Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democratic 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.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
98 Comments so far
Show AllI 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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...
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.........
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Some of us are not Democrats.
But the Dems want to do something socialistic, welcome aboard.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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 !!
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.
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.
We 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.