Socialists: define yourselves.

[originalpckelly]

What do you support?
What don't you support?
Why?

How would your society work? If everyone else who is not a socialist is telling lies, then by all means, you should tell us what you want.

[angstlessk]

I'd run the county based on productivity...a very hard working janitor

might make only half as much as a lazy accountant working for the same company. Productivity credits begin when you start school...for going, for grades and for attendence...the longer you go the more credits, the better your grades the more credits, perfect attendence acquires more credits. Then you are graded once your job begins...based on your productivity on the job. the minimum salary depending on your # of years, grades and attendence, of anyone who works would be enough to feed, house, clothe 1 or 2 person(s) if both worked it could support 4 people...beyond that you can excell with past performance and current work..just sayin???

as a manager your workers productivity credits could be added (in small increments) to your own. It would be a heirarchical system...much like we have now..only failure would NOT be subsidized.

[NeedleCast]

9. That sounds pretty much like a complete nightmare

Well regulated fascism.

You've turned the entire work force into a pyramid scheme. That sounds...horrible.

[readmoreoften]

12. Says the person who sucks of the stock market to the worker.

Didn't you predict a market bottom of 10,500 or something? Something about "it's not like it's going to slide to 6000!"

Actually, fascism under Hitler, Pinochet, and the like were capitalist states complete with US companies involved (Fanta, invented by Coke to sell to the Nazis, and IBM, who regulated the tabulation machines that tracked who was a Jew, a Gypsy, a Homosexual, etc.)

The work force under CAPITAL is a pyramid scheme, with workers at the bottom.

[lunatica]

1. I support equal social services for certain things

Capitalism would still be strong. You can make as much money as you want, but that will not give you more of certain things. Things like an equal education, equal medical care, three square meals a day, good clean shelter and equal civil right.

The poor would get the same education as the middle class and the rich (all free, including four years of college and beyond) in schools that are the same as the schools in the best neighborhoods.

There would be free childcare for all families, and there would be free elderly care, including retirement homes and convalescent homes and free death services.

Free medical for everyone.

In other words, no matter how poor you are, or how unable to work (handicapped, mentally ill, elderly, etc.,) you will be taken care of in all your basic needs in a ways that give your life dignity.

[Mnemosyne]

2. Basic needs a right for all. Amount to survive humanely set by

general consensus of poor with Reps. required to live on the same for at least a year so they understand what "the least of these" really NEED to survive.

Too many wealthy now deciding what the poor deserve to 'survive'.

[panader0]

3. I'll be eligible for Social Security in 4 or 5 years

When people get older and can't work any more due to health issues or whatever, should they be tossed onto the street? I don't think so. So we have Social Security. The same should be true of health care. Capitalism (the study of greed) is fine-to a degree. The desire or lust for profits at the expense of others (like Madoff say) is wrong. There has to be a balance. The US is already socialist to a degree, just not enough yet. Should hard-working, ambitious people be rewarded more than sloths? Of course. Should society allow the weak and poor to suffer because they are penniless? No.

[originalpckelly]

4. I like what I've seen so far, but I wish there'd be more of the usual suspects.

This thread is not meant to be one of those that quickly degenerates into name calling, it would be nice to have one side say its peace for a change. So please, please do say your peace.

[dem629]

5. Pretty much just social services, health care, etc.

Determined on a need basis, the survival basics of life should be guaranteed. That's the only way a civilization is truly civil, in my opinion.

I don't want to get rid of too much of the free market and I'd bet most Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc. don't either.

[readmoreoften]

6. Anarcho-capitalist democrats: define yourselves.

[readmoreoften]

8. .

[originalpckelly]

11. This is not a confrontational thread...

however much you might like it to degenerate into one. Please, post your own OP if you want this kind of baloney.

[readmoreoften]

13. Fair enough.

I'm just returning your confrontation. If you want to talk honestly, I'm all for it.

[originalpckelly]

16. I'm glad you posted what I was looking for below!

Thanks :hi:

[readmoreoften]

17. No problem. Sorry if I come off defensive.

I'm really just frustrated because I live in an area where the anarchist movement is so "purist" that it's has a very totalitarian and upper class feeling to it ( gay marriage is capitulation! meat is murder! if you don't pay $4K for a composting toilet you're part of the problem!) meanwhile, my area was infiltrated by the FBI within these (in my mind, toothless) circles because of their tendency to fall to demagogues because of the idea of "consensus democracy." In this "libertarian" paradigm, every individual not only "votes" but has so much say that no action is taken until everyone is in agreement.

In practice, this sounds beautiful. It is positively seductive. It also seems practical. Unfortunately, what happens *in action* is that the loudest and most aggressive people intimidate and extend the conversation to the point of exasperation. These people are often agent provocateurs. On the other hand, socialist groups are very democratic (although 'centrally' so) don't fingerwag members to shop in certain places and so forth, because they see the problem as systemic. They're also very nice to the anarchists, who snub them and routinely call them "totalitarian". As far as "anarcho" anything goes, I don't think that change can be forced by "countercultural" groups or "dropping out." Countercultural groups need to have a mainstream culture to rail against. Many of these "dreaded mainstreamies" are run of the mill people who could be allies.

The socialists I know don't suggest change will occur through guerrilla style action and they don't break the law to make their point. They quietly talk to exasperated military people and work with them to end the war. They recognize that no change can occur without the military refusing to kill their neighbors. The end goal is to have a planned economy, but something like a "sustainable" economy not a fascist police state. I don't believe that most people innovate to get rich. Most science professors are quite happy with their $100K a year salary. Einstein was a socialist and had zero interest in selling his ideas for billions of dollars. Creative people get a real joy out of making the world a better place. So many people go into low pay professions because they "love what they do" already. There are already people who clean toilets for a living. To do so and live well will be an improvement. So much of people's daily work involves making surplus money for investors, the workday could be reduced. "Planned obsolescence" would be abolished. We'd make stockings that don't run, computers that aren't designed to crash in 3 years, etc. Less garbage, better for the environment. More time for people to do the creative things that want to do. So even if you don't get your dream job, you could have plenty of free time to tinker.

Impediments to the system once capitalism disappeared as a "weird" idea (which would be quite a struggle--and likely a bitter one--in itself) would be that some areas (socialism can't exist in isolation surrounded by capitalist nations) would want a dictator, others would want centralized democracy in workers councils in small groups, some would want larger units, some would want consensus democracy (which I think might be great if there were no capitalist state infiltrators). These struggles would threaten production and be a real problem. There is a terrible chance for a "global authoritarianism" to arise but I think no worse than the chance that "global authoritarianism" will happen in a capitalist state (perhaps veiled, perhaps not.) Once again, people would have to rebel against this. It's not that authoritarianism isn't a question, it's that I don't believe the question can even be addressed until capitalism-- and the state apparatus it needs to function--is made obsolete.

[originalpckelly]

19. Well, thanks for your input, this is all for bookmarks, I'll have to review it all later...

but from what I've read so far, I think this is going to be a great thread.

I thank you for contributing. And from the first few lines of your post, I agree. I came across some of those rich whiny bastards who think they're all that. To them this is all just a joke, and they can run home to mommy if it gets "tiresome". :P

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I favor socialistic capitalism

A Minimum Standard of Living to include housing, nutrition, and health care.

Also, some way to regulate large businesses to keep them from becoming, as we now like to say, too big to allow to fail.

[readmoreoften]

10. Socialism is taking over the means of production from capitalists (+monarchs, if necessary) by those

who create real value in society: farmers, artists, mathematicians, teachers, factory workers, inventors, geologists, doctors, computer programmers. It is the design of a society decided by these creative people--whether democratic (which I hardily prefer) or authoritarian (which I do not)-- rather than the "investors" who make money from suppressing the wages of laborers. Where do these "investors"--the one 10th of 1% of the riches people in the world--get their wealth? In the difference between the costs of production and the value of a product (that they haven't labored to produce themselves and 99999 our of 100000 have no hand in creating.) What do capitalists have without labor? Zero. What does labor have without capitalists? Pretty much everything.

The "ownership society" of the Bush administration has contributed to the illusion that the average American is some glorious beneficiary of capitalism. We're not. We're almost all workers. We're almost all people who used to have pensions and now how 401Ks; who used to have union protection, but are now union-busted.

The idea is not a "state-run society" but eventually a society that--through ending usury, slavery--doesn't need a violent state apparatus to "protect" it from its poor.

I would be fine with this "mixed economy" that everyone is so excited about. Unfortunately, multinationals have crushed mixed economies wherever they arise. The only reason why they exist in France and so forth is because the people are still willing to fight for socialism if too much is taken away. (And crushing the Europe would be bad business since most Americans haven't thoroughly dehumanized them as we have Africans, Latin-Americans, Asians, and the Middle East.) I feel that the possibility of a "mixed economy" on a global level is utopian because capitalists will still control the airwaves and make sure they own politicians. I am willing to fight for it, however, even though I think we're more likely to have a global change of power than an ability to "control" socialists.

I don't feel that capitalism, in an age of globalization plus technoscience, can become anything but totalitarian under a thin guise of "political choice" (between politicians who do their bidding.) I believe both mob rule and authoritarianism are undesirable, but since I pretty much feel that capitalism guarantees the latter, I'll risk either/or for the chance at a new idea. I don't think that socialism is possible in one country. I think it would have to arise in multiple sites at once. I don't expect the US to be the leader in this battle. But, ironically, I think Asia will be the last place to go.

That's just where it begins for me. Glad you asked. Will it be utopian? Hell no. I suspect even after "capitalism" is an arcane system, there will still be heavy battles between authoritarian locations and democratic locations. Hopefully, capitalism wouldn't rise out of such a system from the ashes. Or monarchies, etc.

[Selatius]

14. I favor market socialism:

A model of one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy#An_alternative_model

It is somewhat a long read, but it is worth it.

[readmoreoften]

18. I'd fight for that. I think the wage labor situation has to go in the Soviet model.

But I don't think an autonomist model works DURING the fight against capital. How does this differ from autonomism? Does it?

[Selatius]

26. It's not pure autonomism.

The only way the scheme works is if the state acts as a steward over the mechanism that is used to spread cooperativism throughout the economy, so I wouldn't say it is pure autonomism in the same way as, say, anarchist communes in Civil War Spain. The role of the government would merely be to provide a playing field for co-ops to form and grow. What the co-ops do after that would be up to the collective workers there.

Of course, the state should be arrested from trying to undo the reforms it just implemented, so it is vitally important that the program move quickly and efficiently and yield meaningful results in the eyes of workers in general. If this mechanism's credibility can be established quickly enough with the public, then it will be difficult for corporate interests to undo the reform, much like Social Security.

Of course, it would help if the information ways were not so polluted by corporate propaganda.

[maxsolomon]

15. whatever it takes for me not to "work hard"

i'm so sick of everyone praising "hard work" & "hard workers".

hard work sucks. i prefer interesting & good work.

[readmoreoften]

23. I don't praise "hard work"

I just praise "workers". I think all this "hard work" crap is a ruse to make us feel guilty about not making other people richer than they already are. Let's just do our fair share of contributing to the world and spend the rest of our FREE time enjoying life and one another.

[originalpckelly]

20. Keep it coming folks, this is turning into a great thread.

:hi:

Thanks to all the posters so far!

[upi402]

21. mixed economy, free market with reasonable fairness

there needs to be rules to balance the power of the money elites and greedy politicians

[coalition_unwilling]

22. From each according to his ability, to

each according to his need.

[JanMichael]

24. Read the link then you will know what I support:

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

There. Does that explain it clearly enough?

[crimsonblue]

25. I'm a democratic socialist.

I believe capitalism can work, but it needs to be heavily regulated. When corporations show they are either unable or unwilling to act responsibly and ethically, then it is the role of the government to stop those controls and take control. Also, the government has a responsibility in maintaining a basic level of standard of living for all Americans, including health care. However, I do not think the government has the right to repossess private property without just cause or compensation, and I think that any socialism we may have needs to fit within the canopy of the Constitution.

[No.23]

28. If that's a picture of...

Mike Gravel (I don't have my spectacles on, at the moment), good on you.

Support his support of the Fair Tax too?

[crimsonblue]

30. I am in favor of progressive taxation..

What really irks me is that people associate the top marginal rate as the total tax rate, which is idiotic. Everybody pays the same tax rate for the same amount of money earned. For example, one person makes $150,000 while another makes $35,000. Both are taxed equally on the $35,000. The person making $150,000 is taxed marginally on top of that. The tax brackets stack up. People are idiots.

And yes, it's Mike Gravel.

[No.23]

31. I think you meant...

to say that you are in favor of progressive income taxation, by the example that you cited.

Which is one position of MG's that you, therefore, don't agree with.

[crimsonblue]

32. I didn't really choose the pic of Gravel because I liked his policies

I picked it because he is a goofy looking old man. And yes, I meant progressive income taxation. I will look into the Fair tax and get back to you on that.

[No.23]

34. Gotcha.

Thanks for the clarification.

I thought that you might have been someone who appreciates his efforts.

They're in the minority, you know.

Thanks again.

[crimsonblue]

35. I just don't know much about him

I'm rather new to the whole socialism scene; In fact, I just became one this week. I came to the decision that we need to let the financial system collapse and then put something that will work in its place.

[No.23]

27. I am a communalist (not communist or socialist).

Please note the difference. It is a significant one.

And rather than espouse a certain ideology (I have a personal aversion to rigid dogmatism), suffice it to say that I want a society that basically performs the following rudimentary functions:

1) identifies what needs a person is entitled to have met, with the support of his or her government;

2) suppports the attainment of people's desires (as differentiated from needs), only after everyone's fundamental needs are met.

To use an analogy of a dinner table, anyone is encouraged to have second or third or fourth helpings (desires), but only after everyone has received their first helping (fundamental needs).

If it sounds like a hybrid of socialism and capitalism, that's what it is.

I've always been partial to mutts anyway.

[Odin2005]

29. I'm a non-Marxist market Socialist. My socialism is based on 2 simple ethical axioms:

1. Karl Popper's (Yes, THAT Popper, the guy that destroyed Marxism's philosophical basis *sees exploding heads*) assertion that individuals and society as a whole has a moral obligation to minimize suffering and allow people to be free to find happiness and meaning in their lives without worrying about satisfying basic needs like food, shelter, energy, and healthcare.

2. Immanuel Kant's dictum that people should not be treated as mere means to an end, as if they were mere cogs in a machine or "human resources". People are ends unto themselves with their own wants, needs, desires, dreams, and aspirations. IMO Capitalism by it's very nature dehumanizes workers into resources to be exploited.

The problem isn't socialism itself. The problem is the overwhelming dominance of Marxist nitwits and their secular dogmatic religion in the socialist tent. They dogmatism is of the typical "all criticism is propaganda and automatically wrong" variety, like a certain poster in a certain other thread accusing me of spewing "Libertarian lies". Instead of letting socialist thought adapt to changing times the Marxists are an anvil tied to Socialism's neck.

[Mika]

33. I've lived in a pretty good version, except that it is under extraterritorial sanction by the US.

Much hardship due to the trade ostracizing US sanctions, but still the people rose to the task..

Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-98 Elections
Arnold August
1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0968508405/qid=1053879619/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8821757-1670550?v=glance&s=books

---

Before the 1959 revolution

75% of rural dwellings were huts made from palm trees.

More than 50% had no toilets of any kind.

85% had no inside running water.

91% had no electricity.

There was only 1 doctor per 2,000 people in rural areas.

More than one-third of the rural population had intestinal parasites.

Only 4% of Cuban peasants ate meat regularly; only 1% ate fish, less than 2% eggs, 3% bread, 11% milk; none ate green vegetables.

The average annual income among peasants was $91 (1956), less than 1/3 of the national income per person.

45% of the rural population was illiterate; 44% had never attended a school.

25% of the labor force was chronically unemployed.

1 million people were illiterate ( in a population of about 5.5 million).

27% of urban children, not to speak of 61% of rural children, were not attending school.

Racial discrimination was widespread.

The public school system had deteriorated badly.

Corruption was endemic; anyone could be bought, from a Supreme Court judge to a cop.

Police brutality and torture were common.

___



After the 1959 revolution
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html

“It is in some sense almost an anti-model,” according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank’s Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank’s dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong.

-

It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank’s Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.

By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999;

Chile’s was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.

Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba’s achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.

“Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable,” according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. “You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area.”

Indeed, in Ritzen’s own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.

“Even in education performance, Cuba’s is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile.”

It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.

There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.

The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.

“Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,” said Ritzen. “If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it’s not possible.”

Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada’s rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world.

The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably not.

“What does it, is the incredible dedication,” according to Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times since.

No one can say with any credibility that universal education and universal health care needs to be forced on any population. Castro didn't give it to them either. Together, nearly all Cubans worked hard to create the infrastructure and systems that they felt were essential for any progressive system.

The Cuban people wanted universal health care for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, and organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a fair and complete h-c system.

The people of Cuba wanted universal education for all Cubans, and they have it. They pushed for government that represented their ideals, organized and formed infrastructure that enabled Cubans to create a complete and world class ed system, and they have it.

Cubans want to assist the world's poor with doctors and educators, instead of gun ship diplomacy.. and that is what they have done WITH their government, not at odds with their government.