What is the soul of socialism? Put your ideas on paper!!!

[La_Serpiente]

The 2004 Daniel Singer Prize: $5,000

In keeping with Daniel Singer's thesis that the promise of socialism remains the last best hope for humanity and civilization,The Daniel Singer Foundation invites submissions for the 2004 prize, to be awarded for an original work of not more than 5,000 words exploring the fundamental question:

What Is the Soul of Socialism?

Essays may be in any language. The submissions will be judged by an international panel of distinguished experts appointed by the Foundation. The winner will be announced in December 2004, and the winner will be invited to deliver a public lecture based on the essay.

Submissions should be made not later than August 31, 2004, to:

The Daniel Singer Millennium
Prize Foundation
P.O. Box 334,
Sherman CT 06784
All enquiries should be sent to this address.

http://www.danielsinger.org/

[KG]

1. socialism got soul!

:)

[JailForBush]

2. "Socialism" is a Fascinating Topic

I like to enclose it in quotations to indicate that I'm using it in a broad context. I don't necessarily support pure socialism. In other words, I don't think I'd want the United States government to own all the businesses and wipe out capitalism completely - though it might be better than the runaway capitalism that's destroying us right now.

Rather, I'd prefer a mixture of capitalism and socialism. More important, I want regulation and accountability, which many right-wingers disparage as "socialism."

I'd like to know if the socialists of yesteryear really wanted a purely socialistic nation. My perception is that they mostly wanted equality and social justice, and they may have accepted capitalism if it wasn't run by America's biggest pricks. However, I could be wrong.

At any rate, I see "socialism" as a broad term for social justice with an emphasis on holding capitalism accountable.

[buckeye1]

3. Stalin lead a great empire.

He created it. He challenged the USA. It was socialism's finest hour. Castro is the only keeper of the legacy of the worker's paradise. Workers always had everything needed. Socialism might have succeeded but greedy capitalist and their militarist buddies were always in the way. Today, imperialists seek to destroy the only socialist states,Cuba and North Korea. The future of socialism looks bleak.

I will work this up to less than 5,000 words. Needing the money I will surely win.

[FDRrocks]

4. Personally...

I don't think Stalin practiced anything but Stalinism.The asshole might've had a plan to bring about a world-wide "Communist" revolution via a series of war, but I don't think he wanted an egalitarian utopia like Marx did.

[OhioStateProgressive]

5. interesting

I would be one to say that I believe in the Upton Sinclair Socialist dream...the one that said the Soviet Union wouldn't work because it was based on lies as well...I believe more in the "Democratic process meets Socialist institutions"


I agree about the greedy capitalists though:)

[The Magistrate]

11. Not So, Mr. Buckeye

The Soviet Union was mere state capitalism, and state capitalism is nothing but the most extreme case of monopoly, with the take-over and consolidation of competing owners accomplished by pistol rather than purchase. North Korea is a mere throw-back to the ancient Imperial style, wherein all between earth and heaven is the property of the Son of Heaven. Cuba comes a bit nearer the mark, and a good case can be made that many of its less savory features result from the hostile relation toward the attempt at a new system by the capitalist order. This hostile relation, however, must be expected, as the conflict is inherent to the differing orders.

The most important point to understand is that there is a tremendous difference between government ownership of the means of production, as in the Bolshevik model, and people's ownership of the means of production. Government and people are not interchangeable, and simply calling the former the people's government will not suffice to make them so. In a democratic order, a sensible case could be made that the government and the people are one and the same, and certainly no nation which is not ruled in a democratic wise can possibly be a Socialist country.

[JVS]

13. Five year plans #1 and #2 saved civilization.

Without them Nazi barbarism would have triumphed.

[The Magistrate]

15. That Argument Can Be Made, Sir

It is less easy to sustain than you might suppose, however. To name just one element, Stalin lent Hitler a good deal of assistance in gaining and consolidating power, and in preparing for war. More to the point of this discussion, these programs of forced draft industrialization had nothing to do with Socialism.

[JVS]

19. Stalin had to cut a deal to gain time, just as the Western Democracies...

cut a deal to gain time in the Munich conference in 1938. Additionally, the Munich conference and the Soviet-German non-aggression pact both served the same purpose of deflecting German aggression in a different direction. Munich was an invitation by the West to turn eastward, Molotov-Ribbentrop was an invitation to turn back westward. All in all, I must say that the Soviets conducted the better policy. My reasoning France was conquered in 1940 and Great Britain was besieged, meanwhile Russia was able to develop the industrial capacity, particularly in the east that would lead to victory.

As far as advancing the goal of Socialism, the Bolsheviks gained control of a Russia that was post-feudalist but not yet capitalist. The Czarist regime had been attempting to industrialize since the 1880's but without much success. The Czarist industrialization was done primarily to provide armaments necessary to preserve Russia's place as a great power. The problem with this was that beyond a weapons industry, and textile industries (the traditional starting point of industrialization) not very much had developed. Add to this the destruction and neglect of industry during WWI and the civil war, 1914-1923, and it is fair to say that Russian industrialization basically had to start over anew.

Socialism is supposed to be a successor to Capitalism, but Russia's Capitalism had been still-born. In this situation Soviet leadership decided that industrialization was the top priority. A wise decision in my opinion. A society needs industry, if for nothing more than to be able to defend itself from other industrialized societies. Perhaps some would argue against the centralization of this attempt to build an industrialized economy, but I must say that it compares very favorably with China's decentralized Great Leap forward.

[corporatewhore]

18. delete

[La_Serpiente]

6. kick

:kick:

[earthman dave]

7. I think I missed a meeting...

Is the idea that socialism = stalinism common in america?

[FDRrocks]

8. Yes

Middle America knows little to nothing about Communism or Socialism. They just blindly hate it.

[kodi]

9. the soul of socialism is human empathy.

"The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."
Ernesto 'Che’ Guevara

'nuff said.

[La_Serpiente]

10. kick

:kick:

[La_Serpiente]

12. kick

:kick:

[La_Serpiente]

14. kick

:kick:

[FDRrocks]

16. Ahh hell

*boot*

[FDRrocks]

17. awww hell

*boot*