Socialism

There have been numerous strains of socialist thought put forth in recent centuries. A typical definition is this:


Note that socialism does not specifically refer to state ownership of the means of production and distribution. State ownership of the means of production and distribution would constitute socialism only if, and to the extent that the state truly represented the interests of the citizens of the state. If instead the state is a dictatorship or unduly influenced by corporate power rather than the majority of its people, then state ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods would more appropriately be termed tyranny than socialism.

Even so, definitions like the one cited above don’t fully capture the root purpose of socialism.


Socialism as a philosophy that makes the welfare of humankind the primary goal

Erich Fromm, in his book “The Sane Society” discusses socialism as clearly and thoroughly as anything I can recall reading. Fromm discusses several different schools of socialist thought, beginning with Francois Noel Babeuf, from the time of the French Revolution in the late 18th Century.

Fromm notes the central core of socialist philosophy as advocating the welfare of humankind, rather than any specific economic or materialist goals. To the extent that specific economic/materialist goals are advocated, they are advocated as a means to an end. The end goal is satisfying the needs – spiritual as well as material – of humankind. Fromm cites Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as the best embodiment of this idea. He says that to Proudhon:


Fromm notes that Proudhon was aware of the dangers of excessive dogma, especially in the hands of a powerful state, as he expressed in a letter to Karl Marx:


As is evident from that letter, Proudhon didn’t feel that he knew the solutions to humankind’s problems. But he did have an idea of how the solutions would come about, as he expressed in another letter:



The perversion of socialism

More than two years ago I discussed how any idea or ideology, no matter how good, can be perverted by serving as a mask to hide the true intentions of individuals or groups. Andrew M. Lobaczewski wrote about this problem in his book, “Political Ponerology – A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes”:


This can – and usually does – happen with any ideology. It is important to understand that it is not the fault of the ideology. The ideology is merely used as a mask to hide the true intentions of those who misappropriate it. For example, George W. Bush used the rationale of bringing “democracy” to Iraq, in order to justify his invasion and continued occupation of that country. That should not be seen as a black mark against democracy. Democracy had nothing to do with the Bush administration’s motivations for war. It was just used as a convenient excuse.

Fromm makes this point in describing how socialism got corrupted into Stalinism by those who needed an excuse for their monstrous deeds:



The problem of unrestrained capitalism

Since all societies require people to do work, and since work is necessary for any kind of progress, it should not be surprising that all theories of economic systems devote much attention to discussion of the working class. In that regard, the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism considers the needs of the worker to be of paramount importance, whereas capitalism considers the worker as a means to an end – the end of economic progress. Of course, the ultra-capitalists put a gloss over their economic philosophy so as to make themselves seem more humane. Their assertion is that by making economic progress the end goal, all of society will benefit. The ultra-capitalist in this sense is the true believer in the discredited theory of “trickle-down economics”.

That is not to say that I am against capitalism. I believe that some form of capitalism has a genuine place in society. I believe that competition – rewarding people for their good work – plays an important role in a progressive society. But when “economic progress” becomes the primary purpose of our economic system; when corporations are put above people with the excuse that the riches that flow to corporations will inevitably trickle down to everyone else, then we have a big problem.

Jared Bernstein, in his book “Crunch – Why Do I Feel So Squeezed”, discusses the fact that “economic progress” does not necessarily benefit society as a whole, by noting the disconnect between “economic progress” and welfare of ordinary Americans during the Bush administration:



The alienation of today’s workers

Tony Mazzocchi, founder of the U.S. Labor Party and the man who allied with Karen Silkwood in her attempts hold her corporate bosses accountable for their abuses of the environment and their workers, and one of the greatest and most progressive labor leaders of the 20th Century, was acutely aware of the concept of worker alienation throughout his career and his life. “Alienation” is described by Erich Fromm as:


What that means in terms of the working person is that the work s/he performs has become meaningless to him or her. Work is simply something that must be performed in order to obtain the sustenance with which to live. It has no intrinsic meaning. It is therefore boring in the extreme.

Tony Mazzocchi fought all his life for his progressive vision of labor, while doing whatever he could to ally the U.S. labor movement with the environmental, anti-war, and universal health care movements, in the belief that we’re all in this together. He was the driving force behind the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Before he died of pancreatic cancer in 2002, at the age of 76, he articulated this vision of a society that would be much less likely to create alienated people:


Mazzocchi’s biographer, Les Leopold, sums up Mazzochi’s vision:



My personal experience with alienation from work

I have worked for the FDA since 1999. At many times during this period I have felt alienated from my work. The alienation occurs when I consider my work meaningless and boring. One might ask why I should feel alienated from a job that seems on the surface to be so meaningful. The causes of alienation from work are not always apparent – even to oneself. But here are some reasons for my alienation from my work, as I see it:

A few years ago the FDA decided to pull a scientific article that I wrote that was about to be published in a widely read medical journal. The article concerned a medical device that I believed was causing people to die (and the editors of the journal who accepted my article for publication obviously agreed with me). The article had already been cleared by the FDA, but when the manufacturer of the medical device in question complained about the article to the Bush appointed FDA Commissioner, Lester Crawford, the FDA had second thoughts about it. Needless to say, I was not unhappy when someone leaked the story to the Wall Street Journal, where it appeared on their front page.

FDA scientists sometimes work for months in evaluating a product for potential FDA approval, conclude that it is too dangerous to be approved, and then are simply over-ruled by higher level FDA managers, who have little or no understanding of the product and give no reasons for their decision. FDA managers often trip all over themselves to make sure that the representatives of powerful industries are happy with them. They wouldn’t think of making a major decision on a product without first giving representatives of the applicable industry the chance to meet in person with them, and yet the same courtesy is rarely afforded to consumer groups. This problem came to public attention when in October 2008 whistleblowers at FDA wrote to Congress about rampant corruption there:


These accusations of whistleblowers are substantiated by a poll of FDA scientists conducted by The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER):


I was an FDA manager myself until a few of years ago. Things were beginning to get somewhat tense, and then my supervisor informed me that from then on my performance evaluation would include the extent to which I enthusiastically described, to the scientists under my supervision, the programs supported by FDA management. Well, for me that was the end of 17 years as a middle manager. Pretending enthusiasm for things that I don’t even agree with is not my idea of doing meaningful work. Losing my managerial position was one of the best things that ever happened to me.


A word about the balance between integrity and job satisfaction

I have been very fortunate because, as a government worker for most of my career my job has been protected by Civil Service laws to a great extent. Not that I have ever felt 100% secure. But at least I haven’t usually had to worry about being fired because of a disagreement with my boss.

Most people aren’t so fortunate. Scientists who work in the private sector are often faced with ethical dilemmas, sometimes with very bad consequences. For example, there was a time when epidemiologists working for cigarette companies were the primary defenders of the bogus claim that there was no proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. The rationale behind a capitalist economic system is that people should get rewarded for doing good work – presumably work that benefits society. But often the opposite is the case. The epidemiologists who defended the safety of cigarettes were undoubtedly generously rewarded by the tobacco corporations they worked for. You can just imagine what happened to those epidemiologists who refused to play ball. Politicians get money from corporations for pushing legislation that benefits those corporations at the expense of the public interest. CEOs get multi-million dollar salaries for running their companies into the ground.

How does one maintain one’s integrity – and sanity – in such a world? Most people want to do the right thing. But we also need to survive and provide for our families. This dilemma was illustrated by a recent post in which a DUer asked for help in advising his student daughter on how to answer the history question: “Why do Americans fight and die for freedom and democracy?” The way I interpreted the situation, the daughter was faced with two choices: Answer the question honestly and risk getting in trouble with the school; or, make up a bullshit answer to stay in good graces with her teacher, but in so doing risk being alienated from herself. This is not a trivial dilemma. How well we do in school can have great consequences in our lives. But becoming alienated from ourselves by developing the habit of dishonesty can also have great negative consequences. I felt that I was in no position to offer advice on this matter.

One has to strike some sort of reasonable balance between saying what they believe and maintaining job security. I do that by thinking long and hard before saying something that is likely to antagonize those for whom I work. I never object to work that I’m given just because I have vague misgivings about it. Before expressing controversial opinions I need to feel very confident that my opinion is valid (I came within an inch of getting fired one time because I didn’t follow that rule). Since I’m a Civil Service worker I can usually feel pretty safe in handling things that way. But again, most people aren’t so fortunate. The dilemma of facing a choice between doing the right thing or maintaining job security is not uncommon in our society – especially for politicians.


The excoriation of socialism in American society

In this post about Socialism I felt the need to talk about some of the problems with capitalism in our own society because those are the problems that socialism is meant to solve. The question of how solve these problems is more difficult to answer than simply recognizing that they exist.

I recently had a conversation with fellow DUer rtassi that helped me to see this issue more clearly. Our conversation was about the problem of how we can get rid of the corporatocracy that currently has such excessive influence over how our country is governed. He told me that he believed the problem will be solved only when a tipping point is reached in which sufficient numbers of Americans acquire an understanding of how their nation is ruled, combined with the spiritual readiness to reject that situation – actively or passively. I agree, and that idea is very similar to that expressed by Proudhon, as I noted above.

One of the great obstacles to Americans obtaining a better understanding of their government is the savage excoriation of socialism promulgated by our nation’s conservative elite since the mid-Nineteenth Century. Of course there is a very good reason for this excoriation. Our elite want to maintain the vast wealth distance between themselves and most other Americans. Socialism will greatly hamper their chance of continuing to do that. Erich Fromm explains the problem (which is true today as it was in 1955 when he wrote this, although probably less so):


Today their big bogeyman is health care reform. In addition to all the lies they tell us, they tell us that publicly provided health insurance is socialism, and it will therefore result in catastrophic consequences if it gets implemented here. Well, they’re right about one thing. Publicly provided health insurance IS socialism – as is Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, public schools, public highways, the U.S. military and so many other things that we currently have and need. They can’t get rid of all these things because they have been so successful. And they know that a good public health insurance plan will be a great victory for socialism and the American people, and a great defeat for their own plans.

Fromm concludes that Socialism “can be understood only as one of the most significant, idealistic and moral movements of our age.” And if it benefits the American people, then we have the right to construct it for our own benefit. Our government does not exist for the purpose of meeting the needs of corporate elitists. It is our government, and we have the right to demand that it meets our needs.

:toast:

What do you teach?

There is so much negative influence from the media and RW political machine I was afraid a more sophisticated view was not being taught.

I am a longtime anarchist and advocate of Marxist theory: I stand aghast at the number of American hysteria about socialism. The rote reaction is the fear and revulsion of "picking up the other guys' slack so you can never get rich." It is insufferable to me, the distortion that "picking up the other guys' slack" is a cynical view of helping and/or cooperating with your fellow citizens; "you can never get rich," is another way of saying you believe you deserve more in life than others.

It is a theory that has inculcated generations of Americans, even the purported fundamental Christians: if they read the New Testament, I don't know how they can fail to see their Saviour was a Communist! (sigh)

Your post brings to light the pride and vanity that underlies capitalism and its foundation of "private enterprise." That foundation is supported by corporate(read: self-interest) which slants reason when making decisions about the commonweal. Thus, the corruption in government for special interests, the bewildering ignorance (or denial) of how the other half lives, and the total indifference to the struggle and suffering of those around them. Because the rich are diabolical? No, they are simply good citizens: very little of the wrongs they do against their country and fellow citizenry is illegal.

As for the FDA, there is much money passed under the table that truly determines what gets passed and what doesn't. I am sorry for it: I should like to think when it comes to the health and safety of the American people, those employed in the FDA would remember they have families and friends they care about: so does everybody else. But what used to be called honor is now known as whistle-blowing, and when there is a line drawn between moral fortitude and job security, angels cry....

There are the wealthy corporate interests, who rightly see socialism as a threat to their grotesque wealth. These were the people who were virulently against FDR's New Deal, for which FDR used taxation rates of above 90% on the wealthy to pay for the social programs that our country needed.

And then there are the masses of American people who benefit greatly from elements of socialism that we currently have (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), and who would benefit much more if we went further (e.g. universal health care), but who are fooled by the propaganda of the wealthy elite, who equate socialism with Stalinism in order to fill the American people with fear and prevent socialism from gaining any traction here.

Fox News and talk radio saturation. Not to mention the pathetic coverage on broadcast MSM and in print.

I've lately been telling people to stop using words (socialism) that they don't understand. It's especially galling, going to the gym, and listening to old loudmouths, on SS, and Medicare, railing about Obama Socialism. I pissed a few off the other morning, when I made the manager change the TV channel on the box in front my elliptical machine where I was going to spend the next 45 minutes. He asked what I wanted, and I said "Anything. I just want it off Fox".

We really need higher tax rates on wealth. Not just to pay for health care, but higher (and lower) education. When I graduated high school, a family, normally back then (69-70), with one earner could live a middle class life style, and still put their kids through college. Now kids are graduating from State Universities and college, with $50-100,000 in student loan debt. I hate to even think what a medical student has to repay.

We also need to re-prioritize our spending. With another expansion in Afghanistan, and over 100,00 contractors, plus troops in Iraq, Obama is quickly becoming the next Lyndon Johnson, minus the social progress.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.




By this (simple) definition the people who think we are on the road to Socialism must agree with Karl Marx that capitalist societies will evolve into communist societies.

We know this to be wrong. The truth is that communist societies evolve into capitalist ones. We have seen this happen with the USSR and it is also happening at a slower pace in China. Cuba is the last bastion of Marxism and it will eventually turn capitalist also, it is inevitable. Marx had it backward and so does everyone who thinks there is any danger of America turning socialist or communist.

The things these people think of as socialist are merely populist. Our system does have the Government provide some services but it does not in any way control "administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" other than to set safety standards.

That only a FULLY-DEVELOPED capitalist society would be ripe for the principles of communism to take root? That's said to be the biggest flaw of "Communism" (with a capital C) tried in economically backwards, agrarian Russia and China... they tried to skip the capitalist development step and look how many people died as a result of famines because of it. Would that be the case if it were tried today in America?

He agreed with the core message, but he felt that his theory was incomplete. In particular, he said that Marx had an incomplete understanding of the relevant psychological issues -- which of course was not Marx's fault, but it meant that his theories were incomplete. More specifically, Fromm says:


My interpretation is that Fromm is saying that the main problem with Marx's theories is that, because of his incomplete understanding of psychology he didn't sufficiently warn of the dangers of socialism being perverted into something like Stalinism. Marx did NOT specifically advocate violence as a means of progressing towards socialism. However, Fromm blames him for not adequately warning against violence. And he believes that that opened the door for the disaster in Russia, where the movement turned into a top-down dictatorship, rather than the grass-roots movement that it needed to be. In addition, Fromm believed that Marx was too dogmatic in his views, which also helped to open the door to the excessively dogmatic movement in Russia.

In the play (with music) "Marat/Sade" there is a great debate between Marat and de Sade that goes something like this: (I haven't seen or read it in years so....)

After Marat give a speech about the revolution making everyone equal, de Sade says:

"Number one can cook
Every dish in the book
Number two does your hair
With exceptional flair..."

(and it goes on with other similar couplets...8 in all I think. Then de Sade points out:

"Do you think all these workers will be content banging their heads on the ceiling of equality?"

I wish I was at home so I could get the script out and type out the whole scene.

The film of Peter Book's production of this by the RSC is great....and strange. Worth checking out.

http://www.amazon.com/Marat-Sade-Patrick-Magee/dp/B00005BKZN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marat/Sade_(film)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060668/


It made Glenda Jackson a star!


And what's that Vonnegut work where everyone must be equal so as not to upset anyone not so good at something as another might be? If you're beautiful, you must wear a mask. If you can read well, you must wear glasses that make it so you can't see. Dancers have their arms and legs tied together with springs. "Between Time and Timbuktu"?

Kinda like public school now. Can't fail anyone! Might hurt their feelings!

a fully developed capitalist society never showed the slightest revolutionary stirrings. Guess we'll just have to keep things the way they are.

Actually, in China anyway, the big famine of the 1920's and 30's was a result of ignoring science.

Thank gawd we don't ignore science in America!!!!! :silly:

That's how J. Edgar Hoover always referred to it --

I'm not opting for communism of any kind --

we need economic democracy centered in social consciousness --

There's an old Russian joke . . .

Q. What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

A. Under capitalism man exploits man --

Under communism it's just the reverse.

what the definition of socialism is.

We would be living in a different type of country, I bet?

Lawrence O'Donnell last week was making a point of challenging a Republican congressman who opposes health insurance reform by stating flatly that Medicare IS socialism, successfully and popularly so, and demanding why the congressman won't renounce those programs and demand their cancellation. O'Donnell was seeking to reclaim the word "socialism" from those who've made it a term of derision by acknowledging that there ARE aspects of accepted American governance that truly are socialism, and that we accept and even cherish those aspects.

It seemed a bold and overdue tactic in the debate.


Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful exposition, Tfc.

It surprised me. It certainly is an overdue tactic.

first thing I would say is that the general understanding that the public have of "socialism" is
that it has something to do with the Nazis -

True ... because Hitler co-opted a legitimate social organization which stood for women's rights,
abortion, etal -- and immediately co-opted/overturned its goals.

On the other hand, they also seem to connect it with Russia and "Communism" however any system kept
in place by force as "Totalitarian Communism" was, should be disregarded.

The corporate press/journalists, of course, could readily and easily explain all of this to the public but as with so many other issues, this works in their interests -- corporatist interests.



Re capitalism, I disagree with this . . .

That is not to say that I am against capitalism. I believe that some form of capitalism has a genuine place in society. I believe that competition – rewarding people for their good work – plays an important role in a progressive society.

Certainly there is nothing about capitalism's intent which is benign nor innocent.
Which is why I repeatedly say that unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.
Clearly, capitalism is a "King-of-the-Hill" system --
Capitalism is intended to move the wealth and resources of nations from the many to the few --
and does that quite successfully.
Capitalism is based on exploitation -- control over other human beings for profit.
"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are the licenses to exploit nature, natural
resources, animal life and even other humans according to various myths of "inferiority."

Further, I'm not sure if you are connecting "competition" with capitalism -- if so, I disagree.
Capitalism is not about competition . . . it's about killing the competition.
Finally, capitalism reduces itself to monopolies -- one example being ownership of our press by
just 5 major corporations now.

Also disagree with this . . .

Since all societies require people to do work, and since work is necessary for any kind of progress. . .

There has been at least one study done which weighs our having created "bus-i-ness" versus our
invention of it never having existed. Seems we'd have saved the planet -- water, oceans, air,
trees. It is the drive to control others, to control resources, which creates the need to
"work" as we understand it today. This may be more of a philosophical response, but our true
occupations seem more connected to the humanities.

Nor is any of this new . . . this is the second fleecing by capitalism our nation has suffered in
only a short span of time -- last crash was 1929! Capitalism has constantly "failed."
Right now we are subsidizing capitalism, again.

Re workers, I would stress again that our road to happiness doesn't begin with a phone/pencil/paper.
Labor which has no connection to humane endeavor is meaningless.

We have simply to look at our system of medicine today to understand that it is not based upon
wisdom but upon control of artificial chemicals and invasive procedures.

"Idleness is the beginning of all wisdom" --

Every newspaper has a "bus-i-ness" section -- almost none have a LABOR section!

:)

1. When I say that I am not against capitalism, that doesn't mean that I'm not against unrestrained/unregulated capitalism. It just means that I believe that there is some place for elements of captialism in our country's economic system. Or more specifically, I mean that I believe that there is value in allowing market principles to work in some situations.

2. With regard to my statement that work is necessary, that doesn't mean that work that uses up resources or contributes to the destruction of our planet is necessary. For one thing, work can be intellectual work. For another thing, work can and IS directed towards conserving resources and developing ways, through research, to minimize or reverse the destruction that's occurred to our planet, for example. But I cannot coneive of a society that does no work. How would they survive in such a situation? Where would they get their food and water?

therefore, my reply seems apt --

Of course, we must have regulated capitalism . . . but we have had it and the power of
corporations/capitalism worked to overturn it -- again creating worldwide suffering and
pain.

The idea of "market principles" actually working is proven many times over to be untrue.
Rather, we have free enterprise for the poor and welfare for the rich.
We have a bank setting what is called economic policy for the country, whereas that is
something our Congress should be doing -- it's political -- there should be repercussions
when the policies lead to criminal acts. Rather, our Congress should be striving for
economic democracy, without which there is no democracy.

Re work . . . it is any suggestion that we do it in the employ of others. It took intellect
to build the WTC towers, but was that really "progress" or less destructive because it took
thought/intelligence? And, what "work" do we possibly do these days which doesn't consume
energy/resources? Where is the end result of the development and research intended to
minimize or reverse destruction of the planet?

Again, it's not about work or no work . . . it's about working for oneself, for society, for
human interests. To enrich life for ourselves and others.

Look at the Industrial Revolution which has so impacted nature/planet --
How did people survive before that -- before capitalism?
In fact, how did they survive before we invented the dollar bill - the Federal Reserve?
Where did they get food and water?
Food not systemically penetrated with chemicals --
Water not befouled/poisoned with corporate waste and every other kind of waste --

:)


PS: Interesting that you work for the FDA . . . !!
Monsanto's FDA . . . ???



AND, here's a definition of work . . .

"The human self defines itself and grows through love and work -- all psychology before
and after Freud boils down to that." Betty Friedan

There's another nice quote by her which I can't find right now which goes something like ...
We come to know ourselves thru creative work of our own . . .

I'm a socialist, but I'm no Marxist. My socialism is based on ethical and practical grounds, not the bunk Marxist theory of history. I call myself a "Libertarian Socialist"; skeptical of authoritarian statism but not anti-state like the anarcho-socialists.

My ideal society is one based on co-ops in a reasonably-regulated market economy with a liberal-democratic government that is open and transparent with free and fair elections.

Groucho and John.

For some reason, Marx's ideas became the most popular or well known among them. Fromm, although agreeing with the core of what Marx had to say, also had a lot of criticisms of it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6371466#6373320

Why replace one failed theory with another failed theory?

I have to use different tools to work one my car. I don't use a socket wrench for everything. Sometime I need a open ended wrench, sometimes even a hammer. Trying to push people into one theory is bound for failure, especially when that theory ignores basic human behavior. Why not use different theories, socialism for healthcare, capitalism for widgets?

I always thought America took the best of the world and made it her own.

America at its best is not capitalist or democratic....it is a socialistic democracy. We call it "regulations". That's why deregulation has screwed thing up royally and the screw-you-capitalists love it.

that is the management of economic activity through the profit motive, has outlived its usefulness and now is clearly a detriment to the production of social good.

We now have plenty of production. What we need to do now, is to focus people on doing more with less. More transportation, less energy. More food, less work. The less side of the equation runs counter to the profit motive. Couple the cold, predatory behavior of corporations with the fact that individual human beings have never acted solely, or even mainly out of economic self-interest, and you can see how Smith's model just doesn't work for the concentrated, high energy society we have become, rather than the distributed, low-energy society he was observing.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? and who decides need? Is the garbage man going to be on equal economic footing with the molecular biologist?

>>individual human beings have never acted solely, or even mainly out of economic self-interest

Uh, since when? I would say most people act out of economic self-interest. The rich do, the poor do. Its just hidden with the poor.

Replacing one system that needs some major adjustment with one that is a TOTAL failure really doesn't seem to be an improvement to me.

You will see that most individuals do not make day to day decisions that optimize their economic benefit.

As to what I would suggest . . . I have offered it up here before. I suggested a system that puts a cap on income (defined for individuals as all monies received from whatever source including, without limitation, work, investment, inheritance, etc.) for any individual or company at $1 million. Companies would be allowed to deduct any dividends paid to shareholders, as well as other expenses from revenues to arrive at income. I also suggested a floor of $10,000 in income for each person. In my opinion, we simply no longer need to offer the promise of extreme great wealth to promote innovation, etc. And we have enough national wealth to guarantee everyone a minimally acceptable lifestyle. The 100:1 ratio is enough to provide whatever incentives we need.

As to your "total failure" point, see the OP for an explanation of why Stalinism is not a good paradigm for socialism, or the suggestion I make.

As the Marx quote should have told you.

I don't believe in caps on wealth. The reason is, how do you implement them?

Having a more graduated tax rate would achieve the same thing, without the hassle. say 75% on 1 million+.

And you get $10,000 in income from welfare, I believe, maybe more. I remember a friends sister being on it, and I was amazed.

We never needed the promise of extreme great wealth, we didn't in the late 40's, 50's and 60's, when the top tax rate was closer to 90%.

I'm all for socialism, and changing the government to a parliamentary style, with the bill of rights.

100% tax brackets. Confiscatory income and estate taxes. So long as we encourage the accumulation of wealth, we are going to have problems in our economy -- wealth accumulation leads to overproduction -- more is produced to produce more profit but no attention is paid to consumption. Right now, the a lot of the world is in an overproducing mode. Thus, businesses lack pricing power and people lack purchasing power.

I don't think that Stalinism is a good paradigm for Marxism either (and I think that the OP was making that point). The OP makes a great point about alienation and its effects on a human being. He also goes on to point out that Stalinism was not communalism or communism, but perhaps the highest, most concentrated and alienating form of capitalism.

I see no reason why we couldn't have free elections, term limits, a free press and a flat income (everyone allocated the same amount of purchasing power).

whether you look at the recent destruction -- or you look at the destruction

of the environment/planet -- !

Proudhon had a deep insight with his realization that "the prime cause of all disorders and ills of society (is) the single and hierarchical organization of authority."

Since hierarchies, at least at their current degree of elaboration, seem antithetical to human fulfillment, much care, attention and coercive effort is needed to ensure that they stay in place. This has resulted in an entire society trained to see hierarchy as inevitable, essential and positive. Most of the high-level institutions of our society are dedicated at some level to preserving this world view and ensuring that the natives don't get too restless. I wrote about this aspect of our situation in a short article called http://www.paulchefurka.ca/GuardianInstitutions.html">The Guardian Institutions of Hierarchy.


At some pre-conscious level most of us understand this, but our self-programming has been so effective that few of us can conceive of any alternative as realistic.

I don't believe that status seeking is the only reason for hierarchies, and I do believe that they can serve important purposes.

I have been in work situations where attempts were made to eliminate hierarchies in parts of the organization, and I don't think it worked out very well. The main problem as I saw it was that when the accomplishment of a task has no hierarchical structure to support it, that means that no single individual is responsible for seeing that it is accomplished. That can be a recipe for all parties ignoring the task, which means that it won't get done.

Even with only two people involved, it is often the case, I believe, that someone has to be in charge. If not, then how are disagreements handled? You can try to solve them amiably, but sometimes the disagreement turns out to be unsolvable unless one of the two has the authority to over-ride the other. In that case, the project simply comes to a halt because I decision cannot be made.

That's not to say that hierarchies can't be destructive as well. I think that the challenge is to find the proper balance.

seem invisible to the public which they control --

Why don't we properly refer to organized patriarchal religion, for instance, as

a system of male supremacy? Why aren't we taught that it is merely an invention of

patriarchy?

Seemingly, what isn't discussed on TV doesn't exist?

A marvelous essay, Time, and most needed in these times of accelerated capitalist decline; thank you for it.

It's long seemed to me that one of the driving forces of capitalism (and a peculiarly Western disease) is rabid individualism, coupled perversely with a desire to merge into the tiny capitalist class; that is, being a law unto oneself while at the same time desperately wanting to be a member of a perceived elite...no wonder so many capitalists are schizophrenic.

Anyway, what I really wanted to bring up here, along with congratulating Time for his wonderful article, is what I think to be an excellent model for the transition from capitalism to socialism; it's Loyola philosophy professor David Schweickart's Economic Democracy, a basically market-socialist framework that includes:

* Worker Self-Management: Each productive enterprise is controlled democratically by its workers.

* The Market: These enterprises interact with one another and with consumers in an environment largely free of governmental price controls. Raw materials, instruments of production and consumer goods are all bought and sold at prices largely determined by the forces of supply and demand.

* Social Control of Investment: Funds for new investment are generated by a capital assets tax and are returned to the economy through a network of public investment banks.

With this system, the means of production will be solely for the use of workers in particular and society in general; it will also give us valuable insight into, and practical knowledge of, how to operate industries in this democratic manner as a prelude to full socialization, if that's the will of the people.

More can be learned of Economic Democracy here:

http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2007/06/29/economic-democracy-a-worthy-socialism-that-would-work/

and here:

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

A Wikipedia article about Professor Schweickart is here:

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

I could also say that freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Equal access to resources is good if you don't have the means to afford them. Equal access to resources is threatening if you are greedy and well off.

I don't know how else to say it. This is the fight we are in with conservatives, in a nutshell. The Republicans have turned their party into an elite club. It gives participants the hope that they can be elite and wealthy just by being a part. It's the party of exclusion and reservation. And it's a lie.

The American people have been conditioned to believe, and too many of them DO believe, that wealth is proof of one's value and contribution to society and is always earned and well deserved.

If I agreed with that I would be much more inclined to be wary of taxing the rich to provide for the social programs that our country needs. However, the belief that wealth is proof of one's contribution to society ignores the obvious fact that the wealthy, through the political influence that money can buy, have rigged the system to provide them with advantages that are terribly difficult to overcome. We are not operating on a level playing feel, and I think that that ought to be obvious to anyone who is willing to look at the situation thoroughly and objectively. I think that it takes incredible arrogance for the wealthy to claim that their wealth is evidence of their value to society.

By almost all standards, I am wealthy. I am on my tractor today, building my new septic system on my 100 acres with an ocean view. I didn't earn my money because I wanted money, though. This is my apology. I earned it because of my disappointment. It's a long story. I wanted beauty, not money. And by trying to find it, I ended up with money. Weird. But my point is, even liberals don't want to see their money taken from them. All but the most open minded and giving would rather keep their money. My mother and father share Dennis Kucinich's values, yet would rather have their life's earnings go to their children rather than the government.

So it seems to me that the terms "people" and "government" are troublesome. And they should be. Because if the government spent it's money on the people, rather than on bombs and military, we might be much more willing to let them have it.

This could be one of the big issues that divides the two parties. Although I suppose that Norquist didn't have any of this in mind when he wanted gov't to die. He just wanted a free for all. Not equality. I don't necessarily want equality either. I want to see a minimum of dignity. Not sick people and homeless. As a result, what I see in this society is hatred.

I care far more for the poor than the rich. I physically hurt right now because of those who suffer. I suffer with them. No amount of money can change that.

Wealth is not a goal that brings happiness. I don't think those words are meaningful. But when one gains wealth, they become meaningful. They did to me. The darkest days in my life were when I finally had enough money that I didn't have to work. And when I was still unhappy, I realized that it wasn't money, but it was me. It is love. It is caring. It is sharing.

I'm pretty sure you're right that if our government spent its money more on people than on the military that people would be more willing to pay taxes -- especially if they clearly saw where their taxes were going, beyond the propaganda being thrown at them by our corporate media.

Even so, you seem to have forgotten the most fundamental concept that America was founded upon, that we are the government. That the government derives it's power from the acceptance of the people, rather than through might or divine providence. We had it, imperfectly and incompletely, for a short time after our founding, but any egalitarian social model is intolerable to those compelled to steal from and rule over others.

"My mother and father share Dennis Kucinich's values, yet would rather have their life's earnings go to their children rather than the government."

This statement demonstrates the disconnect that has been burned into the American Psyche. It is American society that makes the acquisition of a "life's earnings" possible, but thanks to over a century of indoctrination, the idea of contributing a portion of that accumulation back into the system afterward is somehow equated with theft. That is the mindset of the parasite that rules our world (not that your parents are parasitic, I'm sure they would happily help their fellows, but the thought behind the resentment over inheritance taxation is the result of a perversion of American ideology).

Happiness indeed comes from within, as you have learned, but every conscious moment of our live's we are bombarded with the notion that it can only be had through external sources, primarily through participation in the parasite's game. This is what must change before we can save the world.
:kick:

I'm continuing to be frustrated by this. And it does make some sense that it exists, since no one is purely any one thing. That sounds lame as hell, doesn't it? Like an excuse.

But I may not have been clear in that one of the major reasons my parents would rather throw their money away than give it to the government is because of the size of the military spending. They are not opposed at all to helping. And in fact they helped Obama with big sums of cash. And they donate to worthy causes. When we ran a business in Silicon Valley, I remember my dad taking an order from a military contractor, and dropping into the garbage. With a smile.

I didn't mean to sound careless. It's easy to come across that way when talking about this kind of stuff. To be honest, if we were putting our taxes in places that were productive, I would be a lot less resistant to handing them my money. I hate the thought that my money produced bombs that killed people. That is the foundation behind our thinking. Not the Nordquist kind of twisted junk.

Like I said in another thread today, there is nothing more gratifying than helping others. And nothing more disabling than greed.

I appreciate people telling me when they think I'm full of it. Because I probably am. And I like discovering that I'm wrong.

Your reply just made some synapses wake up.

TfC mentioned ponerology in his excellent piece and I was just thinking of how pervasive and subtle this thought-infection is.

Thanks

condensed form that can be presented to those who need to learn this but who will never read anything more than 2-3 paragraphs? Better yet, a Powerpoint presentation?

Oh, and can anyone put this in the form of a sermon? You know, with lots of god and guilt stuff in it? We could mail copies to all the clergy in the country.

From an article by evangelical Christian minister Gary Vance, which I discuss in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6371466#6373320

You might find something you could use in his article. Here is an excerpt:

... between a worker and the wrench he holds.

I had a strange feeling yesterday as I was digging a ditch. A neighbor had told me to simply hire Mexican workers to do this kind of work. It's hard to put in to words. Why someone should do something, and get paid less for it than the same thing by someone else. So as I was digging, I began to think about being an employee, and how much I made per hour. Or per movement. As if I were the very tool itself, rather than a human being. And so how much would that shovel movement be worth? And who would decide what it's worth?

There is another side to this. If we paid just a little more, we could boost those who don't get paid as much. We could give dignity to people. This has big consequences for our society. I have watched this since I was a young child. That person who labored, and worked, while someone with higher status could simply relax, and watch, and control. I believe the result is a society of guilt and sadness. We aren't really even conscious of it, but it has dragged us down. This includes things like invading Iraq. They become de facto employees. More like victims. And if we turn this around, I see where we can lift everyone higher. The intention of fair trade coffees is to give those workers education, health care, better income. And I think of the psyche of the country were this to be the case. I guess we just don't value smiling and satisfaction in this country. We certainly don't care about health.

There is hope. I am almost always hopeless. But every once in a while I see a glimmer of what could be.

It eats itself up in boom and bust cycles. Every 20 years in the 19th century, there was a depression as the market took a dive. It was only in the 20th century that we got a handle on it, sort of. The Great Depression was the last in the cycle. With the Republican and democrats undoing the controls that FDR put in place, those times might return.

I have hoped that an extended examination of the morally reprehensible practices of the Bush Cheney Regime would lead Americans to say-- we don't want this being done in our name-- over an over again, so that they might examine the unjust economic practices sustained in their name and be encouraged to seek out more morally defensible alternatives.

Our country needs to make profound changes to survive-- it needs to examine many questions on a practical and moral basis-- how can 1/20th of the world's population use 1/5 of its resources (those were the numbers years ago), for example. How can we expect India and China to cut back when we won't make big enough cuts in our own carbon emissions?

And exposure of the rampant war profiteering will also clarify the destructive power of unregulated or crony-regulated capitalism. Sec Def Cheney promotes privatization of military services. After leaving office he works for the firm that provides those services and becomes its CEO. Then he returns to govt as VP who continues increasing the privatization of military services to his (and his friends') benefit and the nation's disgrace and devastation.

And what is the cost of oil if the costs of warfare to dominate the suppliers (directly and indirectly) is figured into it? Has it really been that much cheaper than "too expensive" solar would have been to develop when we first wanted it seriously in the 70's?

Months of hearings on the horrifying things the Bush Gang did in our name would be very instructive.

Republicans would try to make the discussion about how destructive and unfair it would be to have hearings and question authority "in a time of war" (reclassified as "always" with the Cheney approach of an unlimited "war on terror.")They'd accuse the Democrats of "partisan witch hunting"-- they who have paid PR firms to stir up dangerous fear and hatred to shout down health insurance reform.

But Democrats could shake things up and solidify their futures outside of corporate dominance by turning the questions around and asking critics if they condone torture or war profiteering. Asking which they consider worse-- Democrats holding Republican administrations accountable or administrations committing war crimes in our name.

Impeachment can still be done, I heard John Nichols say recently. I still yearn for it. Thorough hearings would help more people realize it is time for a change.

his failure to hold the Bush/Cheney administration accountable for their actions is one of the most, if not THE most upsetting to me.

it might indeed help the nation focus on our urgent need to change course.

i.e. this is how bad unbridled corporate and executive branch power can get. Are we okay with that? Do we not have any limits?

It is a subject of utmost importance to our country -- will be instrumental in determining whether we are a country a laws or a country to be dominated by the unrestrained will of corporate power.

Can we please have a dash of socialism/noble ideals back?

I see in my peripheral vision that now the new attack on the public option and health reform is that you know, we just don't have the money. They say the desperate 47,000,000 million of our fellow citizens and the millions more going bankrupt from medical bills are just going to have to wait until after the recession.

Would we be letting our legislators get away with such shamelessly cruel statements so easily if we had actually held the Bush Gang accountable for their violations of domestic and international law?

We might recognize evil more openly if we had been examining it in gory detail for months in the impeachment trials of Cheney and Bush. We might even be sick of it by now and in need of some more hopeful principles.

:kick:

to call someone a "bad name" was "fa_ggot." We had no idea of what it meant, just that it was supposed to be bad. I think most of the rabid right rabble using "socialist" now use it the same way we used the F slur.

I wonder if most of these people think of taxes as being "socialist" or simply extortion.

Adding this to my journal for future reference and for the edification of those indoctrinated into the perverted "American way".
:kick: & R

A healthy and prosperous democratic society can not exist without a hybridization of socialist and capitalist principles. The industrialist ruling class have relentlessly pushed for a return to laissez-faire corporatism for decades. And not simply in the United States, but the world over. For those who have not read Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine', I would very much recommend that you do.

It seems as if the Corporate Powers that grow stronger every day seems to be setting the stage for a Totalitarian form of control.

By way of example, the company I just started working for last week manufactures solar panels. They recently built a very large factory that cost close to $1B. Where did that money come from? They raised it from venture capitalists, people who put their own resources at risk to fund the project, in the hope (and belief) that it would return a profit. If it does not return a profit, they lose (unless you're a Wall St banker who can fleece the taxpayers to be made whole again).

This factory employs 800 workers. If those workers had pooled their collective resources and toiled for 10,000 years, they would not create a single panel. They provide the brute force to run the factory, but without the capital to fund the hundreds of scientists and engineers for a decade to develope the technology and the hundreds of process steps necessary to produce solar arrays, the factory would never produce a single product.

So when I hear people speak of collectives designing, building, marketing and selling products, and sharing in the rewards, I have to roll my eyes. This might work for pre-industrial age products, but something as complex as an automobile, aircraft or semiconductor requires a huge up-front outlay of private capital.

considered here is how for the worker's the question is which situation contributes the most to what I need to be happy and how the answer to that question now no longer necessarily favors money nor technology.

that their capital is somehow a divine right of ownership and that capital could not exist without the capitalist. Of course the capitalist must first seize control of political ideologies, the media, the courts, law enforcement etc…, at which time they can write the laws and have them enforced to the affect of having the divine right to never lift a finger towards actual labor, while reaping 99.9999% of the benefits of labor, which in turn gives them a lot of capital - which includes you the laborer - to keep the ball rolling.

The fact is that a change in the monetary system could wipe out the fortunes of those who never did a hard days worth of work in their entire life, and thus restore the value of labor to the people who actually did the work.

Slave owners obtained and retained control of the slave's labor through the application of outright theft, kidnapping, brutal force and threat of death or dismemberment. This was an extremely immoral and inefficient economic system.

I am under absolutely no obiligation whatsoever to report to work for my employer. I do so because I calculate that the value of my labor is a fair trade for the monetary compensation I receive. The minute this ceases to be the case, off I go.

As far as holders of capital having never done an honest days' work in their entier lives, that may be the case for individuals who've inherited their wealth, but that can be corrected through the tax code. I assure you that I have worked like a dog for over 30 years and I hold what would be considered by most people to be a great deal of capital. I have acquired my wealth not through any form of theft, but by trading my skills (engineering) for the salaries my employers have paid me.

By trading value for value, my employer and I have both benefited. I, in turn, use the money I earn to pay others for their services. Freely, with no coercion or slavery involved.

I have never seen a more beautiful and moral system in my life. Which is exactly why capitalism has become the dominant economic system on the planet.

Virtually all of the wealth in the US can be more or less directly traced to murder and theft. Since all capital at some level depends on this appropriation of the common wealth formerly held by the First Americans, it makes sense to me that our common power, i.e., the government should lay claim to some of it.

I also take issue with your "work is a choice" premise. It sounds eerily like whoever it was that said both the rich and the poor are free to sleep under bridges. If work were truly a choice (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be) then capitalism would have a sounder moral basis. Provide sufficient, but not luxurious, food, shelter, healthcare and education, then yes, work could be called a choice.

Finally, are there not many things that society would like to encourage that don't lead directly to monetary profits? And conversely, are there not many ways to profit that society ought to discourage, if not outright outlaw?

The profit motive as the ultimate arbiter of morality doesn't cut it for me.

> Virtually all of the wealth in the US can be more or less directly traced to murder and theft.

I think this can be claimed for every migration/colonization in human history. Just about every place that you can find people, there were other people there first who were displace by invaders with superior technology.

As you your statement that all the wealth in this country was stolen, I'm not buying it. Sure, the land was stolen, but the invaders added value to the land by mixing it with superior European technology to get the land to yield crops and factories that the natives had never dreamed of. We can feed hundred or thousands of people with the labor of one. We have doubled the human lifespan with improved nutrition, sanitation and medical care.

All of this was made possible by risk-taking and capital.

Whether all this technological progress has made our lives more fun is open to debate. We work much harder to obtain shit that we don't really need.

And I laud your choice to not drive an auto. May I ask what you do for work that allows you to eschew the use of a car?

> Finally, are there not many things that society would like to encourage that don't lead directly to monetary profits?

Absolutely, and I think Americans are the volunteering-est people in the world. But volunteerism is not an economic system.

And no I do not believe my analogy to be “quite the stretch” as it applies to unfettered capitalism. Nor do I believe that the lady you use as your avatar “Arundhati Roy” would believe that my “analogy is quite the stretch” because she is an anti corporation peace activist that see’s the international corporations as a plague on humanity, in fact one of my favorite quotes from her is that “They need us, we don’t need them!”

But I would like to clarify that I am happy for you that you have found gainful employment, and that I do not in no way shape or form believe that all corporations are bad, antithetical to public interest or out to enslave the working class of the world; but I have no doubt that some very powerful corporations are indeed out to do exactly that, and their only concern is making the biggest profit possible, and screw the innocent lives or environment that gets in their way; I have no doubt that they share the common characteristics of their ancestral slave owner forefathers that were forced out of the business of overt slavery to accomplish the same ends, but there is little doubt that they found the ways and means to stack the political arena with venal politicians that feel the same way as you, beholden to their every command; and they have created for themselves a covert debt based system of slavery that gives the working class a choice, except the chains of our system or live in squalor and die; or how about a little of both just in case you ever think about getting out of line...

Capitalism is a deeply flawed system, but, as the old saw goes, less flawed than all the others.

The major flaw is that it tends to create pockets of tremendous wealth. But this can be managed by the tax code if only the political will were present.

Certainly some, if not many, fail to thrive under this system for a variety of reasons. Lack of marketable skills, insufficient competitive drive (both competition and cooperation are hard-wired into our DNA, would you not agree?), market paradigms that create new industries and destroy old ones, etc.

But I take it as self-obvious that competition, a key feature of capitalism, produces not only some wasted effort, but ultimately, the best products and goods at the lowest price for consumers. When was the last time you drove a Soviet-era car, or flew on Aeroflot? I'll take an Audi and a Boeng any day, thanks.

At the end of the day, the people who complain the most loudly about the unfairness of it all are either genetically or constitutionally unable to thrive in this system. Or, they have a markedly unrealistic notion of the value of the services thay *can* provide.

If someone wants to smear their poo on a canvas and demand to be given compensation for their 'art', but there are no takers, then the system has worked as designed.

As to evil corporations, yeah, no doubt there are a lot. Bust up the monopolies and enforce the law, I say.

Why couldn't the scientists, engineers, etc. present their arguments as to why this plant would make the world a better place, make life better for everyone, to a council elected to allocate our national wealth?

The fact that (nearly) every allocation of capital has to be made on the basis of economic return is a dread disease that infects our social order from top to bottom.

by a desire to do what is best for the planet, but what is best for themselves and their families.

Do you drive a car? Would it not be better for the planet if you didn't? Your using a cumputer that was manufactured under deplorable conditions in some far-east hell. Why support such inhuman working conditions?

In fact, the best thing for the planet would be for us to reject all technology and revert to a total agrarian existance.

And on and on...

And the best thing would not be to reject all technology, but a good deal of it is superfluous.

And I disagree strongly with your premise on what motivates people, especially good people, but this is where I will never be able to penetrate your conditioning.

Thank you for revealing how you feel about your job. People know; they ARE talking about it, especially some of the young, many who have had it all . . . Our lives are vastly overflowing with sooooooooooo much and it's all soooooooo meaningless and most of the trappings of meaning, the colorful bunting and holy geegaw signifiers, all trips of the light-fantastic, and magic buzz words, all that was once tastey and sustaining is now worn out beyond repair.

This IS good, because all we have left now is one another.

it was my feelings of alienation from my job that was the main stimulus for my writing this post. I just happened to be reading Erich Fromm's book at the time, so it all fit together.

It doesn’t mater what political ideology you believe in; if it is assailable to the spellbinding affects; the predations and antics of predators, it will ultimately fail in its original purpose, which is to protect the majority of society from a minority of predators.

Of course it is only natural; that the psychologically impoverished authoritarian followers who lack in any understanding of the psychology of predators, that they should be totally misled by the esthetic facade and erroneous double speak of those who wrap themselves in patriotic and religious symbols so as they can dictate the world views too a naïve and gullible following; dictating that the followers should judge the ideologies of others by the corrupted misgivings which lead to failure, as if the individual caricatures to which the ideology fell victim, as well as the death, destruction and eventual abandon are results of the ideology itself; and so the façade of fallen tyrants unmasked remains the symbolic fear of a failed states ideology, thus perpetuating the pretense that certain ideologies give rise to tyranny, when in-fact, all ideologies have the inherent potential of failing and will fall victim to what social predators love best; and that is tyranny…

K&R
Larry

It’s funny how collective thinking works, we get the picture in our mind, struggle about how we’re going to write it down, and then we come to DU with hopes that maybe somebody else beat us to the punch and said it first.

Saves a lot of work that way don’t ya think? :toast:

help make it into a full thought.

One person responded to one of my posts, intending to insult. He said that I was throwing shit against the wall to see if it would stick. Yes, that's exactly what I do. Most of the time people tell me I am all messed up, and they are right, but I learn from the discussion.

the pretense that Stalinism represented all of socialism was successfully used by our country for 46 years as an excuse to perpetuate the Cold War. I would really like to know how many of our government leaders really believed that, and how many were just fooled into believing it.

Good questions… What bothers me is how much people like you, I and countless others have found and are finding out; things that would not in the least bit, surprise our founding fathers nor those who came before or after; as the recorders of history scribed many warnings. My guess would be that few elected leaders of our time would have clean hands; but the para-acceptable mem would dictate that, “hay that’s just politics…”

Socialism is municipal water treatment plants, the military, the city infrastructure, the FDA, and the fire department.

This sentence appears to end with a Freudian slip or did you do it on purpose to make a point. Or to see if I was paying attention. Or am I just crazy.

"..socialism considers the needs of the worker to be of paramount importance, whereas capitalism considers the worker as a means to an end – the end of economic progress." Did you mean to say that "..the end (is) economic progress"? in lieu of "of economic progress"?

I see that it works either way because as I understand capitalism the true end point of capitalism is the "end of economic progress". The capitalism snake is swallowing its own tail.

All we hear from our corporate media, in support of that end, is talk about so-called economic indicators that presumably indicate that our economy is doing well. This is sometimes referred to by such names as "jobless recovery".

But what exactly is a "jobless recovery"? It means that more is being produced, but that the average person is as insecure as ever. Or another way of putting it is that overall wealth is up, the wealth gap continues to widen to record levels, but the average American is in dire economic straights.

is good for the middle class?

And isnt it true that capitalism will eventually destroy itself?

Thank you for such well thought out and well written thoughts. Just the other day I encountered someone who was crying that fearful cry of socialism regarding the public option....I politely told them to consider that maybe a little socialism is just what is in order to balance capitalism run amok.

Thanks again :applause:

We need to keep on saying it!

Another great post, Time for change.

the quoted guys in the beginning (Proudhon, Babeuf etc...) were not socialists, they were utopian anarchists. In the beginning words had a different meaning.

socialism is based on the idea of collective ownership of all means of production by the State to ensure redistribution by "experts" according to a plan. Private property is limited to the individual (car, flat etc...), but the individual cannot own means of production. (Marx, Engels derived theories)

later there was a big split in the movement, when a part (that still call themselves socialists) wanted to achieve this goal through reform and democratic means, and those who meant that only a revolutionary way was possible (diverse communists). Anarchists had resorted to violence too and were practically wiped out both by the ruling classes and the communists.

The big scale experiments (Russia, China) turned into monumental catastrophies at all levels and collapsed to teturn to capitalism.

Today's "socialists" are overwhelmingly social-democrats or social-liberals (liberals original Enlightement sense), that is to say people that accept capitalism (or rather the market) as the so far best solution for growth, but want to regulate it to avert the perverse effects of raw capitalism. In practice European governments apply those policies even under the label of "conservatives". France, Germany, Sweden, Spain are the best examples. US Democrats are the right-wing of social-liberals (original sense). Liberals (US) are in practice social-democrats.

Communist parties are tiny minorities and have abandoned the revolutionary way and the theory of class-struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat. They are reformists with a "revolutionary" rhetoric. Besides the true "proletariat" which was by marxistic definitions aimed at be the new ruling class is about 18-25% of the population today and votes conservative to 50%. It is bound to disappear and be replaced by machines. Those who vote "socialist" today in Europe are mostly people into services and civil-servants. The "peasantry" is maybe at most 2% of the population and is deeply conservative. To define State intervention as "socialism" is ridiculous, as much as calling every conservative a nazi.

Two states can be today considered as socialistic : North-Korea and Cuba.

Socialism is dead, get over it.

since all means of production are controlled by the state.

If that's your idea of a modern definition, then I'm not interested.

an absolute Monarchy means that the King have the right to pass the power to his family, period. He is the commander in chief to which the landlords have pledged allegiance. But he doesn't OWN the means of production, only a little part of them. The big landlords do. And the bourgeois own the primitive factories. The majority of the population is working for the landlords, but the not negligible class of artisans and craftsmen own their small means of production (tools, cartwheels). Even peasants to a certain level can own some (a mill for example).

The King governs by distributing or increasing means of production to the trusted ones (barons, etc...) and even to those who serve him well like soldiers (mercenaries) and takes it away by violence from those who plot against him. Even in a modern absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia (one of the few still existing), the King doesn't own the oil wells. Some yes, but not all. There is a difference between control and ownership. In a socialist model the State both OWNS and controls the means of production.

In a parliamentary monarchy the King is merely a rallying symbolic figure, with far less ownership than the big capitalists. Example the UK.


PS : means of production = fertile land, forest, mines, machines, infrastructure (roads, harbours etc...)

be meaningless. You say "The King governs by distributing or increasing means of production to the trusted ones (barons, etc...) and even to those who serve him well like soldiers (mercenaries) and takes it away by violence from those who plot against him". You know very little about the USSR under Stalin if you think that that that differs in any significant way from Stalinism.

Stalin was a vicious dictator -- it's as simple as that. Go ahead and equate that with Socialism, and repeat all the stupid right wing talking points that you want. And then show who your heros are by quoting the arrogant words of Antonin Scalia: "Get over it".

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by free and equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. Socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

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

As if politics isn't a factor in how things get produced and whom they get distributed to?

ancient Greece was a democracy but economically a slave society. Politics reserved to the free citizens, was "how to rule the slaves" or how to get new ones (through war).
Same applied to Rome as a Republic. They had intensive and polite debates.

...is owned by a tiny minority, be they private citizens or a political party, what is the difference? A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly...and that is capitalism in its essence, private or state.

If instead that wealth is owned and operated by the public for the public good that is socialism, be it Marxist, democratic, libertarian, whatever your descriptor.

even 100 years ago there was still little poison in the word "socialism" in america. it is very interesting to see how a writer in 1888 described socialism and put forth some concepts that consistent with your opening statements

both nazism and communisim coopted socialism and effectively destroyed it forcing it into the dreaded and unforunate american political garbage heap of bogeymen.

It's old, and doesn't apply in today's progressive society.

A well written piece that has provoked several very good exchanges. I wish more people would take the time to read and comprehend more than a bumper sticker.
Final:kick:

Nine Eleven, one of the smaller Bay Area PBS stations starting playing this video, done way back in later forties or fifties, of what constituted fascism. And I remember that a contributing factor to whether a society is a fascist state or not is involved with the expenditure of vast sums of the public monies on war and military equipment. So by that definition, our society is more in line with a fascist state. (Plus the huge support by Obama administration for the Corporate Entities rather than the individual and small business person sure doesn't turn the tide back any.)