I'm a Democratic Socialist and here's why...

[Ken Korda]

According to your graph Chile is worse off now then in the 1960s.

That graph is "annual percent change", not a total.

-- Alex

Whoops! I guess I got a bit carried away.

I have more questions about this graph. Is each measure a percentage of the previous years total. For example, if one year the economy contracts by 13% and thus (hypothetically) changes form a GDP of 100 million to 77 million does the 3.5% increase the following year mean 3.5% of 100 million or 3.5% of 77 million?

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I'm relieved that someone else shares these sentiments.

As for economic policies, I can't help but think that not a single one ever concieved by the human mind actually works properly, though it's also in my mind that capitalism fucks up the least compared to the others. I'm not necessarily a fan of the idea of some self-righteous parent government constantly telling me what I can and can not do. Is it so wrong that I determine where my money goes in the stead of some organization with supreme legal authority? My problem with socialism and preference of capitalism stems from this basic concept: people can take power away from a business simply by buying from someone else; taking power away from a government...well that's a tad bit trickier, isn't it?

This is where the democratic part kicks in. The idea is not the government tells you can do but the citizens create and enforce a civic contract.

Democracy (well, the "republic" extension of it) only works so well if your choice falls between the lesser of two evils.

 

[Ken Korda]

Great Britain, in the time of Dickens' childhood.

Not even close. GB kept implementing tariffs and such for the whole century.

Monetarist policies did not create a huge boom to Chile.

The value at the beginning of your graph is lower than the one at the end. Plus there are massive dips at the time that Pinochet took power and implemented monetarism. According to your graph Chile is worse off now then in the 1960s. That is hardly a period of economic growth

Arghhhhhhhhhhh. It's a graph about GDP growth per year. You see those numbers? They actually represent percentages of growth. Growth of 5+% yearly is pretty high and Chile has had high growth rates for decades after the economic reform in 1974.

I am done replying to this thread and explaining economics to people who dont understand even the simplest of graphs.

Alright, I made a mistake, there's no need to get personal. We are just trying to discuss the issue and if you could answer my question I would grealty appeciate it.

Furthermore, total GDP growth is not necesarily important, it is distribution of wealth that matters. If only rich people get richer at the expenc of the poor the government has not really done its job and economic growth matters little if most of the population are stuggling to eat.

You may find this interesting: http://libcom.org/library/chile-anatomy-of-an-economic-miracle

 

[stompy]

(BTW, I don't see how socialism CAN'T lead to commusim)
The Germans, Swedes, Danes, French, Dutch and Swiss have succeeded at holding off the creeping tide of Communism for a minimum of fifty years. Now admittedly it's possible that Americans aren't up to matching the fortitude of the French, but I'd like to think they could give it at least a close miss.

I didn't know that those countries had that kind of governemnt, my bad. But from your post it still looks like communism is the inevitable, quote, "Succeded at holding off the creeping tide of Communism".

I think he was joking about the "creep of communism" bit... the whole of that post reeks of some really dry humour.

Anyways, as for socialism=communism, I think some people need to read some more about both economic policies, and stop relying on those McCarthy-influenced textbooks. In short, socialism is a wide and varied economic policy, meaning that one form of socialism (for example, the 'socialism' that the USSR had) isn't necessarily like the other (like, for example, some Western European countries, such as France). Oh, and, despite what Marx said, socialism doesn't have to lead to communism. It's like saying that all capitalism leads to laissez-faire.

 

[Pseudonym2]

This is where the democratic part kicks in. The idea is not the government tells you can do but the citizens create and enforce a civic contract.

Democracy (well, the "republic" extension of it) only works so well if your choice falls between the lesser of two evils.

I'm suggestion a more bottom-up philiosaphy than the top down one we have now. This is an interview with only senater to vote agains the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that ended up leading to the Gulf War.

PETER LISAGOR, FACE THE NATION: Senator, the Constitution gives to the
President of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy.
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: Couldn't be more wrong, you couldn't make a more
unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an
old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the President of the United States. That's
nonsense.
PETER LISAGOR: To whom does it belong, then, Senator?
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: It belongs to the American people, and the Constitutional
fathers made it very, very clear --
PETER LISAGOR: Where does the President fit into this in the responsibility scale?
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: What I'm saying is: under our constitution all the
President is, is the administrator of the people's foreign policy, those are his prerogatives,
and I'm pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy --

He's completely wrong of course but it wouldn't it nice that were the case?

 

[Lord Beautiful]

This is where the democratic part kicks in. The idea is not the government tells you can do but the citizens create and enforce a civic contract.

Democracy (well, the "republic" extension of it) only works so well if your choice falls between the lesser of two evils.

I'm suggestion a more bottom-up philiosaphy than the top down one we have now. This is an interview with only senater to vote agains the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that ended up leading to the Gulf War.

PETER LISAGOR, FACE THE NATION: Senator, the Constitution gives to the
President of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy.
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: Couldn't be more wrong, you couldn't make a more
unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an
old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the President of the United States. That's
nonsense.
PETER LISAGOR: To whom does it belong, then, Senator?
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: It belongs to the American people, and the Constitutional
fathers made it very, very clear --
PETER LISAGOR: Where does the President fit into this in the responsibility scale?
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: What I'm saying is: under our constitution all the
President is, is the administrator of the people's foreign policy, those are his prerogatives,
and I'm pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy --

He's completely wrong of course but it wouldn't it nice that were the case?

It would be lovely if the people were in direct control of the country. This is why I'd like to figure out some way to apply pure democracy to a large population. I'd love to think of a way to make it work, because while represenative democracy seems like a good idea, in practice, it falters a bit much.

 

[Labyrinth]

OP, I have only skimmed your post and the posts following, but you seem to be saying that just because TOTAL freedom (anarchy) is a bad idea that total government domination (socialism/communism) is a good idea.

Extremes on EITHER side of the spectrum are almost always BAD ideas.

Total government control inevitably leads to oppression and tyranny by the government. Anarchy ALSO leads to oppression and tyranny, not by the government, but by your neighbours who are stronger than you.

The answer is to have SOME government regulation where necessary BUT ONLY where it really is necessary. The government should PROTECT you, not CONTROL you.

Hold on. There's something people seem to be missing here.

Popularised anarchism is very different from the original idea of such a thing, just as the popular view of communism is very different from the actual view.

For anarchism, it's essential to see it as a social movement based around total equality. An anarchic society has no leaders, no presidents, no social hierarchy. This eliminates the gang warfare which most people associate with anarchism. There are still laws in such a society and a governmental body, but the latter has no direct power over people. It's the ultimate grass-roots ideal, in short.

Communism is that from an economic standpoint. Everyone is equal in ownership and power over wealth such as natural resources and there are no class barriers, unlike today. Another common misconception is that Marx actually spelled out a utopic Communist society in The Communist Manifesto. He didn't. He just predicted that the working classes would rise up to create one, and that they would invent the scaffold for such a thing. His original idea was to see this begin in places like the US and the UK with substantial working class demographics. Instead it happened in Russia, which has a smaller working class, and wound up not being communist anyway as the revolution instituted a class structure again.

From my perspective a true utopia would be an anarchic communist state, ruled directly by the people. I realise this isn't going to happen. The greedy and the stupid are to populace for it.

 

[Beowulf DW]

I call myself a moderate indepent. I don't particularly care what political side proposes something; as long as that something is what's best for the nation at large, then I support it.

The one thing I don't budge on is libertarianism. I agree with the original post in that I think it is a bad idea.

I once met a young man who was a libertarian. I had no idea what exactly the libertarian philosophy was, so I asked him about it. His answer was that everything (including the government) should be run like a business. I don't know if that view is representative of all libertarians, but his views genuinely appalled me. Hospitals and similar institutions, education, law enforcement...These things cannot be run like a business, because their purpose is not to turn a profit, but to HELP people. He didn't see it that way at all, though.

 

[nathan-dts]

Socialism is better, but not to the point of communism, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. I prefer a society that helps everyone and not just the rich(fuck you fox news).

Communism, in theory, is perfect but, people are can't act on it.

 

[oktalist]

Really sorry for the horrifically long post; there's so many people being wrong on the internet today.
Hooray for epic misunderstanding of what socialism actually is!

Bravo my dear comrade.

It may be a mistake for socialists to call each other that Maybe you were saying it ironically, I can't tell.

Socialism is better, but not to the point of communism

(BTW, I don't see how socialism CAN'T lead to commusim)

I always thought socialism and communism were just two names for the same thing, but I could be wrong.

In my eyes, socialism was started because people wanted money by stealing it from the rich but their to lazy to. Obviously I really hate Obama.

In my eyes, the pursuit of socialism was started because people hated money and the inequality it breeds. Socialism itself has never actually been started anywhere yet, although there has been no shortage of corrupt governments using its name.

Also there is this US-politic slant throughout a lot of this thread whereby people who haven't seen free healthcare before say "OMG socialism!" This is like saying a fresh cup of coffee is cold because it's cooler than the sun.

Socialism is just one of the steps towards complete ownership by the state i.e Communism.

Sorry, wrong. Socialism/communism is about no ownership (or ownership by everyone, which is the same thing) of the means of production of wealth. The USSR had state ownership, which was just capitalism by proxy.

The french and english used to make war ever couple of minutes, they still despise each other but they decided not to fight because they'd rather trade with each other, collect the cash, and have a better life.

You conveniently ignored most wars post-WW2, which have been fought over monetary issues or simply to justify vast military budgets, and started by politicians with stock portfolios full of defence contractors.

I like freedom, dammit

Lucky for you, socialism is all about freedom.

So by your logic, the government rules the people, instead of the people running the government. It is in the declaration of independence that we establish the government's power is that given by the people

The way I see it we can either have another Great Depression and still be American and keep to the Constitution. OR. We can change our government but burn our Constitution as a result, as the change in government will no longer make us true Americans.

Were the people of the former colonies Americans before the constitution was written? I contend that they can remain Americans after the constitution has been improved in a manner which retains its spirit while adapting to a fundamentally different socio-economic system. That's if the constitution had to be rewritten at all. I'm not sure it's incompatible with socialism anyway.

At the risk of unduly patronising you or starting a "the founding fathers would've said..." argument, allow me to quote abridged from Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thankfully I think the revolution this time will be democratic and bloodless. I'll leave you to argue whether you think Jefferson would've accepted a revolution that rewrote the constitution, if that constitution had ceased to properly function. Another quote, this time from Henry Kissinger: "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."

The Germans, Swedes, Danes, French, Dutch and Swiss have succeeded at holding off the creeping tide of Communism for a minimum of fifty years.

Again, higher taxes and free healthcare does not a socialist make.

OP, I have only skimmed your post and the posts following, but you seem to be saying that just because TOTAL freedom (anarchy) is a bad idea that total government domination (socialism/communism) is a good idea.

Again, socialism is not about control at all. Forget the countries that have called themselves communist in the past, they missed the point about as much as you did. Socialism is about individual freedom, equal access, local organisation and true democracy. It's about as close to anarchy as is practical, whereas capitalism is the true domination and slavery which we all live in today.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

It would be lovely if the people were in direct control of the country. This is why I'd like to figure out some way to apply pure democracy to a large population. I'd love to think of a way to make it work, because while represenative democracy seems like a good idea, in practice, it falters a bit much.

Good god, no. Mob rule is all well and good in theory, but not so great when facts are taken into account.

Anyway, socialism is a way to severely curtail one of the most basic of human right, taking responsibility for it away from the individual and into the hands of bureacracy (government). This right namely being the right to property (which can be money or a business). It is essentially an attempt to void the individual's power to enact change by limiting the individual's ability to move and act freely. Socialism extends beyond mere economics - simply by the implications of limiting that right - eventually into every facet of a person's existence, mandating how things must be done. Which, really, can be a force for good, if used wisely and sparingly, but in practice has always been in constant need of adjustment and scaling back because government simply cannot handle it responsibly.

And that's why I'm opposed to it. Because it will eventually fail anyway, and you will be left with what is essentially capitalism by a different name, because capitalism is the best, the only way to ensure individual freedom. Not individual success, but freedom. And I don't give a flying fuck if I'll have it marginally better off in a socialist system, it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

I suppose it would have been worth mentioning that I'd like the people to guide the country given they become educated and at least somewhat intelligent. As for the rest, I can't quite come up with a disagreement with what you said.

 

[Kaisharga]

This whole thread needs to take a Government Principles class [http://ludwig.squarespace.com/lectures-for-philosophy-of-ame/].

Go on. It's free.

 

[Cerebreus]

I think the government should have as little influence in the economy as possible, BUT I want there to be some government control.

Too much control would destroy the idea of capitalism, while too little control would meanunfair trade practices. The railroads were nationalized after they used very unfair trade practices.

That said, the government is often a poor judge of economics. Not many people realize this, but the Clinton administration contributed more to the housing crisis than the Bush administration did.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was the biggest cause of the problem. Please note that the ORINIGINAL CRA seemed to work fine. However, the Clinton administration altered the CRA, forcing banks to give loans to risky people or they would be at risk to incur penalties. Even though this happened during the Clinton administration, it wasn't until late in the bush administration that it overloaded.

Banks did use bad tactics like predatory lending, but it is very, very unlikely that they would have made loans to risky people in the first place unless they were forced to.

There was an attempt to change the rules by Republicans, but that was shot down by Democrats, who claimed the Republican's plan would not work. BOTH parties should have come up with something else or amended the original plan if that really was the case, instead of letting the crisis happen.


I do realize there is always a possibility that I am mistaken about one or more things and there may be some things I am right about. If you think there is bad information or disagree with what is said, let's discuss it. Give examples please.

I'm trying to be open-minded, so any corrections will be appreciated. Please back them up, though; I don't want to think you are trying to mislead me.

 

[roflmao113]

Why should the government decide what I need instead of myself? If you ask me, it is quite literally insane.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

you people have no idea what socialism can do.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Tell me some wars that had to do with the French and English after their trade agreement.

 

[TomNook]

Labyrinth, an anarchistic communist government is impossible not to mention oxymoronic. Anarchy is defined as the complete absence of law and order, communism (simplified) is everyone owns and takes responsibility for everything. What you want is just straight "perfect communism." Anarchy is impossible to achieve because someone will inevitably take power through religion, force, economics, or whatever.

 

[oktalist]

Why should the government decide what I need instead of myself? If you ask me, it is quite literally insane.

Yeah, I know! Capitalism's crazy, right? Under socialism each person would be completely free to decide what their own needs are. That's the whole point.

you people have no idea what socialism can do.

So true.

Lucky for you, socialism is all about freedom.

Sorry, Ayn Rand disagrees with you

I'm not surprised!

Also, to the OP, about the thread title, Democratic Socialist... is there any other kind of Socialist?