Most of us US left advocates keep making the same public communications mistake by never really clearly defining to the US public exactly what we mean by 'socialism.'

Since, thanks to the US right's lock on how political terms are defined in the current miasma, the term 'socialism' remains, whether we like it or not, popularly and effectively defined for most of the US population as meaning 'COMMUNISM', either:
ala former USSR-Lenninism-Stalinism
or ala former China Maoism
or ala current Cuban Castroism, etc., etc.;
but in any case meaning to most mis-educated Americans:
<>abolition of all private property
<>illegalization of all strictly-personal economic initiative
<>infinite expansion of government authority over all aspects of human organization & value-setting, ad nauseum hysterica.
And as such, it seems pretty damn stupid to even bandy the term 'socialism' in the US just now; and even more stupid to use it if you don't distinguish [what you presumably mean by] it from its objectively-bad, anti-democratic historial corruptions and failures that are all too evident elsewhere in recent human history.

The US left's condemning of the criminal and morally insane plutocracy that's currently ruling and destroying the US and the planet in the name of 'capitalism,' is as it should be: Let the educative condemnations intensify.
But also let the details of our alternative --- a one-person/one-vote democratic and humanist-based alternative system --- at least be reassuringly explained to the mass of public whose assent we are seeking.

Wouldn't, then. it be more effective for the US left to say clearly what it means in advocating 'socialism' for the US, by simply re-defining socialism as a political-economic system resembling that of, let's say, Denmark?
Making the distinction that Denmark, and all of the other Scandinavian countries, are socieites in which 80-90% of the real property and monetary capital is still held in private hands -- but in which that wealth is more equitably distributed because corporations do not have legal'personhood, political elections to law-making bodeis can not be easily bought by organized money?

By our chronic use of the sloppy and rightwing-manipulable-loaded term 'socialism' in the US, not only do we on the left provide the forces of reaction and illicit privilege with ready-made ammo for misrepresenting our visions to the public, we also fail to clarify in our oun minds, exactly what the hell mean by the term.

Look at the picture that comes with the linked article on Republicans torpedoing the benefits-extension bill!

THE BASTARDS ARE DRINKING THEIR STARBUCK LATTES as they leave the Capitol building with their goddamn self-satisfied smiles, congratulating themselves over a job well-done.

Well fuck the self-serving bastards. And fuck their goddamn $4.75 lattes.

People! People! They're wasting our time by pointing to the "shiny object".

Nothing will change until we have ONE-TERM limit with ONLY PUBLIC FUNDING. That will free our politicians from having to beg for campaign funds from BANK CONTROL, or to sell out to MEDIA CONTROL(which swears allegiance to a foreign entity) for favorable coverage. That should also free our politicians from catering to MILITARY CONTROL, thus avoiding war crimes on our national conscience and making America safer.

The only sensible strategy is to get CANDIDATES to swear to bring the above up for a vote, and hold them to it. Those voting against are thrown out of office, with a microscope over their public and private lives.

Anything else is just flopping lips to make noise. Our very system encourages our politicians to shyte on us. They get money and praise for doing it. We need to remove the incentives to bullshyte the American people for profit.

"They Got (Way) Richer, And You Didn't. Tell Us Again Why Socialism Is Bad?"
The answer lies in the title of the piece. Socialism is based on envy, jealousy, and resentment.

Capitalism, as stated by the likes of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, is based on pragmatism and the study of history: how can one channel base human drives such as selfishness towards goals beneficial to many, if not all? Throughout history, in various parts of the world, where government had a light touch/hold of the people, people did pretty good. Adam Smith was quite certain that by combining the characteristics of a virtuous people (as published in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments") and channeling selfishness towards societal good (as published in "The Wealth of Nations") that capitalist society can be successfully implemented. He was correct. In the 18th and 19th century, the captains of industry were strongly attached to some religious organization, and - instead of indulging in hedonism - built many libraries, universities and established foundations; at the time there were rogue capitalists but they had little influence overall.

Socialism is based on a dream with no historical basis and no basis on human nature which contains both good and bad. Socialism can only work if everyone acts all the time like angels. Socialism assumes that Man is and acts always as a Rational Being: given that Bad is Evil then Reason dictates that Man will always do Good. Capitalism understands that there will always be some evil along with the good in people. Socialism ends up with re-education camps and if one is found still resistant to indoctrination, you are executed. Where Capitalism has slums and part-time firing squads, Socialism has slums and full-time firing squads. As far as firing squads are concerned, Pinochet is small potatoes compared to Castro.

The failing of anti-capitalists and - unfortunately - many current capitalists is the lack of attention to Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". When John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other", it does not imply Biblical religion. John Adams - along with Adam Smith and others - understood that the destiny of a nation depends not only on the form of government (and economic system) but also of the national culture. For whatever ills there are in current capitalist system, the solution lies NOT so much in change of government but in a change in national culture.

For thousands of years, cultures and social mores were formed and structured with one main goal: prevent or minimize poverty. For some cultures, large families within the confines of marriage (which existed long before organized religion) were such to provide for the parents' old age (back then, infant mortality was high). Ancient Greeks went a different direction in enforcing 1 son per family rule: any couple about to have a surplus child had to abort it. Deformed infants - a drain on resources - were thrown into a pit to die.

With the Industrial Revolution came the age of riches and the fear of poverty was not as great. Without the Industrial Revolution, socialist thought would just gather dust. Wealth was no longer strictly land-based. Because said fear has diminished, people abandoned - little by little - social conservatism. With abandonment of social conservatism, the age of fiscal irresponsibility started. With so much candy around, it is very tempting to become a glutton, which many people (especially collectivists) became. The collectivists gorge on the candy produced by others but then, eventually, the candy runs out; self-discipline (moral and fiscal) is needed, even in an age of plenty.

karol marks wasn't using adjectives 200 years ago, but facts and figures when presented to the world for the first time the capitalist structures

globalists study him very carefully, perfecting the pyramidal skimming of fruits of labor he dedicated his economic book 'capital' to

edweg

"They Got (Way) Richer, And You Didn't. Tell Us Again Why Socialism Is Bad?"

The simple answer is that it doeasn't work. It's never worked in any form thats been tried and the proof of that statement is that not one person here can show a successful example of a socialist state.

If it was the panecea advertised it would obviously have worked. It has not.

For the anti-capitalists among us, it has worked, is working and capitalist economic ,models have propped up socialist hybrids for decades and another example is forming in China.

Socialist, Communist and Dictatorships have failed every time. Every single time.

don't you know socialism means "authoritarian oppression"? ask the "lefties" who believe in individualism.

capitalism promises equality of opportunity.
socialism will deliver equality of existence.

I would like to know where the author got this seemingly unlikely number for the US median income. This statistic really seems to undermine the whole point of this post: that the wealthy are very wealthy while the rest of us are left feeding on scraps.

The US census bureau in 2009 reported the US household median income was just under $50,000, according to this spreadsheet from the US census bureau < http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/H08_2009.xls >.

That's the kind of statement that deserves a citation.

Otherwise, this is a great post. Thanks.

both parties are together playing a version of "bad cop, worse cop" shakedown on the public.