I'm Thinking of Becoming A Socialist

Why not? What's so horrible about it? Why won't it work? What's so wrong about it. Look, economics is the about distributing scarce resources. So, why not allow the people to have a greater say in how those scarce resources get distributed?

Where am I wrong?

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism

I think this world would be a whole lot better off if we balanced responsible capitalism with sincere commitments to socialist programs.

To many many people want power and control. I understand socialism as a sharing of resources. Greed gets in the way of that.

Be prepared to deal with marginalization. I do think, however, as the Bush junta drags us back to the time of the Robber Barons we'll see socialism become more attractive to those of us this side of the "have mores."

I recommend you read The Long Detour by James Weinstein (http://www.jamesweinstein.com/default.asp?page=home.html) and subscribe to In These Times (www.inthesetimes.com).

:hi:

PS: Link to Democratic Socialists of America: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Any of your candidates to win anything!

Western European and Northern European Socialism have proven to be effective economic and political systems. In many ways it is more natural than individualistic capitalism, as it recognizes that humans are not just atomic individuals but members of a larger society -- be it a family, town, or a nation.

seems somewhat contradictory. :evilgrin:

The main problem with socialism, from what I can see, is that it only functions well in a vaccuum. While one could argue that people are not naturally greedy, it is axiomatic that people can be tempted into greediness. For socialism to work, people have to be well provided for, and outside influences that tempt them with bigger better more must be blocked. That, unfortunately, trends towards authoritarianism.

Try the Brewers. ;)

Instead of the owner hording all of the cash. In addition to paying his own players $200 million, Steinbrenner has paid out over $60 million in luuxry taxes to other teams. It's the other team owners that are hording the money for themselves. The Milwaukee and Pittsburgh owners got new stadiums, paid for by the public, and have kept the revenue streams from these stadiums for themselves.

Red Sox fans don't get to talk shit about other teams spending habits.

Milwaukee was one of the only cities in the country to have two socialist mayors. They pioneered what was once known as 'sewer socialism', which simply refers to the municipality owning all of it's public services (like garbage collection, snow removal and public utilities, including electrical power), as opposed to contracting them out. But you probably knew that already...

Here's a link:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-043/?action=more_essay

This Wisconsin Minute brought to you by htuttle.

hmmm... that wouldn't make them communist, would it?!

:eyes:

And it's not just "being very left wing".

Here's the old Clause Four of the constitution of the British Labour party. It's a good catchall summary:



But there are as many variants as there are socialists - splitters!

for working hard.

Still... I think the system we used to be aiming for -- basically capitalist with adequate social programs so that those of us who can't compete in a competitive system (the old, weak, sick, oddball, young) wouldn't suffer for it -- worked really well. It wasn't perfect, but it was close.

I'd like to go back there... and strengthen health care, for one thing.

No one should have to go without health care in such a rich country!!!!

and it is still possible to earn temporary profits by producing demanded goods more efficiently than the societal average cost of production. Since the system as a whole seeks equilibrium, improvements in production and quality of life are still encouraged.

The crux of Marxism is that the revenue for any good or service is fairly distributed by those involved in its creation by means of direct effort. I have done some in depth reading at this site but still am confused how money can be raised to build new production capacity beyond existing facilities.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/rubin/

I love this website and get a lot of news here that I don't see any where else: http://www.wsws.org/

We live on only one planet. We only have so much for everybody. At some point, resources will have to be managed. The question then becomes who does the managing of these resources?

Take oil, the life blood of capitalism, it has a limit. It's not an over-abundant resource. So, that resource will have to be "managed" in some way or there will be conflict over how to manage it.

From the page one story: Last Chance for Civilization


"It is impossible to comprehend the total reliance of our industrial civilization upon cheap and abundant energy. Prior to the industrial revolution, the "civilized" life of the small minority privileged individuals, for example in ancient Greece and Rome, was built upon the backs of hordes of slaves and draft animals. The use of bio-fuels (e.g. wood) was essentially confined to cooking, space heating, and metallurgy.

Today, the average North American utilizes each day the energy equivalent of thousands of slaves (one slave = 1/3 horsepower per day) and horses (one horse = 6 horsepower per day). Fossil energy transports his food thousands of miles to his table. Petroleum products are the source of farm fertilizers and they drive farm machinery. Because of the productivity of fossil fuel driven industrial agriculture the average American farmer now feeds fifty of his fellow citizens. In a very real sense, we "eat petroleum."

------------

Who makes it the best these days -some business owners and execs, people who work for corporations or the government.

And we live like we do because of virtual slaves - but don't like to think about it.

I think there could be a better way.

I have to think that - or I wouldn't have a shred of optimism.

Obviously a lot of people think socialism has merit. Which prominent politicians on the national level do you think are more in tune with socialist tenants?

Last I heard, he was still a Socialist, though CSPAN lists him as 'Independent'.

The OP harbors no illusions about the whores in Washington who are supposed to be working for us. They're not socialists. So who do you see as "socialist-like" in Washington, outside of Bernie Sanders? I'd be interested in hearing your take on the matter.

... as long as free markets are allowed.


Socialism was very popular in this country before WWII and the Cold War. There were even the "Christian Socialists"

It's tyranny that was weeded out most of the diversity of political choice, not freedom.

What do you think the red scare and McCarthyism were about? It wasn't about catching movie stars who were commies, it was bout SCARING everyday Americans away from socialist solutions to America's problems, because they knew that they too would be blacklisted and blackballed.

Socialism equates with justice and freedom in the truest sense of the meaning of those words.

What is going on presently is not capitalism or socialism, it is groups using structural/political power to extract money from others- whether you call it feudalism or colonialism or blackmail or coercion or subsidization or government contract is only a matter of taste and arguable ethnic/national coincidental circumstances.

I don't think that altering things simply so that different groups benefit and others are dispossessed solves the basic problem. That is what a simpleminded socialism amounts to, after all. The fundamental problem is the political power imbalances and the correlate toleration of the ugly mix of coercive and tribal/class behavior that abuses all people involved.

In short, the fundamental issue is about too little justice. Socialism might be a decent ideal to counterbalance the present excesses, but it isn't the solution per se.

Read up on the Con socialism FAQ to learn about it. ;)

heed not the words the nay-sayers. they fear what they do not understand. socialism is a concept too complex for most to wrap their minds around.

The government exists to administer programs, like roads and bridges, water, retirement, education, and it should extend to health care, child welfare and welfare for those who can't function in normal society like the handicapped.

The idea is to provide safety nets for all its citizens. Now capitalism is necessary to generate money for these programs in the form of taxes. We need to get to a place where corporations exist for the benefit of its citizens to provide goods and job. Right now, citizens exist to be exploited by the corporations. We need socialism to rectify this.