We Have to go Socialist

[Taverner]

Just sayin'

We cannot make it as individuals

We can, however, make it as a team

As a group

As in "all of us"

Don't let those of us who don't like that prevent it from happening...

[ZombieHorde]

1. Recommended. nt

[nineteen50]

61. We are already a socialist state . It came in through the back-door when

the private financial sector transferred its debt, after the crash, to the public sector through bailouts and zero interest loans.

[Better Believe It]

107. That's not a planned socialist economy. That's capitalism at its worst.

[txlibdem]

178. It's Socialism for the rich -- cold hearted Capitalism for the rest of us.

That's no surprise. All Capitalist systems eat their seed corn and collapse. We've had 2 depressions and an additional 9 recessions in only the past 100 years.

Oh, Capitalism is really stable. Yup.
:sarcasm:

[elocs]

2. Nice fantasy, but it's never going to happen in the U.S. Never.

There are millions of citizens who would literally take up arms to stop it. There would be actual civil war.

Hell, we can't even get Democrats to back up and staunchly support what used to be traditional Democratic ideals, policies, and values much less anything that remotely smacks of socialism. The best we can hope for is to slow the relentless move to the right.

[villager]

11. The bigger fantasy, really, is that capitalism can remain viable

n/t

[Tesha]

32. Capitalism, as understood here in the United States, demands constant growth.

On a finite landmass on a finite planet, constant exponential
growth can't be sustained forever. Either our understanding
of Capitalism must change or we must shift away from our
mostly-Capitalist economic system.

The mathematics of the situation will brook no other alternative.

Even a new source of energy (such as practical nuclear fusion
power) can only delay the enevitable.

Tesha

[villager]

44. Exactly -- like a cancer cell

n/t

[nineteen50]

62. Capitalism is a workable system. You just have to regulate it so

that it doesn't cannibalize itself and us too.

[Denver Progressive]

123. IMHO It just seems like every time we have tried to regulate capitalism

it has found a way to deregulate itself, and we end up back at square one.

[dothemath]

82. and time is running out

And time is running out at an ever-increasing rate. The 'housing bubble' is the most recent warning as practically the entire civilized, enlightened, educated and sophisticated world signed on to a scheme doomed to failure from the beginning. Want another example? Think tulip bulbs.

Basing continuation of the human species on exponential growth will be the fastest way to oblivion. Growth of a lesser amount will delay the inevitable but even that modest goal will not prevent it. Nature requries balance for the continuation of life in all forms. Humans are at the top of the heap, so to speak, and, sadly, reaching that lofty perch will be our downfall.

[AlbertCat]

136. Nature requires balance for the continuation of life in all forms.

Nonsense.

I know it sounds all nice and fuzzy, but it's simply not true. To begin with, all life forms are never meant to continue forever. The majority of species that have ever lived are dead now... extinct. And sudden dramatic extinction events have happen at least 5 times thus far. But gradual change, not balance, is what life adapts to which requires that obsolete species go. Our lifetimes and the time Man has been around is tiny compared to the entire time life has been around.

Really... people have to start thinking in terms of how things are (science) instead of all those feel good myths we make up about balance and justice in nature. Nature cares nothing for us or what kind of system we devise to live under.

But one thing about this scheme for living we have come up with is it's time for it to change. The age of fossil fuels is over. America as the democracy we remember in our childhood is over. It died in 2000 when the Repugs and Plutocracy appointed George W. Bush onto office even though he clearly hadn't won... and no one did anything about it.

Getting money out of the election system is the only way to get rid of the plutocracy we all hate now. Once again, the Supremes have gone in the other direction.

[Taverner]

97. Yep. Exactly. eom

[TBF]

57. There might be a civil war with Texas leaving the union,

but would that really be bad (well, I would have to get out of here first ... but that is my problem not the rest of y'alls ...)

"The bet we can hope for is to slow the relentless move to the right" - if that is true than they might as well start that revolution today as far as I'm concerned.

[jwirr]

93. Yes, because if we move to the right much further than the candidates

are talking about then we will have become the Germany we defeated in 1945.

[Berlin Expat]

160. If Texas wants to leave

I'd be more than willing to let them go. As a matter of fact, I'd demand they take the entire "Bible Belt" with them.

They can leave the USA once and for all, and have their happy little Jesusland, or more likely, Republic of Gilead. Under my plan of enforced secession, however, there would be a few minor details taken care of before they leave.

Destruction of all port facilities in the former CSA.

For the oil, natural gas, minerals, etc., they have to pay the USA five trillion dollars, due upfront before they leave.

Destruction of the Texas City oil refinery terminals and facilities.

The must abandon use of the U.S. Dollar.

All military facilities and materiel will be removed by the U.S. military. They can keep their small arms, however.

Compensation for all Federal infrastructure, including highways, set at the amount of an additional five trillion U.S. Dollars, due upfront.

I'm sure there are other things, but I can't think of anything more off the top of my head. Harsh? Yes. Yes it is. Perhaps these neo-Confederate revanchists will think more carefully before they pipe up.

So, let all the conservatives move on down South, and establish their little theocratic republic in a land laid waste economically. Let them sing their "Hosannah's" in their squalor. By the time I'm done with the South, it'll make Uganda look like Monaco.

OK....no offense meant to any DU posters from down South. I'll be honest, I despise the South and it's provincial backwardness, and if those folks were all Raptured up tomorrow, I'd do a happy dance. Far fewer morons on earth to contend with.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AlbertCat]

115. but it's never going to happen in the U.S. Never.

Already did.

Got us out of the Depression of the 30's. Helped us win WWII. (and WW I for that matter)

Socialism does not mean communism. It can happen and still retain capitalist notions... regulated by socialist concerns. This is what goes on in civilized European counties and had been happening here with pretty good results until the Repug Revolution of Reagan and the greedy capitalists.

Capitalism can work as well as can be expected when regulated and tempered by socialistic concerns. There are things that have no "free market" because you cannot do without them: food, water protection, healthcare... and in modern time transportation and energy. You just cannot shop around for these things we all need in more or less the same amount, everywhere, rain or shine, cold or hot. These are the things that need the most socializing. But small components of these huge needs can be capitalistic.... if regulated.

Besides, if there really is a free market, as capitalists love to harp on, shouldn't a company that cannot make enough money UNDER THE LAWS... a company that can't make it WITHOUT HAVING TO CHANGE THE LAWS... go under and a company that can operate lawfully take its place... in a free market? What does having to change the landscape to make it easier for you because you can't cut it otherwise have to do with a free market?

The only reason "socialism" seems to be a new way of doing things is because it's been dismantled for the past 30 years. And because Conservatives have redefined it to mean "anything that resembles community".

[Mosaic]

131. That sounds like a threat

Not cool.

[LanternWaste]

174. Times change. There was recently a time when citizens took up arms to protect workers' rights.

Times change. There was recently a time when citizens took up arms to protect workers' rights.

Believing that the here and now is a static and rigid thing is rather short-sighted. Social mores always have been, are, and always will be cyclical.

[banned from Kos]

3. Single payer health care will be here circa 2130

lets be real.

[joshcryer]

10. Single payer will be here in 10-15 years, tops. Our health care system is collapsing.

The costs are enormous, beyond anything you can understand. It completely dwarfs anything else we spend money on and for all intents it should not.

[white_wolf]

166. The costs are high, but I doubt it dwarfs our military budget.

[Bigmack]

4. I'm just hoping we don't have to go Tribal!....

I'm reading "Boomerang" by Michael Lewis.

If the financial world does what Lewis says it will...

We'll be bartering... and defending ourselves.

[NYC_SKP]

5. You go right ahead. I'd rather not.

There are plenty of ways to move toward a fairer society and economic system than to turn to some utopian unproven model.

Take, for example, employee owned businesses and larger businesses that offer profit sharing.

If we work together, as you suggest, we can realize changes and engage and educate others.

Socialism isn't the only way to work as a team.

:patriot:

[Jackpine Radical]

7. "Socialism" is a mighty big tent.

For example, I think there is a lot of merit to the notion of "market socialism," in which small businesses seek to make profits in competitive markets, but larger industries are either worker owned or nationalized, and public utilities are all government-run.

Years ago in Milwaukee, all the small businessmen were solid supporters of their socialist mayors because they saw the socialists as protecting them from unfair market practices, etc.

[freshwest]

91. K & R that

[patrice]

120. +1

[PDJane]

8. Social democracies are neither unproven nor utopian.

Get serious.

Fascism, on the other hand, is the model the US is marching towards; there will be very little for the rest of the world if the powers that be have their way.

Take a good look around you. The US is no longer that shining city on a hill, nor anything close to.

[banned from Kos]

The topic was socialism and not Euro social democracy

Socialism is a wretched idea that won't happen here - ever.

Socialism = public ownership of the means of production.

[PDJane]

13. actually, that's state socialism:

However, the use of the commons is more equitable under most systems of socialism, and protection of resources is more important than it will ever be in the US.

Nor can the US continue to use 28% of the world's output for 5% of the population. What cannot last, won't.

[patrice]

124. The super-ordinate trait would something TTE "People before profits" of which state-ownership isonly

one extreme means to that end.

[Mosaic]

134. "public ownership of the means of production."

As long it's all democratically controlled and we don't get a strong man dictator there's really nothing wrong with public ownership of business, even small business. Why have owenership only by the elite investor class? Let's open it up to everyone, not a big deal if you think about it.

[white_wolf]

167. It can't be much more wretched than your beloved capitalism.

How has that worked out for us and the world?

[nineteen50]

63. I would agree, after financial capitalism the last phase of capitalism is fascism.

[hack89]

154. Those social democracies all have capitalism as the bedrock of their economies. nt

[Selatius]

15. I hate to say, but employee-owned businesses are forms of socialism, too.

They just aren't examples of state socialism. Quite a lot of people simply assume socialism automatically means socialism of the statist variety instead of the anarchist or anarcho-socialist variety. Collective ownership of production doesn't necessarily have to come with the stamp of government. In fact, historically many left wingers preferred that the government stay out of the way of socialism because of inherent problems that arise when one centralizes too much power into the hands of a relative few, even if they are bureaucrats who were elected by the people.

It's a conflict that goes all the way back to the days of the conflict between Karl Marx on one side and Mikhail Bakunin on the other.

[MichaelMcGuire]

24. +1

[DireStrike]

33. They are not.

You can't have socialism in one company any more than you can have it in one country.

[nineteen50]

64. What would that make insurance? socialist or communist

in that it re-distributes the wealth.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

75. You stole my thunder ...

And as it turned out, Bakunin was correct (some 70 years prior) to what Marx (and later Lenin) called for in terms of using the state (and a vanguard) party to affect revolution and bring about a transitory phase, "The dictatorship of the proletariat" ("their dictatorship" as Bakunin has said) into socialism, when the Bolsheviks gerry-mandered the soviets and quelled worker uprisings and suppressed the Left Opposition, the Mensheviks, Left Revolutionaries, and left communists in order to facilitate and perpetrate their party vanguard and hierarchy. Ironically, while Lenin proclaimed, "All power to the soviets," he was busy undermining them. The anarchists in Russia and Ukraine were smashed as well as trade unions and other socialist groups.

Bakunin, although being prescient, was expelled from the First International by Marx and his followers for his troubles.

[eridani]

141. No irony, really. When Lenin wanted to overthrow the state, he saw that the soviets

--would be able to do that. When he became the state, all of a sudden soviets overthrowing the state didn't seem like such a hot idea.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

164. Exactly. nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

74. Both Proudhon and Bakunin advocated what you call for ...

The line from Proudhon is essentially free-market socialism (Mutualism). The line from Bakunin evolved into anarcho-syndicalism. Both entail freely associated and federated workers' co-ops at a local and industrial scale.

[patrice]

126. That's what I think. It seems to me that many more or less different kinds of solutions would be

possible for different versions of the same problem.

[OwnedByFerrets]

88. I'll take Senator Sanders idea of government any day over what

we have NOW.

[blindpig]

163. The problem with employee owned business.....

is that they are still subject to the capitalist system. When the capitalist sytem has one of it's inevitable crisis, and they get worse every time, then ya gotta respond in the manner which works within the capitalist system. This is often layoffs or plant closings, you can only finesse so much.

There is no fixing capitalism, it needs to be demolished.

[LWolf]

6. It's certainly worth looking at. nt

[joshcryer]

9. Toss the state and I'm with you on that.

Otherwise I'd rather have crony capitalists than crony socialists, thanks.

[jtuck004]

12. Actually, we are HAD by cronyism of either flavor.

They are the ones with assets and power. We are the ones that make up little ditties like "The Degree To Which You Resist Is The Degree To Which You Are Free" and say them to each other to feel better about ourselves.

Don't think I like being had by either.

:puke:

[nineteen50]

65. I think you are right. When Russia failed everyone said it was do to

Ronnie's thunder when it was actually cronyism and absolute
corruption. Wish we would have learned from their failure.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

76. I'd rather not have either ...

I'd rather have socialism in some form of anarchist tradition.

Good to see you, Joshcryer, by the way. :hi:

[txlibdem]

14. Funny how so many people jump to defend Capitalism

Just remember it when *you're* in line at the unemployment office.

We are all the same to the top 1%: cattle to be sent to slaughter. Your time is coming and you just don't know it yet.

[AlbertCat]

139. We are all the same to the top 1%:

Apparently, the top 1% are all the same to you....

[txlibdem]

148. We are all the same to the top 1%, truth

I'm glad that you have the courage to stand up for the poor, unfairly judged top 1%. You've changed my life with your comment. I now love Big Brother. We have always been at war with Eurasia... or is it Oceanea, it doesn't matter because I now believe whatever you tell me to believe.

[LanternWaste]

175. A rigid, unyielding dogma has got to be a pain in the ass...

I imagine that if one believes the 1% are all the same, all perceive the same, all live the same, and all infer the same, I am forced to presume that that particularly rigid, unyielding dogma has got to be a serious pain in the ass, regardless of how we justify it, or add melodramatic petulance for a more colorful flavor...

[hack89]

173. We see places where it works fine - we want to be like them

Sweden, Norway, Denmark are my models.

[nobodyspecial]

16. What does your version look like?

Many shades of gray in there.

[Norrin Radd]

17. kr

[mick063]

18. We need a heavy dose of FDR.

Problem is, it will only happen after we fall over the cliff.

[Norrin Radd]

21. Welcome to DU.

[txlibdem]

27. In FDR's day, 30% of Americans belonged to the Socialist or Communist Parties, that's the difference

Shortly after FDR took office they began deporting the "agitators" who were organizing for the Socialist and Communist Parties. Those they couldn't deport were forced out of their jobs and their businesses were boycotted. FDR, after all, was part of the 1% of the day and his actions were meant only to save Capitalism, to save the 1%.

He threw the wage slaves a bone and we thought that would last. But guess what? We're right back where we were before... except this time the words "Socialist" and "Communist" are about as popular as "serial killer" and "rapist" thanks to the Corporate-Owned Media. M$M has shaped our entire culture so that another FDR-like push back on the 1% would never be necessary again.

OWS has thrown a monkey wrench in the plans of the 1% and they are shaking in their (expensive) boots.

PS, welcome to DU!!!
:hi:

[LanternWaste]

176. My sources have that figure well below 30%.

My sources have that figure well below 30%. Even at their height (1935-39 for the Communist Party USA and 1912-1920 for Socialist Party of America when Eugene Debs was seen as a wonderful figurehead, but not electable nationally), they appeared to pull in only 5% and 7% respectively.




Cite: Theodore Draper - American Communism and Soviet Russia: The Formative Period
& Aileen Kraditor - The Radical Persuasion, 1890-1917: Aspects of the Intellectual History

[AntiFascist]

19. What you don't seem to realize...

we're already going socialist, but it has started at the top. Don't you think the ruling class would want in on the action first? Socializing the losses is a way of making it so that the 1% simply can't lose. Many if not most politicos are securing their own wealth independence. Good luck with a socialist revolution for the people.

[MichaelMcGuire]

23. socializing the risk?

[AntiFascist]

59. Both the risks and the losses when they lose...

even in the case of the auto manufactures there were certain excesses at the top that caused them to lose money. Under the normal rules of capitalism, this would not be allowed to go on and the company would be allowed to fail. When people at the top stop feeling the pain of their actions, eventhough it causes pain to the remaining 99%, then you have a plutocratic system where the ruling class always benefits from the laissez-faire state. Basically the type of system Ayn Rand must have dreamed about.

[Ter]

20. We can't even nominate a very liberal Democrat without losing 49 states

Good luck with that.

[JCMach1]

22. Socialism would work no better with the governance we currently have...

I am holding out for a new paradigm.

[socialindependocrat]

28. It's the GREED that screws up any system

[NNN0LHI]

25. You do understand that not all socialism is left wing don't you?

Khmer Rouge were an example of right wing socialism.

Don

[eomer]

26. The Khmer Rouge were radically left wing.

They abolished private property and attempted to depopulate the cities, relocate the population to the countryside, and forcibly create a communist agrarian society.

They were communists who used totalitarian methods to attempt to enforce their vision.

[B Calm]

31. They were communists. . .

you said it. . .

[ThomWV]

34. Really, did they have socialized medicine and did they run a national transportation system?

What radical left wing agenda did they follow? I don't see anything particularly 'left' in agrarian societies or in forced relocation. In fact I can't think of much of anything about the Khmer Rouge that I'd say was "Left Wing" at all.

[eomer]

41. Yes, I actually agree with you more then me on this; let me explain better.

The definitions of "left wing" and "right wing" unfortunately are muddled and subject to manipulation. They should really be branched off into distinct words that have more precise definitions and then misunderstandings would be avoided. I think the essence of the muddling is to conflate the end and means. We would be better served by one set of terms for the "left" and "right" of the end goals and another set of terms for the "left" and "right" of the means.

You're using a definition of "left wing" that is focused on the end, which is a more egalitarian society that delivers its benefits broadly to all of its people.

I was using a definition of "left wing" that is focused on the means, which in the case of the Khmer Rouge were collective ownership of the means of production and the use of force to wrest privilege and wealth away from the traditional elite.

I actually favor promoting the definition that you're using over the one that I used. So mea culpa, and let's try to reset the conversation.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

79. But it wasn't "collective ownership of the means of production."

It was owned by the party hierarchy only. No worker input or ownership was required.

[eomer]

147. True, in reality ownership was by a small group that was in control.

They claimed to be communist and to create collective ownership but as was often the case with these authoritarian regimes that were called "Communist" it was not reality but more of a cover story.

Thanks for vetting my explanation -- I've made the same point you did many times in the past but wasn't very sharp in putting my thoughts down in this thread.

[patrice]

129. That's a very useful distinction. :-)

[txlibdem]

37. False. The Khmer Rouge folded when their leader died -- that's Fascism

And they were anti-intellectual: an absolute tip-off that they were Fascist. The Killing Fields.

Fascism combats . . . not intelligence, but intellectualism . . . which is . . . a sickness of the intellect . . . not a consequence of its abuse, because the intellect cannot be used too much . . . it derives from the false belief that one can segregate oneself from life. . . . ”

— Giovanni Gentile, addressing a Congress of Fascist Culture, Bologna, 30 March 1925
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

all power belonged to the Standing Committee of CPK, the membership of which was comprised by the Secretary and Prime Minister Pol Pot, his Deputy Secretary Nuon Chea and seven others.

...

Family ties were important, both because of the culture and because of the leadership's intense secretiveness and distrust of outsiders, especially of pro-Vietnamese communists. Greed was also a motive. Different ministries, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Industry, were controlled and exploited by powerful Khmer Rouge families. Administering the diplomatic corps was regarded as an especially profitable fiefdom.

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

That doesn't sound like Socialism to me. It sounds like where the 1% have brought the USA to today. A wealthy class on top and a dispensable majority who must be controlled or killed. Reflect on the brutal police tactics against the OWS protesters and notice the Fascist similarities.

[former9thward]

45. That is false.

The Khmer Rouge folded because they were militarily beaten by the Vietnamese in 1979. A regime favored by the Vietnamese was set up and the KR were marginalized to the jungle areas. They eventually disappeared because of deaths from old age and because their chief sponsor, China, found them to be no longer useful. They certainly were extreme left in all their theories and actions.

[txlibdem]

47. They did nothing of note after Pol Pot was dead

He was their Chairman. Perhaps he thought of himself as their Reich's Chairman if that suits you.

A government that enslaves the people, is anti-intellectual, and is composed of one ruler. Nope, I'm still thinking Fascist.

They may have "CALLED" themselves communists. The Nazis called themselves Socialists, did that make it true?

[former9thward]

68. They did very little from 1979 until Pot died in 1998.

They had been defeated by the Vietnamese. Under your definition of fascism then any "one-ruler" government is fascist including Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung. A meaningless definition.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

83. The case can be made that the state socialism/state capitalism ..

... of the USSR is a form of fascism.

Look up the very long but very interesting read, "What Was the Soviet Union? Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value Under State Capitalism." Comes from different critiques, from anarchists, Trotskyists (that it was a degenerated workers' state), various groups eventually arriving to the state capitalist conclusion.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

81. Pol Pot even admited that he wasn't a communist.

Good post, txlibdem.

[Mosaic]

138. True communism would require the opposite of dictatorship

It would require a horizontal, direct democracy of a totally egalitarian society who cares, and is informed on all issues of that society, the economics, and production. It would require a high ethic, high morality, intelligence, dedication but above all a total democracy, something that has never existed but OWS is on the right track. The corporatist/neo-fascists that currently rule this regime and illegitimately the world, after all no one said they could rule, are living on borrowed time. Real, true, powerful, democracy, would kill the elite, so they fight us, the 99% who sustain them. It's past time for a paradigm change.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

151. "It's time for a paradigm change."

Agreed.

:toast:

[MFrohike]

70. Hahaha

They were trying to install their version of the Cultural Revolution, which assuredly was not right wing. I would highly doubt the veracity of that wikipedia article because of the continuing controversy of the Khmer Rouge. More than a few people are still trying to rewrite history 40 years later to justify their support of that group. They've spent decades claiming the "Red Khmer" weren't really communists because it would a stain on their western sympathizers.

The historiography of the Khmer Rouge period is quite interesting. It's amazing how such a simple story has been intentionally obscured by those who wish they hadn't supported obvious mass murderers before the fact. The damage of the Cultural Revolution was readily apparent within several years, but it was ignored in favor of blind solidarity.

[txlibdem]

109. You can't be serious

What do you call a political system with ONE (1) one, one ONE, One, O.N.E. all powerful leader under which everyone else advises? Oh, dat's KOMBYOO-NISM fer shure.

Pol Pot's junta called themselves Socialists and Communists but they could have just as easily called themselves Carrots. It wouldn't have been any closer to the truth.

As to the "Cultural Revolution," what do you think Kristallnacht was?

So, the next time you call them "The Red Carrots" you'll have egg all over your face. Done.

[MFrohike]

145. I call Leninist Communism

Lenin's goals could only be achieved by Stalinist means. Note the continuous repetition of his vendetta against the Ukrainian kulaks being replayed in every Eastern bloc country. Kangaroo courts, self-criticism, re-education camps, the works. Paranoia and terror were used as weapons to further the goals of the state. The explicit goals of the state were to further the socialist revolution. I take them at word in the same way I take the fascists at theirs. Totalitarians may soften their language, depending on the audience, but they are always clear about what they are doing.

The Cultural Revolution was Mao's attempt to re-radicalize China after the horrendous failure of the Great Leap Backward. It was a nihilistic mob, bent on destroying China's past in an explicit attempt to create the "new socialist man."

The simple truth is that Lenin's version of communism was a horrendous travesty for everyone involved. It was the Terror of the French Revolution, but it went on for decades. It was a blight upon humanity and the world is better off without it.

[txlibdem]

149. Who are you arguing against? Pol Pot? Lenin? Mao? Do you even know???

China's cultural revolution was a total failure. That's why THEY OWN AMERICA RIGHT NOW.

It seems there is a flaw somewhere in your logic.

[MFrohike]

158. I do know

Pol Pot copied Mao. The terror of the Khmer Rouge was caused by their copying the Cultural Revolution. They attempted to atomize society in the same way as the Red Guards. Did you miss the part where both the Khmer Rouge and Chinese Communists sent intellectuals to the fields to "learn" about the revolution? Or the widespread use of terror against the established elements of society in order to destroy them and create new bases of power? Honestly, this was done both to destroy enemies and terrorize the population into unthinking acquiescence. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Mengistu, etc. are just a line of Communist dictators who employed very similar means for very similar goals. There differences among them, but those are not differences of ideology. If you honestly think the Khmer Rouge was somehow really the "Brown" Khmer, you've been sold a bill of goods by people like Ben Kiernan.

"China's cultural revolution was a total failure. That's why THEY OWN AMERICA RIGHT NOW.

It seems there is a flaw somewhere in your logic."

China does not own America. I am so tired of that lazy fucking talking point. Hi, they hold $1.17 trillion of the total US debt, which is an amount less than 10%. If that's ownership, apparently the bar has been massively lowered on what it takes to own something.

There is no flaw in my logic. The Cultural Revolution was a colossal failure. It also ended almost 40 years ago. There has been ample time for China to recover.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

78. No, they weren't.

[Taverner]

112. The term is "Regressive" - they were trying to return to Angkor...

Rice as a currency, agrarian culture, etc....

Same with much of Maoism

It can't be overnight, but it has to start somewhere, and it has to start sometime...

[Imajika]

55. That is the single stupidest thing I've read on DU in ages...

The Khmer Rouge were most certainly not right wing. Pol Pot (aka Saloth Sar, aka brother number one) had been involved in communist causes most of his adult life and was the head of the communist party in Cambodia when it took over. In fact Pol Pot joined the communist movement in France as early as 1951.

The ejection of people from the major cities and killing intellectuals and perceived opposition was mostly due with his frustration that the people wouldn't change their capitalist/business ways. Pol Pot DETESTED capitalism and western thought. Like many communists before him he believed the uneducated peasants were the real proletariat.

The Khmer Rouge were a radical left communist party. They were in absolutely no way right wing. There was no history of right wing thought amongst the Khmer Rouge or any of its earlier incarnations.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

77. Khmer Rouge was a totalitarian political government.

Pol Pot even exclaimed that he wasn't a socialist. The US backed him and his murderous regime, by the way.

[Javaman]

101. massive fail. nt

[B Calm]

29. I could agree if only you had said DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST

[ThomWV]

30. At what level and who do you consider to the "we"?

I am not disagreeing with you, but I think you have to be a lot more specific about what you mean to 'go socialist' and who the "we" what would be involved in that movement would be. I ask because it seems to me that there is always socialism in national governance (not only ours, everyone's) and that the major question of support for Government often revolves around just what level that socialism will reach. For instance compare the Socialism of the Soviet Union, Germany, Great Britain, and the US in the period immediately before and during the Second World War.

Then go take a look at where we and the other nations we work in concert with are now.

[Courtesy Flush]

35. This kind of talk is like candy to the GOP

They know the American public's visceral reaction to the S word. If they can show the public that we're aiming for Socialism, they will win a lot of votes from people on the fence.

At least come up with a name for it that doesn't have negative associations. Something that incorporates the word "liberty" or "freedom" or something. America has an almost superstitious fear of Socialism. Even if you point out how well it works in Europe, you hurt your case. A European plan is not as good as an American one, after all.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

85. There is a term ...

Libertarian socialism, or anarchism. ;)

[Tesha]

36. It will come to some of the regions after the breakup of the "United" States.

New England and Cascadia/Ecotopia will go Socialist. The South
will become a Christian theocracy. The intermountain West will
become a mostly-Libertarian cesspool of a "free market
economy". The Mid-Atllantic and Rust Belt regions will remain
pretty-much as they are: Laissez-faire capitalist economies.

Tesha

[DonCoquixote]

42. Cascadia? Socialist?

Keep in mind, there are many right wing types there, especially ones with guns that love Sarah Palin. Microsoft and Boeing are not there by accident.

[Tesha]

43. Over the hills. But not so much in the region near the ocean.

Same as in coastal California as compared to the Imperial Valley.

Tesha

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. So the Puget Sound isn't the "ocean" then? What mountains do you have to traverse to get from

Seattle to the "ocean"?

[Muskypundit]

90. Boeing and microsoft are predominately in king county

Which is 70+ percent blue. All the puget sound regional is like that. But on the other side of the mountains, on the eastern spokanistan side, those are the Sarah palin types.

[dionysus]

114. ...

:rofl:

[Taverner]

128. Yes. We won't live to see it, but yes.

[Harmony Blue]

38. People are starting to wake up

that this may be the best way to balance against predatory Capitalists.

[WillyT]

39. K & R !!!

:kick:

[DCBob]

40. Pipe dream.

This country will never vote in a socialist President or enough socialist congressman to implement a true socialist nation.

[Tesha]

48. Well, that's your *HOPE*, anyway. Whether it's true is yet to be seen. (NT)

[DCBob]

92. My hope is something good comes out of all of this and it doesnt just fade away like a pipe dream.

I think the focus should be on something a bit more tangible and doable.

[Tesha]

106. The focus should be on both.

We should have both short-term tactics and long-term strategies.

And we're smart people; we can work on more than one thing at a time.

Tesha

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vincardog]

52. Some change has to come about OUTSIDE the corrupt established political system

BECAUSE it is CORRUPTED beyond repair

[OnionPatch]

46. But what sort of socialism? I think a huge problem

is that most centrist/independent types of people don't have a clue what we mean when we talk about "socialism". And, to be honest, I don't myself know how the majority of people here at this board describe "socialism" and I've been here a long time. This thread is a perfect example of how we don't even agree among ourselves what it is.

Unfortunately, most people I know see "socialism" as totalitarian government control of all goods and services. Do I want the govt. controlling the means of all production? I can clearly say "No!" However, I do think there are certain economic sectors that are too important to leave to the wolves of pure capitalism, such as energy, health care and education. Employee-owned businesses make a lot of sense in some instances. Regulation to protect and advance small (and I mean SMALL) businesses is another idea I like, but I would never want to see the right to trade our goods and services taken away.

The main point I'm trying to make is that when our side cries out "Socialism", I'm afraid we're only scaring most centrist people until we figure out what kind of socialism the majority of us would like to advance, educate people and put forth a clear plan.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. THIS is the most meaningful post in the thread. I'm admittedly not well-versed in the tenets

of socialism, but when I read DU'ers pine for its institution here in the United States, it makes me wonder just which type of socialism they're talking about.

It's as if there were some kind of "generic" socialism DU'ers envision for us.

[OneGrassRoot]

54. +1. I, for one, am tired of all talk of "isms"

it prevents authentic, productive discussion because of everyone's preconceived (and often misinformed) notions about said "isms."

[nineteen50]

69. I agree get out of the box. And when your stomach is empty "isms" will not

fill it.

[OneGrassRoot]

72. Yes! Of late I find myself suggesting we get rid of the darn box altogether. n/t

[dionysus]

116. my personal definition, of what i'd like to see; nationalized health care, energy, and banking.

every other industry can be privately owned, but with proper regulations in place to prevent theft and fraud.

people like to argue capitalism vs socialism vs facism vs communism, but there are rarely examples of a pure system anywhere.

in the US, we have an element of socialism in the form of VA hospitals.

pretty sure that in the "socialist" sweden, which is held up as an example, you can own your own property and businesses, which, of course, isn't pure socialism..

[patrice]

133. I have seen responses elsewhere to the kinds of issues you raise that suggest

Some type of socialism for the basic-level needs of life: housing, education, health care, transportation, environment, safety, national security and appropriately regulated free-market capitalism for everything else.

[upi402]

50. Glad this didn't get locked

and a bit surprised!

+1 k/r

[TBF]

56. I'm with you on that. nt

[Martin Eden]

58. PLEASE DEFINE SOCIALISM

It means different things to different people. If you're suggesting there should be no privately-owned businesses (the state owns & controls everything) then I strongly disagree with you.

[Taverner]

96. Worker control of the means of production

[secondwind]

60. I'm in.... the Danes are the happiest people in the world.

[hack89]

152. They also have a market economy that embraces capitalism

they are not a socialist state if you define socialism as state ownership of the means of production.

They are a capitalist country with a high taxes and a strong culture of cooperation between government, business and workers.

[sulphurdunn]

66. We need the same kind of socialism

the ruling class enjoys at our expense: ownership of capital and politics. I would exclude labor and small business (including locally owned banks) from public ownership because they operate in free markets, are useful and are both hated and feared by corporate socialists almost as much as they loath representative democracy.

[earcandle]

67. yeah. we need to let go of our minor differences of opinion and get together for the big stuff.

Aligned as a voter block and powerful.

[MFrohike]

71. Pointless

You can change systems all you like but unless you get people to understand that vigilance is necessary, it doesn't matter. Systems are not the issue, people are. The great challenge is not to create a perfect system, but to engage people so they keep an eye on their elected employees and their unelected delegates (also known as the bureaucracy).

[TBF]

89. Absolutely backwards - it is the system that rewards behavior so the system

is very much the issue.

[txlibdem]

118. +1000 agreed

[MFrohike]

146. Which is done how?

Through constant vigilance on the part of the populace. It's not that hard to change a few parts of a system to throw it out of balance.

[TBF]

150. Your "constant vigilanace of capital" has resulted in the top 1% of the country

controlling 40% of the wealth. No thanks, I'll stick with my plan to do whatever I can to transition this society to socialism as quickly as possible.

[MFrohike]

155. Not so much, no

All social revolutions fail. All they ever do is change the names of the players at the top and their titles. The reasons for the social revolution continue to grind as though nothing had ever happened. Witness Mexico, Russia, China, Vietnam, and the rest. A tiny elite hoarding most of the benefits while that majority get the shaft. When this happens over and over and over, it's time to realize that all systems are prone to abuse and that only a vigilant populace can stop it.

You can change the system all you like, but unless you have people paying attention, and I should say pressuring legislatures, similar results will occur. There will be a concentration of power at the top, which leads to outsized benefits for those at the top.

[TBF]

156. You might call it a failure when a dictatorship of the proletariat takes over -

but the USSR had great productivity and decent conditions for its citizens. I think we can learn from that society, along with many in South America and also the current Scandinavian countries.

As long as "1% of the world population own 40 % of the global assets. The richest 2% of the world population own more than 51% of the global assets, the richest 10% own 85% of the global assets" (source - Wiki under income inequality) you are going to have folks trying to create a better, more equitable system. You may not like that, but the rest of us expect you to share.

[MFrohike]

159. Seriously?

Oh, this is rich. I'm going to use some bullet points for this one.

1. Productivity is not a subject on which America needs help. If anything, we're overproductive.

2. Decent conditions? Well, in comparison with Neanderthals, that might be true on a material level. However, when you add in the security organs and the other means of terrorizing the population, I'm going to think the Neanderthals had it better.

3. There is nothing to learn from Hugo. Hugo gets to play Che Guevara, Jr. because he has a lot of oil. If he's president of a country with no oil, he'd have been shooting his opponents long ago. Instead he gets to buy them off.

Fidel is a great hero to people for some reason I don't get. The guy prostituted his country to the USSR for cash. He sent his soldiers to be used as mercenaries in Africa and got paid for it.

There are other leaders worth examining. Recently, Lula and Morales have been worth giving a listen, even when they seem to be wrong.

4. "You may not like that, but the rest of us expect you to share."--This one is rich. You really don't get what I'm talking about at all, do you?

Let me make this really explicit because I've apparently been very cryptic until now. Unless people are watching their leaders, those leaders will find ways to benefit those at the top at the expense of the rest. Go read (or reread) Animal Farm. Orwell laid out a brilliant critique not just of totalitarian communist governments, but of all governments. The pigs in that story use misdirection and outright lies in order to confuse the other animals for their own benefit. That is the natural evolution of ALL human systems. Everything breaks down eventually. The only remedies are vigilance and pressure. Anything else is the modern-day equivalent of animal sacrifice to propitiate the gods.

[TBF]

165. You've been quite explicit but you're wrong -

When you have in place an economic system which is inherently unequal and rewards only greed that is the behavior you are going to get.

Being less authoritarian by nature I'm willing to work out a sort of Paris Commune style of system - but only after the die-hard capitalists have been locked up or otherwise eviscerated. Maybe you should read the Communist Manifesto. I know it will be quite a shock to your system to put aside your daily Ayn Rand but give it a try and then perhaps we can have another discussion.

[white_wolf]

168. I think a Paris Commune type system is the best.

That was what Marx was aiming for, after all. As an aside I've seen a few posters attacking Lenin. Lenin made several mistakes, but looking at the conditions in Russia during his time, he did better than he should have. The Communists had to oversee Russia's transformation from a Feudal economy to an industrial one, they had to get out of WWI, they had to fight the Civil War where they were invaded by 17 foreign nations, not to mention the various attacks on Lenin's life. Did Lenin mess up? Yes, but I challenge his critics to do better. My biggest criticism of him was his authoritarianism and dismantling of the Soviets. If he had maintained the power of the Soviets, then the abuses of Stalin may not have occurred.

[TBF]

169. Marx recognized the PC as the first example of the dicatorship of the proletarian

for sure - he did write about that a bit. It might have to be more authoritarian than I would like at first (wouldn't want it to fail in the first two months - lessons to be learned there), but it would at least get us out of this capitalist nightmare. Folks wax poetic about their "freedom" here - but who really has freedom? The top .05% do for sure ... freedom to exploit, rape, pillage, etc...

[MFrohike]

170. Oh, you're adorable

I'm now an Ayn Rand fan. Ok, quote me to prove it. Please, I fucking dare you. When you fail to do so, I won't be shocked when you don't apologize.

I have read the Communist Manifesto. I still find it to be silly and extremist. Marx was a perceptive critic, but, much like Clausewitz, his ideas are open to hijacking.

I doubt a Paris Commune system would scale up. It might have some promise on a local level, but I find the idea of a self-organizing community on a large scale to be a bit too fantastic to believe.

All that aside, feel free to put your faith in systems. It's no different from the voter who wants to "trust" his leaders. It's an act of blind faith with a track record of continual failure. The only solution is for people to be involved and active in whatever system exists. Otherwise, it will end badly.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

73. Solidarity Kick and Recommend!

[Lunabelle]

80. K&R

Democratic Socialism.

[jeffrey_X]

84. No. You need a hybrid

You need elements of both socialism and capitalism. I'm a hard core liberal who HAS made it own my own, along with a little white male privileged. ;)

You can't run a society with extremes, you have to have it somewhere in the middle. Live operates best when you have balance.

[Mosaic]

140. Then we need affirmative action for entreprenuers and small business

There can be no white male privilege in our egalitarian society. We must all be equal, democratic, and mostly socialist. It's not a dirty word. We've cleaned up the word liberal, most tv pundits use it respectfully again. We can de-demonize the word socialism. Laurence O'Donnell has already started, claiming he is a proud socialist and Newsweek proclaimed "We are All Socialists Now" on a recent magazine cover. Embrace it!

[ChadwickHenryWard]

86. Capitalism will someday finally collapse under its own rapacious greed.

The rest of us will be left holding the bag. If we're lucky, we'll be able to build a world based on sharing the Earth's bounty. We can only hope.

[TBF]

157. I think that day may be coming sooner than some would like to admit -

when 1% of the world is controlling more than 40% of the wealth there is something wrong - and the protests worldwide are evidence that others agree on that point.

[valerief]

87. Yep. Bilderbergers don't do it alone. nt

[Uben]

94. Humans vs, machines...where did I hear that?

Humans lost a vast amount of jobs to machines. Where it once took scores of humans to do a task, now it only takes a machine. A machine that doesn't need time off, health benefits, or unions to accomplish the task. MAchines now do so much, humans are finding it difficult to secure employment....especially full time with benefits.

So......should we attack the machines now, before they get the intelligence to fight back, or wait?

[Taverner]

95. Perhaps it is time for a Butlerian Jihad, no?

[Cid_B]

100. Rise up against our robot masters because they slaughtered our bastard child?

hmm...

[Taverner]

104. Revolutions were started for less...

:P

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cherokeeprogressive]

103. I don't think you'll get an answer to that.

For some, "generic" socialism seems to be within their field of vision.

[Taverner]

105. Socialism is: Wresting the means of production from the capitalists to the workers

Hence, it's kind of a big tent

But I like a Ricardian Transition, that takes into account market forces and makes a transition thusly:

Capitalism (you are here) --> Social Democracy --> Socialism --> Anarcho-Syndicalism

[CreekDog]

144. Social Democracy, akin to what they have in Europe

which feature vibrant capitalism, combined with a safety net more substantial than our own, universal health care, far lower rates of homelessness and hunger, higher rates of educational attainment, higher wages for the working classes as well as higher levels of unionization.

so there you go.

[deutsey]

102. I keep waiting for the clarion call from a Democratic president that will turn Reagan's

"gov't is the problem" speech on its head.

All we get, though, are too many politicians bending over backwards (or just bending over) to accomodate the Reaganite bullshit that got us in this mess over the past three decades.

[Taverner]

108. AMEN!

[lib2DaBone]

110. Privatize Profits... Socialize Debt .....

Keep the working people crawling on the ground as long as possible....while the law makers (Congress) prosper.

[lib2DaBone]

111. Forgot to mention.. the "Golden Rule"...

"HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES".

[usregimechange]

113. Disagree, appropriately regulated capitalism is the way to go

[mvd]

117. Pure capitalism is a bad system because..

it's based on greed rather than the good of society. If you try to regulate it while the rules let the system run wild, you just get in a tug of war. We need a degree of socialism - like making sure everyone, even those who don't work, has a basic living. Where you don't set limits on earnings, but you tax the rich fairly and you have heavy regulation of industry. This may be a new system that's not quite capitalism or socialism. But it's needed.

[patrice]

135. 1++

[patrice]

119. For those who choose to CO - operate, there're as many custom-made solutions, as there are problems

[hack89]

121. I prefer Sweden's brand of capitalism. nt

[tavalon]

122. We need to brand it with a different name.

The sheeple are terrified of the word Socialism!

[a2liberal]

125. K&R (n/t)

[McCamy Taylor]

127. Indeed. That means no more divide and conquer. Immigrants, women, gays, Muslims all under the tent.

Anyone who has a problem with doing something for the welfare of one of those above groups will probably balk at socialism. Search your heart. Do you really want to live in poverty just to keep the _____s from getting ahead?

[Taverner]

130. YES!

[Mosaic]

142. White men, women must be all under the Same Tent

No white privilege in a socialist, Egalitarian society, we are getting there with Obama, but the unfairness persists thanks to assholes who won't let go. Do I even need to remind you? :spank:

[CatholicEdHead]

132. Good luck, the pushbacks would be tougher than 1917 and 1950's combined

nowadays. Like it or not, "socialist=communist" in many peoples' minds.

[Mosaic]

143. I think that is an outdated meme

Most people I think are open minded, internet connected, inspired by Occupy and it's goals, and know how corrupt the capitalist system has gotten.

Instead of being harder than before, it should be much easier to finally grow up.

[Bozita]

137. John Maynard Keynes - "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nasti

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all." - John Maynard Keynes

[Orsino]

153. We have to mix more socialism in with our capitalism, you mean.

Pure socialism wouldn't be any more successful than our experiment in deregulating capitalism has been.

[dembotoz]

161. at least in part....

[chaska]

162. Whenever presented with only two choices....

always look for a third, fourth, fifth, etc.

All societies are a mix of individualistic and egalitarian values/motives (even ours - I know, hard to believe at this late date). We have swung too far to the individualistic side of the pendulum. We're long overdue for a return to equality and communal values. The answer to our problem isn't any true version of Socialism, but until we can think of a better way to describe what we want, that term will probably be used a lot.

And that's okay. Never let your enemy scare you off from your own name. But don't let him chase you into a definition of you that doesn't fit either. Don't let him make you embrace the tarbaby. He'll be laughing his ass off at you, and you will deserve it. Define yourself. Always.

[txlibdem]

171. Well, the current money system isn't working for 99% of the world

I think it's time to do away with money. Money is the cause of greed. Greed leads to inequality and to crime and it leads to ever-increasing greed. Get rid of money and establish a society where we all share equally in the bounty of this Earth and our solar system.

All humans are endowed with the following inalienable rights: free nutritious and healthy food, clean water, clean air, safe and comfortable living spaces of adequate size, free education up to and beyond PHD, unrestricted communications (in this I include the fastest internet our technology is capable of), unrestricted right of movement and free association, and a free press that will be tasked to vigilantly make sure that all of these rights are not being infringed upon anywhere or any time.

That's all I want for Christmas.

PS, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose (as the Irish say).

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txlibdem]

177. Is that a statue of Adam Smith??? That would make the caption make sense.

The only ideology Lenin had was to keep Lenin in power. He was a better Hitler than Hitler. The same goes for Stalin. Perhaps double.

The little girl in the picture is angry because we killed equality in her country. We killed a free education regardless of your social standing. We killed advances in technology made by the USSR that took us over a decade to catch up to (Radial Keratotomy becomes laser eye surgery). We killed her hope of growing up in a nation that did not judge by the color of your skin.

In short, she's pissed off about living in a Capitalist Society.