my thinking.

I liked The Other America, Towards A Democratic Left.

I fancied myself a Democratic Socialist in Grad School

I have moved rightward since.

Now I'm a New Democrat.

[w4rma]

73. Some information

capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism)
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fired department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. What

What state is both socialist and democratic?

maybe they are a democratic welfare state

In his seminal work, Politics and Markets Princeton poltical scientist Charles Lindblom convincingly argues that there are no nations that have both a command economy and a democratic polity.

[Ignoramus]

109. I'll try again

Echoing some of what w4rma says, but I disagree with the representation of communism if it is meant to describe the philosophy.

My knowledge of Marx is not great, but here goes. The "ism" part of these words refer to both a philosophy and a description of an implementation of that philosophy. I keep reading people leaping from discussions of the philosophy to what this or that government that called itself communist/socialist did. I think that is making for confusing arguments.

Communism the philosophy seeks the achievement of a society with no government (like democracy, communism holds rule by concensus as an ideal). The stage leading up to that is said to involve a socialist government, in which the means of production are the property of a democratic government.

Democracy is rule by common people, as opposed to rule by an elite. Democracy is an ideal. One scheme to approach that ideal is representative democracy. I think that is the style of democracy intended typically by marxists who would form a socialist government in keeping with their commuist philosophy.

Ownership of the means of production is independent of Democracy vs. Dictatorship by an elite. Democracy is dictatorship by the common people. By way of the fact that communism seeks to have the means of production owned collectively, it implies that the common people would be workers, so democracy becomes dictatorship of the working people, as that is who the common people would be.

[w4rma]

130. DemocratSinceBirth, what state is both

democratic and capitalist?

Note, the U.S. uses a mixed economy with both socialist policies and capitalist policies.

[govegan]

89. Nice post, many seem to overlook these different parameters

M.K. Gandhi had interesting views and a dynamic understanding of socialism. He saw socialist states and philosophies that viewed socialism as some sort of definition of class structures and the tensions between different economic classes. Gandhi then said that his socialism was different because it cut across all classes. Paramount importance in Gandhi's socialism was given to the freedom of the individual and of the individual's right to self expression. (sorry, I don't have the reference right at hand)

The sort of capitalism promoted by the US government today very much depends upon usurpation of many of the freedoms of the individual. One individual's right to profit is placed above the rights of personal liberties of other individuals. The Preeminence of Profit is a chief principle of the capitalist ideology that is strangling America today. The demigods of American capitalist creed continue to seek alliances around the globe that promote and extend the Preeminence of Profit.

Support the Dennis Kucinich candidacy. There is a better way!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. The Tally

Utopian Socialists -30

Scientific Socialsits -1

[JanMichael]

115. Mind explaining what your "observation" is about?

What criteria led you to place numerical values to two ideas that most here couldn't define if there was a winning Lotto ticket to be had for the correct response and a bulls horn up their ass for the wrong one?

Just curious.

Edited for lousy spelling...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. I Was Being Facetious

I'm not an expert on Marx but I have read alot of his work.


I was being facetious about the tally but Marx considered any socialism utopian if it left the capitalist superstructure intact.
The superstructure is the system that is built around and holds
up the existing economic system-the whole system of laws and relationships that support any given economic system.

Let's quote the big guy himself

"Hence, they ( us bougies) reject all political , and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social gospel"

i.e.- hopleless do gooders -my words

Except for Martin, all the posters here want to leave the capitalist superstructure more or less intact.


Did you know that Marx had an illegitimate child with his maid that he kept secret and let Frederick Engels raise?

[Giverney]

124. Back to the Origional Argument

I think the discussion here has gotten into what 'really' is Capitalism and what 'really' is Socialism. This can be an argument that goes on foreva!

However, from my experiences living in France and here in the US:

1. The Healthcare in france (socialistic?) has it's problems too.. by nature, some humans are smarter than others. Unless we decided to 'clone' people to make them the same (hope this doesn't happen) it's a natural fact.

You end up with 'better' doctors and 'bad' doctors as you can end up with a good mechanic and a bad one. Everyone WANTS the good one, but not everyone can have him/her. (my brother is a surgeon). If you have better and 'worse' doctors, by nature some will get better surgery for cancer and such, and others wont. Even in France, to get the 'better' healthcare, you need insurance, which makes it look like a non-socialistic state.

Same with the education. it's all 'free' but becuase the professors of much-higher education dont want to teach those who can't understand Advanced Calculus, they dont want them in their classrooms.

Also, with the healthcare in france, if some doctor screws up your surgery, you can't sue him.. you can, but he's a employee of the state, so gooood luck.

Here in the US you see the opposite effects, massive lawsuits, and greedy money-grubbing insurance comapnies (HMOs) driving prices up.

In the end, they both fail, all forms of government fail (in my opinion) due to the greedy and slefish nature of those in charge, be it CEO's in capitalism, or the men in charge of the 'socialistic' state. Corruption is evident everywhere..

Best would be a system where the wealthy, greedy, corrupt can acutally be HELD ACCOUNTABLE.. how do we do that?

sorry for the mis-spelling.

[thermodynamic]

133. With capitalism grossly out of hand, socialism looks like

a great way to keep people in check when situations start to lose control.

Also, give us a clue as to how we can break into the market and become bigger than the big corporations who already dominate.

Lots of us work damn hard and get little in return; except what we make and what we do becomes THEIR property and we don't get the profit from it. The CEOs and upper management get all the profits and more, so none of it trickles anywhere. Remember, before Reagan the average wage ratio between management and workers was 40-to-1. In 2003, it's well over 400-to-1. And yet more and more companies see outsourcing and laying off as viable choices. Gee, at a salary 400 times better than everyone else's, where the hell are the managers pulling their share of the cutbacks? They are the hell nowhere.

If you want to talk about "belonging to you" and "me me me", that's fine. Let's broaden the spectrum a bit.

Society should be socialistic. And not about greed. Greed is destroying our society and preventing us from broadening our horizons. Just ask the oil industry on that. And when the oil runs out, more than just automobiles will be affected; our whole society will collapse and the fat cats' greenbacks will not save them.

[Chicagonian]

137. a mix of Regulated Capitalism/Democratic Socialism can work.

there has to be some mechanism that prevents too much power/wealth from accumulating in one person's hands.
As long as there's a minimum wage, why can't there be a maximum wage?

One of my favourite of the many hypocracies of the right:
People should strive to be more patriotic, and try to act in a Christian way...(i would assume that would include the stuff about the want of money being the root of all evil)
BUT- if you want to use taxes to effectively put a cap on the amount they can earn, they scream and shriek about "what incentive does that leave those people to work beyond that point?"

things that maike you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...