Another Socialism thread? Yep.

[RobertEarl]

Let's break this down.

First, because there is a lot of unknowing about what socialism is, and because the RW, when they use the word 'socialism' they mean communism, and socialism is not communism.

Not that I am the clearest writer on the subject, but because it seems so few are willing to tackle the subject, I have taken it on to try and deliver the subject in a way that makes sure that we can all go forth with a clearer understanding as we work to get that self-declared Democratic Socialist - Bernie Sanders, elected.

My latest iteration:

Socialism.................. vs. ..................... Capitalism

Freeways .................vs. .................... Toll roads

Libraries ...................vs .................... Bookstores

Defense department.... vs.............. Private armies

Justice system...........vs ............... Lynch mobs

Regulation of markets ...vs........ Black markets

The list can go on and on, but for now I'm gonna stop right here and see what you can add to it.

Basically, the government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people is best made to happen with a Democratic Socialism like the kind Bernie will bring to the White House.

[MaggieD]

1. I like a mix

I like the private enterprise of capitalism. I think it works as an incentive to grow the economy and adapt to economic changes. It also drives innovation.

I also like some aspects of socialism such as Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and a strong social safety net.

[daleanime]

52. Capitalism can be a powerful economic tool, I don't think a single socialist would disagree.....

with that. The problem with that is you have people who fall in love with this tool, either for it's power or the wealth they can obtain, and try to use it for everything.

This fails for everyone except those who run the games.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. community vs self-centeredness. n/t

[Gregorian]

3. Election.....Selection

I think this is a very important challenge. Finding the proper terms for those things that are for profit, that should be public. It's pretty difficult, which is why I think we've had such a hard time combating the likes of Limbaugh, and the Bush lies.

I was just thinking of doing this last night. We're all on the same Bernie wavelength.

I'm coming up with nothing. We don't have words to describe these things. An education which takes the rest of one's life to pay off should have a name besides debt.

[Starry Messenger]

4. The "commanding heights" of the economy are in public hands

vs. being in private hands and used to gouge people who need them for everyday life.

Also, not every hot dog stand is owned by the government. I don't know where people get that stuff.

Common ownership would cover essential services and people like the Koch brothers would be prevented from cornering the market, and then using that money to subvert democracy. By law.

Only being an American and subjected to Chamber of Commerce brainwashing has made any of this even remotely subversive.

However, one man isn't going to bring it to the White House. Most Presidents can't even execute the liberal project in this country.

[RobertEarl]

5. One man is a leader

The only way he gets there is by riding the shoulders of millions of people interested in taking back our American birthright of a government for the people.

When Bernie sits in the Oval office, millions of people who put him there vs the billions of dollars from bribes offered his opposition, will warm the seat and empower him to make the changes needed.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Bernie isn't going to sit in the Oval Office.

Too many voters have too much stuff riding on what will happen if the Repukes win. Bernie is awesome, but he's running to keep his ideas in the election, which is great. He's not a credible threat to the right wing.

[RobertEarl]

9. Obama can't win either?

You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that Bernie is starting a revolution that will cream the RW. The latent Obama hope and change meme which brought so many in to vote for the first time is what will carry Bernie in this revolution.

[Starry Messenger]

12. Obama was a clear champ with a coalition that coalesced around him swiftly.

In 2004, Obama was tapped to be keynote speaker at the DNC and he was easily Presidential material. He had a smart election team, and coupled with becoming a pop culture phenomenon that captured the national mood, he crushed it in the primaries.

He also brought in the highest number of donations from Wall Street. I doubt the coalition that brought him to the presidency can be replicated exactly, but based on polls, I'm not seeing the path for Sanders. No one here has shown me where these millions are lurking in the low polling numbers.

[questionseverything]

31. obama said the right things

the kind of things bernie has made a 30 plus year career pushing

obama did not crush it in the primaries, he was only the nominee because of the caucuses , there are less caucuses now which is a problem ,,,so we will need overwhelming numbers

bernie only announced like 3 weeks ago...last week's ppp poll gave him an 11 point jump

[Starry Messenger]

32. I like Bernie.

A lot of people are wearing their heart on their sleeves over him. I've had political crushes, so I get it.

I love the things he stands for. I'm just not convinced that it's going to happen. No one here has made an case that sways me.

(Winning caucuses is still winning, you are right though, it was a close race. From where I was in CA though, it felt like Obama was the frontrunner.)

[questionseverything]

35. obama "lost" california

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/CA.html

Results

Democrats
370 pledged delegates, 71 unpledged
Candidate Vote % Delegates
Hillary Rodham Clinton 2,608,184 51.5% 204
Barack Obama 2,186,662 43.2 166
John Edwards 193,617 3.8 0
Dennis J. Kucinich 24,126 0.5 0
Bill Richardson 19,939 0.4 0
Joseph R. Biden Jr. 18,261 0.4 0
Mike Gravel 8,184 0.2 0
Christopher J. Dodd 8,005 0.2

[Starry Messenger]

37. I know, I live here.

He won the primary. Hillary will win CA again handily though, and I believe will win the primary, then beat the Republican.

[sabrina 1]

13. Sorry, but I disagree. There is a real hunger among voters to have the chance to vote for someone

who was with them standing up when so many of who we thought were representing us, did not.

On the Iraq War

On the Patriot Act

On Gay Marriage

On the assault on our Rights

On the Labeling of our Food

On every major Issue over the past number of years when it seemed our Representatives were either too scared or too personally ambitious to stand up for us, Bernie Sanders did.

And people are remembering that.

All he needs now is enough exposure so that the people get to choose this time, not the Big Donors.

And I believe this is the moment for a huge shift away from 'conventional wisdom'.

[KingCharlemagne]

6. Don't get me wrong, I like and admire Sanders. But a 'Socialist' he is

not. Maybe a 'Social Democrat.' Socialists believe that the means of production (factories and farms) should be publicly owned and operated for the benefit of all and not for the benefit of a private elite. Capitalists believe that the means of production should remain under private ownership and control. By that definition, Sanders is clearly a 'capitalist' (his attempts at self-branding notwithstanding). Some of my more hard-core Socialist and Communist comrades have taken to sniping figuratively at Sanders from the left (!) for his lack of ideological purity.

[RobertEarl]

7. Purity is an interesting term to use

Bernie is no pure socialist. No one ever said he was. What he seems to be saying is that a more socialist government would be better for the people.

What we have now is a capitalist centered bunch of elites in power and they have made a mess of things.

Take that back to your comrades and see what they think.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. Hah! Well, they are pretty contemptuous of Sanders, not to mention Hillary. So I doubt there would

be much purpose served in revisiting the subject with them. (Trust me, I tried.) Basically, their position is that capitalism has failed and must be replaced by socialism (as I defined it previously). Since he thinks capitalism can be 'fixed' with some incremental tweaks here and there, my comrades will have little truck with Sanders.

Where there is the possibility for dialogue, strangely enough, is around the question of whether 'one man, one vote' is the best way to assign and distribute power and the best way to go about changing things. There I would say the opinions are very mixed, with some going for a hard-line Marxist-Leninist approach with others embracing a more gradual process based around the ballot box. The debate is between democratic gradualism vs. revolutionary socialism. (I happen to believe in the former.)

[RobertEarl]

15. Yeah

I used to piss into the wind like your friends do.

Basically, if we don't get Bernie.... well, what will happen will make mere pissing in the wind seem like air conditioning. Bernie is a big step, the biggest that ever had a chance to make something happen.

[jwirr]

22. Interesting. How do they feel about the left leaning countries in Europe? Like Sweden and

Norway?

[KingCharlemagne]

23. That's a good question. No one single answer really fits and the question does tend

to produce a little discomfort amongst all but the most doctrinaire. I suppose the 'party line' (if such there is) is that the bourgeoisie (the owners of the industrial and agricultural base) have 'bought off' the proletariat with significant concessions to stave off the latter's expropriating the former's wealth and property. My comrades do know that workers in those Scandinavian countries are far better off than their counterparts here and in southern Europe, so the question tends to produce quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. I'll keep my ears open and PM you with any additional commentary that seems relevant.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. You can also add in that the Scandanavian countries are becoming more ............

capitalist as time marches on. And more neo-liberal capitalist at that.

History has proven that if we keep capitalism as the primary motivating force in society, economics and politics, then eventually it devolves into the neo-liberal nightmare that we face today. AND NO AMOUNT OF "REFORMS" WILL CHANGE THE FACT THAT CAPITALISM WILL NOT WORK WITH ANY OTHER SYSTEM OF ORGANIZING SOCIETY! At least not over the long term.

That's the actual divide between reformists and revolutionaries. One believes that history is wrong and capitalism can be tamed. The other believes that capitalism cannot be controlled and must be abolished as the MAIN factor in society.

Regulating and reforming capitalism is like riding a hungry tiger. It's VERY difficult to do and you're always in danger of being eaten.

[KingCharlemagne]

38. One can almost trace a one-to-one correlation between the decline in the fortunes of

America's working class (its proletariat) and the demise of the USSR. As long as the USSR was around to pose a legitimate and workable alternative to the capitalist model, the capitalist class in the West had every reason to be conciliatory to the working class. As soon as the revolutionary alternative of the USSR (and its bureaucratic -- but still SOCIALIST! -- degeneration) was gone, the capitalist class in the west could resume its brutally exploitative practices because it had lost its fear. Correlation does not equal causation, of course, but it still makes for some interesting ponderings.

[socialist_n_TN]

39. I agree and have said so numerous times. And I'm a Trotskyist......

But as degenerated and bureaucratized as it was, the USSR at least, TALKED THE TALK! Which meant that capitalism had to monitor itself lest it lose the "hearts and minds" debate. Without the counterbalance of the USSR, there was no longer any reason for capitalism to care about workers because (to quote the infamous Maggie Thatcher), "There is no alternative".

[jwirr]

43. Thank you.

[former9thward]

10. You have no idea of what socialism is based on this OP.

Freeways were created in the U.S. by Eisenhower who was not a socialist. The autobahn was created by Hitler. If you want to claim him go ahead. Justice systems were created by the ancient Babylonians and they were not socialists. Defense has been around since humanity. Maybe you should study some history before you put up this ridiculous OPs.

[RobertEarl]

11. The government is a form of socialism

All those things are instituted by the government.

Those are socialist programs. If they were not they would be capitalist and making profits for the capitalists.

I am so glad you showed up and helped to show how so many have no clue about Democratic Socialism. Thanks for pointing out those absurd notions. Those are far too common and must be defeated, as I have done here and now.

[BainsBane]

16. No

Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were not socialists. You have distorted the term to mean nothing. Socialism is from each according to his ability to each according to his need. It is not Sanders, a single politician who takes part in the capitalist state, or the governments in Northern Europe. Socialism doesn't rise and fall with an election. It is a post-capitalist mode of production. Socialism is collectivization, with all property held collectively rather than in private hands. There is no way in a million years most of you would want a thing to do with it because you are not willing to give up your considerable privilege for the less advantaged. That is clear in discussion after discussion. Instead, people seem to believe they should always have more. In a socialist system you would have far less because you need less.

If you want to know what socialism is, read Karl Marx. All this endless blather is ridiculous. What Sanders calls himself has no bearing on his support here, and if he were a true socialist, few of you would have anything to do with him. If you were told you should earn no more than the janitor at your workplace, would you go along with it? If you were told your income show be decreased so that the oppressed around the world should be able to eat, would you go for it? Not a chance. This sudden discovery of inequality is all about the decline of the white middle class that benefited for decades from a system structured around inequality. Yet it's not that system you all challenge. Instead, you want to go back to a period when you think there were "real Democrats," when the white middle class was more prosperous but the majority worse off.

[RobertEarl]

17. You said one thing correct

All this endless blather (of yours) is ridiculous.

Bernie is both a capitalist and a socialist. As are most sensible people.

I dare say you come across as one of those capitalists we all are all too aware of.

If you go back and read the OP again, for the first time, and then form a cogent reply as to the words therein, then we may be able to educate you with some thoroughness?

The key is that our government is a form of socialism, so start there?

[BainsBane]

20. No, it is not a form of socialism

You don't know the first thing you are talking about. Without reading Marx, you cannot begin to understand the concept, and you obviously have never done that. Capitalism and socialism are not what people are. They are modes of production, economic systems, and stages of history. According to you, any form of government is socialism, which renders the term meaningless. Cave men were socialists, Nazis were socialists, statist right wing dictators were socialists. It's all the same to you because you term is entirely without specification. You don't just get to invent meanings from whole cloth. There is a body of theory written on the subject, and you have not bothered to read any of it.

Most of all, bourgeois self-entitlement is not socialism but rather its antithesis. Socialism is not smug Americans sitting around deciding they should have more and more while the rest of the world grows hungry. That is in fact rapacious capitalist greed. Socialism is not the struggle of the 10 percent against the 1 percent. It is workers' control of the means of production.

If you're going to pretend to be some sort of expert on the subject, you could at least bother to read some socialist theory.

You want to make the term anodyne, to sanitize it down to nothing to make Sanders seem palatable. There is nothing radical about Sanders, so your efforts are wasted. You don't need to convince people here. The place where the term will be a liability is in the media, should he win the nomination, in which case the GOP will paint him as Stalin. Neither they nor you will approach any understanding of what socialism is because you both have narrow agendas.

[KingCharlemagne]

24. Actually, 'smug Americans sitting around deciding they should have more and more

while the rest of the world grows hungry' is a pretty apt description of 'imperialism' (as Lenin defined and analyzed the term).

I appreciate your logocentric efforts here, although methinks they are falling on deaf ears. I see Sanders' use of the phrase 'Democratic Socialist' to describe himself as something of a marketing or branding ploy, since he is at heart a capitalist and makes few bones about it. I think of Sanders as a 'Social Democrat' (in the Western European tradition, with both the good and bad that the phrase entails for the workers' state).

[redstateblues]

26. Good post

The term Solialist in our political system is toxic in spite of Bernistas trying to make it seem all warm and fuzzy. Bernie doomed his chance for higher office when he tagged himself Socialist

[RobertEarl]

46. Your binary thinking is wrong

What we have in the US is a mixed compilation of socialism and capitalism represented in the government. What Bernie will do is bring more socialism into government.

My OP presented socialist practices that our government has made part and parcel of our daily lives. You should read the OP again, and try to respond to the points listed rather than going off - half cocked - on your personal attack?

[BainsBane]

49. Read Marx. Then get back to me.

The thinking is not binary but dialectical. The Hegelian dialectic is key to Marx's concept of history, from which socialism emerges. While Marx is not the only socialist theorist, he is the most prominent one. Anyone claiming to discuss the subject needs to be able to engage with him.

I read your OP. You consider any pooling of resources through taxation to be socialism, which would have meant the world has always been socialist since people first formed communities. The Aztecs and Inca had public roads. They weren't socialists. They collected tribute to pay for them, just as the US government collects taxes. Feudal lords built roads and raised armies. They weren't socialists or even capitalists. Your entire argument is an effort to make socialism seem as bland as possible, as inconsequential as your own obsession over which member of the political elite acts as executive of the capitalist state.

As for a distinction between communism and socialism, it is not so clear. I have seen a number of people offer definitions that seek to distinguish the two, none of which hold up to scrutiny. Those you would refer to as communists--Castro, the Soviets, Che Guevara--referred to themselves and their form of government as socialist. You clearly see communism as bad, so you want to make Sanders seem safe. He is safe. His great acts of radicalism amount to introducing legislation he knows will never be passed. As many have observed, his ideas are pretty much in keeping with the Democratic party. I suspect his decision to be apart from it all these years has more to do with temperament than ideology.

Besides, all but about 8 people on this site support Sanders. I don't know what it is you think you are accomplishing.

[RobertEarl]

50. All but about 8 people here support Sanders?

See? You are so far off it is weird.

Anyway, this isn't about me, tho you are trying your damndest to make it so. But like I said.....

If the government were pure capitalism, we'd have privately owned roads, no business would get a subsidy - no subsidies to farms, nukes, or GM. There would be no SEC, EPA, or any other similar government institution.

This is not something that just came about because of Sanders. The message has been delivered on DU for years. But as you have shown by your words here, the message needs to be repeated until it sinks in.

We have a unique mixture of socialism and capitalism and it has made this country very successful. It will be a better country as we become more socialist and less capitalist.

[NuclearDem]

21. "Bernie is both a capitalist and a socialist."

I am both an animal and a plant. As are most living things.

[MaggieD]

40. Again, you tell it like it is...

The purest form of socialism in existence today is China. I don't see anyone here bragging about how great China is.

[JaneyVee]

25. "The Government is a form of socialism"...

My god, that is exactly what rightwingers say. No, the government is a democracy. You need to brush up on actual socialism.

[Buzz Clik]

29. +1

[Cheese Sandwich]

18. Bernie might be a socialist at heart but his policies are not anything radical...

I would say his policies are solidly progressive.

Socialism for me has to do with giving workers and communities the power to control how things are run. Which has to mean taking power away from the big corporations and billionaires. So really just democracy.

Bernie is headed in the right direction and hopefully he can help create a space for socialists to participate and have influence in mainstream politics.

[RobertEarl]

19. In this wave

Will be laws making worker owned businesses much easier to accomplish. Rather than subsidies to solely capitalist driven companies, there will be incentives for new worker owned companies.

You are coming around. Once you square up your "socialism means democracy" idea and learn more about what a socialistic state our government has instituted, you will be well on your way to countering the fox news bs about socialism.

[redstateblues]

28. When Bernie decided to call himself a Socialist

He doomed his prospects for higher office. In our political system anyone who is a self avowed Socialist will get smoked in the general.

[MaggieD]

41. Yep

[forthemiddle]

33. What are the barriers to a worker owned business now?

I am clueless about this subject, but why couldn't a group of workers pool their money and buy a business right now?
What would the Government have to do to "make it much easier to accomplish" if they had the money?

[RobertEarl]

47. Incentives, mostly. Tax laws, too

Bank loans are geared to be friendly to capitalists. What the government can do is guarantee worker co-op loans making it easier for workers to borrow capital to buy or start businesses.

Right now the US guarantees loans for nuke plants, and has insured the nuke operations against capital losses. Those types of guarantees could end with the Sanders administration. Instead the focus would be toward community based providers and suppliers.

[Buzz Clik]

27. I see your points.

The U.S. has libraries, no freeways, the armies are private, no justice system, and all trade is done on the black market.

Good stuff.

[brooklynite]

30. UNREC

In every example you provide, the "Socialist" example exists is part of the "Capitalist" US Government. Add to which, there is every chance of black markets in a Socialist economy, since the Government is imposing market rules that the buying public may not agree with. And what exactly to "lynch mobs" have to dow tin capitalism?

[fadedrose]

36. Adding to your list

Last edited Tue May 26, 2015, 07:51 AM - Edit history (1)

SOCIALISM........... vs. ................ CAPITALISM

Banks, Govt. Owned
and Insured ............. vs. .................Privately Owned Monopolies


Defense Dept................ vs .............. Private Contractors

Elections, Equal Funding
by Government............. vs ............. Wealthy Contributors

Freeways ................. vs. ............... Toll Roads

Health Care for All...... vs. .............. Insurance Companies

Justice System.......... vs. .............. Lynch Mobs

Labor and Unions....... vs. .............. Company Controlled

Libraries, Public ......... vs. .............. Bookstores

Media, Privately Owned
Government Licensed . vs................ Same

Pensions, Government . .. vs. .............. Private Accounts

Post Offices................ vs. .............. Private Carriers

Private Ownership,
Land, Home, Business vs. ............. Same

Regulation, Commodities vs. ............. Black markets

Schools, Free, All ...... vs. ............. Private Tuition

Taxes based on Income vs.. .......... Lower Rate for
and Assets Wealthy, Loopholes

Trade, Subsidized .......... vs........... No

Utilities, Publicly Owned.. vs........... Privately Owned

Wages, Low, Subsidized .. vs. ............. No

Vacations, Leave ........ vs. ............. Company discretion

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

Revise, change, omit, improve.....whatever and wherever there are errors....

[RobertEarl]

48. Nice list, fadedrose

Glad to see someone else who can see the facts and can delineate the differences.

Cheers!

[oberliner]

42. Socialism does not mean government or state ownership.

That is actually the very opposite of socialism.

[TBF]

44. ^ Yes, socialism is collective ownership (as opposed to state control)

the Socialist Labor Party of America - http://www.slp.org/index.html

What Socialism Is

If government or state ownership is not socialism, what is?

Before answering that question there is something you should know about government. Not all government is state government. State government is government based on territory, such as cities, counties and nations. It is political government, and it is designed to rule over places and the people in them.

Socialist government is not state government. It would not rule over people and places, but would empower the people to rule over things. Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy. And when we say “collectively own,” we are not talking about homes, or cars, or other personal belongings. We are talking about the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want.

Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them. In each factory and other workplace, the rank and file would elect their own immediate supervisors and management committees. They would also elect representatives to local and national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work, and to an all-industrial congress to coordinate production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the country. In short, socialism would replace the political government run by politicians with an industrial government run by workers and their elected representatives ...

More here: http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/socialism_m_p.html

[cascadiance]

45. The Koch Brothers and their minions are more tied to Joseph Stalin and communism than Bernie is!

... as not only do they believe less in democracy like Stalin did than Bernie does, their family's rise to fame and fortune was the result of Fred Koch's work with Joseph Stalin after WWII

EAT THAT RW lurkers! Do you love having your party being funded by commie collaborators?

Or would you rather support someone that supports American tradition of the rule of a DEMOCRACY! That's what Bernie wants!

[eridani]

51. What you are talking about here is public goods

--which preceed private goods because public goods are infrastructure. This is actually what socialism has come to mean today--Republicans use the term to slam all public goods that are not strictly reserved for white people. Bernie essentially uses socialism to mean public goods also, but wants public goods available to all.

This is not traditional usage, which says that socialism is ownership of all means of production by the state.

[RobertEarl]

53. That would be pure socialism

This : "...ownership of all means of production by the state."

We don't have pure socialism and we never will. We do have a mix of socialism and capitalism. The best parts of our government and society are socialistic.

We need more socialism and less capitalism form the state.