Curious, How many here are socialist?

I mean sense in the normal since.

Mirriam-Webster defines socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state



"socialism" Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2005. http://www.merriam-webster.com (8 Feb. 2005).

Edited my "since" typo. I worked all night :)

but I am one.

I like public schools. I have no problem paying taxes that help maintain the highway system. I am not upset that my taxes go to help the elderly and disabled. I am upset that children in America do not have full medical coverage.

Likewise, I am pissed off that corporations have a socialized profit system that most American voters are only somewhat aware of. The middle class supports the rich in far too many cases.

The idea of a mixed economy makes the most sense to me.

Socialism is a superior form of local economics/government, I think.

Groucho, not Karl

I'm also definitely not for Not (I know double negative) owning my own property. Funny, until I read your definitions, I would have thought I had socialist tendencies. Funny how even my words have been subverted by the neocons. Thanks for the clarity.

(aka: anarchists). So how "normal" would you consider Noam Chomsky to be?

pnorman

constantly trots out and then demonizes, then you'd be correct. But you might want to check out this two-dimensial map of the political spectrum, as opposed to the overly simplistic one-dimensianal line of "Left" to "Right". Take this test: http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/ (NOTE: Take the test BEFORE you read all the explanatory material).

Then do a little more reading and/or web-searching.

pnorman

Anarchism is all about socialism. Try taking a look at what Kropotikin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Goldman, Haywood, etc, thought about socialism.

I state in a response that I am not sure what they mean by anarchism but try looking up the definition of anarchism and see what you get. It is the complete opposite of socialism.

I guess it depends to what extent--but if you are advocating total government control of industry, well, that hasn't worked out very well historically. Certainly not as well as capitalism.

And if you are suggesting the United States give up priviate property, unless it is entirely consensual (we all decide to live that way), than at some point you are going around and forcing people to give up their stuff. Can't see how that turns out well.

Lest anybody be confused, of course I favor a regulated capitalism, where, to as great an extent as possible, the rights and safety of the workers are preserved.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

It's practically indistinguishable from communist.
I would consider Sweden a socialst country, but they don't follow this definition.

Or is it like a "little bit" pregnant?

Cuz I'm in favor of government funded medical and space research and science research. We can't count on private enterprise to provide us next year's flu vaccine, for example. Aren't my inclinations a "little bit" socialist?

I'm in favor of of government ownership of the military. In these days of private armies like Blackwater's, I think it's important to be a "little bit" socialist in that regard.

Excepting Putin's recent and limited reversion, every developed state realizes that and is making no move to nationalizing the means of production. Even the European states with the most generous social systems, such as Sweden, are firmly committed to a thriving capitalist economy, to produce the wealth on which those generous social programs are based.

Of course, some would call that "socialism lite." But it really isn't, not in the traditional Marxist sense.

When it comes to Marx, though, I prefer Groucho over Karl, but that's just me. :evilgrin:

This is from the DSA site:

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.

At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism — a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

We are socialists because 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

The problem I find with democratic socialism is that people in this country don't seem to want--or to be up to--the challenge posed by participatory democracy.

what he said...

the definition in the OP is way too narrow ...

here's a link to the best document i've ever read on "democratic socialism" ... this is exactly where I stand on the issue:

this link, in addition to the ones in the post right above, give the clearest picture of democratic socialism:

WHERE WE STAND: The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America

on edit: hi deutsey ... great minds think alike ...

This is the very different entry from the Oxford English dictionary:

Socialism

• a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or <b>regulated</b> by the community as a whole.

The Merriam-Webster definition is very close to Marxism rather than Socialism.

Whoever wrote that definition has been confused by the Mccarthyist definition of Socialism that anything vaguely left-wing was communism.

Incidentally, here's the OED's definition for Communism:

Communism

• 1 a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. 2 a system of this kind derived from Marxism, practised in China and formerly in the Soviet Union.

Very similar to Merriam-Webster's #2 definition for Socialism

Thanks!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

good to be here

In the modern world, a socialist advocates regulation of "the means of production, distribution, and exchange".

Regulation of a particular sort, of course. Modern capitalism involves regulation too. The difference is in the objectives.

Socialism involves regulation in the interests of society as a whole, with particular attention to its disadvantaged/vulnerable members: those who do not own the means of production etc.

Capitalism involves regulation in the interests of the owners of the means of production etc.

The modern "social democrat" (not, necessarily, "Social Democrat") is located in the "libertarian left" sector of the political compass:
http://www.politicalcompass.org

The goal is the greatest possible opportunity for individual autonomy, recognizing that this calls for both the greatest possible freedm AND the greatest possible security.

This involves both as little restriction as possible on the exercise of individual rights and freedoms AND as much support as possible to provide the means by which people are able to exercise their rights and freedoms.

Sometimes freedom must be sacrificed for security, sometimes security must be sacrificed for freedom. (And Benjamin Franklin really didn't say that those who do the former deserve neither, if it matters: he said that those who would sacrifice an essential freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither.)

The US's FDR put it this way:

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od4freed.html
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od4freed.html

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

All those things are goals not just on the international stage, but at all levels of human society. Freedom from want and freedom from fear = human security.

And a democratic socialist values and seeks to promote all of these, and advocates that governments -- democratically elected governments in societies that recognize and protect both individual freedoms and minority rights -- have the power, and use it, to do so.

in the sense that I think all people in this country should have access to free or affordable health care, ALL people should have access to free or affordable education. Nobody should go hungry.

In the richest country in the world, these three things are well within our grasp, but for one thing - the Republican Party.

The Ayn Rand crowd denies the systematic ease by which injustice moves on this planet.

Were we to rely on "market pressures" only, injustice would prevail.

Example: Pick up all the toxic waste you want and charge corporations a great deal of money to take it off their hands. Find gaps in zoning. Stash the barrels in a warehouse. Do so in places with weak government. Wait for "market forces" to pressure you to move elsewhere. Keep waiting. Wait till hell freezes over.

Example: Use force and money to displace indigenous people so you can drill for oil on their lands. Do so in places with weak government. Wait for "market forces" to value that land and protect those people. Wait till hell freezes over.

etc.

but don't define myself as a socialist (or with any other group's label, for that matter).

...but then again I thought I was a communist until I went to http://soviet-empire.com/. Those folks scared me just a bit. So maybe I am just a flaming democrat since this site fits my comfort level so much. I agree with the ideals of socialism though.

The purpose of the propaganda is to narrow the discussion to just two alternatives -- government control versus corporate control -- diverting attention from either the details of how or why (democratic? decientralized? mixed and limited?) and from other alternatives, such as cooperative organization.

http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/i_pages/work.html

http://www.mncooperate.org/

http://www.red-coral.net/WorkCoops.html

http://www.usworkercoop.org/

http://www.iisd.org/50comm/commdb/desc/d13.htm

According to Nobel Laureate Afro-Jamaican economist W. Arthur Lewis, in an essay written when he was economic spokesman for the Fabian society, government control is for socialists not an end but a means to an end. The end is a society that is democratic and without distinctions of class. I am a socialist in that sense. In some cases, government control is a good means to ends consistent with socialist priorities. In other cases, cooperative organization (and especially solidarity cooperatives, a Quebec innovation)

http://dept.kent.edu/oeoc/PublicationsResearch/Winter2000-2001/CooperativesQuebecStyle.htm

are preferable. In a well-ordered society there would probably be a role for a sector of entrepreneurial ownership and initiative, though of course it would have to be carefully balanced to avoid the emergence of a distinct capitalist class -- if possible.

Which means that I think you need to chuck your M-W dictionary. State imposed socialism is just as authoritarian and unjust as state imposed capitalism. Does M-W have a definition for syndicalism?

The vibrant Yiddish culture on the Lower East Side in the pre-WW1 era was fully described. There, socialists, anarchists, and syndicalists of every variety, amicably but passionately got in each others faces. An anarchist poet wrote this (by my memory)"

Ah Brave New World!
A socialist cop at every streetcorner!
a socialist judge in every courtroom!
and a socialist hangman!

pnorman

of socialism and capitalism. To me, socialism just means high (80-95%) taxes above a certain income level, so that the governmental/social needs can be fulfilled. However, I would not favor governmental ownership of private property.

On a side note, most Europeans think it crazy that some people (ahem, FREEPERS) consider universal healthcare as a first step towards socialism.

I have never understood how anarchy would work. How would it work without laws? It would be survival of the strongest. An anarchy would not last very long. It would eventually become a dictatorship.

Maybe I do not understand what people mean by anarchy. Please explain.

Hell, I'm not always sure myself. I take it to mean opposition to all the restricting pressures in society, the abolishment of coercion, and the shifting of the balance away from these big power structures to the individual. I'm sure someone else will post a better explanation. Here's a link.
http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism.htm

It was thought that it would succeed socialism, once the evil of private property was abolished and stamped out as a habit of thought and desire.

of the anarchist government in Catalunia. He was disappointed that it was finally corrupted by little things like a police force and issuing currency.

Try googling anarchism and see what it's about.

I'm for anything that actually helps human beings. If that's socialism, then it's socialism for me. If it's capitalism, then sign me up.

But any system can be taken over by people that want power. And there are always people that just want that power. In any year, in any country.

There's nothing wrong with competition in the market place. But there's also nothing wrong with the government taking care of a few things that we all use everyday.

I think everyone should have a chance at a good education. Yes, that means even those inner city kids that our leaders seem to forget about, except when one or two make it, then they're held up as the rule.

Healthcare is a right. Seems there are two kinds of people; those who believe it is, and those who believe it's a gift. I think you can learn a lot about someone with that question alone.

But again, there will always be forces that just want power, creating a reality where the system in which we all live won't make a difference. Power will just find a way within any system to abuse it. Guess that's why we have those check and balance rules. But they too can be corrupted. Existence just seems to be a struggle against itself.

How many are capitalists?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3072084

i do believe that centralized government is often the best vehicle for distributing services to the masses tho. but i'm definitely a capitalist as well.


i'm quasi-socialist. the diet coke of socialists. Just one calorie, not socialist enough.

In a democracy that maintains good social programs (such as medicine).

Pure socialism hasn't worked anyplace, and I see no reason to try it here.

I heard this somewhere:

REPUBLICANS WANT:
----Corporate Freedom - Personal Accountability
DEMOCRATS WANT:
----Personal Freedom - Corporate Accountability

I'd like to see both corporations and individuals have freedoms with their corresponding accountabilities.

I'm a "socialist" in that I believe all members of a society should be looking out for all members of that society to the extent that all have access to education, medical care, decent wages, decent living conditions, old age care & security, etc.

I see socialism as the only method capable of distributing goods and services in a just manner in a world that is grossly overpopulated with humans while having a diminishing resource base.

I append the "eco" because I believe it is both right and necessary that humans share this planet with the other lifeforms that we evolved with.

It is past time for humans to grow up and show some responsibility and (gasp!) wisdom but I'm not holding my breath.

I would definitely identify with socialism, especially in the sense of Marx and Lenin.

In the early 20th century, there were socialists like Upton Sinclair who helped to force capitalism to change for the better.

Also, there are so many different trends within the socialist ideologies, so even with Webster's definition, you can't be much more than have a generalized idea until you deal with the individual's perception of its meaning.

This would have been a good thread to have introduced a poll so you can quickly see a bar graph(s) of the different types of socialist ideologies which might be represented here.

Very good, readable book on the history of socialism in America and how the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia not only did not bring true socialism to Russia, but it helped to derail American-style socialism as well (hence the book's title).

http://www.thelongdetour.com/

I'm not a member of the DSA, but they have a lot of good things in their platform. As the richest, supposedly best nation, we should have free and socialized medicine, pensions, and education including university. I don't see how we can hope to continue to be the "best" without investment in the people of the country. I think we're already seeing this decline in *Bush

if so, does that mean being socialist is a bad thing?

ideological fervor. Various socialistic utopian groups have been formed, here and abroad, and they've all collapsed. It's fine to suppose the Marxist from-each and to-each principle, but humans aren't built that way. Call it the commons effect or whatever else you want. They've all prospered for the generation that set it up, didn't do too badly with the generation the first generation trained and raised, but then it just collapses. Sometimes the group disperses as they lose their common ideology, sometimes the group is taken over by a strongman.

I've heard the argument that some tribal cultures don't have private property (usually an overstatement). Instead they have tribalism; not a big improvement, if you ask me (seriously, families are fairly socialist--the resources are used by each person as needed, with conflicts resolved by compromise, and resources generally pooled).

I don't want the state controlling anything more than it absolutely needs to. The greater the control, the greater the power, and the greater the attraction for people that shouldn't have it and the greater the spoils.

"Various socialistic utopian groups have been formed, here and abroad, and they've all collapsed. It's fine to suppose the Marxist from-each and to-each principle, but humans aren't built that way. Call it the commons effect or whatever else you want. They've all prospered for the generation that set it up, didn't do too badly with the generation the first generation trained and raised, but then it just collapses."

I beg to disagree. One example that come immediately to mind http://www.thefarm.org/] a.k.a. "The Farm" in Summertown, TN is doing fine and well, they are a self-sufficient community which I would define as communist or socialist. Right in the heartland of USA. It has already survived the worst that the JE Hoover's goons and the local redneck sherrifs could throw at them legally or otherwise, and it's still going strong. And they have lots of profitable businesses that keep their operations diversified. A good model for other intentional communities, too.

online more than a few minutes right now).

Are they a closed community--do kids get to leave or newbies come in? That could provide a safety valve (only those who accept acculturation stay), and new blood.

Most of the other ones were closed, and couldn't take the pressure of strong dissent.

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

Why would anyone be ashamed of being a socialist?

It is obvious with the all the posts, that to define oneself as socialist, anarchist, conservative, etc., each poster as with each individual American may change dependent on the issue.

CONS and media-whores toss the label's around to attack those that oppose their views. Why not confront those that label with intent of personal attack and then request their definition of "socialist, anarchist, conservative, etc.?" I would wager than very few would be able to give an intelligent response.....and it places them in the position of defining their own attack.

Many uniformed CONS use labels because they are unable or unwilling to look for truth and go along with the NeoCon herd mentality....attack, attack, attack, the opposers. It has become team sport for them.

Mirriam-Webster's definitions are a bit thin, to say the least. Sort of like defining Christianity as:

1. A system of belief that believes that a woman gave birth to God.
2. A religion that believes that bread is flesh.

... to be an effective capitalist individual you require
a socialist infrastructure.
That is unless you intend to build your own roads, develop your
own currency, arrange trade agreements with all 5,999,999,999
other capitalists out there, etc.

Without that infrastructure and if you haven't had the good
fortune to be born with some $$$. You're stuck.

It was the whole point of the second Constitutional Convention.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_11_Notes.htm

I'm not that kind of socialist. But, I do believe in socialism for various programs that benefit residents and citizens of a country like universal health care, Social Security, free education for all and housing for the homeless. All those things are best run by the government. I am a capitalist about issues that don't involve taking care of the least among us although I am for socialist movements like towards cooperatives where ownership of a company belongs to the workers instead of a corporation.

It has been so broadly applied to political discussion that it no longer holds any real meaning. The technical definition is "state-owned means of production". I don't believe in that as a general principle, and neither should anyone else.

I do believe in state-owned means of production for many things, like roads, bridges, dams, water supply, the military, judiciary, law enforcement, power grid, etc. And I do believe in heavily regulating monopolies, like communications infrastructure, which is social regulation of competitive infrastructure, to varying degrees where appropriate. I believe deeply in progressive taxation and just as much in a safety net. So you tell me whether I believe in socialism.

You can't, at least if you are looking for an overarching committment to a single economic ideology. I support a mix, if you will, but in large measure a competitive market system is the best thing for the majority of our economics.

The problem is that the right wing has been defining socialism as everything from Stalin's gulag to American Social Security and soup kitchens. That way they get to demonize 'socialism' as a death-camp ideology and then tar anything they don't like with it. Using such demagoguery they make imbecilic arguments like socialism has been tried as Communism and it failed, then in the very next sentence define Social Security as socialism, so it's wrong too. It has been highly successful demagoguery. I believe that Democrats should be doing the same thing with 'fascism', implicitly conflating the failed ideology that led to World War II death camps with right wing ideology in general.

In the meantime, you can't ask a question like that because it has no specificity when a word has been co-opted to define so much that it doesn't define anything. I don't believe in gulag death camps in Siberia, so I don't believe in socialism. I do believe in public roads, so I believe in socialism. Are those the answers you were looking for, because they are both correct and reasonable responses, and completely opposite of each other, given the parameters of a thoroughly politicized concept.

I do consider myself a socialist, as I take it in the broadest terms that it has been applied to, namely that I believe strongly in government regulation of business, progressive taxation, and a solid safety net. I also consider myself very strongly a capitalist.

So should everyone else, though we all draw the lines in different places, as we see appropriate. That's the intelligent, reasoned, shades-of-gray worldview that Democrats champion, counter to the contrived black and white demagoguery of the right.

Pure capitalism or pure socialism is counter to all human nature, and is a death sentence for humanity.

"Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."


Learn more about them before you trash everything Socialist.

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html


Laura

Although I never formally joined the D.S.A., I was on their mailing list for a time. It's a good organization.

corporatism.
Main Entry: cor·po·rat·ism
Pronunciation: 'kor-p(&-)r&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
- cor·po·rat·ist /-p(&-)r&-tist/ adjective

Which, BTW, you mix in with a little un-throttled Capitalism and a pinch of Fascism, and that's what's rising in good old Murka today...

To a limited degree I believe in a society containing elements of (1) and (2b). However that definition taken to its extreme is indistinguishable from communism which I believe is as dangerous as fascism. I don't believe in a society where there is no private property, as good as that sounds in practise it doesn't work very well on a large scale. However I am for public ownership and administration of some government services, for example health care, welfare, social security, etc. I don't believe, no mater how much the other side screams, that the free market is the way to go for everything. Down that road lies needles suffering for many.

to paraphrase Lucy, was that definition written by a socialist? Read EF Schumacher's part IV of "Small is Beautiful". It has never been about a means of production, but more about an attitude. It is also more about criticism of capitalism than it is about knowing how to fix it. That, to me, does not make the criticism any less valid.

and this site is about the only place i feel safe admitting it

the word "socialism" has been demonized by the right in the same way the demonized "liberal" and "feminist."

I certainly believe in a government administered means of providing health care. Does that mean I'm a socialist? I believe that the people own ANWAR and should have the right to choose not to drill there. Does that make me a socialist?

I am violently opposed to a system whereby corporations own and administer the government and also own the means of production and distribution of goods so that there is no effective oversight of those corporations. Likewise, I am uncomfortable with a system in which corporations own most of the nation's private property and the means of production are owned and controlled by those corporations.

What does that make me?