Socialists- Stand tall. Be proud. Our ideology CANNOT be blamed.

[Union Yes]

Blame capitalism for the downfall of America.


Socialism didn't prevent BP from spending $500,000 on an emergency shut-off valve that could have totally prevented the Gulf oil gusher. Capitalist greed prevented BP from spending $500k.

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism can't be blamed for the fall of banking in America. Lehman, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearnes fell because of capitalist greed. They gambled with other peoples money-for profit, and lost everything.

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism cannot be blamed for millions of Americans losing their retirement savings and 401k's in the greatest ponzi scheme ever created- the stock market. Capitalist greed pulled that one off all by itself. Proving the absolute need to protect Social Security and our social safety net. Boom and bust cycles make it nearly impossible to save for retirement.

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism didn't create America's epic wealth divide. The wealthiest 10% of our population owns roughly 90% of all American wealth.

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickledown/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism didn't declare war on unions and our right to organize labor unions. Capitalism did.
Capitalists fear our right to collective bargaining for a better quality of life.
Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism didn't engage in a full blown war to kill middle class living. To kill the middle class wage and drive millions into poverty. Is there still an American dream for the masses? Is there? Really?

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism didn't drive America 13 TRILLION DOLLARS into debt. Socialism didn't turn the 2000 budget surpluses into deficits by 2002. "Free"Market Neocon Bush did that using Reagan-style tax cuts.

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism didn't start the 2000's with a natl debt at $5.5 Trillion and run that debt up to $12 Trillion by the end of 2008.

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism won't cut your Social Security.

Blame supply-side/Reaganomics/trickle-down/"free"market capitalism.



Socialism DID NOT drive America off a cliff in every way. Capitalism did.

Socialism hasn't adopted the policy of de-fund and destroy regarding our social safety net. Capitalism lives to de-fund and destroy social safety net programs.

As a Socialist-to-the-bone DU'er, I couldn't be prouder of my ideology.

Socialism didn't fuck America up. Capitalism and capitalist greed pulled that one off, all by themselves.

Please, don't fear Socialism. Embrace it.

Socialism cannot be blamed for the "free" market capitalist-driven downfall of our nation.

It will require Socialism to bail this nation out.

That's why I stand tall. Proud to be a Socialist.

:patriot:

[SpiralHawk]

1. What about the SociaBaggers?

You know, the ones into Group TeaBaggery?

Are they blameless as well?

[Billy Burnett]

2. Two big thumbs up!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Union Yes]

4. Thanks!

:fistbump:

[FarLeftFist]

26. And lets not forget how Socialism saved Capitalism

Socialism is still waiting for Capitalism to pay it back. I'm more for a hybrid of the 2, Nationalize things of extreme importance to the future and prosperity of our country, why should we trust our country in private corporations hands. Everything else is fair game for Capitalism, with regulations for predatory industries. Protect the consumer and our citizens, and their new found sense of security will allow the economy to prosper.

[Union Yes]

31. 30 years of borrowing from China to bail-out and prop up America.

:fistbump:

[bjobotts]

84. The word has been demonized to make people think totalitarianism

[bjobotts]

88. "Democratic Socialism" is the only form of gov that will ensure both freedom and survival

Cutting down the rain forest, destroying the ozone and the atmosphere, poisoning our drinking water, removing the top soil and now poisoning the oceans all in the name of greed. The people must be free to elect protectors of our planet and life functions....some things are common to us all and cannot be destroyed to enrich a greedy few. We are at the tipping point.

Nationalize over privatize. Privatization has never worked...except to enrich the greedy few. Single payer national healthcare...National energy policy...ending monopolies....breaking up too big to fail banks...regulating wall street...federalizing the FED...through tariffs and tax penalties/incentives make it just as costly to outsource our jobs, services and manufacturing as it would be to do it here at home. The people are for it, the corporatists are against it...but look how deregulation is destroying our nation and our planet as we become enslaved by the wealthy.

Let me say it again people...Democratic Socialism is the only form of government that will ensure both our freedom AND our survival. Only the greedy wealthiest people will try to stop us...but greed cannot be self regulated...we the people must do it to protect ourselves from tyranny.

Freedom to choose...but ensuring we all share what we need and must have to survive.

[SocialistLez]

206. +100!! Proud democratic socialist here. =]

[louis c]

232. Count me in

Democratic Socialism----The only way we can survive.

[Green_Lantern]

241. what happens to small business under "democratic" socialism?

Should every penny every business makes in profit be divided and shared?

[SocialistLez]

247. Courtesy of Dan LaBotz, candidate for Senate in OH

"Socialism means the social ownership and control of the nation's large corporations and major industries, a democratically planned economy where the people set the priorities, and where workers and consumers cooperate to realize those goals. Democratic socialism has nothing in common with Soviet-style Communism nor with those Social Democratic parties that merely manage capitalism without transforming it.

* Socialism means eliminating the corporation as the dominant institution of our society around which everything is organized and replacing it with collectively owned and democratically managed economic life.
* Socialism means the nationalization of the "commanding heights of the economy," not the takeover of small businesses.
* Socialism means the democratic and collective elaboration and implementation of a plan to meet the needs of society. A planned economy will allow us to eliminate the boom-bust cycle that brings us an economic crisis every few years wrecking the lives of tens of millions.
* Socialism will allow us to transform the entrepreneurial impulse and competition so that they serve the common good rather than the individual acquisition of wealth and power.
* Socialism does not mean taking away people's personal property or their ability to make decisions about their life. Rather it means eliminating obstacles and expanding opportunities.
* Socialism means society taking control of the economy and providing housing, education and health care for all so that people-no longer worried about their economic survival-have more freedom in their personal and social lives.
"


Source: http://danlabotz.com/issues/issue.php?issue=socialism

I emboldened certain parts.

[Green_Lantern]

258. I think that means a promise not to take over small business...

The problem also is that the same govt. beholden to special interests would be running the economy. Why would they run the economy to benefit the people and not just the special interests?

[Green_Lantern]

240. when did that happen? the New Deal?

Socialists opposed the New Deal.

[socialist_n_TN]

253. Only because it didn't go far enough

The New Deal was the capitalist's way of saving capitalism. Without the New Deal, we would have had a socialist USA in the 30s. Yes, socialism was THAT popular and gaining in popularity as Roosevelt was elected.

And as another poster pointed out in this long thread, if it weren't for the socialists arguing FOR real socialism, we wouldn't have gotten the hybrid system that lasted until Reagan started tearing it down. The New Deal was the fall back "compromise".

[Green_Lantern]

257. I think you're oversimplifying and really ignoring Keynes' role

In ending the Depression. Basically Keynesian economics was nowhere near socialism...it's goal is to stimulate spending in a market economy.

Secondly, socialism wasn't that popular here...as unions in Europe were forming democratic labor parties unions in the US were not advocating the end of capitalism.

Populism was popular I agree.

[malaise]

3. LOL

Meanwhile those who viewed neo-liberalism is the ultimate ideology now say that they were wrong to assume that their view of the world was the end of history. Contrary to the views of stupid 'fuckuyama' - neo-liberalism is going to be the reason why people embrace socialism. Of course even he jumped ship before Greenspan.

[peacetalksforall]

5. The signs we carry should say American Socialists are For The People and Sensible Separation of

Government from Corporations/Militry/Organized Religion. And we are proud of it.

We're going to kick out the Deomcrats who are Corporate-Military Puppets/Religious Bigots-Hypocrites/Torturing Invaders.
.
OK - too much for a sign - make it a handout.

[Union Yes]

7. Word.

Agree 100%

:fistbump:

[socialist_n_TN]

19. Suggestions for signs........

"Privatizing Profits, socializing losses- The Capitalist Way"
"Too big to fail? Just the right size to nationalize"
"Nationalize BP"
A tuxuedoed pig (marked "Capitalist") eating at a trough marked "Government Bailouts" while trampling an American Worker.

Just a few ideas.

[Union Yes]

21. I think those would make some great signs and/or bumper stickers too!

an old favorite bumper sticker I saw years ago..

"The highway to hell is paved with Republicans."

:hug:

:hi:

[bobbolink]

32. "A tuxuedoed pig (marked "Capitalist") eating at a trough marked "Government Bailouts" while trampli

while trampling an American Worker."

Damn.

That is BRILLIANT.

Can you enlist some talented Photoshoppers?

More, MORE!

And, please don't forget... some brilliant ones for us homeless folk!

And, thhose of us who can't work---don't forget us.

Thanks! :yourock:

[socialist_n_TN]

33. How about............

"Capitalist Heaven-Homeless workers and slave wages!"

[bobbolink]

34. That's a good one... also, as I said, need ones for those of us who are

too old, too sick, and too injured to work.

I'm really serious about this.... I am working on a program, and I think some of these ideas would be a big plus for getting across some of these ideas.

Keep at it, pleeeez..... we need LOTS!

And....

[socialist_n_TN]

35. Show above pig................

tossing old and infirm into a trash can. Caption reads "Capitalism takes CARE of the less fortunate!" BTW, these are just off the top of my head. Improve them PLEASE! :)

[bobbolink]

38. Improve them? What an assumption!

One of my many talents that I don't have is doing bumperstickers, titles and signs!

That's why I am appreciating your contributions so much!

Here is one that somebody posted here, and while I can't use it because I don't know who did it to ask for permission, I think the message it gets across is excellent. Maybe it will give you some more ideas...

[socialist_n_TN]

67. A couple more for you bobbo

"Capitalism: the religion of Greed as God" And along the same lines
"Greed is God: The Capitalist Manifesto"
"Capitalism: Socialism for the Wealthy" Thanks to a poster downthread for the inspiration for this one.

[theFrankFactor]

110. I Like 'em

[asdjrocky]

6. Good read for a Sunday morning. nt

[rrneck]

8. The difference seems to be

right there in the words themselves.

Capitalism: A social system based on capital. Money.

Socialism: A social system based on relationships between people. Humanity.

[Union Yes]

13. It's that simple. It really is.

:fistbump:

[Hydra]

41. Right

And I find it amusing that so many people love money more than people.

[Green_Lantern]

242. you can't really assume what someone labels themself

Is accurate. National Socialism(right-wingers)...Democratic Republic of Korea(Stalinists)

[jotsy]

9. We need an emoticon w pom poms.

I'll cheer those sentiments on six ways to next Sunday.

Thanks Union Yes! K AND R!

:applause:

:woohoo:

[Union Yes]

39. Thank you too jotsy!

:fistbump:

:hi:

[Sheepshank]

10. I have felt for some time now

that the RW press for capitalism is only a press for elitist financial greed, nothing more. Nothing noble, nothing wise or helpful to society, nothing great for a nation as a whole...nothing but one of the 7 deadly sins. And while I'm not religious in anyway, I see this pervasive need to be gluttonous by richest 10% of the population, as a cause in the worldwide financial collaps.

[johnaries]

11. Sorry, but I believe in the separation of powers. And that includes

economic power.

I do believe that essential services should be socialized, including health insurance. I do believe in local co-ops. But giving all of the economic power to the Federal government is concentrating too much power in the hands of too few. Sure, in a Democracy the government is "supposed" to be run by the People, but many of us complain about the Politics of Washington now. Socialism failed in the USSR, and it is failing in North Korea and Cuba. The only successful Socialist countries have succeeded by also allowing Capitalism and blending the two systems.

Socialism works great on a local level, but not on a broad National level.

I support a blend of Social Services and strongly-regulated Caveat Vendor market Keynesian Capitalism.

[okie]

23. There are a lot of problems with this

Socialism, as I understand it (and granted, 'socialism' can mean a lot of different things to socialists), does not entail just handing over services to the federal government. It is about democratizing the workplace. Handing over control of workplaces from capitalists to government bureaucrats does nothing for the worker.

There is also a problem in thinking that capitalist countries have a a 'separation of economic power'. This has never been the case. Private enterprise is utterly dependent on the heavy hand of the state. The labor market itself is a state creation. Capitalists appropriated great amounts of wealth through state driven expansion of our borders. The great technological innovations that drove post WWII growth were essentially military projects. In no meaningful sense are these powers separated.

As for socialism failing in other countries, I would be curious to know what you mean by that. It's not a simple matter of pointing to tyrannical states and saying, 'look, socialism inevitably leads to tyranny!' You have to ask what is socialistic about the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba. You have to look at the relationship of those states to major capitalist powers (how did the Cold War affect Russian domestic policy? How is Cuban socialism affected by the global hegemon to their north? etc)

People seem to be fond of saying something along the lines of 'true socialism is utopian. It couldn't happen'. I don't often see liberals considering whether a strongly regulated capitalist society - one with a strong social safety net and peaceful relations with other nations - might be utopian. What if the social conditions that gave us New Deal style liberalism and Western European welfare states no longer exist? What if it just isn't possible to go back to that?

I'm with the OP. Socialism or barbarism, as they say.

[johnaries]

37. There are many problems with any socio-economic systems.

For instance, how does one "democratize the workplace"?

I agree that currently there is not enough separation of power between the Capitalists and the Government. Capitalists do have way too much influence. But this can be corrected via proper regulation.

And although the failed socialist states I mentioned were/are tyrannical (and I think their Socialistic nature is largely responsible for that), the failure I am pointing to is economic. The Soviet Union went bankrupt. Not because of the Cold War, but internally. There are many excellent books about this, BTW. North Korea and Cuba are poverty-stricken. Sure, there are lots of poverty-stricken capitalist countries, but the ONLY successful socialist countries are those that are blending socialism with capitalism - which is basically what I advocate.

My biggest problem is the OP is that it states that Socialism can be proud that it is not responsible for the recent atrocities. Well, of course - because we don't have a socialist system! Theocrats could make the same claims about Theocracy.

As for the "Utopian" argument, I don't think any system is Utopian. Every system has it's inherent problems. I believe is that we should try and pick the best aspects of each and work toward a more "balanced" approach. Even that will not be perfect or Utopian, but I think it would the best approach overall.

[okie]

71. Well...

You would democratize workplaces through socialist revolution. It sounds glib, but I don't think it happens any other way.

And there has never been separation of capitalists and government. I don't think it makes sense to think of the two as separate entities. You can't regulate this away, it is the nature of the system.

I agree that the Soviet Union went bankrupt. But their economic troubles were intimately tied with Cold War hostilities (what books are you talking about, BTW?). Their economic triumphs (think about the difference between Russia in 1901 and Russia in the 1960s) were also very much tied to the Cold War. North Korea and Cuba are poverty stricken for reasons entirely unrelated to socialism as an economic system (and again, describing these economies as 'socialistic' is wrong, in my view.) But comparing a place like Cuba to the large capitalist powers is problematic. After all, as you say, there are very poor capitalist nations. Would you rather be a Cuban or a Haitian? Or a Cuban or a Mexican? I also don't believe there are successful socialist countries blending capitalism with socialism. The global economy is capitalistic. There is no nation on earth where workers control the means of production. A welfare state is not socialism.

I don't think any system is utopian either. I'm arguing that maybe those who believe the problems of capitalism can be regulated away are guilty of utopian thinking.

[Green_Lantern]

244. so you advocate taking businesses by force?

Isn't that just robbery?

[bjobotts]

89. Unions "democratize the workplace". as long as gov. regulates for safety and protects their rights.

[HughMoran]

170. Good points

...and I agree with your basic premise. There are some countries in Europe that come close to a proper blend of capitalism and socialism that are good examples of what we should be striving for IMO.

[Green_Lantern]

243. taking businesses away from owners and giving it to workers...

Has ever happened? Who takes it from the owners?

[Hannah Bell]

27. socialism isn't about state capitalism.

[johnaries]

36. Please explain what it is about, in your view.

[JackRiddler]

45. Sorry, that's a strawman.

You're the one introducing the idea of "giving all the power to the government."

[Usrename]

83. I don't think it's a strawman at all. What else is possible?

Is there to be private or public ownership? If it's public, how is done except through the government?

Explain what you mean.

[JackRiddler]

93. There are collective entities other than central governments.

Long as you're asking, some combination of ownership among the following:

- workers (which already exists in coops)

- depositors (for banks, which already exists in credit unions)

- municipalities

- states

- separate voted or appointed bodies

- government.

All of these have been done and already exist in the US to some extent.

I would start with banking.

My model:

All states launch three banks (for consumers/state employees, small businesses and farmers, and corporations and development projects). Different bank board members are chosen by depositors, governor, legislature, bank workers and councils representing the market of eachof the three. Banks send representatives to a national coordinating congress (votes weighted by size of state) that sets capital allocation priorities according to a rational plan.

This is no longer centralized command economy, but flexible planning representing many different stakeholdres. It will be wearying and complicated - but not arbitrary, unstable, and constantly in crisis, like the present system.

You're always told that socialism never worked, but the fact is there has never been a capitalist country that at some point did not fail. US capitalism failed flat out in 1933 and again in 2008. It depends on massive subsidies and distortions and externalizations to survive. All of the capitalist countries have gone bankrupt at some point or other, or into hyperinflation, or into crisis so dire it caused civil war.

And when they fail, the way shown to get out of it is by socialist means. They put the people above the market. New Deal.

The development mission is no longer growth and profit. It must be transformation of the energy and transport economies toward sustainability. This is such an enormous undertaking that if pursued seriously, it will take more than full employment for decades.

There would be a national bank that replaces the federal reserve and works with the state banks.

State banks have simple packages. For example, you get a mortgage if you meet the criteria after the right check. All mortgages are at the same interest and terms. The goal is to keep interest low and credit adequate.

Meanwhile, all communities are supported in starting credit unions. These will operate much more in a free market, but on the smaller scale.

---

By the way, surely the leading institution of American life is socialist. People are saluting it all day tomorrow. If we can find 700 billion to spend on that, we can shift a couple of hundred billion to the development of clean energy, and stop waiting for BP and the "free market" to wise up and build a few wind turbines before the planet is burned away.

---

There's much more but you get the idea I hope. Economic control by users - for real, however, not as mere "consumers" who are given multiple choice tests - control by stakeholders and workers, control by municipalities and states.

Finally, you have to figure out some way to create incentives NOT to grow, not to produce junk. I'm thinking about how Cargill is running an ad campaign to make people use MORE salt. That's just nuts. That's what the perverse incentive system of private enterprise capitalism in which each sector is out for itself without the possibility of creating a rational big picture is leading us.

But how could we convince a salt producer to want to encourage people to eat LESS salt, because it's good for them. Or think of the example of the tobacco companies, who because of perverse incentives want to hook children if they can (still today). A great many things shouldn't be made. This problem can't be solved by pure capitalism.

[Usrename]

94. I think I get your drift.

Capitalism is bad and socialism is good. Other than that there isn't really any difference. I get it.

[JackRiddler]

96. ?????????

Are you a Turing machine?

[liberation]

142. No, he or she simply does not have a logical retort so back to the strawman bag it was...

I don't particularly believe in "isms" but I always found amazing how most Americans are brainwashed to the extent their brains simply refuse to ponder anything that may cast "socialism" in a positive light. The logical fallacies and just plain false arguments and facts that ensue are glorious... it is like a pavlovian response involving "socialism = BAAAAAAAAAD"

I guess all that cold war propaganda did in fact pay off....

[Usrename]

154. A logical retort?

It's total nonsense. How can anyone make a logical response?

[Usrename]

155. I don't think you know what the words mean that you are using.

States and municipalities have governments.

Also, you talk about workers owning shit as if somehow that is different than owners owning shit?

Your whole ideology is total nonsense to me. It's doublethink. A certain thing is bad when we call it capitalism but the same exact thing is good when we call it socialism. If workers own shit it's great but when owners own shit it's wrong.

You don't make sense.

[socialist_n_TN]

183. Workers owning shit IS different than owners

owning shit. It's more democratic and it's more profitable for more people. Workers owning a company spreads the wealth around. Owners owning it concentrates wealth. And wealth is power. Ergo, you have the democratization of power on one hand and the concentration of power on the other. Which one do you choose?

[Usrename]

190. Who decides who is a worker and who is an owner?

You?

[socialist_n_TN]

194. Nope. Unless I'm a member of a democratically elected

worker's council that will run the company. Look, it's not brain surgery and it's not even without precedent. There have been a few worker owned factories in the past. It's like a profit sharing plan except with worker ownership you share ALL the profits not just what the capitalists decide to dole out.

[Usrename]

198. You don't seem to get the point.

You are arguing that these lobbyists who bribe our public officials are no problem at all as long as they all own their own companies.

I think that's just plain wrong.

[socialist_n_TN]

207. Any worker owned company would be just as subject

to laws and regulations by government in regards to veracity, health and safety as any owner owned company. So no I'm NOT arguing that bribery is OK, because a WORKER owned company would be subject to bribery laws too.

YOU don't seem to get the point. If ONE person owns a company, EVEN IF HE ACTUALLY DOES WORK FOR THE COMPANY, he's still an owner. SINGULAR. If the people that actually PRODUCE the goods own a company COLLECTIVELY, then it's a WORKER owned company. Now, I don't have any particular beef with Mom and Pop, owner/operator type businesses either. That's small spuds compared to the multinational corporations that I have the most problem with. However, if it's a big enough "Mom and Pop" shop to BRIBE Congressmen, either directly or through lobbyists, then I would look at the money trail BECAUSE AT BOTTOM IT'S PROBABLY NOT A "MOM AND POP" SHOP. It's probably a de facto subsidiary of some corporation.

At the most basic level, a REAL socialist government would support the common workers NOT the corporations.

[Usrename]

213. Maybe you just have to work this all out a little better is all.

There really is a bright line between what is goverment owned and what is privately owned. There really is. You don't seem to recognize this fact. You seem to want to make this issue fuzzy by conflating municipalities and states and other local governments with businesses or bank depositors. These last two are not governments.

OTOH, there really is no bright line between Mom and Pop shops and multinational corporations, but that is where you try to imply that there is a bright line. This is where the real fuzziness exists. But you just want to gloss over it and say Mom and Pop = good, multinational corporation = bad.

So I'll ask the question again, who gets to decide who is good and who is bad in your proposed solution? Who gets to draw that line? You?

[socialist_n_TN]

215. Does anybody know what this person is arguing?

I believe my original response to you had to do with your assertion that worker owned enterprises were no better than privately owned enterprises. Or something to that effect.

I'll admit I'm pretty confused. On one hand you say that capitalism is good then rail against THE VERY THING THAT IS CAPITALISM. If it's private ownership, then the bigger it gets and the more centralized the power (capital) IS. It's not the workers that bribe Congressmen and regulators, it's the CAPITALISTS.

And I make NO moral judgments about "good" and "bad" other than this: Decentralized wealth is inherently better than centralized wealth only because it's better for the greater number of people. It's not a moral choice, it's practical.

[Usrename]

217. Yes, decentralized wealth will be key in any solution.

The problem that I keep trying to point out to you has more to do with your rhetoric than it does with your underlying argument.

I'll try to point it out one more time. You just said this:

"I believe my original response to you had to do with your assertion that worker owned enterprises were no better than privately owned enterprises. Or something to that effect."


But what I am actually arguing is that there is no "difference" between the two. I don't mean this in the sense that one is no better than the other, I mean it in the sense that it is not possible to distinguish between the two.

How will it be decided (much more importantly, WHO will be the decider) when it comes to the question of determining which private owners are the good workers who have joined together in perfect worker harmony to have a stake in what they produce and which private owners are the evil capitalists who are destroying the planet?

How can this distinction be made, by whom, and on what basis?

[socialist_n_TN]

218. It's called collectivism...............

If it's jointly owned by ALL the workers, not just one, it is a wealth decentralized business. If it's owned by a single owner, whether he actually WORKS there or not, it's a capitalist enterprise.

[Usrename]

221. I don't think that addresses any of the problems we are facing.

We seem to be plagued by a level of open lawlessness that I never would have expected to see in my lifetime. We have a court that says it's ok for news propaganda organizations to perpetrate fraud on the public and bribery of public officials is just freedom of speech. I don't think trying to make up some kind of arbitrary rules such as "everybody must have at least one partner in crime" is going to solve anything.

[socialist_n_TN]

228. You're STILL thinking boss and workers

it wouldn't work quite that way. THERE WOULD BE NO BOSSES. Other than "straw bosses" that would be in practical supervisory positions. All full partners in the collective ownership would be equal, no matter who the "straw boss" was.

As to the lawlessness, etc. you're talking about, THERE WOULD STILL BE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT ALL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO. But the decentralized wealth of the collective would cut down on the lawbreaking because the COLLECTIVE would act for the company. If you have a 20 person Workers Council running the factory, it would be VERY difficult to get all 20 on the same page to "bribe the government". And even if you COULD get the Council to agree, with that many people SOMEBODY would rat them out, more than likely.

All that said, no system involving people is perfect. You'll still have commercial crime, just not as much of it and, with the decentralization of wealth, less incentive and opportunity to get away with it.

[William Z. Foster]

239. good luck

You are up against "I am on your side, and so that is why I oppose you."

It reminds me of "I love you so much and that is why I must now hurt you."

[Usrename]

250. That's right, I am the person to blame for your lack of clarity.

I suppose you really do think that I am the reason why your ideology sounds so hairbrained. Go ahead, blame me. That'll be right in line with all of your other proposed solutions to our dilemma.

I get it, kill the messenger.

[socialist_n_TN]

252. MY lack of clarity?????? WTF?????

I've tried to give ideas on what my version of socialism would be like. I've done it off the top of my head and countered every one of your objections in SPITE of the fact of your deliberate obtuseness. It's not like I've written out a detailed plan for socializing the USA and am ready to implement it tomorrow.

Yes it's an idealistic world I live in. All of my ideas would take a government, freely elected to enact the laws that would support a democratic socialist system. I'm pushing 60, so I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. That doesn't mean I can't dream.

YOU OTOH, are STILL conflating socialism with Stalinism and capitalist ownership with collective ownership. Dude (or dudette), I'll leave you with what Jesus would say. Let he who has ears, hear and eyes, see. I don't expect that ever to be you. You're obviously (knowingly or unknowingly) part of the reactionary wing that wants to "reform" a system THAT HAS NO DESIRE TO BE REFORMED.

[socialist_n_TN]

254. This post should be under usrename's post

not mine.

[Usrename]

260. Dude, I wasn't even talking to you.

But for the record, I do happen to understand the difference between those terms you mention. The problem when you use a general term like "collective ownership" there isn't any implied distinction between whether we're talking about joint ownership or if we mean community property.

[fascisthunter]

191. thank you

very telling as to what one choses. You broke that down really well.

[Usrename]

200. Except that it has nothing to do with finding a solution.

The crooks that are running things now, the ones that are working very hard to destroy the planet, a lot of them do own their own companies. Get it? Just because workers own their own companies doesn't make them law-abiding citizens.

[socialist_n_TN]

212. You're looking at a SYMPTOM of the problem

not the problem. The problem itself is capitalism. To a capitalist, money is God. Anything they can do to acquire MORE money is OK, including bribing public officials. The solution is hard core government controls over companies, WEIGHTED TOWARDS REGULATING THE BIGGEST COMPANIES THE MOST. Because they HAVE the most money and the most influence. They need to be checked for the common good. That's socialism.

[Usrename]

214. Under that definition, I agree with you.

But I don't think that is the normal usage of the word. Normally, socialism is the term used to refer to the public ownership of industry or utilities or services. Capitalism would be the private ownership of these things.

I have fairly recently looked up the definition of capitalism and it turns out that most definitions now include a prerequisite of “free markets” in the definition. I think this is new, or at least it wasn’t that way when I first learned the definition of the word. I think it is this belief in “free markets” that should be destroyed and not necessarily what we all have come to accept as “capitalism” in general.

Of course, by today’s definition, if you preclude “free markets” you will destroy capitalism, since the current definition makes capitalism dependent on them. In that particular context I think “capitalism” can and should be destroyed, i.e. regulated.

What you end up with is what is defined as “free enterprise.”

Main Entry: http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/free+enterprise">free enterprise
Function: noun
Date: 1890
: freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system without interference by government beyond regulation necessary to protect public interest and keep the national economy in balance



Main Entry: http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/capitalism">capitalism
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market



Main Entry: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20market">free market
Function: noun
Date: 1897
: an economic market operating by free competition



Main Entry: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism">socialism
Function: noun
Date: 1837
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods




The etymology says that all these expressions date back to about the same period, which is the period where the industrialist and monopolists were really establishing their foothold.

I think what you are advocating is the free enterprise version where comerce and competition is regulated by a democratic government. I think this is sometimes called a "mixed economy" or even sometimes called "democratic socialism" although I don't quite understand why.

[socialist_n_TN]

216. No. Government ownership of all companies is

Statism or Communism. As I've said previously, capitalist propaganda has said for 80 years or so that socialism IS the same as Communism, but that propaganda doesn't make it so. It's emphatically not. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production with government support and encouragement.

Personally, I'd leave the actual market pretty much alone except for fairness regulation. But I would encourage workers owning means of production with low cost business loans from the government as long as the loans were used to begin (or continue) businesses that were operated as COLLECTIVES and not single ownership.

But that's just me and MY version of socialism.

[Usrename]

219. This leads to an obvious question.

I'll use one of the more offensive companies as an example. You aren't really saying that if Blackwater were an employee owned company then that would make what they are doing acceptable, are you? So what exactly are you saying?

[socialist_n_TN]

230. Yes an employee owned Blackwater would be

MORE acceptable to me than it's current setup. Now, in my system a company like Blackwater would probably be totally unnecessary and maybe outlawed. I DO NOT like the idea of a private, heavily armed and well funded militia PERIOD. They're mercenaries and I don't like mercenaries. But yes, IF Blackwater were worker owned, there would be more of a chance of any harebrained scheme being voted down than there is now.

I'd prefer to outlaw it as a company though.

[Usrename]

249. You certainly have a lot more faith in those sociopaths than I do.

I don't think giving them the keys to the armory would make them any less harmless.

[socialist_n_TN]

220. Duplicated post

[Usrename]

224. I agree wholeheartedly with all of these things.

Especially nationalizing a huge portion of the energy industries.

[socialist_n_TN]

222. Reply to myself to add a later thought to this

I would also have DIRECT government ownership of things that are supposed to promote the general welfare like utilities, military and probably oil companies, major banks, others that I can't think of now. I would also stipulate that if a company is "too big to fail" and it's deemed necessary for the general welfare, it's nationalized.

And no, I don't have details. This is just a general statement of principles.

[socialist_n_TN]

223. Duplicated post

[athenasatanjesus]

Unfortunately most people have no idea what socialism is to begin with.,

My older brother thinks it's somehow the opposite of democracy,and my younger brother thinks the larger government is the more socialist it becomes.
They do know it's bad however =p

[JackRiddler]

97. Yeah, see above posts 83 and 93-96. Amazin'

[Scuba]

12. You might be interested in the Socialist history of Milwaukee...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/89804422.html

[iamthebandfanman]

126. the comments on that article are frightening..

yikes.

[Enthusiast]

172. Like the one poser said,

they are simply repeating what they heard on Fox news and Rush Limbaugh.

They have never had an original thought and they don't even know what socialism is.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. You're preaching to THIS choir member

And he sings "AMEN!"

FUCK CAPITALISM! It's the most ruinous economic system ever devised when it comes to the average person and it needs to be dismantled. I've always been a socialist ideologically, but I'm getting more and more fervent about it with every capitalist misstep.

[Union Yes]

24. "Fuck Capitalism"- I wholeheartedly concur!

:fistbump:

[SocialistLez]

82. The Democratic Socialists of America would welcome you.

They send out letters to their members that are signed by the guy who is over the organization and he gives you a # and email to reach him at.

[socialist_n_TN]

185. Got a web site for them Lez?

The SWP is probably too radical for my old bones nowdays, so I'd like to check other options.:)

[SocialistLez]

204. www.dsausa.org

They are having a conference pretty soon and I hate I can't attend.

[socialist_n_TN]

208. Thanks! Yours in Solidarity!

:toast:

[Cleita]

15. Count me in.

I say we ban money altogether. Then there would be no need for Banks or Wall Street. Goods and services should be gathered together in municipalities to be distributed communally according to need. Those who have excess should give that excess to other municipalities who have less. The Federal government would exist not only to coordinate those efforts but to keep diplomatic relationships with other countries and to maintain institutions that affect the common good. Everyone would have a job who is able to work and would receive in kind what their families need to survive on. Others, like the disabled, elderly and children would be cared for and given the goods and services that they need to survive especially education for the children's futures. We would conduct our actions looking to the seventh generation. In other words, we would go back to what Americans did before the Europeans arrived. We don't have to give up civilization and technology but we would need to stop looking at it as a way to make a profit and instead as a way to improve the quality of life for everyone.

And we need a new religion. We need to look upon our planet as a goddess who sustains us and whom we must respect by not destroying her and her creatures. That is for her alone to do when she needs to bring back balance into the system. We need to honor her with celebrations of the seasons to remind us about her. It's the only religion that we need.

[Odin2005]

16. K&R

[socialist_n_TN]

17. Gratuitous post just to keep this on the front page

With a story: I knew "socialism" as a word was losing it's sting when the valedictorian of my daughter's HS graduation class in '05 spoke glowingly about Eugene Debs, actually NAMING him AS a Socialist, AND SHE GOT LOTS OF APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE. This was in the buckle of the Bible Belt in Nashville, TN., albeit at an Arts Magnet School.

[Union Yes]

18. I appreciate your gratuity!

:rofl:

:hi:

[socialist_n_TN]

20. No problem. Your OP was terrific

What do you think about my suggestions for signage in post above? Suggestions for signs would be a good way to keep the thread on the front page.

[Union Yes]

22. Aw thanks!

I replied to your signs suggestions too! They were great. Keep em coming if you got any more!

:fistbump:

:hi:

[Enthusiast]

173. That is encouraging.

People know they have been screwn.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

28. Anytime you hear a politician (Republican or Democrat) hype...

.."Free Markets" of "Free Trade" KNOW that that politician is your ENEMY if you are an American who Works for a Living.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Enthusiast]

174. Right on, brother!

Once we live in a country where politicians are afraid to utter the words Free Markets and Free Trade the nation will be on the right track.

[stuntcat]

29. kickity

:kick:

[proudohioan]

30. Proud to be a Socialist; in Solidarity, Euclid, OH

Let's keep it going, Union Yes, and spread the word!

:patriot:

[readmoreoften]

40. K&R!

[colsohlibgal]

42. Amen!

I consider myself a democratic socialist and don't hide it at all.

So many confuse socialism with totalitarianism and that's way off base. It just means that everyone counts, the many don't get held down for the very few.

I know it sure works great in countries like Denmark - the people can go another way any time they like through their vote but why on earth would they?

[shireen]

47. +1

[Imajika]

48. This is like saying Socialism worked for my family...

...so lets do it on a national level in a big country. Technically, Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy. It has only 5 million people and has right of center governments all the time. In fact, the current government is slashing unemployment benefits, child welfare payments, etc, etc. Denmark is a not really a socialist country at all actually. It is a pro-free trade, mixed economy with a very flexible labor market (very easy to hire and fire people just like here in the US). When people talk of the wonders of places like Denmark, it is as if it is just some place they read about in political forums and thought it was utopia - like some land of milk and honey told in fairy tales.

There are NO successful socialist nations. Not a single one. Not ever. Where do you think most people would have preferred to live, West or East Germany, South or North Korea? Miami or Havana? Enough said. The explosions of growth in India and China were both as a result of largely dumping socialist economics in favor of capitalist free markets.

A blend of capitalism and socialism is what seems to work best - basically, regulated capitalism.

[okie]

75. I disagree with a lot of this.

I think you're right about Denmark.

As I asked the poster up above, saying there are no 'successful' socialist nations is very problematic. First, the idea that places like Cuba or the Soviet Union are socialist countries raises a lot of questions. Go listen to socialists argue over whether Russia was 'state capitalist' or a 'deformed worker state' or something else and you'll see what I mean. In my view, it is not much of change when control of workers passes from a capitalist to a government bureaucracy.

And the comparisons you're making are unfair. You can't talk about West and East Germany, or Cuba, or China and North Korea without talking about the Cold War. You can't talk about them without talking about Western imperialism. You also can't just compare a poor nation with a wealthy global hegemon. It might be better to ask, 'Havana or Mexico City', for example.

The reasons India and China have been successful lately have little to do with the failures of socialism. Global capitalism is often an excellent wealth creator, no one denies that. But that tells us nothing about whether or not it is an exploitative system. It also tells us nothing about whether it is a system that can sustain itself.

I want to know why those in favor of 'regulated capitalism' think that is a realistic option. I want to know what kind of regulations they have in mind. I'd like to know how they intend to achieve those regulations in a system where the government, and so called 'private sector' are one.

[Imajika]

111. The problem is that there are literally zero...

...successful socialist states where the government owns the means of production. Everything that actually works which has the name "socialist" tagged to it is really a regulated capitalist system.

Socialism is horribly inefficient, is not dynamic and is simply not competitive against capitalist systems. Worse yet, it tries to defy human nature, therefore it requires extreme coercion to keep in place. How do you set up a real socialist system that is truly democratic? I mean, what happens when you get a majority that think the state running everything might not be such a great idea and they want to vote to dismantle the whole enterprise. Exactly, the state can't allow it so people won't ever truly be able to vote for candidates with competing ideologies. Oh, there are the Castro brigades that claim Cuba is really a democracy, but everyone knows better. As wonderful as it sounds, a socialist system just does not work.

"First, the idea that places like Cuba or the Soviet Union are socialist countries raises a lot of questions. Go listen to socialists argue over whether Russia was 'state capitalist' or a 'deformed worker state' or something else and you'll see what I mean."

Yeah, I know the arguments. The problem here is all socialist states seem to devolve into police states like the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. What this debate always ends up coming down to is that socialism is fine but it just hasn't been implemented correctly.

"You can't talk about them without talking about Western imperialism."

The communist bloc was pretty large, what caused them to have such piss poor living standards compared to the West if not for the form of government. I mean, seriously. East Germany was like the pinnacle of socialism and it was a crap hole compared to West Germany. I'll give you that socialism is more fair in many ways. I will agree that it succeeds at things like educating near everywhere, providing basic health care to all, etc. Socialism can even lift a truly backward society, with the introduction of bureaucracy alone, into a reasonably modern industrial state. But the systems limitations are just so great. Socialism is just so inefficient and inflexible that it will never really be workable if people want the standards of living they are used to.

"It also tells us nothing about whether it is a system that can sustain itself."

Certainly true, we don't know how long our system will last. But you know, there really are just so many options. You can have benevolent dictators, monarchy's, etc, but how is commerce done? No matter who is running the show, if the state owns the means of production and people are not working for their own individual enrichment then there is no evidence it will work - ever. Socialism's track record of failure is pretty spectacular.

"I want to know why those in favor of 'regulated capitalism' think that is a realistic option. I want to know what kind of regulations they have in mind. I'd like to know how they intend to achieve those regulations in a system where the government, and so called 'private sector' are one."

I don't think anyone is really excited about "regulated capitalism" so much as that there just aren't a lot of workable options. Socialism fails, so that isn't realistic. Pure capitalism fails, so again not an option. I mean, it is kinda just what were left with. We accept that capitalism is the best way to generate wealth, then we try to regulate the market so the playing field is reasonably level, and lastly we tax the wealth generated to lift the poor, vulnerable and needy. You end up with terrible inequities, however the lowest class in such a system is often better off than the average worker in a socialist system in terms of material goods, freedoms to speak and assemble, etc, etc.

[Enthusiast]

178. Few of us are advocates of

pure socialism. Most of us are in favor of elements of a strongly regulated capitalism that does not allow the corporations to run roughshod over the worker and environment as they have done throughout much of the world. I personally favor a system that preserves the best of both systems with freedom and democracy as a priority.

I ask you, who on the DU has ever said "I want this country to be more like East Germany or North Korea."?

I have never heard anyone advocate this in my entire life yet every right wing pundit claims that is what socialists desire. Funny that I have never met these "socialists".

[Imajika]

199. Wrong..

Lots of people are deluded into believing Cuba is a workers paradise complete with real democracy. Nevermind that the Castro brothers have ruled for 50 years, to them this is exactly what the Cuban people want and reflect real democracy. Post something anti-Castro and you will see them swarm. A ridiculous number of people come to Chavez's defense the minute he nationalizes something is if the word "nationalism" itself will always be a good thing. If you believe in a mixed market, then you would have to believe that too much socialism is bad. There are hordes of people here who do not seem to feel that way at all.

And yes, East Germany has its fans. It collapsed before DU got started, but there is tremendous sympathy for that model amongst some quarters here. Many would argue that the vastly lower standard of living is quite worth it if it makes things equal. For a lot of folks, sub par housing for all would be better than good housing for most and sub par housing for some - simply because it is more fair. Nevermind that in the market system more people have good housing, these people see the inequality as the real devil.

I am also an advocate of a more mixed system, where the government works to level the playing field, acts as a proper official, taxes at a more progressive rate, etc. There are quite a lot of people on here, many I was debating just yesterday, that see the market as evil and want to go full bore into a command economy (with the government owning all or most of the means of production) as the only way to bring equality to the masses.

[Enthusiast]

209. I disagree.

I hear many right wingsters CLAIM there are fans of Cuba and East Germany but I have never met one in real life.

[Imajika]

225. There are fans of Cuba on this site...

Many Castro apologists here.

[William Z. Foster]

237. huh?

Did you mean to say that there are people who are willing to see some good things in Cuba, and who are questioning the right wing propaganda? That must be what you meant to say.

[Union Yes]

57. Well said! +1000 nt

[Enthusiast]

175. Right wing spokesmen like Beck

and Limbaugh never stop trying to strengthen the link between socialism and totalitarianism. Any time single payer health care is mentioned they want to bring up Cuba as an example. And they use the Soviet Union as an example of the loss of freedom. This is pure misinformation, as you know.

[pundaint]

43. I may have to hand copies of this out to my Fox-"informed" friends. Nice job!

[Vidar]

44. You have my vote!

[ShamelessHussy]

46. Well said - k&r (nt)

[Ruby the Liberal]

49. Just to pick a nit, but Morgan Stanley wasn't negatively impacted.

You might want to edit that to replace MS with Merrill Lynch.

[Blue_Tires]

50. ttt

[Festivito]

51. One CAN blame socialism, socialism of the rich over socialism of the rest.

The reason oil companies think they can do as they wish is because they believe that socialism of the rich aka socialism of the corporations, ... will bail them out.

The banks think the same.

The military industrial congressional complex thinks the same.

... and on and on.

Socialism IS the problem, the socialism that allows one man one vote as a social contract is the same socialism that allows those votes to be cast in fear or worse, cast in a vacuum.

The idea of voting, socialist as it is, is a good idea. We just need to correct the how we vote and the rest should fall into place.

Our question here should be WHICH socialism do you want, not if you want socialism.

[readmoreoften]

101. "socialism of the rich" IS capitalism. I get your point, but I'd rather not muddy the waters.

Plus, they will destroy one another and still seek to oppress one another when possible.

[Festivito]

132. Actually, it's not capitalism. And, I would like to muddy the waters.

People are afraid of the the word socialism. They should not be afraid of the word. If they are, they need to explain why our individual votes should not be equal under the social contract of the Constitution -- and which of our votes should count more.

Next.

We oft consider capitalism as the opposite of socialism, but it's not. Under capitalism a group of investors can take a risk and invest their capital. What is to stop that group from being an entire country? I mean, what? If one person withdraws suddenly that would not be called socialism?

Lastly.

The choice is between two socialisms, one for all, and one for the few elite rich. Be afraid of that word all you want, but answer this: who is going to clean the oil when BP goes bankrupt? Answer: Taxes. Socialist taxes. It will be our socialized tax money bailing out this problem.

Who will bail out the banks? Socialist taxes.

Who bailed out the S&L crisis? Socialist taxes.

[man4allcats]

52. K&R! Socialism is

change we can believe in.

:kick:

[green917]

53. i'm proud to be a socialist too!

[Omaha Steve]

54. K&R!

[MellowDem]

55. No ideology is "perfect"...

and a lot of the problems, though not all, for the US can be blamed on the lack of regulation by government. Of course, it's funny that you blame the debt on "capitalism", when those are concious, government-made decisions. And considering that many socialist European nations have even bigger debt loads as a percentage of GDP than us, it's hard to see how these all connect to "capitalism".

Whether your are overspending on tax cuts or on social programs, you're still overspending. You're trying to make the argument too simplisitic.

[HughBeaumont]

165. The point is, "WHICH government made those decisions"?

The Democratic government had to spend responsibly to, I don't know, RESCUE the previous Republican government who blew the kitty and the surplus on corporatist wars of choice and folly, corporatist tax cuts to benefit the enormously wealthy and corporatist bailouts for busted casin. . . er . . . finance and insurance conglomerates.

Reagan's government did the same damned thing, only he raised taxes on the middle/working class a few times to make up for the debt. The Failure Fuhrer turned this country into a whiskey throttle, devil-may-care crapcake where, apparently, you never have to pay taxes, you can just borrow and waste to your heart's content and there'll never be a big fat BILL come due! That's what your grandkids are for!

You absolutely can blame the lion's share of the debt on unbridled capitalism. Did peacetime defense NEED all that money? Did we NEED to fight corporatist wars on sovereign nations (and make no mistake about it, these wars have EVERYTHING to do with unbridled capitalism and nothing at all to do with defense of "freedoms")?? Did people with an exorbitant amount of money need even more money?

Many governmental decisions are performed in the name of propping this landfill-smelling garbage heap known as "unbridled capitalism" up.

[and-justice-for-all]

56. Democratic Socialist right here...nt

[theaocp]

58. I refuse to abide by this black-and-white analysis of the situation

Socialism is no more the answer to our problems than capitalism is. The free market is the best system, but only with proper refereeing of the "game". Without refs, natural human greed will take down anyone at any time in a capitalist society. We need a properly regulated free market to pull ourselves out of this mess. We don't need a socialist revolution.

[socialist_n_TN]

60. But regulated free market is NOT capitalist

according to the current day proponents of capitalism. And they're the ones who are implementing policies. Ergo unregulated free market capitalism is what we'll get.

[theaocp]

61. That may be...

however, it is also decidedly not socialist, either. Therefore, we're debating semantics. Pure capitalism is a nightmare and pure socialism is a dream. Both are non-starters and lead me back to the reality of regulated capitalism. :)

[socialist_n_TN]

66. I'd rather have a dream

than a nightmare. :)

[theaocp]

70. Sure, me too, but

why not work to have a flexible reality that helps everyone? We're not plants, after all ... we can move about, yes? Understand that we're inherently-selfish animals that require some kindred guidance to allow all to flourish. I think that's a goal worth fighting for, but the idea of throwing one unrealistic system overboard for another just like it, but from the other end of the ideological spectrum seems silly to me. It just perpetuates the problem of dealing with the unfairness of life. Cheers.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. Oh, my version of socialism would be a hybrid system

and very democratic.

The problem that most people have with socialism is that they equate it with Stalinism. And being an old Trotskyite, I'm not on board with that either. Unfortunately, Stalin set the standard for COMMUNISM in the last century and, because of capitalist propaganda, socialism became conflated with communism or Stalinism. Remember there's absolutely no reason for an entity budgeting TRILLIONS of dollars (government) to worry at all about a self employed person making 20k per year EXCEPT TO REGULATE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF HIS PRODUCT, AND THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HIS ADVERTISING. MY socialistic government would have MUCH bigger fish to fry.

[theaocp]

74. Ultimately, I'd try to change the labels

and move away from the term of socialism, if for no other reason than what you've already stated. I am able to look beyond such labeling, but most are not or are unwilling to do so. If the idea is the important thing, than repackaging it shouldn't hurt it one iota. Just a thought. ;)

[bobbolink]

76. And you have brought out the very difference in the two systems.

Capitalists are Calvinists, as you have brought out. They believe that people are inherently bad, and must be kept on a leash.

Socialists believe much more that people are inherently good, and need to have the freedom to exercise that good.

I'll take the latter, thankyouverymuch.

[theaocp]

91. I think people are inherently both

so while many try to be true to their inherent goodness, it becomes too easy to fall victim to temptation and selfishness that is the path toward base survival. Why can't we just agree to have refs to make sure the playing field is even? Trying to pick one side over the other perpetuates the myth that we have to choose one side at the expense of the other. As I said in the beginning, this is not a black & white issue, so trying to make it one isolates one from the infinite possibilities offered with hybrid thinking. I hope that makes sense. :) Cheers.

[JackRiddler]

152. The economic question is about who creates money and allocates it, to what end.

And that's the issue in this debate. Not about what's been tried - it's all failed, sooner or later, "socialist" as well as "capitalist" - but what should yet come. Shall it be the NYSE and the banks that decide which economic activities prosper and which are starved? Or is there a different way?

Your average human resources department at a corporation definitely thinks we can be shaped and moved around.

We are not only inherently selfish. We are each of us many things. Not much in this life functions without humans' daily devotion to each other.

[Scruffy1]

62. horse hocky

Every time you properly regulate it they either ignore the rules, change them, find a new non regulated game to play( like credit default swaps), or buy their way out of jail. Capitalism is a form of sociopathy that cannot be reformed.

[theaocp]

63. That's no reason to not have regulations

Pure socialism is a pipe dream. You have to take what works and meld it with regulated capitalism. Drop the labels and observe what works: hybrids! Hooray for flexibility! :)

[William Z. Foster]

107. make up your mind

The other member said that Capitalism will smash through or go around any barriers, so regulation is, well, a pipe dream.

Your response? "Pure socialism is a pipe dream." What does that mean? What it "pure Socialism?" An imaginary construct you make up to fit your argument. What is wrong with a dream? Besides, your idea of regulating Capitalism is a dream.

Nothing "works" when "melded" with "regulated capitalism," since Capitalism is a method for moving all wealth, and therefore all power into the hands of the few.

Drop your labels and cliches and observe what is, would be my advice.

[theaocp]

114. I disagree that regulation of capitalism is a pipe dream

That's all. I think regulated capitalism that uses needed socializing of programs is a great idea and entirely plausible. Further, I imagine pure socialism to be the opposite of pure capitalism. It's not imaginary any more so than pure capitalism is.

Thanks for the advice, but I think the opposite of pure capitalism is just as dangerous as the unregulated free market itself. Wrapping itself in good intentions is hardly the end of the discussion. Cheers. :)

[William Z. Foster]

118. we have that now

What a mess.

The degree to which Capitalism was reined in to some extent for a brief while was when there was a massive and militant left wing presence in this country in the 30's - Socialists and Communists. "Regulated Capitalism," such as it was, represented a compromise, not a plan or a goal. That is risky ebnougn. If you start by advocating "regulated Capitlaism" you have lost the battle before you start.

Advocating "regulated Capitalism" is like advocating for fresh vegetables - yum yum - and not being willing to do any plowing or weeding or harvesting. "I am for that good thing (that could only happen because there was a strong left wing in the country advocating the abolition of Capitalism) called regulated Capitalism, but I am opposed to a strong left wing in the country advocating the abolition of Capitalism."

Speaking of Abolition, what would you think of "regulated slavery?" That is what many people advocated back before the Civil War - slavery contained and restricted and regulated. That was certainly better than unregulated slavery, I suppose. But it was no excuse not to advocate for total emancipation.

Progress means eliminating the actual chains, then the political chains, and now the economic chains. It flows one direction. Advocating anything less is to fight the tide of progress.

[theaocp]

163. We do not have that now

because regulation is obviously on a sliding scale. We're near the bottom of that scale now, so more can be done.

You're now equating socialism with communism? Please clear this up for me so I'm not confused. Either way, it doesn't matter if you throw your weight completely behind one single ideology. You're blinding yourself to the benefits of using both socialism AND capitalism. Pure socialism will yield corruption of those in power over governing bodies in the EXACT same way pure capitalism shows corruption of those in power over private companies. I'm back to my original point: we need a capitalist system where people are free to succeed or fail on their own, but with REFEREES from the government bent on making sure the playing field is level and fair. Socialism is wonderful and can play a mighty role in this system, when people who fail need to be helped back into the game. It wounds me to even call it a "game," but it's the easiest way to help people understand how both systems play a part. I hope this helps you understand my point of view. :) Cheers.

[William Z. Foster]

236. sure

At issue here is just how we can get to the improved conditions you describe.

We got to regulated Capitalism in the past because and only because there was a powerful left wing in the country advocating a much more radical change than you are promoting. That counterbalanced the opposition - the wealthy and powerful few and their sycophants and wannabes and shills - who wanted no interference whatsoever in the affairs of the wealthy and powerful few. The result, after much struggle and sacrifice, was the compromise of regulated Capitalism.

You are advocating that result, that compromise, as an oppositional argument to those who are calling for building a powerful left wing in the country and to those calling for much more radical change. You are fighting against the one vital and essential ingredient that leads to the result you say you want. That is like wanting the ribbon without running the race; wanting the crop without the planting, tending and harvesting. You want the fresh ripe vegetables to eat - you favor and support that, you say - but then are telling people that you oppose them doing any plowing, planting, weeding, fertilizing and harvesting. This is a way to convince yourself and others that you want the harvest when you really do not - until and unless it is handed to you.

All of the regulated Capitalism that you gaze on so fondly, the benefits from that which you enjoy, has been handed to you on a silver platter. Someone else - people fighting for the exact same program that you are now speaking against so stridently - did all of the work and made all of the sacrifices, paid the steep price. They did not achieve that result by calling for moderation, by advocating compromise before the struggle had begun, by attacking radicals and the left.

You claim to want the result, but are opposing the only methods for getting to that result.

[socialist_n_TN]

189. YES! Normally I won't repeat another poster's point

if I agree with it (after all it's already been said), but SOME points are important enough to emphasize again.

The ONLY reason we had the "regulated" system of capitalism that actually worked pretty well during the post WWII years until Reagan IS BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS IN THE 30s. They were such strong advocates for socialism during that time and had gained such a following among the workers that the capitalists felt like they HAD TO DO SOMETHING! If not, the USA WOULD have become a socialist state. So they hybridized capitalism with some socialistic ideas. I've even seen it suggested that FDR (yes Mr. Socialist to the RW) did what he did as a way to SAVE capitalism. I actually think that's a reasonable assumption. After all, Roosevelt was FROM the capitalist class.

[kestrel91316]

59. I lean lefter the older I get. GREAT post!!!!!!!

[bobbolink]

78. I've heard of lean beef, but lean kestrel????

:rofl:

[bobbolink]

64. “I feed the poor, I’m called a saint. I ask why the poor have no food, I’m called a communist.”

---Dom Helder Camara, who knew the what "supply-side economics" does to poor people.

[socialist_n_TN]

81. Great quote bobbo

nfm

[Scruffy1]

65. John Maynard Keynes defined capitalism as...

The belief that the evilest people doing the evilest things is for the common good.

[me b zola]

68. K&R!

:applause:

[DesertFlower]

69. i'm proud to call myself a socialist democrat.

[WyoHiker]

72. Lt. Col. Matthew Andrew Markinson:

"And the truth is this: Your son is dead for only one reason. I wasn't strong enough to stop it."

Pride in ideology? Yeah, I'll give you that. But why the hell weren't we able to prevent this?

jus sayin.

[onestepforward]

77. K&R!

[Greyhound]

79. An even 100.

[rpannier]

80. We had an anti-Socialist visit the group

I hit rec and it said 100 as well

[Greyhound]

85. Seems to be 20 or 21

consistent unwrecks on any thread like this, so I guess we can expect a couple more.
Thanks for bringing it back.
:hi:

[xchrom]

86. Recommend

[datasuspect]

87. the invisible hand of the free market will clean up the gulf

yeah, right . . . .

[marmar]

90. D'accord, mon ami........

[Kievan Rus]

92. I'm a socialist and PROUD OF IT

[defendandprotect]

95. k

[mynameiswhat]

98. where has socialism worked?

[noamnety]

102. I always counter that by asking

where has capitalism worked - and who has it worked for? And at whose expense?

[readmoreoften]

104. +1

[William Z. Foster]

113. yes

Talk about Socialism, and Americans are trained to start thinking Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, Castro, andgodknowswhat.

Funny that they don't associate Capitalism with George Papadopoulos, P.W. Botha, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez,Fulgencio Batiste, Alfredo Stroessner, Francisco Franco, Anastasio Somoza, Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, Efrain Rios Mont, Adolph Hitler, Suazo Cordova, Augusto Pinochet, Manual Noriega, François "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, Vinicio Cerezo, Park Chung Hee, Alfredo Cristiani, Ngo Dinh Diem, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Benito Mussolini to name a few.

[mynameiswhat]

117. well i guess i would say tha some sort of capitalism built this country up

and made it the best country in the world?

[noamnety]

120. And yet, you haven't acknowledged at whose expense.

Where did we get the land from, and how?

How did plantation owners get rich?

How did industrialists get rich?

Where have we gotten our resources from, and who has paid the price?

[mynameiswhat]

122. so how would socialism have changed that?

do you think if we started this country out with socialism we would be where we are today?

[noamnety]

125. "we've got ours."

No, if we'd taken a different path, obviously we'd be in a different place. And so would the native americans, the slaves we kidnapped, the haitians whose land we raped long before the earthquake, the vietnamese, the nigerians, the people of nagasaki, or hiroshima, much of Latin America and Central America, Mexico, etc.

[mynameiswhat]

127. do you think this country would be better off if we started out with socialism rather than

capitalism?

[noamnety]

131. Yep.

Keeping in mind that a country is an inanimate thing, yes, I absolutely think it would be in better shape if we weren't allowing corporations to gut our resources and shit all over our environment in the name of corporate profits.

Wall Street will find a way to take care of anything that Monsanto and BP overlook.

[mynameiswhat]

134. while i agree that corporations have too much power.

They did build us up to be the best country in a much shorter time than any other country.

[noamnety]

136. Can you define "best" country?

I always wonder what standard people use for that ... we aren't the best education, we don't have the most class mobility, we don't have the best healthcare or social net, we are overly militarized as an offshoot of our capitalism/imperialism, we don't have the best ethics (torture, capital punishment, even corporal punishment) and last I knew Costa Rica had the best score on the happiness scale.

What do you think makes us the "best"? We might consume the most, is that what you mean?

[mynameiswhat]

137. By best country i mean that this country give everyone the opportunity to succeed.

[noamnety]

139. First off, we do not have the best upward mobility index. Check your stats.

Second, I would disagree that we "give everyone the opportunity to succeed." My perspective is coming from living in a region where your capitalists have poisoned the ground to the point where more than 10% of our kids have lead poisoning. Not from paint - but from having contact with the soil which is contaminated. The things that capitalists (those with capital) do to our environment cause mental and physical defects in people that often prevent them from being able to succeed, and because we don't have universal health care, many times these people can't get the medical care they need, or they get partial care but are bankrupted because of it.

People in countries where you aren't bankrupted for being sick have better opportunities to succeed, no? (Unless you count forced bankruptcy through no fault of your own as "success.")

[noamnety]

140. More on the lack of upward mobility in America

This report discusses two aspects of economic mobility in the United States. The first is the question of intergenerational mobility, or the degree to which the economic success of children is independent of the economic status of their parents. A higher level of intergenerational mobility is often interpreted as a sign of greater fairness, or equality of opportunity, in a society.

The second aspect is the short-term question of the amount by which family incomes change from year to year. By studying short-term mobility we can determine whether incomes are rising or falling for families at different points in the income distribution. We can also determine whether the size of these income variations, or the level of annual income volatility, is changing over time. Increased volatility is undesirable to the extent that it represents an increase in economic insecurity.

(snip)

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

[Dr.Phool]

160. "They" built?

Those corporate chinese laborers who were worked to death building the railroads. The slaves in the Carolina's who were literally worked to death on rice plantations, because it was cheaper to replace them than to care for them.

"They" didn't build shit.

[newspeak]

229. yeah, maybe some should read history

starting with the story of Goodyear who died impoverished--his inventions taken with little monetary return. His family went to the government to argue that he wasn't paid and the robber barons won. Or the man who invented the oil drill who found oil for some very wealthy oil barons-he died an embittered poor man. However, to the oil barons giving him a stipend when he was disabled and no longer could work was charity they didn't have--after his death they created a fine statue to honor him. Too bad, they didn't believe in helping (I guess they saw him as weak) when he was alive. It is better to honor those who truly labored and actually created over those who exploited their work. And they did exploit--I believe to them it is social darwinism-don't help the weak, only the strong deserve to survive. But, their definiion, to me, is those who can exploit the most to their advantage, those who can murder, lie, cheat to get what they want-money and power.

Now I'm not saying every industrialist has acted this way--but there is enough to give capitalism a bad name or should I call it "predatory capitalism."

Near where I lived in Northern California is the railroad tracks. I've overturned soil in our back yard--I believe it's where the camp was set up. I've found all sorts of bottles- opium bottles, cough syrup bottles. My thought at the time was that many of those laborers were ill and in pain, constantly. They were being pushed to meet a deadline. I'm sure the barons at the time were concerned for those who were laboring for them. :sarcasm:

[socialist_n_TN]

138. Define best

Best for who? And is the path we're currently on going to KEEP us as the "best"?

[Dr.Phool]

159. Best What?!!?

The country with the largest wealth disparity on the planet. About the worst health care system in the developed world. The most expensive and least effective education system in the developed world.

Unless you're talking about the biggest, bestest, military budget on the planet, you might be on to something.

[HughBeaumont]

182. Said poster just got DROPPED . . .

. . . into Marble-Row Country.

Whudda surprise.

[readmoreoften]

103. Where has it existed without the capitalists waging war on it, pushing into war communism?

And don't say "North Korea" because I don't consider state capitalist regimes socialist. North Korea is a Spartan Kingdom, a monarchy.

[socialist_n_TN]

128. It's the closest thing now to pure Stalinism

Which is NOT socialism and really not even Communism as Lenin and Trotsky envisioned it. Stalinism is a sociopathic cult of personality. Which is what N. Korea is. Repeat, it's NOT socialism.

[William Z. Foster]

109. in the United States

You rely on it every day.

[Imajika]

123. Nowhere...

You'll get a whole bunch of nonsense dancing around the point, but the answer to your question is that a real socialist system (where the government owns the means of production) has worked exactly nowhere.

[liberation]

144. I love how you introduce your own nonsensical qualifier to what socialism is...

Most of the EU countries say: "what's up?"

Given that Norway has the highest living standard and one of the highest (depending on the exchange rate status) GDP per capita in the world, and they are for all intents and purposes a socialist country (down to having their own oil industry nationalized). Me thinks your whole "nonsense" and "dancing around" are more products of your own projection than actual arguments you may have heard regarding socialism.

[Imajika]

150. I'd assumed we were talking real socialism here..

..not the mixed economies and regulated capitalist economies Scandinavian nations have been using.

Norway is not a socialist country. You know that right? Norway is actually The Kingdom of Norway and runs a mixed economy with an effective capitalist-welfare state that has a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. It has a population of around 5 million people whom are almost entirely homogeneous. Right wing parties successfully win elections regularly in Norway too.

Denmark is also not a socialist country. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy. It has only 5 million people and has right of center governments quite frequently. In fact, the current government is slashing unemployment benefits, child welfare payments, etc, etc. Denmark is not really a socialist country at all actually. It is a pro-free trade, mixed economy with a very flexible labor market (very easy to hire and fire people just like here in the US).

Sweden, technically the Kingdom of Sweden with about 10 million people, is an export oriented mixed economy. Sweden also currently has a right wing government called the Alliance for Sweden.

You are talking about mixed economies. Free market economies that are more regulated and see more state intervention and government ownership of very specific sectors. This is not socialism, this is regulated capitalism.

"and they are for all intents and purposes a socialist country"

No, they aren't socialist countries. They have political party's with the name "socialist" in them, but they are not actual, real socialist states. These party's are just free market lite. A real socialist country would have a top down, command economy with the state having ownership of the means of production.

[Enthusiast]

181. And who is it

that wants the government to own the means of production, exclusively? Who in the fuck wants that?

[Imajika]

201. People that think Cuba is a good model?

For starters?

You know there are a lot of them here right?

[Enthusiast]

210. Name one....nt

[Imajika]

227. I am not calling out people here...

How could you not have noticed?

There is a whole group of Castro apologists right on DU. Over the years I've argued with them many, many times.

[SocialistLez]

211. Norway is a socialist-left country

They beat the U.S. on a number of quality of life and standard of living rankings.

[deutsey]

99. I'm a Democratic Socialist, not that that matters in America. n/t

[HillGal]

100. Please tell me this person isn't serious? NT

NT

[MrScorpio]

108. He seems very serious to me

Socialism is a perfectly acceptable construct in practically all Western industrialized, "capitalistic" countries, including the US.

It's just that in this country, we talk around it with words like "public works", "Social Security" and "the general welfare".

Without some form of socialism, the United States would be no better off than Somalia.

[HillGal]

116. Silly me for not wanting to aspire to be like countries that have killed hundreds of

millions of their own people, countries where trying to speak freely will land you a death sentence or a lengthly jail sentence, countries that starve their own people. Do you really think you'd even be given a platform at a DNC Presidential convention? you wouldn't ever be given a prime top spot spewing things I've seen here because it would turn people off just like this thread has turned me off. Go ahead, spew what you've said at rallies supporting Democrats up for election this year, you'd be tossed before you even walked into the place.

[Union Yes]

119. Your talking about state communism. I'm talking about Democratic Socialism. Know the difference? nt

[HillGal]

121. Semantics. NT

NT

[socialist_n_TN]

133. That's bullshit...............

IT'S NOT SEMANTICS. It's different forms of government and economics. If you believe that every socialist state is like North Korea, then you must believe that every capitalist state is like Nazi Germany.

[fascisthunter]

192. that was ignorant and intentionally dismissive

[ceile]

205. FAIL

[MrScorpio]

130. I didn't know that the socialist Danes and Norwegians were such blood thirsty savages

Thanks for the education.

Anyway, the great thing that I love about Democrats is that we're the big tent party,

We have plenty of room for people who are quite serious about applying socialism in America for the benefit of Americans and well as those who aren't.

We are all welcome.

I know for a fact that the Tea baggers and the Republicants certainly won't.

That's because they're too busy working to destroy the lives of ordinary working Americans, by way of their constant whoring for the corporations.

[liberation]

146. As a % of population, we killed more native Americans than the Cultural Revolution and Stalin's

purges ever did. Also let's not forget that up to the mid XIX century, slavery was legal in our country.

I also love how people defending capitalism conveniently ignore the millions killed by the fascist movements in Europe, and the colonial excursions of the XVII and XIX centuries. Which were due to capitalistic requirements and policies.

It is very easy to operate in a permanent state of convenient historical amnesia. For example, it is very easy for Americans and British to point the finger at China's communists for their Cultural Revolution. While conveniently ignoring that policy was a direct reaction in order to squash the civil unrest that had been fueled by foreign interests (American and British mostly) which had put China in a de facto civil war for over a century (esp. during the Opium wars) and which had led to famine and the dead of millions more people than Mao's insanity ever killed. How the West thinks they are in some what of a higher moral standing to chastise China's communist party it is beyond me. After all it was the West who literally were acting like glorified opium dealers for most of their stay in China during the XIX century. We sold them the disease, and we pretend to have a moral standing because their method of curing themselves was not of our approval. It does not excuse the atrocities committed by Mao et al in the least. But Westerner need to learn, that our hubris is as bad or worse... so we need to at some point SHUT THE F*CK UP, because our shit stinks as bad or worse.


Also, if we're going to bitch about other people's lack of freedom. Let's note that our incarceration rate is among the top 5 in the world, and that is happening right now, in the XXI century. It takes a lot of balls for anyone living in the US to talk shit about other countries, when our lovely country currently has invaded two nations out of pure choice, and we're responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians (and that is using the lowest possible estimate) in what now seems a pure oil-based invasion of a country (we're yet to produce those WMDs we used as an excuse, funny how most Americans completely forget that minor detail).


In the end, I think it is all due to White suburbanites aptness to confuse their very sheltered lives with the norm in this country. Their disconnect with reality is such, that they can go on and speak in terms of WASP projection driven propaganda as it being historical fact.

[MrScorpio]

147. I don't disagree one iota

It just seemed to me that the previous poster was just a little too biased against the truth.

[liberation]

148. I wasn't disagreeing with you either ;-), I just get tired of the overwhelming stench of hypocrisy.

that a lot of people in this country display. Because some people here (and in other parts of the world I assume it is the same case too) need to have everything in terms of absolutes and runaway false dichotomies: the commies did something bad, ergo we're automatically better. Well, no... we're only "better" if we ignore our very bloody history and policies.

I don't believe in "isms" I don't think there has been a perfect system through history. So I don't think the correct answer to the devils of capitalism is socialism, or any other ism. However, what I don't believe is that by pointing the bad shit made in the name of communism, that capitalism somehow becomes better.

I have no problem admitting that communism as implemented in China and Russia, it was a disaster. But I am intellectually honest to understand why it was a disaster, and the fact that there were significant differences between the theory expressed by Marx et al, and the practice of Mao and Lenin/Stalin. I am also intellectually honest enough, to understand that the democratic socialism practiced in Scandinavian countries has led to societies with higher living standards and actual futures, over the clusterfuck of "capitalism" which we have in this country.

In fact who know... maybe an "ism" may not be the answer. Common sense and understanding, in an intellectually honest manner, our current problems... should be what we use in order to create a better socio-economic system. But an honest debate can not happen, with so many people in this country brainwashed to deal with anything with the words "communism" and "socialism" as being inherently bad or wrong, and anything with "capitalism" as being the only proven and correct by default system. The hubris of our current system/status quo are all to obvious to ignore: we can not expect a system that requires infinite growth to be sustainable in a finite reality, we can't continue to live in a system with such incredible inequalities.


"Everybody does better, when everybody does better." That should be our guiding principle, this whole "everyone for themselves" we've living under for a while it is clearly not working.

[MrScorpio]

149. Damn Skippy nt

[Stuckinthebush]

162. What Liberation said

Ditto, amen, +1...etc.

[mikita]

176. what a great post...

thank you.

[Enthusiast]

186. Nice post! nt

[dana_b]

193. great post(s)

the thing is we as a society can't face what we have done so when someone call us out on our hypocrisies (sp), we say they hate freedom or democracy. "we're the greatest nation... blah blah" We don't HAVE pure freedom and definitely don't have a true democracy. Reality sucks!

[JackRiddler]

151. You mean France, Greece, Italy, and most of the EU?

They've all had socialists in government. Italy's had post-communists in government. Even Labour was prior to Blair heavily socialist.

Don't you get tired of the bullshit? China isn't even socialist. It's state capitalist. Very obviously so. It enslaves its people to produce cheap shit for you. It's been the most important prop for capitalism of the last couple of decades.

Nicaragua's got a Sandinista government, right now. It was the end of the world, right?

Look at the Carribbean and Central America, and compare the relative records of the few socialist governments that survived assaults from the northern colossus to the governments espousing "free markets" in the same region.

Quick, do you want to be a peasant in El Salvador or Cuba?

[freddie mertz]

169. You are talking about totalitarian Communism.

Socialism is something larger and we already have it even in the US (and more so in Europe).

If you have a state pension, national healthcare, public schools and utilities, etc. you have socialism.

[freddie mertz]

171. K & R. I wish we had a truly socialist or "labor" type party here. nt.

[Enthusiast]

184. Again who is it that

is an advocate for what you describe? We don't want no stinkin' death sentence. You want to talk about lengthy jail sentences? And the number of people currently in prison?

[HughBeaumont]

203. Prisons, Inc.

That's called the War on the Poor, one of the many fine products of unbridled capitalism. It's the not-so-friendly way of leaving those deemed "Not Economically Viable" behind.



Say what you will about Falling Down, but that film had pieces of everyone in it.

[susanr516]

105. K&R

I am a socialist and proud of it!

[blue sky at night]

106. I have embraced it....

and I have always thought that capitalism is evil, guess I wasn't as f'ed up as all of my relatives thought I was. You know it always takes a major f up to get people to think for themselves....will it happen now? na.....it will never happen.

[JanMichael]

112. Agreed in whole. I always like to point out that the "freedom TO" should ALWAYs...

...be balanced against the "freedom FROM". Like to the freedom of business to exploit labor against the right and freedom to NOT be exploited by business.

Also while people always say some were "under Communism" that they are also "UNDER Capitalism" right now.

No dichotomies allowed here!

[IDemo]

115. Eugene V. Debs - 2012 !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

[Kablooie]

124. Yes, but there's one thing you didn't mention.

Socialism is evil and capitalism is good.







:sarcasm:

[unkachuck]

129. K&R....and I'm proud to 'stand tall' right next to you....n/t

[Union Yes]

143. Solidarity Unka!

:fistbump:

[TheKentuckian]

135. K&R I'm not a purist but I'm moving that direction all the time

[BrklynLiberal]

141. K and R

[Karmadillo]

145. K&R.

nt

[inna]

153. kr

[opihimoimoi]

156. ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE.....That French Fella Dumas

[Stardust]

157. Democratic Socialist standing tall here. I've witnessed it in several countries and am baffled as

to how people here can criticize a system that works beautifully for all concerned, business and man. I'd emigrate there in a heartbeat if they'd let me and if I didn't have to leave family behind.

[RedCloud]

158. +1

[Christa]

161. K & Highly rec'd nt

[HughBeaumont]

164. K & R.

Aaaaaaaaaaand I see the thread is scattered with the usual low-count, low-info, "Soshulism = Mao = Stalin = DemoCRAPS! Capitalizm = GRATE!" posters. Amazing that after 60 years of constant programming, the public by and large still has a lot to learn and dislodge.

[Enthusiast]

187. We noticed the same thing, HughBeaumont.

Exactly. Low count mouths.

[HughBeaumont]

202. One's already been dropped, I see.

:) That didn't take long.

[Enthusiast]

166. Thanks for the reminder.

Of course those nuts on the other side still insist that everything that is wrong is liberalism and their socialist safety net and regulations. Of course this flys in the face of reality, they know this is a lie, a lie they repeat every stinkin' day.

[RedState_progressive]

167. AGREED ! Socialism...and look at the German President's statement ...truer than true

Can't resist adding this...Anyone ever state the relationship between foreign trade and WAR in starker terms:
******************* quote from: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U22620100531?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews ***

German President quits after military action row
BERLIN
Mon May 31, 2010 8:43am EDT BERLIN (Reuters) - German President Horst Koehler said on Monday he was resigning with immediate effect due to widespread criticism of comments he made about the country's military action and commercial interests.

The shock resignation came after Koehler, elected to a second term last year, said a country like Germany which was heavily reliant on foreign trade must know that military interventions were needed to uphold German interests.

"I regret that my comments could lead to a misunderstanding about an important and difficult question for our nation," Koehler told reporters.
******************************************* end quote

There you have it. Foreign trade requires WAR !!! to "protect <national, meaning capitalist ruling class> interests."

[Enthusiast]

188. This is how it gets started. nt

[dana_b]

195. he has to resign for telling the truth?! ridiculous. n/t

[Stuart G]

168. K and R thanks for posting this.

[OnyxCollie]

177. K&R. nt

[4dsc]

179. Socialism will provide for all, capitalism will provide for the few

Interesting take on things.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

180. paste this on to billboards in every city!

[dana_b]

196. big K&R!

Democratic socialism - we all have a voice and all are provided for. Capitalism - who do I have to step on to get mine

[alfredo]

197. I will pass this on to my Socialist friends.

[texas_ex]

226. I used to be a Democrat, but...

I recently changed my party affiliation to Socialist to vote in the Ohio primary, for the Socialist candidate for US Senate. Why? I actually voted FOR Obama instead of against the Republican. Obama has proven himself to be nothing but a corporatist with a few weak reformist tendencies.

Look at his response to the BP(Beyond Petroleum, my ass) oil spill: Let BP handle it. They will do NOTHING to stop the actual leak because they want to capture that oil for their own profits. And Obama is letting them.

The Great Recession, watered-down health care reform, bailouts for the banks but not the people, the beat goes on.

Time to start real change in America.

[november3rd]

231. Free Enterprise NOT Capitalism

Capitalism without limits is tyranny. Those with more increase their wealth while the rest remain poor or fall deeper into poverty. The more that assets become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, the easier it is for the wealthiest to gain more and more control over the wealth of others. This gives the rich political power and control over government, the mass media, the economy, the laws and education.

It results in fighting destructive, unnecessary wars for the profit of a few, in fouling the commons and the environment to enrich wealthy industrialists, investors, and banks, not to mention incarcerating those outside the system for fear that their liberty will destabilize the socio-economic power structure.

However, self-government is not government of by the individual, but cooperation by consensus of self-governing individuals. That's why thoroughly informative media are so critical. People need to know the issues, who the actors are, what is at stake, and what they can accomplish as a group. Without REASONED DIALOGUE, there's no hope of successful government. Instead of government by the people we are left with government by the giant corporations.

If banks protected savings and lent money to small local businesses people would be able able to act in the interest of progress for their communities. The government could encourage free enterprise by protecting against monopolies like Halliburton, Starbucks and AOL/TimeWarner. Instead we're faced with four or five giant chemical and agricultural companies controlling our food supply.

Socialism means the good of society establishing the paramount organizing principle, whereas capitalism means ordering society for the benefit of the rich and wealth-controlling minority.

[earth mom]

233. Standing tall! Sorry to late to rec!

:hi:

[ribrepin]

234. I've always thought of myself as a moderate

but the more I listen to Bernie Sanders and the more the republicans call Obama a socialist, the more I am beginning to see myself as probably a democratic socialists.

Good work repubs. Obama no socialist, but it started me thinking.

[BanTheGOP]

235. I've been saying this for YEARS...

We must destroy the republican party for this to happen.

I am creating a 7-part series that will completely illustrate the entire spectrum of human interaction. Socialism is, in fact, the only possible solution we have to save the planet. If you liked the OP's message, this is must reading.

FIRST INSTALLMENT:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BanTheGOP/74

[Green_Lantern]

238. Socialism seems undemocratic as pure capitalism...

If by socialism you mean a command economy.

What are you defining as socialism?

[Union Yes]

251. Democratic Socialism through representative government elected by free and FAIR elections.

Sweden, Norway, heck all of the Scandanavian nations have set the standard.

The Swedish model should be emulated throughout the free world.

Democratic Socialism works.

Capitalism needs a Socialist lifeline to stay afloat. 30 years of borrowing from Communist China.

Bank bailouts, subsidies to oil, food, energy, subsidizing/socializing cost and privatizing the profits.

Capitalism is the greatest scam ever pulled off on mankind.

[Green_Lantern]

255. if socialism worked in Sweden they wouldn't be having to...

Privatize industries as they're doing to pay off their government debt.

These so-called socialist countries you speak of have had to implement free-market reforms in order to tax and fund social programs.

I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist by any means but I don't think the same govt. that does favors for special interests running the economy would be a good thing.

[Green_Lantern]

245. I'm by far not a socialist because I believe in private ownership

Of property and that the govt. or collective or robbers shouldn't be allowed to take it from you without compensation.

I do think property should be regulated to protect against adverse effects to people, environment, etc.

[Raksha]

246. +1 Too late to recommend, but kicking anyway.

I was a Democratic Socialist before it was cool...

[Initech]

248. Proud socialist! Reagonomics fucked us all.

[Echo In Light]

256. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[blindpig]

259. Kill Capitalism

Our survival may depend upon killing Capitalism.