Why Not Socialism?: The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective

[marmar]

from In These Times:


Why Not Socialism?
The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective.

BY Maria Svart


President Barack Obama owes his victory to the efforts of black, Latino, trade union, feminist and LGBTQ folks, who rallied to thwart a Romney campaign that relied on voter suppression and coded appeals to white nationalism. But unfortunately, the economy is still in the dumps, and Obama will not follow his reelection with an all-or-nothing progressive push. Rather, the exit polls and ballot initiative results will be read by the president’s neoliberal advisors as a mandate for so-called “compromise” policies—i.e., further austerity, further cuts.

An ideological vacuum will be created on the Left when the president tacks back to the center and the GOP even more to the extreme Right, and democratic socialists are in a unique position to fill it.

Democratic socialism provides a counterweight to the Tea Party agenda of reaction and division. We advocate for an expanded electoral and economic democracy along with deep citizen engagement. We know that many Americans share these values. People want a voice in decisions that affect their lives, and they know that the only way to cut the deficit is to put people back to work. We also know that 49 percent of people aged 18-29 have a positive view of socialism, according to a Pew poll released last year, and that class consciousness is on the rise.

Now is the time to continue building a political movement capable of challenging the neoliberal capitalist consensus. It is clear why we need a socialist organization in the United States. The Right has been too successful in its red-baiting, stymying even the most moderate reforms to rein in corporate power. We need a movement explaining and de-stigmatizing democratic socialism in order to create the rhetorical and political space for progressive, if not socialist, change. .......................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/14191/why_not_socialism

[PETRUS]

1. K&R

[white_wolf]

2. You may have read this article, but here is Einstein's take on socialism.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

[OneGrassRoot]

49. Brilliant. Thank you so much! n/t

[Whovian]

161. That was effing amazing. n/t

[David__77]

3. What does that mean?

Non-public economy emerging as a significant sector? That's not really socialism necessarily, just a mixed economy, like most of the world currently has.

[truebluegreen]

61. And like we used to have--at least more than now.

[leftstreet]

4. The Democrats are so Right, the GOP can only go Left

strange times

[HiPointDem]

31. +1.

[banned from Kos]

5. Socialism crushes individual initiative - that is why.

Why write a book if the profit is not yours?

Socialism is a disease that rots the human experience.

[leftstreet]

7. Yes, SS and Medicare recipients lack motivation

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. That is why Sweden is a place where there is no creativity

At all...wait...the US of the 1950s was also barren of any creativity.

No, not any sarcasm needed here, just a laugh tract.

Son, what they are talking about is a mixed economy.

[banned from Kos]

15. Sweden is not socialist. Private property is still respected there.

Sweden is capitalist with a safety net.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. No, it is a social democracy with a mixed economy

You really need a reality check.

[banned from Kos]

51. A social democracy is not "socialism".

Socialism is

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

American Heritage

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Who said it was? You did.

That said, it is way to the left of accepted discussion in the US, which is narrow and right trending as can be.

[Democracyinkind]

96. Heritage Definition

Not the way that Marx, Engels, or Liebknecht or any of that lot would have used or understood the term.

"Socialism", in Marxist thought, is the precursor to communism. It is transitive and mixed in its nature.

I blame Lenin and his fellow state-capitalist cohorts for that particular change of lingo.

[patrice]

119. Thank you! "state-capitalism" - that's what has lots of people confused. nt

[Honeycombe8]

16. Sweden has a capitalist economic system, with some social programs. Just like the U.S.

Sweden has more social programs, but it is still a capitalistic economic system.

I think some people may not understand what capitalism is and what socialism is.

If you think you have the right to sell your junk on E-bay to the highest bidder, you are a capitalist.

If you think you have to sell (or give) your junk to the person who demonstates the most need for your junk, regardless of what they can pay, you are a socialist.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The hippie communes found out that socialism doesn't work very well. There's no incentive to work hard every day, when your fellow communer only half-ass does his job, but he gets the same reward.

[Hissyspit]

20. You used the word "communes."

You are talking about communism.

They are not the same thing.

"I think some people may not understand what capitalism is and what socialism is."

[Honeycombe8]

30. Communism is a GOVERNMENT. Socialism is an economic system.

Hippie communes didn't have official governments, of course. They did have economic systems, many of them being socialistic. It didn't work.

Some of those hippie communes still exist, but they now have a capitaistic economic system. People work in gardens, they sell the produce, the workers get wages, etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Ok, here is your assignment

Research the actual socio economic definition of socialism, communism, mixed economy and social democracy. For the record, Bernie Sanders is a social democrat.

[Honeycombe8]

43. Here is your assignment: look up the definition of socialism, then look up Denmark....

Scandinavian countries, and Sweden.

You will find the Scandinavian countries have SOCIALISTIC economic systems.

As I said, communism is NOT an economic system.

I suggest that the next time you try to take an arrogant attitude toward another poster, you know what you're talking about. Which you clearly don't.

(my post did not mention social democrat or Bernie Sanders....so that switch and bait debate tactic, used when someone is losing, didn't work)

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Alas I know

I have also read Adam Smith. He'd approved of Sweden, the US...not so much.

[Diclotican]

83. Honeycombe8

Honeycombe8

Dear you - Sweden IS part of Scandinavia - the word Scandinavia is short for Sverige, Danmark and Norge.. Aka Sweden, Denmark and Norway..

We doesn't have a socialistic system by far - it is a long time since our governments have had the balls to play hard with big money - and where the STATE had directly control over large parts of the economical life.. We have a social-democratic system, where the private and public sector share the economy - in Denmark and Sweden they have maybe more of a private sector system - in Norway we have chosen a more "public sector" system - where the State own more than it does in Sweden and Denmark, and have a more direct control over what we have of industry - and the State own most of Stateoil... our oil company who is one of the biggest contributors to our current wealth.. Owned BY the STATE for the STATE and therefore - for the pepole of Norway - And by the way - we have also one of the largers invest founds in the world - in November we even beat Duai's invest found in economical terms...

Diclotican

[HiPointDem]

85. wait, you said sweden was capitalist...now i'm really confused...

[eridani]

66. A co-op is no way in hell capitalist

Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage." Wages are paid by owners, and those wages are always substantially less than the value of the product that workers produce. In contrast, workers in co-ops get the full value of what they produce. Some workers may get more than others, but there is no conceivable way that any of them could earn 300 times what other workers earn.

[BlueMan Votes]

122. "Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage."...???

then what are those time-clock thingys all about?

[eridani]

154. They are to fairly allocate 100% of the income to those who work to generate it

0% is skimmed off to give to someone just for owning the equipment. Unless that latter consideration holds, you are not talking about capitalism.

The timeclock differentials tend to be in the 10% or maybe 20% above average time. No way in hell does anybody ever put in 300 times as much time, or even twice as much time.

[BlueMan Votes]

164. some people's time is more valuable others.

skilled craftsmen contribute more than the person who sweeps the floors and washes the windows.
not all work is of equal value.

[eridani]

176. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100% of the take goes to workers, and only workers

Co-ops who need higher skill levels will set relative compensation higher, but the essential fact of a co-op is that there is never any third party who gets money just from owning production equipment. Only if that latter fact is the case is the operation capitalist.

[BlueMan Votes]

187. those that own the production equipment deserve a cut of the proceeds.

if the co-op owns the means of production- fine.
if a third-party owns it- they deserve a cut of the proceeds acquired by the use of their property.

[eridani]

190. I don't think so. Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production?

Just because it's widely thought to be OK? It wasn't all that long ago that "everybody" thought that slavery was perfectly acceptable.

[BlueMan Votes]

193. to compare factory machinery to human slavery is just plain ludicrous.

as to "Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production?"

very simple answer- somebody invested the capital to aquire them.
if the workers want choose to organize and pool their resources and purchase their own means of production- more power to them.
or they could choose to work for a wage from somebody who already has a means of production, but needs more labor. if the.wage-paying job is their choice- they can organize with the others to form a union.

the problem being that not all of the workers will make the same choices and/or want to organize.

btw, one quick question- as long as you want to equate the machinery and factory with humans in bondage- how do you feel about corporate personhood and robot rights?

[eridani]

194. They got the capital by taking surplus value from workers

Why should anyone have the right to do that? And corporate personhood should be abolished. Wage labor is not a real "choice" if access to capital is restricted by capitalists.

BTW, farmers and independent tradespeople used to regard what they called "a job of work" (for someone else) as degrading--a significant step down from the self-employment which was the norm before manufacturing became dominant.

[BlueMan Votes]

195. how do you know how they got the capital...?

what if it's a worker who works two jobs and saves enough money to eventually purchase his own means of production?

"BTW, farmers and independent tradespeople used to regard what they called "a job of work" (for someone else) as degrading..."

farmers also used to use oxen to plow the field..they used to do a lot of things...times change.

[eridani]

196. Then he owns his own means of production. Why should he own other people's? n/t

[BlueMan Votes]

198. he may own his own means of production- but he needs labor to make it work...

so he puts a 'help wanted' sign, and people who are interested in working for a wage could fill out applications and leave them with the receptionist. decisions are made and workers are hired, and the guy still owns the mean of production.

as to why he should own other people's means of production-

because he can afford to.
and because not everybody wants to have their very own means of production, and would instead prefer
to work a job for a fair wage.

[eridani]

200. Or he could invite other people to become co-owners

People don't want this responsibility because work for wages seems normal, in the sense that slavery used to seem normal.

[BlueMan Votes]

201. Exactly- by means of an IPO. If people want to be co-owners they can buy stock in the "company"...

aka- the means of production.

but that's how it already works.

"People don't want this responsibility because work for wages seems normal, in the sense that slavery used to seem normal."

actually it's more like in the sense that breathing used to seem normal. and still does.

btw- the whole slavery canard you're trying to use is almost stupid enough to be offensive.

[eridani]

202. Members of our species have been breathing for 100K years, minimum

Wage employment has occurred for only a fraction of that time. Can you explain the disparity?

Sure, workers can purchase IPOs--but what if ONLY workers were allowed to do so?

[BlueMan Votes]

203. civilization takes time.

we'll get there.

if only workers could purchase ipo's- they probably wouldn't generate enough of the needed capital the ipo is supposed to raise.

[eridani]

204. If they got more of the money that they are responsible for generating, they'd have plenty

The average family gets only about 1/8 of the value they produce for their employers. You could make the argument that a worker may wish to trade some income in return for not being as actively involved as ownership would imply, but only getting 1/8 of what they produce? If they got even a third or a half, there would be plenty to capitalize the company.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/09/american-companies-going-strong/

Deep cost cutting during the downturn and caution during the recovery put the companies on firmer financial footing, helping them to outperform the rest of the economy and gather a greater share of the nation’s income. The rebound is reflected in the stock market, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average at a four-year high. [...]

Overall, though, the Journal found that S&P 500 companies have become more efficient—and more productive. In 2007, the companies generated an average of $378,000 in revenue for every employee on their payrolls. Last year, that figure rose to $420,000.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/12/news/economy/median-income-poverty/index.html

Middle-class families continued to suffer in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and the poverty rate fell slightly, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Wednesday.

Median household income fell to $50,054 in 2011, down 1.5% from a year earlier. Income inequality widened, as the highest income echelon experienced a jump, while those in the middle saw incomes shrink.

[tama]

179. Communism is anarchy

ie. classless society without states and borders. International revolutionary socialism is Marxist transition phase into communal anarchy. Reformist Social Democracy had Marxist roots, but they are by now mostly diluted and forgotten, and as political movements they have fallen into the trap of national socialism and corporatism. Which is pretty much same as fascism in terms of economics.

Intentional communes come in great variety, and their number and strength is growing. For example there are now 1300 community gardens in Detroit. Many communes, as said, function as anarchic co-ops, in capitalistic socio-economic environment and as alternatives to capitalistic logic of profit and greed and class hierarchy. There are communes that develop local fully self-sustainable ways of life, alternative local money systems, internet communes based on gift economy (Linux etc.), etc etc.

[banned from Kos]

22. Thank you for a ray of reality here.

I am disappointed in DU today.

[Hissyspit]

90. Well, we'll go to our room without supper now

taking our facts and accurate definitions with us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. It s a mixed economy with a very strong government sector

And a private sector, like the oh US in the 1950s...people really need to learn the actual definitions of political and chiefly economic terms.

[Honeycombe8]

47. You really need to learn the definitions of economic and political terms, nadin. Sweden

has a capitalistic economic system with broad social programs. Like the U.S.

Look it up. That's your homework assignment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. They are a social democracy

With a mixed economy. Sorry, that is what they are and where we were headed until oh I'd say 1965 with Medicare. Since the 1980s the war on the weak safety net, by the rest of the developed world standards, has been under attack.

I am sorry that you can't see that.

But Sweden has a mixed economy, sorry.

[Diclotican]

65. Honeycomb8

Hey,

Sweden denmark and norway have in one way or another a strong public sector where the government, or the state if You want have a interest in keeping control of the economy. It can happened dire cly by ownership of industry or by indirectly owning shares in company es Who dose businesses, and therefore the government would like to have a say in many cases. It can Also be as in sweden and norway and to,a degree Also in denmark where the state outright own large spaces of public land Who is not up for sale anytime Soon. The system is called social democratic or a system where the private an public sector work together for the benefit of,all.. In resent years, specially after the fall,of the ussr,mot have some how changed, but the state still own and have control over the economy inna way i doubt any american government have been aviable do since themgreat depression in the 1930s... The system Also have a great interest in social programs Who i believe to be stronger,mans maybe more just than in the us.

The social Democratic system have its flaws, and it have been under "attack" for,many years now. Specially from the more conservative holds, but it have support from most people ute, even when it Also make most of us pay more taxes, Who i know is something americans have a issue with.

Diclotican

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Wait, you do live there

Part of the problem is that most Americans have no idea what these terms mean. Hell, Germany, especially under Adenauer, was (still is) also a Social Democracy. Even under Merkel is far to the "left" of where Americans would comprehend.

Oh and my friend, happy holidays, in case we don't see each other.

[Diclotican]

73. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski

Yes I do - so I hopefully know a little of it .. Even though my personal opinion is that I believe we have turned to far to the right, i would like to turn the ship little to the left - to safeguard what we have managed to build since world war two... We have our share of crybaby es who is little sad about paying taxes for programs they might never experience firsthand.. The system is not perfect - it have its share of snags - but I would better have this system, than the US form, who is more or less, you are on your own.... I once was thinking about emigrating ot the united states as a young... Thankfully I did not - and as I have been on disability for some years now - I am thankfully I don't did it... (

Germany was, at least in the rebuilding after world war two - more social-democratic than it was before and after but compared to what is in the US, I suspect even Merkel, who was living in East germany and have always been strictly critical about some of the systems who have been part of german fabric after the war...

If we doesn't see each other in the meantime, happy holidays to you too.. Have seen you around here and there ..

Diclotian

[eridani]

63. Utter nonsense. Selling on ebay has exactly jackshit to do with capitalism

Selling something on ebay does not mean you owned the machinery that produced what you are selling. Only owners of the means of production are capitalists. Ownership of personal property is an absolute that has existed in all societies, hunter/gatherers, feudalist, capitalist and communist. Even totalitarian dictatorships have people who own appliances, clothing, etc, and who often sell those things to other people.

All public goods are socialist. The fire department is run entirely by the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, straight out of Karl Marx. The more your property is worth, the higher the taxes you have to pay. And they'll never send a truck out unless you have a fire or other emergency. This works quite well, counter to your assertion.

[HiPointDem]

84. i think you're confused. yeah, sweden is capitalist. the rest...

[hack89]

91. Free market capitalism is the core of the Swedish economy.

there is little government ownership of the means of production.

[white_wolf]

11. Every time I read one of your post it becomes more and more clear why you were banned from Kos.

This post sounds like something I'd read on Free Republic. Oh and your example is terrible. No decent author writes for the sole purpose of making profit. No one goes into the arts to make money, if they do they will fail, because art isn't about profit.

[Democracyinkind]

97. It is plainly obious.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Tell that to Volvo, Saab and Mercedes Benz. All companies that succeed in socialist countries

Not to mention this:

Which countries are thriving the most? Answer: Denmark
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/global-wellbeing-survey-_n_851059.html#s266158&title=Denmark__72

Your argument is invalid.

[banned from Kos]

19. Germany is socialist? This is laughable.

The profit motive is more popular than Octoberfest in Germany.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Yes, merkel is from a Conservative party

But Adenauer was a social democrat. Also Angela Merkel is quite to the left from any democrat in the US and Germany has a very strong public sector. You really need to do your homework.

[banned from Kos]

46. You just agreed with me. Germany is not socialist!

You DO YOUR homework.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I did? Where? By any standard definition, it is

And has since 1945. Here s where it gets really funny, some things, like worker rights and seat n corporate board rooms were imposed by us. Do you know who Adenauer is?

[Canuckistanian]

57. Germany is most definitely a Social Democracy

The country has very strong social support policies, universal health care and paid education.

All of the things you would probably call "socialist" and with good reason.

And "profit" is not a dirty word in socialist countries, despite what Fox News says.

[sabrina 1]

81. Lol, again, you have no clue what Socialism is.

Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is a self-described democratic socialist eg.

We need 300 of him in Congress.

[Honeycombe8]

23. Denmark has a capitalistic economic system, like Sweden. It has a liberal trading

policy and a market economy. It has wide ranging social programs, but it does not have a socialistic economic system.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. It is a mixed economy

Like the United States was in many ways in the 1950s under yes, IKE.

[Diclotican]

78. Honeycombe8

Honeycombe8

I think you have to go back to your homework, and read up on the difference between SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC systems, and SOCIALISTIC systems.. The later is where the STATE own most of the properties, and where factories and industry for the most part is owned by the State...

In a Social-democratic system, state and private Enterprise work rather well together - In most of the Scandinavian country's the government OWN land, and OWN parts of "critical industry" who is deemed to be important for the safeguard of the country - Most of the Scandinavia country also have a rather big tax base - compared to the United States we pay a lot of taxes in different forms....


Diclotican

[HiPointDem]

87. denmark ain't a socialist country.

[PETRUS]

14. Profits don't go to artists/inventors under capitalism

Profits go to the owner of the copyright or patent, and that is often someone else. Who did the actual creative work has nothing to do with it.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Artists who are the creators own the copyrights of their work.

The Bee Gees, the Beatles, etc., all owned the songs they wrote, until and unless they sold those rights.

They got/get profits every time the song is sold, no matter who performs it.

Artists who are merely the performers and don't "own" the songs, still get a piece of the action, if they write that in their contract. They don't get a salary. They get royalties (profits) every time the song is sold. Same thing with actors.

If you're just starting out, and you need the company to finance you and take a chance, you have to sign a lousy contract that may not give you royalties. You don't HAVE to sign it (that is, you must sign away your rights), but if you want that first chance, you have to take what's offered. Then when you make a name for yourself, you re-do the contract.

[PETRUS]

29. Onliy sometimes.

You're not accounting for work for hire, or purchasing of intellectual property. I made my living that way for years. The bottom line is ownership, period.

[Honeycombe8]

34. Yes, if I write a song, I file for the copyright. Unless I sell it or give it away. Period. nt

[PETRUS]

36. okay...

[gollygee]

127. If you write a song while you're working for X Inc. and your job involves songwriting in any way

Then they own it.

[Honeycombe8]

175. Only if you're not an independent artist, but EMPLOYED by the co. or your CONTRACT

gives your rights to the company. As I said, beginners sign whatever bad contracts they have to, in order to get their start.

But if I'm an artist, under contract with Sony, I own my own creative works UNLESS I SOLD THEM OR GAVE THEM TO SONY in my contract. Or unless I later give them away or sell them.

You remember how Paul McCartney got furious at Michael Jackson for buying the old Beatles "book" of copyrights from Yoko? That's because McCartney had sold them or lost them years earlier...Yoko ended up with them. But the ARTISTS owned the copyrights, until they sold them or contracted them away.

[YOHABLO]

77. What about the Michael J. and Paul M. dispute?

Jackson, before his death, held the rights to Paul McCartney's work/songs and would not sell them back to him. McCartney was the creator. How did Jackson buy his work?

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. Written like someone who has no motivation beyond acquisition.

Not only crass, but a really pointless way to expend your life. That's how we got here.

[Hissyspit]

18. Wow, ignorant, stereotyped and absolutist.

[Honeycombe8]

26. In what way? nt

[HiPointDem]

33. yeah, there were no writers in communist countries & if there were, their books

were all shit propaganda extolling the Great Leader.

Because the very best books are written for profit.

[maddiemom]

72. The very best books are written for profit?

Perhaps you'd like to rethink this. Most writers would like to be successful at their craft, but it's a hell of a risky way to the big bucks. I seriously doubt that getting rich drives anyone with an artistic bent.

[HiPointDem]

82. sarcasm indicator broken? it's the other poster you should be talking to, not me.

[Diclotican]

178. HiPointDem

HiPointDem

Have you at all been reading russian books - both before and after the revolution in 1917... or the many books from the other side of the iron curtain, who was some of the best books ever produced in Europe?... I guess not.. Not everything written in east Europe and in Russia after 1917 was about telling how great the great leaders was - or what a wonderfully man Josef Stalin was... The books about Stalin and the other leaders is more or less forgotten now, but many of the great russian writers - who today is part of the world heritage was written great books, even if their works had to be smuggled to the west for printing - if their contents was not what the leaders wanted...

It was not easy to navigate true the different leaders - what was legal in 1950, was not legal ten years later on.. When new leaders was coming to power, it tend to have consequences for what was legal and not.. Some ended up in a prison cell because they do not "get the message".. Other times, writers who had been prosecuted and put in prison under Stalin, was rehabilitated and given both their freedom and a decent life for as long as they was living... And many continued to write books, who for the most part is part of the classical russian heritage today... Russians have always been glad in writing and reading books, and they have great pleasure of reading books over there...

Diclotican

[HiPointDem]

183. saecasm detector needs adjustment

[Diclotican]

185. Hey

Hey

Maybe

[Jamaal510]

53. I'd rather this country have socialism and everybody

having their basic needs met than what we have now, where millions of people are starving and we're the only industrialized nation without single-payer.

[Art_from_Ark]

192. Japan does not have single-payer

Japan has a national health insurance system, but it is a co-pay system where the government pays 70% and the patient pays 30% of necessary medical and dental costs.

[rug]

64. So much bullshit, so little time.

I'm going to eat leftovers.

[patrice]

88. Probably to better effect than arguing with one who is blinded by Randian horseshit. nt

[tavalon]

68. It depends on the person or persons

It only takes one to have the attitude you have but we have four adults in my house and we work under a socialist model. One of us just had an car accident and all of us are trying to get extra shifts to help pay for it from the family account. I don't see a lack of initiative at all.

We each have an equal stipend and while some work is valued higher monetarily outside the house, within it is valued equally and the stipend helps reflect that. Now, we do have an added agreement that the individual can, if he or she wishes, keep half of their worked overtime, after taxes, etc. I'm choosing not to do that right now, because we need the second car back sooner rather than later. I don't make that choice for the other members of the household. I suppose you might say that that is where the individual initiative comes from, but all of us prefer more time to more personal money, so any of us actually trying to get extra overtime is unusual.

[sabrina 1]

80. You are confusing your terms. Socialism will not take away your

book profits. Only Right Wingers think that is what is Socialism is. Know any Europeans whose books are the property of their Socialist States?

Keep talking, I love your comments.

[patrice]

86. What is the point of doing anything that has no intrinsic motivation? That's what you're saying,

nothing is motivating in and of itself, so no one will do anything if there isn't some artificial profit in it. That's THE disease that is rotting the human experience, because it externalizes all sources of value and will, i.e. IDENTITY.

Without being fucked with by those who think they must provide our motives, people will do just fine figuring out what they want, need, or must do by themselves, thank you very much.

How did our species get through the hundreds of thousands of aeons before "civilization"?

What utter horseshit you've posted here.

Surely, you were being sarcastic.

[Ken Burch]

93. There are many reasons to write a book even IF "the profit is not yours"

1)Because you have something to say;
2)Because you have the need to say it;
3)Because you simply believe that it is a good thing to WRITE books(or paint paintings, or to invent things)in and of itself.

You take the view you take because you've been taught that everything(and everyone) must be commodified...that nothing and no one can exist unless its or their existence creates material wealth...this is a view that turns everything, in the end, into a form of prostitution.

Life doesn't have to be that ugly, my friend.

[patrice]

116. Capitalism crushes all individual initiative that is not based upon FEAR. nt

[BarackTheVote]

191. That is SUCH horse sh*t!

You perform a creative endeavor because it is your natural inclination if you are a person with creativity. You write a book because you need to, because you have something to say, because you have a story to tell, or because you want to make an intellectual connection with other people. The same can be said for every art form. The artists who do things exclusively for profit are called sell-outs and their artistic integrity can be considered in the sh*tter.

[quinnox]

197. you have a very limited imagination indeed if you think profit

Is the prime or only motivation for creativity. Many artists never made a penny for their masterpieces. Yet they still created them, imagine that.

[Canuckistanian]

6. They KNOW it's a viable alternative

So they fight it with the most vehement propaganda, designed to misrepresent what Democratic Socialism really means.

Vulture capitalism is failing, and they know it.

[marmar]

8. 'So they fight it with the most vehement propaganda, designed to misrepresent'

A post above yours is the perfect example of that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Yup

[Canuckistanian]

13. I saw that

And replied....

[Blue_Tires]

35. As i've said countless times before...

Socialism is practiced on the grandest scale in damn near every fortune 500 boardroom...they just don't dare to recognize it as such...

[Jack Sprat]

21. Let's do it.

Sounds good. If the corporatists plan on putting the squeeze on American workers, then I would hope the government would provide employment opportunities for our people.

[sendero]

24. As I have said here many times..

... it's only a matter of a few more years until many of the anti-socialism rabble will be BEGGING for some socialism.

[Honeycombe8]

27. We have some social programs in the U.S. What you mean is that people will want

those programs expanded.

Medicare, Social Security, unemployment compenstion, Social Security Disability, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance/subsidies, welfare payments in some states, earned income credit. Soon we will have subsidized health ins. for low income workers.

[sendero]

59. That is exactly what I mean...

.... because these folks will go from propagandized hubris to cold reality and they will want to eat.

[WillyT]

28. We Already Have Socialism To An Extent...

The military, police, firemen, teachers, government workers, etc...

It has ALWAYS been a mix of government programs with private enterprise.

The question, it seems to me, do we have the mix right?

I do not know, nor do I care, what the "market" can get for a Justin Bieber CD.

I DO KNOW I don't want my military, police, firemen, teachers, government workers, PRIVATIZED.

Let alone leave my old age pension in the hands of the "free market" vultures.





Onedit: & Rec !!!

[banned from Kos]

38. In other words we have a mixed mode economy.

Nothing wrong with that!

But it is still a market system (capitalism) at the core.

[WillyT]

54. Yes... But...

I would like to Socialize some of the requirements of human existence...

Not all... but to the extent we can... food, clothing, and shelter would be a great start.

Remember... the homeless epidemic happened after Reagan kicked a lot of folks out of state care facilities. And if you ain't gonna hire them, and you ain't gonna help them, you ARE gonna have to see them... for the rest of your, and their, lives...

Unless you want to go the Nazi route.

Me... I'd prefer to house and help them.

[limpyhobbler]

32. People have all different ideas in their heads about what socialism means, so

it makes it kind of challenging to have a conversation about it.

[Starry Messenger]

42. I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left.

Socialism just seems sensible to me. Of course, we're fighting to preserve even the tiny social safety net that we have now...any little bit to help working people is worth fighting for. I hope I live to see the day where we take a step toward the whole enchilada though.

[Jamaal510]

56. "I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left".

This video should explain why, at 4:39 onwards.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[gollygee]

50. The problem is that they're calling only the most extreme, radical form of Capitalism

"Capitalism" and everything else they call "Socialism" and "Marxism"

It's just propaganda.

And what they call "capitalism" is probably better called "corporatism" anyway, as they seem perfectly happy with governmental influence that benefits corporations, but only that governmental influence.

[redwhiteblue]

52. Harry Truman quote about Socialism

http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/viewpapers.php?pid=951


“The Republicans … will try to make people believe that everything the Government has done for the country is socialism. They will go to the people and say: "Did you see that social security check you received the other day—you thought that was good for you, didn't you? That was Socialism. Did you see that new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you, my friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and your home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you are just surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, ‘That's a terrible thing, my friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of socialism is to vote for the Republican ticket.’"

[Diclotican]

74. redwhiteblue

redwhiteblue¨

By todays republican standard I suspect Harry Truman to be a rabid left leaning communist, who want to destroy the "traditional America" once and for all... Even though Harry Truman was the man who looked down Stalin, and was not amused by what he was looking about in the early part of the cold war... And I doubt any american would call HIM a communist at that age...

Thank you for the quote, I suspect I have to put in on my face book

Diclotican

[JEFF9K]

55. ONE PROBLEM

One problem is that the Tea Party receives enormous support from the conservative-advertising-dependent media, which is about 99% of the media.

[sigmasix]

60. America isnt an economic system

The original post pre-supposes something about America that has never been true; that America is basically just an economic model or approach.

America is an experiment in departing from the dogma of economic predestination. We are a representitive democracy that uses a mixture of economic models to accomplish our shared goals and ideals. We have found that American pragmatism is the shining light of wisdom and knowledge to guide our choices for economic models. This is why we have elections that are supposed to be voted in by every qualified (read: steeped in American pragmatic thought and application) citizen. Sometimes capitalism, well regulated and taxed, accomplishes American goals. Sometimes the use of a socialist economic model is more pragmatic, as in basic human and civil rights and needs like healthcare, food, housing and education.

The OP takes too much for granted in disregarding the truth of the special nature of our great country and it's ideals, expressed through our shared history. We are so much more than an economic model.
.
.
.
Just my .02

[Diyames]

62. I'm in.

Free, quality health care and education for EVERYONE would be a nice start. Trying to convince republicans that that would be a good thing is the trick.

[tavalon]

67. If he won't listen to us, he would do well to emulate FDR and LBJ

Recreate government work programs and strengthen the safety nets.

[eridani]

71. Looking over the thread, I'm seeing two different definitions of socialism

One is the traditional sense of no individual ownership of someone else's means of production allowed. This in itself could mean either ownership of all means of production by government, or it could mean that individuals could own their own means of production, or collectively own same in co-operatives of varying sizes, with the largest resembling governments.

The other is Harry Truman's definition--socialism is government collecting taxes from all and spending the money to provide public goods for all. Conservatives have been waging war on public goods for 40 years, and use the term socialism in Truman's sense except for labelling it evil. I suspect that most of the young people who now prefer socialism also mean it in Truman's sense--if RW whackjobs attack public goods by calling them socialist, then people who like public goods will see themselves as socialists in opposition.

[War Horse]

95. This

I was thinking the same thing. Kind of hard to have a discussion on something as long as people use different definitions.

When I see/hear the word 'socialism' I think of your first definition.

[patrice]

110. Do you think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism? without it, without government

ownership, a thing cannot be Socialism?

[eridani]

136. Absolutely not. The anarchists of the 19th century opposing Marx--

---certainly thought of themselves as socialists. They called themselves "left socialists," in fact. They believed that everyone should own their own means of production or band together in collectives, the smaller scale, the better.

[patrice]

158. Thank you!! Trying to explain that down-thread & to refute the notion that profit for profit's sake

alone is not the goal of Capitalism and if it weren't for that FACT (look at our whole financial history), there would be no such thing as Capitalism at all.

[War Horse]

170. No. It's a very common definition, prob. THE most common,

but the poster I was replying to didn't limit Socialism to just that

I just find it weird and counterproductive to refer to the Nordic countries and Germany (and probably the UK and France etc) as Socialist.

I mean, are Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown, Blair, Cameron, Reinfeldt, Stoltenberg etc etc all Socialists?

[patrice]

171. The search I just did didn't think that they are. & Prob is people can conceive of NO

connection or set of relationships to a whole, other than government. That's stupid because we accept different forms of those relationships ALL of the time.

I think what drives this problem is the assumption that someone somewhere is going to get something for nothing, which, while incidentally possible, is NOT the purpose and nature of Socialism.

It's frustrating.

Here's a helpful discussion:
http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/08/02/fear_of_a_red_planet_socialism_isnt_communism--really

[War Horse]

173. I think you pretty much nailed it there

"I think what drives this problem is the assumption that someone somewhere is going to get something for nothing".

There very thought of that seems to drive RWers into a frenzy...

[patrice]

174. It's frustrating because THAT's how things are now for the 1% & Socialist principles try to

recognize ways to even that out and guarantee authentic value in exchange for authentic value.

I really do see it as the opposite of what so many people mistakenly assume about it.

It's a concrete affirmation of what constitutes functional economic relationships for EACH person, not just for those with the financial power to define those lives for everyone else.

[eridani]

177. According to the original definition, no. According to Harry Truman, yes. n/t

[Democracyinkind]

98. Quite true.

I refuse to concede the term "Socialism" to the absolute collectivists.

The country I live in, the System I participate in as it now stands was formed by a fusion of traditional liberalism from the 19th century heavily spiked with some Socialist Social Democratic concepts ands mechanism in the early to mid 20th century.

Seen this way, "Socialism" is a question of degrees - most of the West shares a Socialist system, pinned on the democratic process, Europe tending more to the Socialist side while the US etc. tend more to the liberal side (Socialist/Liberal used here in a purely economic sense).

The term "Social Democrat" was conceived during the late 19th century when international leftism underwent a schism. "Social Democrats" while just as commited to Socialism as their Revolutionary friends, believed that any change for the better must come from the people and be backed by the democratic process. While the more revolutionary elements within the international left believed things to be so bad that only Revolution by a small, intellectually pure (and non-working class) cabal could bring true change.

Yet, both of these systems of thought of themselves as transitional, mostly. The majority of both wings, back then, believed that "Social Democracy" or "Revolution" (the 2 opposing strategies discussed above) would eventually lead to communism. This is one thing that Social Democrats, in Europe (generally speaking) have given up. European Social Democrats see Social Democracy not as a transition to something better, but a goal in itself, which is an essential difference, since it now is fully compatible with the democratic process. Albeit, the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, in it's party program, is still committed to "overcome capitalsim" (Überwindung des Kapitalismus). As a member, I can guarantee that this commitment is only lip service and not to be understood in a revolutionary, anti-democratic way.

I hope this helped. (This post was not adressed specifically to the poster that I replied to. It just seemed like the best place to put my thoughts on the subject.)

[eridani]

149. Harry Truman would definitely agree n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

165. social economics and social politics often gets confused.

often as much as capitalism gets confused as more than an economic structure, somehow magically bleeding into the realm of politics. i think RW think tanks see this as a deliberately useful muddying of the terms.

[Snarkoleptic]

75. One major issue to be overcome in these discussion is the conflation of politcal & economic theories

Here's a chart that roughly illustrates the US political spectrum-


I find that many entangle democracy and capitalism while mistaking socialism for communism.

[hrmjustin]

76. K&R!

[RomneyLies]

79. On some things, I'll take a socialistic stance. For the most part, socialism is crap nt

[patrice]

89. Would you care to be more precise about exactly how that is so? Or shall we just take your

opinion for THE truth?

[RomneyLies]

94. Socialust roads, fire departments, and police are cool. Socialist farms and factories sucks. nt

[patrice]

100. I'm honestly interested in why those things suck. Which ones are you referring to? China?

That's Communism, not Socialism.

Are there others? I really have not looked into this.

I wonder if you agree that one can put certain kinds of ingredients together in many many different ways in order to create something. Give me a sewing store or a grocery store and I can go in and select whatever and create something to eat or to wear. You, or anyone, can go in and select other or the same materiel and create things entirely different and/or similar to some degree to what I produced. However, just because someone could say that we both baked cakes, it would not be logical to assume that those cakes were identical. Just because someone could say that we both sewed clothing, it would not be logical to assume that clothing we produced is identical.

Do you see what I'm suggesting here? The ingredients/materiel that comprise Socialism can be organized in a wide wide variety of ways, some more or less like whatever it is that you are assuming about Socialism, some kind of different, other systems vastly different, but STILL Socialism.

So, what makes Socialism Socialism to you? I will venture that the essence of Socialism TO YOU, the way that YOU put those ingredients together, is that someone takes stuff from those who have it and gives it to those who don't. Right?

If an essential characteristic of anything is somekind of trait without which the thing under consideration would NOT be what it is, that is, without the essential characteristic of __________________ X would not be X, it would be some other thing entirely (Y, A, 2, *, # or whatever . . . ), well then, that trait, TTE, "takes stuff from those who have it and gives it to those who don't" does not meet the criteria of being an essential trait of Socialism. That trait, "takes stuff from those who have it and gives it to those who don't" is characteristic of so many OTHER things, some of which, e.g. Divine Right Royalty, e.g. Capitalism, are the anti-thetical opposite of Socialism.

So, what is it that makes Socialism Socialism and NOT something else? What are its most essential traits? I'd like very much to know what you think about this question.

[RomneyLies]

101. Socialism is government owning and administering the means of production

That shit sucks. No need. Ever.

BTW, that is the literal definition of Socialism. I oppose it and will oppose it to my dying day.

[patrice]

103. So what you oppose is government ownership? Is Mondragon Socialism?

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG/Who-we-are/Introduction.aspx

Is Mondragon not Socialist because it is not owned by the government?

[RomneyLies]

108. Nope, Mondragon is free enterprise. It's a cooperative, but the government does not own and...

and administer Mondragon, so it is 100% capitalistic free enterprise.

[patrice]

109. So Mondragon is Capitalism?

[RomneyLies]

112. Yes.

It's a perfectly legitimate form of capitalism, too. Cooperatives benefit all who participate. The goal is to make profit and share it amongst all within the cooperative.

Probably the best methodology to provide for a successful company.

[patrice]

113. Wrong. Those who do the work DECIDE all of that. The profits are the workers' NOT a capitalist's.

[RomneyLies]

141. The decision is private in a private corporation, ergo, it is capitalistic. nt

[patrice]

148. Fail: There are MANY private entities that are not capitalistic. Private entities in which profit is

not the SOLE goal, or, in some cases, any goal at all, so privacy may be a necessary condition of Capitalism, but, apparently, it is not a sufficient condition to constitute Capitalism.

[RomneyLies]

150. Profit is NEVER the sole goal in ANY corporation

Live in the real world. Leave your made up world.

[patrice]

153. Any OPTIONAL secondary goals are served ONLY by profit. Look at our Capitalist history. How can

you deny what market cycles throughout history and most notably in the Derivative Crash of 2008 very obviously prove?

You are the one living in a fantasy.

[patrice]

117. The profits are based upon SOCIAL principles & processes, not the idiosyncracies of Capitalism.

At Mondragon, certain things are done and not done BECAUSE of social principles and none other, read their page on Organisational structures. That's stuff that would be anti-thetical to Capitalism.

[patrice]

118. Just because they make a profit doesn't mean that they are Capitalists. nt

[patrice]

123. What Capitalists has "social welfare and Insurance" as the 2nd & 3rd objectives of FINANCE, link:

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG/Who-we-are/Organisational-structure/Finance.aspx

FINANCE AREA: The Financial Group, with Caja Laboral and Lagun Aro, embraces three specific activities: banking, social welfare and Insurance.

That's "social welfare and Insurance" NOT profit for profit's sole sake, ergo NOT Capitalist.

[RomneyLies]

125. It is still capitalistic

A profit is made and shared.

Just because the cooperative demonstrates moral objectives along with profit does not alter the fact that it is a capitalistic venture.

[patrice]

129. You mistake the natue of Capitalism. It's SOLE objective is profit. The purpose of profit at Mondrag

on is in SERVICE TO the group/SOCIAL nature of their incorporation, not profit alone.

[RomneyLies]

132. Well, if you redefine terms they can mean whatever you want

I don't redefine terms.

Capitalism - 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.

I reject your redefinition of Capitalism.

[patrice]

134. And you don't get that that applies to you too? Who died & made you God?

[RomneyLies]

135. I am not the one who is redefining any terms, YOU ARE.

First you redefined Socialism. Then you redefined Capitalism.

And you did both to fit into your preconceived notions of what the words should mean, not what they actually mean.

[patrice]

140. Me? Tell me that profit is not the SOLE motive of Capitalism. You are the one redefining here.

[RomneyLies]

143. Profit does not enter into the definition, you are adding it to the equation

Capitalism - 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.

Where does it say profit for profit's sake?

[patrice]

152. Try to tear yourself away from other support and think. Tell me now, logically, that there'd be such

a thing as Capitalism at all if it weren't for the profit for profit's sake alone principle.

Please tell me how that would even be possible.

[patrice]

138. You reject that there'd be no such thing as Capitalism without profit for profit's sake alone?

You, sir, are not a Capitalist.

[RomneyLies]

144. I reject that it enters into the definition of capitalism

The decisions about profits are made in private by those who own or invest in a private enterprise. What those decisions are do not enter into the equation.

But keep redefining terms to fit a twisted notion of what you think the terms SHOULD mean rather than what they actually mean. It seems to make you feel better about yourself.

[patrice]

159. Oh! hoh! That's rich! Perhaps you'd like to discuss the definition of "is". :-)))))) nt

[patrice]

130. Profit for profit's sake alone is clearly proven in the Capitalist financial history of the USA. nt

[RomneyLies]

139. That is a redefinitiion of Capitalism.

The definition of capitalism says nothing about what is done with profits from an enterprise, only that the decisions about how a company operates are made privately.

Mondragon fits the definition of capitalism perfectly.

[patrice]

142. LOGIC: HOW can Capitalism even survive unless profit is it's SOLE motive? Please answer.

[RomneyLies]

145. LOGIC: If profit is the SOLE motive, an enterprise WILL NOT SURVIVE.

Please, live in the real world, not some made up twisted version of the world.

[patrice]

155. NONE of those other goals would be goals at all without profit. PROFIT first always, otherwise the

capitalist does not succeed, the enterprise ends and whatever those other goals are are fucked.

All of which begs the ESSENTIAL question of who makes what decisions about any of that.

[patrice]

126. What kind of Capitalist allows WORKER-directed Research?

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG/Who-we-are/Organisational-structure/Knowledge/Research-Centres.aspx

[patrice]

128. What kind of Capitalist allows WORKERS to manage & guide their own education & training?

[RomneyLies]

133. Any can.

Look up the word. You are redefining it.

Sorta like how you are redefining Socialism.

[patrice]

160. YOU are limiting the entire, REAL LIFE, discussion to an entry in a dictionary. nt

[patrice]

162. Come on, own up, you're a "Libertarian" aren't you. nt

[patrice]

114. So what you oppose is government ownership, i.e. government as CAPITALISM. Me too. nt

[RomneyLies]

137. Then by definition, you oppose Socialism. nt

[patrice]

157. You are wrong - and - you are narrow-minded & refuse to at least recognize that FACT.

Once again, who died and made Cthulu/you god?

- end of "conversation" -

[white_wolf]

146. Anarchists are socialists and don't think the government should exist at all.

So your definition of socialism is wrong.

[RomneyLies]

147. My definition of socialism is the ONLY defintion of socialism

Anarchists, by definition, CANNOT be socialists.

[white_wolf]

151. So we should just ignore all the anarchist writers and theorists because you say they don't count?

Could you be more arrogant?

[patrice]

156. How can anyone who does not identify with a set of values define them? You may HYPOTHESIZE

a "definition" but the thing itself is not yours to say, since you reject the reality of the principles in the first place.

What you are doing is the same thing as letting atheists define God.

Horseshit.

[Hissyspit]

92. For the most part, capitalism is crap.

There. My comment is as deep and convincing as yours.

[WiffenPoof]

99. So, If I Am To Understand...

...your position, we should offer something far enough to the Left that it counterbalances movements like the Tea Party.

[War Horse]

102. I really don't like it when Social Democrats are called "Socialists"

Especially by other leftists. It's the kind of thing right wingers do to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. And yes, it's red-baiting.

Not that I'm accusing anybody here of using such tactics, mind you.

[patrice]

105. Well, one thing they are doing is assuming that old saw about government owning the means of

production is absolutely the single and only and most essential definition of Socialism, when it is very very far from that.

[tama]

180. Many European Social Democratic parties

call themselves "Socialists". And muddied waters of all terminologies become bogs/marshes/swamps when more attention is paid to words than to comprehension of the issues.

[gulliver]

104. "Socialism" means different things to different people.

That's why it is so threatening in America. Some think the term is simply code for communist intellectual buffoonery (e.g., Marx and Engels) or monstrous power-madness (Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot). You don't name a German baby Adolf, and you don't call an American movement "socialist."

[patrice]

107. True! and yet, there must be some essential trait in common that makes it all Socialism, otherwise

there are a whole hell of a lot of people who aren't talking about the same thing, but make the mistake of assuming that they are.

My sewing analogy applies here again: we can take materiel, each of us, some materiel the same as what other use, some different, and each of us put our materiel together and produce clothing, but we could look at all of that clothing and see a practically infinite variety of ways in which a given piece of clothing is constructed and, yet, we call all of it clothing.

So of all of the different ways that people think about Socialism, what is it (like a Venn diagram) that all of them have in common and without which you would not be talking/thinking about Socialism at all, but rather MISTAKING something else for Socialism that lacks one or more essentially Socialist traits.

I have my own answer to this question, just curious what other people think, especially since we see ONCE AGAIN that mistaken old saw that it isn't Socialism unless the government owns the means of production. I don't think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism, because government ownership does not necessarily accomplish one of, if not *THE*, most essential goal-traits of that which is Socialism or is Socialistic.

[Smarmie Doofus]

106. Rec. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. I Like John Lennon's Defintion Of Socialism

He was asked in one of the final interviews of his life if he was a socialist he said "If socialism means that the government should make sure that granny gets her teeth fixed, then, yeah I'm a socialist."

[patrice]

115. +++1!

[BlueMan Votes]

120. credit for Obama's re-election is not "owed" to any one group or demographic over others.

they ALL contributed to the effort, and without the others- no one group could deliver a victory.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. "Am I my brother's keeper?" - Socialism says "yes". Capitalism says "Fuck you."

[BlueMan Votes]

124. Full-on socialism woulf be just as bad as full-on capitalism.

getting the right mix of the two is the real trick. hopefully we'll get there.

[patrice]

131. Agreed. Socialistic/workers'-profit-sharing for the necessities. Capitalism for everything else.

[tama]

181. You asked everything else

including Mother Earth, how they feel about your suggestion?

[patrice]

182. Just talking about the USA & what's doable, compared to 0 change. Perhaps I should point

out that co - operatives CAN be most efficient, less waste, and even more sustainable if they so desire. It depends upon the workers and how they decide to operate. They have those kinds of powers in co - operatives that they would not have in capitalist corporations.

My assumptions are that if this becomes anykind of model, it will be for NEW enterprises and that would be relative to younger generations who are much more likely to adopt Earth friendly traits than existing enterprises which don't operate by co -operation mostly anyway.

[tama]

184. I don't think

that in terms of human size USA is doable in any way - it's an archetypal creation (but not too big to fail, rather guaranteed to fail archetypally as all empires do... )

Agree that Co-ops, intentional communities and such are human size doable and livable as humans to humans and part of nature.

[Old and In the Way]

163. Name one great country populated by anti-socialists.

Kind of impossible to have a great society that is dominated by anti-socialists..

[colsohlibgal]

166. Why Not Indeed

Democratic Socialism. An even playing field. The access to upward mobility for all people. A nation where no person risks bankruptcy because she/he had the misfortune of having cancer or being in a bad accident. A nation where no ceo or ruling board of a health insurance company can siphon off tens of million from premiums - for what? For profit health care makes no sense, we just need bookkeepers, like it used to be.

Everyone thinks they are going to be the one who amasses 800 million. Without a silver spoon leg up the odds are ridiculously high.

All capitalism wouldn't go away, we had lots of it in the 50's with republican Dwight Eisenhower - who governed with a top rate of 91 or 92 % each year he was in.

My view is that taxes should be a little higher for most people and progressively higher for the wealthy. Education through grad school should be provided for very little or nothing, the same with health care - a level field.

Can you imagine the health benefits emanating for the reduced stress on the middle and lower classes?

The right played the long game to get the discussion slanted their way, all laid out in Lewis Powell's long strategy memo of 1973. It worked, we need to change it back.

[patrice]

172. Right on! Health & cognitive benefits from reduced stress = more EFFICIENT economies at

many different levels, not to mention authentic, as in actually NEW, entrepreneurship.

I'm having a HARD time understanding why people can't see this potential.

[tama]

186. Less GDP

and medical bills debts to Banks.

[patrice]

188. Could you explain that please? nt

[tama]

189. Why TPTB

can't - and don't want to - see the potential of more healthy people needing less help from medical professions. Macroeconomic measuring is based on growth of GDP and system is based on people being debt slaves to Banks.

And, no it doesn't really make sense, it's just insane. Sauron archetype running rampant.

[hrmjustin]

168. Welcome to DU my friend!

[davidn3600]

199. Democrats are not a socialist party, they are center-left

Both Republicans and Democrats are capitalists. Obama is a capitalist despite what our Republican friends thinks he is. If anything, Obama has helped big business. The rich have done quite well under the recession. The top 1% increased their net worth by 15% under Obama, while the middle class lost 35% (due mostly to the real estate crash since the middle class has most of their wealth in their home). The Obama administration has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against the big banks. Welfare for Wall Street continues. None of the Democrats in congress seem to have any intention of raising the minimum wage.

We don't have a socialist or far-left party in the United States. The two big parties have polarized both sides of center. Which pretty much gives the moderates full control of our government. It's also why we are so gridlocked.

We are stuck. There is no momentum for a political movement because each party is too afraid of losing the center and therefore giving power to the other side.