Why am I a Socialist? I'll Tell You Why:

[true_notes]

I was asked that question not long ago in my workplace. I was coherent in my response, but the con just couldn't grasp what I was saying. So lets see if my comrades can understand me.

I am a Socialist because I am for reforming social structures for the common man, for they make up the meat and spine of this and every country. Reforming social structures to give the working man more rights, and priveleges against the rich and powerful will give them more incentive to work and educate themselves.

This broad notion could very well reshape how people view this nation internationally. Reforms to the "closed gate" policies currently in place would be drastic by allowing labor to pour in, and by bringing lost labor back to the U.S. bringing a boom in employment, as well as profits, rather than shifting employment to the third world.

Education would not be a privatized issue, it would be governmental. The current status of America is falling behind the standard that we set in the past. An uneducated nation is one that is sure to fail. Stupidity is not an option.

The environment would be a major priority. By using brainpower and incentive, this nation could very well find many great alternative fuel and energy sources. It's the capitalist agenda that is keeping us from finding VIABLE alternatives.

Last but not least, the down trodden, the homeless, the sick, the elderly, the dispositioned should have a shoulder to lean on when private sectors cannot help, which is becoming so common in today's America. These people CAN BE REHABILITATED with the proper care and treatment. I don't care what anyone says, but a little help never hurt anyone, and instead of our tax money going to corrupt Republicans and unjust wars, we could be helping our fellow countrymen:Americans.

Push for a better America!


-True Notes

[JuniorPlankton]

1. It depends on what meaning you put into the word "Socialist"

I grew up in the USSR and I can tell you a few stories that might put you off.
(And I know you mean well, but I find this flag offensive.)

:kick:

[true_notes]

2. Well....USSR Was Authoritian, right?

The type of government I am suggesting is based on the Spanish, or even Swedish socialism. It's an open, liberal society with educated masses and help right around the corner.

Sorry bout the flag, but it's just a picture, lighten up.

[Stockholm]

6. Then maybe you mean Social Democracy?

From 1996 written by a former prime minister but still explains the basics (Freedom, Equality, Solidarity and Democracy).

http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/sapobj.nsf/0/100631AD196DC580C1256E3200502408/$file/WhatisSocialDemocracy.pdf

[deutsey]

7. Read "The Long Detour"

http://www.inthesetimes.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=40

The Long Detour is an intellectually engaging overview of the history of socialism in the United States and of the continuing relevance of socialist principles today. In These Times founding editor and publisher James Weinstein, a lifelong socialist and one-time Communist, takes readers from the movement's early years of utopian communities, through the heyday of engagement with the makers of corporate America, and into the future of a de-industrializing era.

He contends that socialism as a political movement was sidetracked when Communist domination of the American left stifled creative social thought and diverted the traditional left into sterile disputes over the true nature of the Soviet Union. And he argues that while "real existing socialism" is dead, the humane social principles articulated by Marx and the leaders of the pre-1917 socialist movement remain vitally important to those on the left who seek to realize the promise of American democracy. Hardcover.

"James Weinstein is the rarest of all public intellectuals: an informed optimist. In The Long Detour, Weinstein uses his deep understanding of American history, his encyclopedic knowledge of the successes and failures of the American left, and his own rich experience as a journalist and activist to make the case that this nation can still realize its radical promise. With its confident arguments and graceful writing, The Long Detour is THE necessary book for progressives who still believe that the good fight can be won." —John Nichols, The Nation

[JuniorPlankton]

16. Well, how do you prevent your system from becoming USSR-like?

I would like to be more like Sweden, but how?

(As I said I realize you didn't mean to offend me with the flag :pals: )

[Darranar]

17. Socialism has nothing to do with the USSR.

You prevent it from becoming like the USSR by making it actually socialist - that is, radically democratic, based on equality and the elimination of arbitrary class privilege.

[JuniorPlankton]

19. Well, it is not that simple

To support good social benefits you need to have higher taxes, especially at the top. Which in turn creates disincentives to work. (Bringing working and non-working closer the middle)

There was a very popular expression in the USSR: "We pretend that we are working, they pretend they are paying us."

What you need, in theory, is to grow "socially responsible" people who work because it is good for the society, not for the money. Well, it's a tall order. (By the way, it was supposed to be one of the steps for getting to communism from socialism :) )

[Darranar]

20. Socialism is not social benefits, socialism is economic democracy.

The welfare state is a different issue.

Anyway, under the current system plenty of people who don't work make millions off other people's labor while plenty of people who are among the hardest workers can't feed their families, so I don't think your argument really applies.

[bryant69]

3. This doesn't sound like socialism, per se

Do you favor government control over the economy?

Bryant
Check ito ut --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. I never thought of myself as a socialism

but I'm with you on the above.

But you left out the part where there is no incentive to work and the whole thing collapses. Or is that pure communism?

[Darranar]

12. It's neither, actually.

Socialism just means worker control over the means of production, it doesn't necessarily reward laziness any more than capitalism does.

As for pure communism, there are numerous variants, but the best models available, of communalist indigenous communities in the Americas, indicate the efficacy of social pressure.

[blindpig]

5. Here's a good reason.

http://cnsjournal.org/manifesto.html

You touched on it but here's a full blown exposition.

[KingFlorez]

8. Created labor

I believe in created labor mostly. I think the best way to utilize socialist economics. I believe the government should create a small scale energy provider, that would do a number of things, it would allow us to explore alternative energy methods, it would provide reasonably priced energy to the people and it would help to lower the tax burden.

[Odin2005]

9. I consider myself a "Co-Op Socialist"

A market economy where the employees pick management, not investors.

[izzybeans]

10. I like the phrase democratizing the workplace

as a simple summary of a truly progressive agenda. We can call it what we will. But that was the heart of the failed worker's rebellions. I find no need to gather under the banner of socialism or whatever. It no longer has the meaning it was designed to carry.

Two goals: leveling the wage gap and empowering workers in the organization and management of labor.
This is the antithesis to the management of bureaucratic (corporate) capitalism. This means worker control does not end in the deliberaiton of contracts. I see no reason why it would not thrive off of competitive markets, industrial production, and post-industrial service sectors (currently the term "market force" is only a legitimation for the bureaucratic structures and inverted income funnels of corporate organizations. This takes the form of "We pay what the market bears for our CEOs and janitors on down. You see its the market that says we should give Jack Welch tons of cashbased on the innovations introduced by his workers."). The only difference is the distribution of wealth is now controlled at the level of workers who simultaneously operate as labor and management and thus transorm the workplace in a way that reduces income inequality and decision making power discrepancies; currently the hallmark of the large bureaucratic management styles of contemporary capitalism. Told like that this is not revolutionary. It is merely just. It is extendiing participatory democracy into the broader spectrum of our entire life, the place we spend most of our lives; the workplace.

The evil market would be instantly transformed, consumer cash would increase massively because it is now in the hands of large masses, rather than a minute minority. The incentive to work would be pride of craftswomenship and not some naked economic relationship. CEO's would be irrelevant. They can die off on their yacht somewhere and leave us to the serious business of creating a sustainable and moral economy. Of course this same theory never makes it into practice. So...what's so wrong with it and why?

[Darranar]

13. It is just, but it is also revolutionary.

And the forces opposed to it have immense power at their disposal.

The theory most definitely has made it into practice, but every time it has been destroyed.

[izzybeans]

15. It certainly has, and those are the honest answers to my questions

I believe. My comment about it not being revolutionary were directed more to the idea that the infrastructure of capitalism would be destroyed, the only revolution came in the organizational structure of the workplace. In the political sphere of course we are looking at a much more complex picture.

I have yet to hear anyone disagree with the above presentation on valid grounds. They speak of Stalin, Mao, or some fictional labor union story, when saying it can't work. The point in democratization is dispersing forms of power, the function of Stalin and Maw was to monopolize it.

The powerful interests run in fear due to the shear number of their potential political adversaries and their miniscule numbers. I suppose this is their biggest fear, which explains the right wing (neo-liberal) fixation on communists, known and fictional, and their tendency to treat large masses as suspects to be surveyed, controlled, and kept divided in factional camps.

[BushOut06]

11. Why not a blend of capitalism and socialism?

Or social capitalism. Both systems have inherent flaws, IMHO. But if you were to combine the best of both systems and try to develop a new system, is that even possible?

[bigtree]

14. sounds like the system we have now

[Selatius]

22. You're talking social democracy. It's been tried already:

Go to Sweden to see an example of one.

[Nutmegger]

18. Democratic Socialist here

What a lot of people don't understand is that socialism can be implemented, to a certain degree if not fully, through the democratic fashion.

Also, only some of the means of production are controlled by the people (government) while private enterprises are allowed. Many confuse that with full-blow communism which advocates full take over of the means of production.

:hi:

[Selatius]

21. You're advocating SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, NOT SOCIALISM

Socialism simply means the management of common resources by all involved. A hierarchical decision-making structure such as the state, by definition, precludes involvement of the people in any meaningful fashion beyond simply voting for candidate A or candidate B to make the decision for you. A case can be argued otherwise with semi-direct forms of government. Switzerland is one such model.

The role of the state is a big issue among socialists of all kinds. Many socialists are pragmatists. They may adopt libertarian stances on certain issues, and they may adopt more state control-oriented positions on other issues. Then you have libertarian socialists on one end of the spectrum, and you have true totalitarians on the other end who believe in the pre-eminence of the state above the individual, that society is one entity and all must serve that entity. All resources must be collectivized regardless if the people approve or not. Lib socialists believe the exact opposite.

You can not have an entire economy built on socialism at this stage of human development, in my opinion. Why? The problem is free choice. Just as there are those who would voluntarily collectivize with each other to bring each other things such as care when it comes to health or education, you will have those who opt not to join such a relationship and opt to try and handle things on their own, or you have those who do not wish to join out of self-interest. They may have a business that you are taking market share from by forgoing their services and collectivizing to help each other instead of paying them a fee for the same purpose. (See the health insurance industry's opinions vs. the idea of non-profit collectivized health care)

You're best bet with respect to everybody is an economy that is mixed, with socialistic structures side-by-side with capitalistic structures regulated by the state. THAT is SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, NOT TRUE SOCIALISM. Ultimately, I believe capitalism may be necessary at this point in human history, but I believe in capitalism the same way I believe in nuclear power: It should be contained, bottled, and regulated, or it will destroy everything it touches.

If you want true socialism, you are arguing for a society that is incredibly, radically democratic, a model of living that is close if not considered true direct democracy with respect to resources and the means of production. You can't have that with traditional state structures. You can have that with federated or even confederal coalitions of independent communities operating on direct democratic principles in mutual cooperation together, however.