Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDemocratic Socialists? You Bet!
Nothing like getting out the old encrusted red paintbrush.
But I hope some Democrats don't run from this label.
Running doesn't get you anywhere.
Democrats have been running from the label "liberal" since the days of Michael Dukakis, and that hasn't helped them.
And for those who, like me, are actually Democratic Socialists, it's time to come out and say so.
Democratic socialism has brought a much better quality of life to the people in Scandinavia and France and Germany and Britain, and it has not erased one iota of the political freedoms we cherish in this country.
We need to move this country in the direction of democratic socialism.
We need a much sturdier social safety net.
It's a sin that in this country, 35 million people do not have enough food to eat during at least part of the year.
It's a sin that 47 million Americans are without health insurance.
It's a sin that of the top 18 industrialized countries, the United States ranks last in the percentage of children (11.8 percent) who are not likely to live to age 60, and last in the percentage of people (17 percent) living on less than 50% of the national median income, according to the United Nations Development Program.
We need a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income.
The top 1 percent of Americans hoards 34.3 percent of the nation's wealth, and the top 10 percent accounts for 71.2 percent of the wealth.
As far as income goes, the top 10% sops up 42.5 percent of the nation's income.
(These stats are from the State of Working America, 2008/2009.)
We need much more control over the economic giants that dominate not only our economy but our political system.
Hell, it was just a few days ago when Dick Durbin said, "The banks own the place," after Congress after ten Democrats joined the Republicans in voting against letting judges write down the mortgages of people in bankruptcy court.
And the people want universal health care, but the drug companies and insurance companies have been standing in the way for decades.
Right now, capitalism is eating away at our democracy.
So, thank you, Republicans, we do need democratic socialism.
98 Comments so far
Show AllWe have always had socialism in America, and Americans want it.
Under Socialism, the people pay taxes to the government in exchange for services needed for the common good. These services range from roads to schools, police and fire departments, libraries, schools and parks. Socialism protects retirees and the disabled, builds bridges and ensures a military. Ask anyone who is currently tearing his hair out over Impending Socialist Doom if he would rather to give up these things.
And more than anything else, we need to get away from the notion that the US knows everything better. IT DOESN'T and the present mess is proof.
And yet our Progressive community has shown numbing indifference toward our welfare "reform" policies, which serve two basic functions: To create a massive pool of local Third World (i.e., bottom wage/no workers' benefits or rights) workfare labor; and to siphon public funds out of human needs programs to help cover the costs of the past 30-some years of massive corporate welfare. Reverse Socialism. Let me note that even The Progressive magazine (of which Mr. Rotheschild is editor)fails to consider anyone worse off than "working poor", and ignores how workfare labor can so effectively be used as cheap temp help to prevent strikes, suppress wages, etc. Final point: Progressives above all claim to revere fundamental human rights, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why, then, have there been no complaints about the violations of this international agreement when it comes to certain sections of our welfare "reform" policies? Could it be that Progressives today are so infused with "classism" that they don't even recognize their implicit acceptance of the idea that America's poor are really not entitled to the human rights protections we claim to support? This class indifference is anti-Socialism, and it is the norm in the US.
As I see it we have choices to make:
1)Repackage the word, social(ism)(ist), and try and sell it to the rest of a frightened public.
2) Find a new word and form a new party based on Democratic Socialist principles, but don't use that SCARY word.
3) Find a third party that reflects most closely with the values of Democratic Socialism and pour our energy into that (if it happens to have "Social(ism)(ist) in the name, we'll also have to implement no.1).
We have about 3 years to figure this out, but let's do it and stop griping about how it cannot be done, PLEASE !! California elected Arnold (don't know if that counts however) and my home state of Minnesota elected Jesse, it CAN be done !!
It is regret that drives the thinking in these comments. The regret of not doing something with a person's life beyond what 'came' to them. Regret for what they do with their money, hard earned as it is. Regret for whom they vote for. Regret for the family they were born into. Regret for not going to school, etc. ad nauseum.
There is only the facade of thought here.
It is all the same...transfer power and wealth to...?
Have you ever contemplated the purpose of society? Much of it involves people organizing in a collective to protect ourselves from a minority of predators and jackals. Unfortunately I just watched my government hand over 700 BILLION DOLLARS to predators and jackals. I watch my government occupy not one but TWO foreign countries in order to enrich the coffers of predators and jackals. This isn't about transfer. This is about the welfare and security of our society. The only thing I regret is that there are millions of brainwashed fools running around this country trying to defend these predators and jackals.
I agree with many of the comments by Lefty. There should be nationalisation of the essential utilities - gas, electric, water, banks (lending for mortgages, national savings, one set of interest rates), insurance. There should be one syllabus for all schools, and the influence of religion in schools should be curtailed.
Why is Socialism such a dirty word in the US? Is it because of the purported links to Communism? Most democratic socialists do not want to see a recreation of the Eastern Bloc, because that kind of oppressive state controlled totalitarianism failed. We live in modern times, and we have to recognise, that a basic standard of living for every citizen is achievable, whilst acknowledging that success should be rewarded. What we are seeing at the moment, particularly in the financial sector, is greed and failure being rewarded, and the divide between rich and poor increasing. In my opinion, unregulated Capitalism has failed, and the majority of people see it for what it really is, a means of ensuring escalating wealth for the minority.
Agreed. The modern capitalist can't help himself. The slave labor of China and third world countries is too much for him to pass up. Greed and avarice have become the norm. Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave.
when we compare the economy of US and European countries, both really have a booming economy. but their government system are different.
it is true that not all the time republican government are good. in fact, all republican government are engaged in corruptions. there are plenty.
http://www.ineedtoloseweightquicklywithoutexercise.buyproactolhere.com/
when we compare the economy of US and European countries, both really have a booming economy. but their government system are different.
it is true that not all the time republican government are good. in fact, all republican government are engaged in corruptions. there are plenty.
Too many Citizens of the United States of America, have the same problem with "Socialism" as they do with virtually everything else.
They can not divorce themselves from the American Mindset.
They feel that if their own Government wastes the taxpayer dollar, it follows that ALL Governments do the same.
The fact is people in Sweden and Denmark and other "Eoropean Socialist" Countries do not have all that great a probelm with paying taxes.
It is because they GET what they pay for from a DEMOCRATIC and representative Government.
They get better schools. They get lower crime. They get cleaner cities. They get better access to health care. They live longer and healthier. They have better mass transit. They move forwards in finding sources of alternate energy. They get longer vacations. They get better labor protections. They get maternal and paternal leave for newborns. They work less hours per week.
If I were to pay more taxes and got all those benefits, I certainly would.
Now in the USA half of every tax dollar goes toward warfare and militarism. The strange thing is so very many Americans whine about taxes, but want an even larger Military.
So when one is comparing "European Socialism" to the sytem in the United States of America, remember that these European Countries are giving the taxpayer what they want, and providing them with services and programs that make their lives better.
The Government of the United States simply ignores the need sof the people and feeds the corporations.
The THomas Mores of the world obviously prefer the latter.
And European Socialism has been around for decades and is weathering this downturn a lot better then The United States of America.
Socialist and liberal aren't synonymns, btw. They can, however, both apply with individuals. One example illustrating that these are not syn's is that Satan was liberal as hell when, as Lucifer, he contested God. Another example is how readily the U.S. government allows itself to be used as the enforcer for corporate globalisation through the use of CIA operatives, the N.E.D., and the U.S. military; hellishly liberal politics are employed and applied. Some or many people have been referring to this evil kind of liberalism as neo-liberalism.
This will be a double-posting of what'll follow, below, for today's articles at CD, but I think it's easier for readers to have fewer links to traverse, rather than more, and CD providers will hopefully agree.
I posted a link to a recent article by Ellen Brown, author of 'Web of Debt', yesterday at CD and excerpted enough from the article, which can be recommended for full reading, for sure. And I'll provide a link for the post, but given that CD includes the side-column menu next to articles, at least on days articles are first posted by CD, this squeezes the rest of the text for the whole page, so URL's often need to be broken over two lines to be fully seen. So I'll break the url for my post of yesterday over two lines and for people who'd prefer to simply go straight to the full article, I'll include that link as well.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/20-3
#comment-1208830
"The Weimar Hyperinflation? Could it Happen Again?",
by Ellen Brown, webofdebt.com , May 19, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13673
For people who use the globalresearch.ca link, instead of going to my post of yesterday and in which there's a considerable amount that was excerpted from the article, she describes very interesting and good economic history during Hitler's regime; up until he launched his lunatic warring. She explains that there's much about what he economically did to rescue the German economy that was previously done by early "American colonists" and throughout much enough of U.S. history, but there is also a difference, or two that she also explains. And she concludes with a promising suggestion for resolving the present economic woes in the U.S. and it's about forming "publicly-owned banks", which sounds very interesting!
Some of us are not Democrats.
But the Dems want to do something socialistic, welcome aboard.
I have a genuine question. If we do have national healthcare, socialized education and all around "birth till death" won't we have the same problems as Europe? ie, non-Europeans coming in to mooch off the system?
Absolutely, which is why we must maintain the present economic/political system at all costs. For the prospect of living under the boot of exploitive corporate tyranny is clearly more desirable than freedom and prosperity in the presence of foreign immigrants.
Oy fucking vey.
A fucking men.
Without non-Europeans going to Europe to allegedly "mooch off their system", Europe would be in trouble.
For an illustration of what would Europe's path if they did not have non Europeans going there to "mooch of their system", look at Japan: a rapidly ageing population, successive governments that have no idea of how to deal with the problem long term.
This is a simple matter of demographics. If you have an ageing population, such as Europe and Japan, you have several choices:
1. Have more kids. The Japanese government has tried this, tried to encourage Japanese citizens to have more kids. Hasn't worked.
2. Adopt kids from other countries.
3. Work longer, work more. Instead of retiring at 55, or 60, retire at 65 or 70.
4, Accept a decrease in the standard of living, accept a decrease in the standards of various society funded programs, as the majority of the ageing population retires, and the number of people working declines.
5. Immigration. People allegedly "mooching of your system". The young immigrants going to Europe to work, pay taxes into the system. They SUPPORT the system, they make the continuation of the system possible.
The Europeans know this, even if most do not want to admit this publicly, even if some do not want to admit this, even to themselves. They NEED immigrants. They NEED a country like Turkey, with a young population, a growing economy with much potential for sustained long term growth, in the EU. It is precisely why they haven't completely shut off all immigration, despite alleged "mooching", despite the right playing on racial and religious fears.
Those Europeans who make claims about non Europeans "mooching" off their system, are simply cowards who won't face up to the realities of their ageing populations, or racists.
The alleged problem isn't the problem you think that it is.
Your arguement is sound, save for one thing. Europe still has a massive labor surplus. For a supporter of European socialism, you seem to have a very poor understanding of the reason as to why its set up that way. Simply put, Europe has a long history of labor surplus; hence the high social safety net. There simply is never ever enough work to go around, meaning Europeans can expect to be on the doll several times in their lives. This is also why
Europeans are encouraged to enter the work force later(by way of offering free tuition and a government stipend for University students)
Europeans are encouraged to leave the work force earlier(generous pensions and government assistance).
Why work weeks are significantly shorter and vacations and leave periods are substantially longer. (So employers must hire more workers to maintain annual productivity).
Taxes are high(the government must come up with the money some how, so the economy is basically set up as one big commune)
Why man Europeans still leave their home countries to work abroad as expatriots.
And finally, why since the end of WWII European governments have actively worked to keep their birth rates DOWN.
This is why your arguement is bunk. There is no demographic crisis in Europe. The low birth rates are a success of government initiative to keep their populations in line with the size of their economies. Oh, and the Turks and Arabs largely never work in Europe, as there really isn't work for them to do. They sit on the doll and have a dozen children per household paid for by the government.
The dismantling of the European welfare state as we now know it inevitable, as it shall soon no longer be necessary.
Right. No country really has a demographic problem. Japan for example, only needs to have more children and elderly go to work. Problem fixed, according to the right wingers.
"Oh, and the Turks and Arabs largely never work in Europe, as there really isn't work for them to do. They sit on the doll and have a dozen children per household paid for by the government."
What a racist lie. The Turks that are in countries such as Germany were expressly RECRUITED to go work there. The Germans expressly went to Turkey and offered them jobs. Jobs that no white German wanted to work at.
"There is no demographic crisis in Europe. The low birth rates are a success of government initiative to keep their populations in line with the size of their economies."
Various governments ranging from countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, and various professional and business groups from various European countries have come out stating that they need more skilled and trained immigrants.
And no it isn't inevitable that the system has to end. It is inevitable only if enough Europeans are dumb enough to buy into the right wing racism that people like you are peddling.
The system ending is ONE option. The option that the right wingers like you advocate for. There are other options.
Again, you never touch on the fact that it was official government policy in European countries to suppress the birth rate. Why?
Also, the Turks that were 'invited' were temporary workers who were invited after WWII to rebuild Germany. As temporary workers. When the work was completed, the Turks refused to go home. Then, they cried racism when they wanted to live off the doll instead of going home. THEN, after winning that, they accused European governments of 'dividing families' by not letting the anchor Turks bring in relatives. This formed a human chain. I have family in Germany and I hear often the grievances. The Muslims don't work, they commit crime, and they murder murder murder. Also, they hate Germany and have no desire to assimilate. Europe will have to choose between its welfare state or its literally destruction from within! Tell me, do the Muslim immigrants assimilate and identify with their host nations? Or do they repel and reject their host societies? If you know so much, enlighten me.
People want to live in societies which offer a modicum of security, education and justice. Who woulda thunk it?
That didn't answer my question.
Well if you do not want the unwanted coming to America, then you can adopt the policies of Chad. No one wants to emigrate to Chad.
If we didn't have SS today, we would have a humanitarian crisis on our hands. If we didn't heavily regulate our natural gas and electric industries today, people would be freezing to death in the winter as prices would fluctuate madly much like our gasoline prices. If we didn't have an interstate highway system, your 30 mile commute would take hours as you navigate countless toll booths. There are many socialist programs in this country that have served us well. Given the current collapse of our economy, it is now time to fully break the grip that our corporate fascist political and business leaders now have on this country. This list should include:
1. Nationalize the banking system.
2. Nationalize the insurance industry.
3. Nationalize or regulate the petroleum industry much like the electric and natural gas industries are regulated.
4. Single payer health insurance.
5. A robust higher education system in this country. Interest free students loans. $1000 a year tuition and room board at all state universities.
6. Campaign election reform. If you can't vote in an election you can't contribute to a campaign.
7. Nationalize any industry that does not follow the laws of supply and demand. How much would you pay for that life saving drug or procedure? How much for that gallon of gasoline to get to work?
The country is circling the drain and now is the time to move forward with socialist policies that will rip away the levers of power from our corporate fascist taskmasters.
And a constitutional amendment prohibiting sending the military overseas, and declaring official neutrality. And abolishing the CIA. If you do not do these things, the corporate fat cats will laugh at your domestic reforms and will just use our taxes to create free-market playgrounds for themselves overseas.
I think the campaign finance reform would do much in the way of creating a more transparent government. With real representation in the federal government, I think the days of imperialistic forays are over.
It might help, but why on earth would you not be in favor of official neutrality, a military limited to home defense (something that many of the founding fathers--and not just the anti-federalists, either--favored), and abolition of a criminal, mafia-like organization such as the CIA?
Suffice it to say, if campaign finance reform were as powerful as what you claim, that the ruling class would never allow it.
I'm all for what you outline. I would support any mechanism to get to the goals you outline. Campaign finance reform has seen tremendous resistance because of the reason you cite. Our corporate fascist friends will not relinquish the levers of power easily. Campaign finance reform represents a real threat to their power and is thus thwarted at every turn. Our founding fathers had representation at the level of one representative for every 30,000 people. Today we have one federal representative for about 270,000 people. Toss in the fact that corporate and big money interests control our politicians through campaign contributions and the average American has no representation at the federal level. Even my state Senator has his hands in corporate pockets in a big way (tens of thousands of dollars).
Gotcha. Well, I certainly agree with an attack on all fronts, and campaign finance is a major one. I recommend a book called The Golden Rule which does a superb job demonstrating how our "democracy" is driven by money. It would be easy to paint it as *the* issue impeding real democracy (perhaps alongside the power of money in media/news/broadcasting/culture). I just don't like any attempt to paint a specific solution as a panacea. In reality (as I know you realize) it won't work out that way.
Welfare capitalism does not equal socialism. If the author is so against retreating from the word "liberal", perhaps it would behoove him to stop helping the Right to bastardize the word socialist; but I doubt it, since liberals are and always have been right-wingers' partners in crime. Welfare capitalism is more than anything else an attempt to save private property from popular pressure against it. Every major liberal figure in American history (Keynes, Galbraith, FDR, JFK, Clinton, etc.) has made many statements admitting as much.
Watch out Democrats...
If you are not careful and keep a close watch on the evil socialists, we may end up with a free interstate highway system, public bridges, public water and sewer systems, school systems, social security, medicare, and even Fire Departments.
Think how much nicer it will be when your house is on fire and you will be able to negociate with the private fire company for a reasonable price to pay to have them put out the fire. (The term "fire sale" came from the practice of fire companies offering to purchase your burning home at a riduculously low price while there was still some value left in it.)
Yes, it should be every man for himself. I are really looking forward to starting my own nuclear waste dump once we get rid of those socialists who are keeping me from fulfilling my capitalistic dream of getting rich by destroying the Earth. And I want to be able to dump my sewage at the edge of my property. Who cares what it does to my neighbor...
Too many here are blaming 'the system'. It's NOT the system, IT'S THE VOTERS. IT'S THE VOTERS, IT'S ALWAYS THE VOTERS WHO HAVE THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY. The voters always get what they deserve and then voters' remorse sets in. 95+% voted for a D or R - like I keep saying, it's always the voters. Blame yourself, or the guy next door but stop blaming 'the system'. The system does not vote. It spreads propaganda and if the voters are not smart enough to get that - well what more can I say.........
if Matt keeps writing these kind of opinions, maybe I'll re-subscribe to his glossy rag.
But he and Ruth Coniff will first have to apoligize for joining the Zionist witch hunt against Norm Finkelstien...
It's bizarre to call the Democrats Socialists.
The Democrats are as corporate owned and operated as the Republicans. Look at their votes over the last ten years. Starting with Clinton Piracy and reforms to the barren landscape left by Bush. And now King Obomb-er. All of the damage done was with compliant Democrats.
Democrats aren't socialists, they're a bunch of greedy, liars working for the same corporate interests as Republicans. Look at profit based health care, telecoms, defense contractors, bankers, pharma, trade agreements, on and on. Congress needs to get on corporate payrolls and out of our pockets because they sure don't work for us anymore.
The level of stupidity in this country for people believing whatever they hear is a huge problem. If people actually understood what these assholes in Congress were saying this shit wouldn't fly anymore.
Very depressing.
"The banks own the place,"
If the banks own the place and we own the banks (like Naomi Klein said), why can't we make the rules instead of sold out politicians? http://ni4d.us/
I see your angle ezeflyer: In addition to forms of direct, less hierarchical forms of democracy, we as workers of any organization should have seats at the boards of all companies to demand a say in how the company is run, executive compensation, working conditions, company policy etc. Besides, this would increase worker morale as well.
Political democracy is only half the picture, we need economic democracy as well. Our jobs rule our lives, especially in the USA where we work more hours, get the fewest days of vacation, have to pay far for "health care" than any other industrialized country, and many non-indudstrialized ones too. If we have no say (other than the boss telling you "if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out" than we are not really free.
This nasty old atheist is a dues paying member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Look it up.
As am I, though I often have very serious disagreements with decisions and statements made by the leadership.
Hey, when I'm elected god, perhaps people will disagree with me less, but...disagreement is, so far as i can see, wonderful. It seems to lead, eventually, closer to the truth, eh?
Disagreement is something to celebrate when everyone is equal. An organization with a hierarchical structure is a bit different, in my opinion, since disagreements are often not heard or ignored by the leadership.
I would rather be a social Democrat than an unsocial Republican.
anti-social Republican.
100% of Rupublicans and 80% of Democrats in Congress: anti-social and sociopathic. This sounds like a mental disorder.
Obama is turning out to be just another paid for flunky of the top 2%. It's obvious NOBODY prepared to bring about REAL CHANGE gets anywhere near a Presidential election , anymore. If it happens it's a mistake.
Democratic Socialism ??? I don't get it. Why is everyone so afraid to just come out of the closet and join the REAL Socialist Party - that's the one that has NO affiliation with the Democrats. You, too, can get one of those red cards to carry in your wallet.
Just think about it, if more had voted for the Socialists on the ballot we would now be on our way to having a Single Payer Health care system, Gitmo would no longer exist, and we would be shutting down the 700+ bases on foreign soil.
Democratic Socialism or a Social Democracy doesn't have to do with a particular party.
It means that the form of decision-making is still a democratic one, but the government, with revenue from taxpayers' incomes, creates the programs for the citizenry that ensures their well-being from cradle to grave.
Social Security is a socialistic program. Hurrah for it! Thank you, FDR.
Maybe the Democrats* would have to rename themselves to something like NOODLES [cooked ones], and the Republicans could call themselves UNCOOKED NOODLES.
-----------
*Briefly an Independent, then a Democrat for a long time, I'm going back to Independent.
-----------
At this time still, using the name Socialist Party shoots one in the foot. For the old-time bozos in Congress, and for a good percentage of the population Socialism was/and still is equated with Communism. And any Socialist gaining power in the polls will be crucified as all the old stuff, including Joseph McCarthy time, will be brought up and whipped into hysteria. That's real.
Decades from now, maybe.
We need more Progressive Democrats, but they still are called Democrats.
Regardless, until we get the enormous Corporate Money contributions out of the political arena to elect their person of choice, the system remains broken.
Maybe it will only be out of really Hard Times that a new animal will emerge, hopefully a sturdy, but benign one.
peace, cm
Good point, but with the two-party stanglehold of our political process, it will be very difficult to elect an aleternative party of any sort. Anyone who does not toe the corporate line is shut out, squelched, ignored and smeared by the MSM. Without media coverage and tens of millions of dollars to buy the election, how can anyone win in our largely un-regulated system win a major election? Besides, we don't have Proportionate Representation, we have regressive winner-takes-all (or as the British call it: first past the post). We need to demand electoral reform as well. The corrupt system is rigged to favor those with 100s of millions in corporate backing and the support of the MSM. Remember what happened to Dennis K., Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader etc.?
-but with the two-party stanglehold of our political process, it will be very difficult
What is your point socialist? It will be difficult? What is the alternative to voting out the Rs and Ds? sitting in your armchair until Martians land and whisk them away? Of course they are going to fight back. Why wouldn't they? They have everything to lose, and the majority of Americans, everything to gain.
Of course they will squelch, shut out and ignore you. All you have is your vote. The corporate party can buy all the advertisements in the world, but they can't take your vote. It is for you to give.
There are serious connections to election systems and party outcomes. As I mentioned above, we don't have PR here. A PR system makes it possible for multiple parties to gain seats in the legislature, with WTA/FPP systems this is very rare.
We also have no regulation on air time, and very little regulation on money spent. In almost all cases, the candidate with the most money wins. Don't blame me, that's just reality. If the system produces piss poor results, why keep the system? Why expect our system to produce meaningful choice? Since when has it in the last 60 years? If the car is only running on 3 out of 8 cylinders, why not get a new one?
We can argue in circles here: if no one knows who you are, how can you get elected? Then there are the psychological/strategic voting methods with WTA/FPP systems, if you don't vote for the winner, your vote is wasted, it does not count. Think about this just for a moment.
In short my point is we have to abolish the corrupt elections system as that is the core of democratic process. Without that, this is only a sham PR stunt democracy.
But bigger numbers of third party voting is a key part of how we will build momentum to "abolish the corrupt elections system". Conservatives (I use this term broadly, to refer to people who resist change) will always be able to argue that we have a two-party system because the two parties together represent the American people perfectly. The only way to deny them this argument is to lay down an irrefutable number--say one million--that shows just how many people are actually discontented with the two evil twins.
Think of how much the Democratic partisans have attacked those who voted for Nader in 2000. But they can't erase that number.
Eugene Debs got a million votes--twice (1912 and 1920). Populist candidates have also done very well historically speaking.
Ron Paul's campaign (and I hate Ron Paul...) proves the potential power of grassroots fund raising. So the incredible success of Ross Perot cannot be written off as entirely impossible when not funded by personal wealth.
If we want to change the electoral system, we have to demonstrate American voter discontent with it. How better than getting a large bloc of third party votes? The fact that in the current system these were votes which represented a conscious throwing away of one's vote, can only strengthen the perception of discontent.
-In short my point is we have to abolish the corrupt elections system as that is the core of democratic process. Without that, this is only a sham PR stunt democracy.
I agree, socialist but someone reading your post might come to the conclusion that there is some way to "abolish" the system without getting politicians, who want to do that, elected.
Yes it is a difficult vicious circle, but that is the situation Americans have placed themselves. Difficult, but it is possible.
You didn't "magically" abolish slavery for Africans and then elect politicians who were against slavery, right? You elected politicians who were against slavery and they abolished it.
In the USA especially, the technical term 'socialism' has become so misused and distorted, usually for scare purposes by the political Right, that it has come to colloquially mean: ANY policy, economic or social, which is disliked by the wealthy class and the political Right.
But in western political theory (absent Scientific Socialism), the terms 'socialism' and 'capitalism' refer only to a polity's official/dominant economic system, wherein 'socialism' means: dominant PUBLIC ownership of the means of production and 'capitalism" means: dominant PRIVATE ownership of same.
With perhaps the single exception of Cuba, no western polity practices or officially advocates 'dominant public ownership of the means of production,' including those episodically-governing political parties in Europe and Latin America that call themselves socialist.
And no major nation on earth, with the quasi-exception of the PRC, any longer practices or advocates 'Scientific Socialism' (wherein a single political party, acting allegedly in the name of a People's Revolution, "owns" and controls both the political and economic institutions.)
Democratic modifications to the rules governing private capital economies yield what political theorists sometimes call 'mixed economies,' and such rules are clearly necessary to prevent private capital from becoming economically and politically tyrannical.
For the US Right to equate a 'mixed economic system' such as all western democracies now have in varying degrees, with 'socialism' (i.e., with dominant public ownership of the means of production), is a purposeful lie, clearly designed to evoke comparisons with the earlier horrors of Soviet or Chinese Marxism/Leninism --- thus to thwart any popular challenge to [what otherwise becomes] the Total Rule of society by private capital and its moneyed elite.
What the author of the above article calls 'democratic socialism,' is unfortunately itself a misnomer.
He, like all others who see the need for a workable balance between public and private power, is simply advocating for more public power to be balanced against the now-dominant and ruinous power of private wealth and greed.
So, what the author advocates is by no stretch socialism: it is at best a modest approach to re-balancing a badly imbalanced 'mixed system.'
But even this suggestion is too much for the hysterical, elitist
Right.
Just like Leninists did in the former USSR, Rightist/capitalists in the USA want absolute control of both the economy and the political structure.
Lunatics Left and Right ---and all cut from the same twisted psychological cloth.
Rule by a political party in the name of the working class is not what "scientific socialism" means. It's not even close. The term was coined when Lenin was yet 10 years old:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
I agree with much of the rest of your post.
Sioux Rose
PANDA: Provocative post.
Can we say "Republican Oligarchy" or "Republican Plutocracy" ?
I TOTALLY AGREE!!
Repukicans should be ashamed to be called Republicans. I'm proud to be a Democratic Socialist Progressive Liberal!
Nate is correct, the Social Democratic Party (or in some countries just plain Socialist Party) is the proper nomenclature. Although the center right parties (like the CDA of NL, The CDU of Germany) are well to the left of the Republicans, they are loosely called "Christian Democrats" that would be a fitting name for a moderate Repbulican, center-right party.
As with GOP propaganda of late, it is off-chord and denotes a peculiar myopia that is at once arrogant and ignorant. The proper name, as is applied in most of Western Europe (minor adjustments for American English writing style included), is Social Democratic Party.
Perhaps this whole muddled misnaming exercise by the GOP is a sign of their membership knowing deep down (and resisting like crazy) that they need to become a European style center-right party, or face a long, slow, & painful decline to obscurity a la their predecessors, the Whigs.
It would require a lot of typing to comment on this particular article...Many, many paragraphs..lol..Interesting, thought provoking...But.....lets just say it would certainly make for some interesting comments....
"Democrat Socialist Party."
Interesting...But...it wouldn't sell... The word socialist is not American.[expressed with humor] Americans have been taught to love everything American and distrust anything that is not...(not in our experience)..In that regard Americans are pretty conservative....(Our values...Our way of Life..etc...etc)
All Democratic Socialism really means is that the top 10% steal and hoard just a little bit less. Is that so much to ask? We're not saying stop exercising your, er, right to be pathologically greedy - we're saying just be a tiny bit less pathologically greedy. Why is that so f@#king difficult...?
Frank..I guess we could say that the top 10% steal 10% less..lol
One big problem. The Republicans are thoroughly corrupt. The Democrats are corrupt. In Britain the Labour Party is corrupt. How do you have a party that isn't corrupt?
Watch out Repubs you are making the idea of "socialism" respectable.
"Democratic socialism" prior to proletarian revolution is a hoax! Those who promote it are either embarrassing political novices or (in the case of the learned) cynics who have given up on real socialism. I could write a book, but suffice it to say that all 'socislist' governments of Europe are eyeball deep in some type of imperialism, and a shocking number eb=ven lent aid and comfort and troops to the current imperialist American invasions.
If you REALLY want universal peace, sustainability, equality and affluence, there is only one known path; Build the party that will lead organized labor to power internationally, and unite the world economy under democratic socialism.
Revolution has consistently failed in the past to deliver what revolutionairies have hoped for certain obvious reasons:
1. Failed political systems necessary to bring about revolution create self-defeating circumstances for would be successors.
2. Political chaos invites repressive forces into the political arena promising to stem the tide.
3. Violence is destructive of assets and persons needed to support any political improvements that might come about.
Many other issues influence the actual outcomes of particular revolutions deemed successful – French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Cuban Revolution, but these issues have affected them all.
If a revolution should break out, be ready, but don't disdain what can be achieved because it's not "revolutionary," and don't suppose a revolution will break out just because it ought to. Always remember that the Nazis are just as ready to present themselves as revolutionaries, but the Nazi narrative is easier to understand and therefore more likely to win.
This was an extremely thoughtful and historically informed comment, points 1 & 2 especially (3 only applies under certain circumstances). Thanks for posting it.
The classic Marxist notion of a "world revolution", *in practice*, needs to be almost simultaneous in every advanced capitalist country. Otherwise the revolution will fall prey to the things you mention, and will take several generations to deliver on its promises, assuming it is ever able to. The somewhat revised Leninist notion of revolution on the other hand definitely falls prey to the list of things you mentioned.
This is true even of revolutions which are not truly socialist, but merely implement some fairly radical reforms. The Paris Commune is an example. Guatemala under Arbenz and Chile under Allende are two more. All overthrown in very bloody episodes of reaction.
I think that Yugoslavia might furnish an example that defies your list of circumstances. However, as the NATO bombing of that country under Clinton demonstrates, it was probably only the semi-protection of the USSR that ever prevented a Western attack on the extremely successful market socialist society created there.
As a final note, I would like to point out that people seldom appreciate how greatly Lenin revised Marxist thought regarding "revolution". Marx and Engels were very open to gradual "revolution" (I'll leave it to you to decide exactly what this seemingly contradictory idea really means), as demonstrated by several quotes:
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, *by degree*, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class.."--Marx and Engels, the Communist Manifesto, emphasis added
"And lastly, the possessing class rules directly through the medium of universal suffrage. As long as the oppressed class, in our case, therefore, the proletariat, is not yet ripe to emancipate itself, it will in its majority regard the existing order of society as the only one possible and, politically, will form the tail of the capitalist class, its extreme Left wing. To the extent, however, that this class matures for its self-emancipation, it constitutes itself as its own party and elects its own representatives, and not those of the capitalists. Thus, universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more, in the present-day state; but that is sufficient. On the day the thermometer of universal suffrage registers boiling point among the workers, both they and the capitalists will know what to do."--Engels, Origins of the Family
"Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?
It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."--Engels, Principles of Communism
"Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity."--Engels, Principles of Communism
I don't think that Marx and Engels were as reformist as those quotes make them seem at first glance (bear in mind that Marx somewhat contemptuously said that "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"), but I also think that this side of M & E has been more or less completely forgotten over the decades.
I don't mean to imply that M & E did not appreciate the importance of political revolution. But economics--or social revolution--was of the foremost importance for them.
So I have little doubt that they would have preferred a country which takes an electoral route to attacking private property--in other words, a social revolution without a political revolution--over a political revolution by a "Communist" party that ends up preserving private property and taking anti-working class measures like banning strikes (as the young Maoist government in Nepal has done). That said, they probably would have criticized the shortcomings of both. Political revolution as the be-all, end-all, even over social revolution, is a Leninist notion and nowhere to be found in Marx.
Answering by number:
1) Wasn't this addressed above, with my statement that workers' legislative organs must replace, not reform the capitalist versions?
2) Agreed. That is why it is critical to build the leadership - the party - in such a way as to preclude ascendency of reactionary forces. Today's task is to build that party of revolution.
3) I do not advocate violence, but the imperialists are heavily armed, and are highly likely to go ballistic if challenged. They will not surrender to the working masses without at least sporadic violent anti-democratic resistance. What do you propose? Should the Bolsheviks have allowed the royalist and armed bourgeois forces to run over the Soviet Union without a fight? Should advocates of legitimate change just give up because the reactionaries will act out? Think about what you are implying!
Advocacy of a known-false program is unacceptable in the battle for human liberation. If movement leaders put forth questionable positions, the realized individual must attack those positions, clearly and often (albeit with some sensitivity to venue) or be shamed in his own eyes. Criticism should not be without acknowledging points of agreement with equal passion, though.
And no, I don't believe that the next revolution is a sure thing. At this moment, it is more like a sure NOT thing. That is exactly the point - the singular way that you can be most effective in bringing a green and affluent world into being is to build the party. The leadership required for this revolution will be highly educated and part of a disciplined Leninist party. ...And, it must be popular. I see a couple of parties that might qualify on the first points, but the popularity that is needed will take years to be properly cultivated, and is barely even on the far horizon at this moment. Given the lack of social readiness, it seems more likely that we will go through the untold horrors of WW3, as the contradictions of capitalism force a scramble for the earth's randomly distributed resources. If you would like to be someone who makes a critical difference, there is simply no choice but to advocate revolutionary communism. Advocating 'democratic socialism' within a venomously anti-democratic capitalist economic reality is treachery.
Condition 1 is not political as such, it is infrastructural. When the French peasants rioted for bread, it was because the system for providing bread had already broken down. When Russia was in a shambles, the system had already broken down. A revolution might succeed, but immediately it has the real problem of accomplishing the miraculous restoration of a production system that has failed.
As for condition 2, building a "true revolutionary" party as the leader implies a single party will take charge after the revolution. Inflamed hysteria about the unity of the nation and the charge of partisan treason was characteristic of the formation of parties in the US, France, and Russia after their revolutionary events. What is "truly revolutionary" the day after the revolutionary party takes power?
Condition 3 speaks to why we should achieve what can be achieved today. The demands of the public do not become more progressive under conditions of retrenchment, like today, but when conditions are more "liberal." The optimism awakened under JFK was the end product of long years of rising standards of living. In order to become "revolutionary," society must first become "liberal." The alternate condition dims the hope for revolution which is perceived and presented as a bad example that failed. People will become desperate under repression, but desperation offers poor prospects for revolutionary achievement.
Is the far-right fascist-elite narrative really easier to understand?
The fascist/fauxist narrative is a massively confusing/contradicting right-wing doctrine and/or pseudo-left triangulating collusion, all fueled by mind-crippling negative emotions of greed, hate, and envy.
In contrast, the far left people's narrative is easy for a grasshopper to understand. It's driven by wisdom, reason and love for the benefits/outcomes of our public/private policies. First we re-define left/right to make sorting things easy. Left is moral, right is amoral. Second, we support policies in proportion to their leftness. Damn simple. There's no debate. Everyone agrees.
I'm a little wary of such black and white dichotomies, however, I do see your point.
The way I see the difference: Left - the better off we all are, the better off we all are. Right - the better off I am, the better off I am.
So, in a way, I agree with your first proposal. Actually, I agree with your second proposal, save the fact that we're all really not going to be at the same place at the same time. While you may be ready to support policies because of their leftness, others on the left may not be at that place. It's a tough call, because that's where the left historically falls into bitter internecine warfare, eating their own as the left is wont to do.
So, yeah, let's support leftness, but let's also realize that some are ahead of us and some behind us.
Right on, rtdrury! Let's get in the habit of speaking difficult truths gently, but out loud, and respecting the ability of people to understand justice. The 5th-Avenue-slick Repugnocrats have made fibbing a full time job, so ours is a large task that will take time. Bombarded with lies, trust is rightly hard to establish, but there will never be a legitimate government based upon the illegitimacy of misrepresentations, secrecy and lies.
I will take the faulty "democratic socialism" of many European countries over the distorted, oligopoly, laissez-faire system we have here any day. Take it from me, I lived, worked and paid taxes there for over five years.
The proletarian revolution does not have to be a violent sudden revolution, it can come in the form of incremental steps. Of course that means partial abandonment of Marx's Dialectical Materialism framework.
I probably agree with your first paragraph on some level, but that's not to say that capitalist 'democratic socialism' is real there, or capable of taking the world forward without war and poverty.
In the second paragraph, you are being ahistorical. World socialism can NEVER be elected into place through capitalist legislatures. I do not advocate violent revolution, but many capitalists will be violent when "their" employees take over "their" factory without compensation. How should the ethical person react in that situation? I have no problem with abandoning this or that Marxist concept if proven false, but you are a long way from that.
You have a point about violence by the Capitalist classes, the modern nation-state exists only to protect their interests. If you are referring to full-blown mature socialism in the Marxian sense, you are correct. We might be nearing the point when capitalism reaches its final phase (but this was predicted by some decades ago) where no more markets can be exploited, capital is concentrated into very few hands. We'll see, I hope it can be peaceful, but like you said there is no precedent for it
Amen brother. I for one am thrilled that we might return to having pride for the socialist policies which have done so much good for this country.
sprinkling socialism into this failed, corrupt, greedy, toxic form of capitalism will be the only thing that will save our freedoms.
Another worshipper at the alter of European socialism. Lets see how well he likes it by next year or so. The flaws and fallacies are becoming quite clear.
Actually, European Socialism work quiet well, and certainly much better than our hyper-capitalism. This is because it benefits the nation as a whole, and not just a handful of people. Probably the primary reason that we have fallen so far behind is that in Europe, such things as higher education (essential to creating a competitive modern workforce) and legitimate job skills training are available to everyone who can do the work, not just the rich. This benefits both the individuals and the nation.
Access to medical care is also essential to the economic stability of a nation. In the US today, fewer and fewer of us can obtain health care, and are a single illness or injury away from losing everything. European Socialism isn't utopia, but it works far better than what we have in the US today, and the payoff is a much more productive working class.
You live in the greatest country in the world, right Thomas?
Oh, really?
Do tell us, Thomas More, all about what you actually KNOW about social democracy in action.
Hah.
Any FOOL can figure out that in the land of my birth the criminals rule in the entire absence of anything remotely resembling....justice.
While I heartily concur with the fact that social democracy is required in order for the cesspool of despair that the US truly is for the vast majority to become something other than the location of the next violent revolution, such a transition will never be allowed by the criminals in control.
Constructive change is not given freely by criminals such as the corporate oligarch and it´s willing curs such as Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other so called "president" you care to name.
Or it´s conmen in the congress for that matter.
America is a fake and a fraud from the get-go, and as it stands today it´s willing taxpayers owe the wrongful deaths and displacement of about 7,5 million innocent Iraqi souls. Not to mention what such pathetic excuses for an informed citizenry owe to their own compatriots...
Smart Americans don´t pay taxes to or take any gifts from criminals. They hunt the wicked (it´s fun and everybody can do it!)and eliminate them by the most expedient means available at the time.
This is a war for possession of the planet.
As the situation develops we will have a social-democrat government of, by, and for the peoples of the planet after the removal of the appr. 6000 enemies to human brotherhood...or we will have a holocaust such as not yet been seen brought upon the peoples of the world by the desperate barbarians pretending to be representatives of the peoples will and the needs of the planet.
Once again, TM drops his early turd in the punch bowl.
I would love to see some democratic party socialists. All I see in recent years are democratic party fascists that are becoming ever more fascist.
Unconditionally throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars to corporations while making token laws that appear to help the working class is not socialism by any stretch of the definition. It is very clearly fascism.
Hear, hear!
And why isn't this said more often? Why does the right wing narrative become the debate?
Most Socialists are pacifists or very anti-war. The Democrats love the Empire. That makes them National Socialists (fascists).
Dat's da fact Jack
Last I checked, socialist Norway, in spite of the crash in it's dwindling North Sea oil prices, is enjoying a 4.5% economic growth rate through this entire "recession". The reason, a generous public sector keeping poeple working and able to spend their money on all that low-carbon cultural, culinary and leisure consumption that Europeans like to do.
Cradle to grave, baby! Oh, what a life!
Without the socialist program of Social Security that supplies most of my monthly income, most Seniors, including me, would be up The Creek. [I cleaned up my language there.]
Democratic Socialism provides for the most vulnerable and also, as others have mentioned, provides across-the-boards health care, including prescriptions, and all kinds of other services so that NO ONE is homeless, without assistance if they need it, and on and on and on.
What is wrong, Thomas, with programs that serve the majority of human beings in a particular nation. Taxes are higher, but services of all kinds are provided.
Doesn't stop anyone who wants to be in the top 3 per cent of the population to be very rich if that is their ambition.
But over-all Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism is superior to the Capitalistic Corporatocracy we have now.
Study the statistics of who gets to eat and who doesn't; the CLASS divisions by money; the numbers of people who have no health care; the numbers of people who end up in jail because they do not have education and cannot be gainfully employed.
It's nice to think that the Horatio Alger dream is still alive and well, but what we've seen in many decades now is the unraveling of our social, cultural, familial fabric because Corporate-Everything pretty much controls us, and "rising to the top" requires such dog-eat-dog behavior that we have more Ugly Americans than a country should have, and the people who work truly hard for what they have are being screwed out of all of it RIGHT and LEFT.
What is wrong with governmental programs that the people actually pay for with their taxes and a percentage of their incomes, if they know that their basic needs will be met until the day they die?
Feeling secure is better than feeling frightened, wouldn't you say?
peace, cm
Thomas More is a neocon troll employed by some slimy organization like AIPAC or AEI to bait leftists in forums like this. Ignore him. Democratic socialism, social democracy, socialism, are all on the rise today for the right reasons. Outside the USA and its rapidly shrinking sphere, enlightenment is spreading. This is a profoundly positive development. In particular, the world is learning to deflect USan "public relations" psych-ops assaults. Developments like this are breaking the confidence of the empire's "brain trust". The empire is on its knees today and won't be standing again.
USan? Isn't that what passive aggressive America haters call us Americans?