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

[Anton P. Nym]

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

Actually, yes; at the very least, there's the perennial boogyman (the one the far right likes to trot out to scare the good little citizens back into obedience) the Soviet Socialist. Admittedly they had some of the forms of a democracy, but sadly that was pretty much all false-front decoration.

I'd say there's a fairly big difference between the two... one that gets glossed over all to often, which rather poisons the debate on the issue in the US.

-- Steve

 

[oktalist]

Soviet Socialist

This is a contradiction. The Soviet Union was capitalism in disguise.

Real socialism depends upon democracy to function.

 

[Sane Man]

This is a contradiction. The Soviet Union was capitalism in disguise.

Real socialism depends upon democracy to function.

I laughed. Heartily. Honestly, you made such a ridiculous assertion that you destroy your credibility. It's like me coming in and saying that "Oh no, really, the United States' economic organization is actually socialist, merely operating under the guise of free market principles".

Also, how does socialism rely on democracy? Voting habits and public opinion don't really change the nature of socialism or capitalism, do they? I mean, theoretically it would be a lot easier if the government didn't have to bother with what people thought and simply put socialism into practice.

Well, there are certainly valid arguments that capitalism relies on a free society and is morally just and therefore cannot simply work within the confines of a government that restricts basic human freedoms.

 

[Echo3Delta]

Hoo, boy, I could go on forever, but there's really one point that resolves this issue. Europeans might not know this (and about 99% of Americans wouldn't be able to say this without looking it up), but the 10th Amendment to our Constitution (That's part of the Bill of Rights btw) states (and here I'm paraphrasing very faithfully, because I don't feel like looking it up either):

"Any power not delegated to the Federal Government by this Constitution shall be left to the STATES and the PEOPLE."
(My emphasis of course)

Any species of such government economic control as is being discussed in this thread is drastically, irrefutably, and obscenely unconstitutional. Now of course, our government already violates the 10th Amendment with about 90% of the legislation it passes. Because of this, I weep for my country. When I get back from Iraq next year, God, I hope I recognize her.

 

[Ken Korda]

I would like to point out when I use the term 'socialist' I am not using in as a synonym for 'communist'. Whilst the two are linked they are very different. I would characterise myself as part of the 'soft left'; those who beleive in a decentralised economy but one which is regulated in favour of the workers rather than the owners.This is why a preface the term 'Socialist' with the term 'Democratic' in an attempt to distinguish myself from the traditonal socialists who called for a workers revolution. I would place my beleifs much more closely alongside those of continental European Socialist parties, most notably that of Germany, or the traditional Labour party in the UK before it becam 'New Labour'.

It seems most people have assumed that I am questing for a 'Communist Utopia' which is not the case. As someone pointed out both extremes have been tried and neither have been successful. What I am encouraging are the kind of reforms which I outlined in my second post in this thread. The market should be allowed to operate but oonly under the close supervison of state governments.

Evolution not Revolution

I apologise if I dissapoint anyone with my more 'moderate' views.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Soviet Socialist

This is a contradiction. The Soviet Union was capitalism in disguise.

This very nearly led to me spraying espresso all over my monitor. Thanks for the morning laugh. (Unless it was in earnest, in which case heigh ye to a library and ask the person at the reference desk for a good book on economics.)

It's like me coming in and saying that "Oh no, really, the United States' economic organization is actually socialist, merely operating under the guise of free market principles".

Actually, the 40-hour work week and the legitimacy of collective bargaining units (aka "unions") did come from socialist principles. And yes, the frothing rightists complaining that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are socialist are actually correct to say so.

The problem with American discourse on socialism is that it's turned into a binary discussion; you seem to think that an economy is either capitalist or socialist, and one is pure as the driven snow while the other is driven by grasping villains opposed to Real Freedom, so those in the opposing camp are dupes or willing servants to Dark Masters or in it for the greed. *smacks desk with pointer* The real world is far, far more complex than a simple "yes/no" like that implies; I think the current financial crisis is in part driven by such juvenile and backward world-views that have hijacked the debate.

Also, how does socialism rely on democracy? Voting habits and public opinion don't really change the nature of socialism or capitalism, do they? I mean, theoretically it would be a lot easier if the government didn't have to bother with what people thought and simply put socialism into practice.

Neither socialism nor capitalism rely on democracy. Both function better under a democracy, though, if for no other reason because workforces get less productive if they feel disenfranchised.

-- Steve

 

[Mathew952]

I love when someone like bill O' Reily completely disregards the fact, that the US used to have almost no regulation. Income tax wasn't even set up until the 16th amendment, in the 1920s. During the Late 1800s, Early 1900s, we had a truly regulation free Economy, and what happened? Companies all merged and bought each other out, they created Trusts, Monopolies, made people work 12 hours a day for a few dollars, made them work hunched over and exhausted, allowed child labor, and set prices as high as they wanted. PROGRESS!

Having no regulations would be like having no laws. Don't hinder people with your laws and bills, and they'll all be nice good people, who eat rainbows and ride solar powered unicorns.

 

[Fightgarr]

No matter how many times people argue for one system of government over another I've always thought that all the issues of government come from one root problem. There's just too many people on earth. I feel, at least to a degree, that the most functional social structure is that of a tribal community. Now, there are issues with this system but they are smaller issues, ones that can be tackled on a small scale. The reason being because there are fewer people involved. Sure there would still be issues of war, but that issue will be present regardless of social structure.

Socialism seems to be generally viewed as a system which should work extremely well within the western world. I see no reason why it couldn't. But due to the sheer size of the population, there will always be large-scale issues that need to be addressed and someone's solution will always be that we need a new governmental structure. Thus I don't really feel the need to change to a socialist structure. For now, at least.

 

[Fearzone]

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Lucky for you, socialism is all about freedom.

Sorry, Ayn Rand disagrees with you

Ayn Rand was a bumptious moron who advocated an economic system as utterly unworkable as the one she opposed. Pure Free-Marketism is dead. It has been dead for a long time. It produces hideous swings of boom and bust, grotesque inequalities, (causing)limited markets (leading to) astounding demand-deficets and recessions that would make this one look like a picnic, monopoly (which is anti-capitalist: Adam Smith (the founder of capitalism) argued wholly against monopoly of all kinds- it is anathema to capitalist theory), and eventual civil uprising, and the establishment of another government, hopefully a more rational one.

The extremes are, like Steve says, almost uninhabitable quagmires of misery and despair. They do not work, and anyone trying to implement either a pure free market state or a purely command economic state is utterly insane.


The world needs the competition, drive and energy or capitalism. It also needs the steadiness, equitability and influence of government.

A state should have regulations against monopoly, and child labour, and to promote safety. A state should provide healthcare (because the idea that you can make an informed decision regarding your healthcare is absurd- most of you have no medical training.), education (because else we wind up with an inefficent and useless workforce, crippling the economy), pensions (because the elderly deserve to live) and some form of unemployment benifit (though not neccesarily permanant).

 

[Sane Man]

No matter how many times people argue for one system of government over another I've always thought that all the issues of government come from one root problem. There's just too many people on earth. I feel, at least to a degree, that the most functional social structure is that of a tribal community. Now, there are issues with this system but they are smaller issues, ones that can be tackled on a small scale. The reason being because there are fewer people involved. Sure there would still be issues of war, but that issue will be present regardless of social structure.

Socialism seems to be generally viewed as a system which should work extremely well within the western world. I see no reason why it couldn't. But due to the sheer size of the population, there will always be large-scale issues that need to be addressed and someone's solution will always be that we need a new governmental structure. Thus I don't really feel the need to change to a socialist structure. For now, at least.

You sound like a type of Federalist, which hey, the Forefathers wanted us to be. Just change "tribal community" with "states' rights" and you are golden =)

I must disagree on socialism being perfect in the West, regardless of population. Changing intrinsic habits of humans is impossible. Therefore the government as well as the economic system must allow as much possible freedom to each and every human in order to accommodate.

 

[oktalist]

The Soviet Union was capitalism in disguise.

I laughed. Heartily. Honestly, you made such a ridiculous assertion that you destroy your credibility.

Also, how does socialism rely on democracy?

I subscribe to the principles of the World Socialist Movement, an extension of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, not to be confused with the Socialist Party or the British Socialist Party. I'll link to their FAQ [http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/FAQ.html] but their site seems to be down at the moment.

To quote Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain], it is "a small Marxist political party within the impossibilist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibilism] tradition. It is best known for its advocacy of using the ballot box for revolutionary purposes; opposition to reformism; and its early adoption of the theory of state capitalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism] to describe the Soviet Union. Detractors have been known to mockingly refer to it as Simon Pure's Genuine Brand or the Small Party of Good Boys (both plays on its SPGB initials)." State capitalism is "a social system combining capitalism - the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value - with ownership or control by a state apparatus. A state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation." For example, any nationalisation of industry is a move towards state capitalism, not socialism. I object to the use of the word socialism to describe anything which is just state capitalism. To confuse matters, state capitalism means something entirely different to laissez-faire economists.

The very word "impossibilist" should give you an idea of how idealistic it is, if you hadn't already guessed. But its etymology comes from the belief that socialism cannot coexist with capitalism, and trying to reform the present system with ideas taken from socialism is a waste of time and anyone advocating such reforms is not worth dealing with. Rather, the present system should be completely replaced.

It also asserts that socialism must be introduced through the existing democratic mechanisms, and would be run in a wholly democratic way, much more so that at present. It's about equal access, which I see as an extension of universal suffrage.

I'm not trying to prove I'm right, just giving my point of view.

Well, there are certainly valid arguments that capitalism relies on a free society and is morally just and therefore cannot simply work within the confines of a government that restricts basic human freedoms.

Free market capitalism indeed relies upon democracy to a certain extent, I never said otherwise. However, it is not morally just. It is a system in which a small minority owns the means of living, and as a consequence effectively enslaves the rest of humanity, by whose labour alone wealth is produced.

"Any power not delegated to the Federal Government by this Constitution shall be left to the states and the people."

This is compatible with socialism (if you remove the words "the states and").

I apologise if I dissapoint anyone with my more 'moderate' views.

Don't worry, disappointment follows me like a shadow

Actually, the 40-hour work week and the legitimacy of collective bargaining units (aka "unions") did come from socialist principles. And yes, the frothing rightists complaining that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are socialist are actually correct to say so.

The problem with American discourse on socialism is that it's turned into a binary discussion

I admit they are based on socialist ideas, but I don't believe that capitalism with a sprinkling of socialist ideas is of much use.

I don't believe that capitalism and socialism can coexist, and I don't believe in trying to reform the present system with elements taken from socialism, but rather in entirely replacing it with something new. This is why for me, it is a binary issue.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.

That's ridiculous. In true socialism there is no money. The problem with capitalism is that you never run out of other people's money.

a purely command economic state is utterly insane.

Socialism is so not about centralised control.

so ridiculous for ... oktalist to say the USSR's economy was capitalist, without any regard for nuance.

Nuance is overrated

 

[joystickjunki3]

I understand your point of view, but I'm not completely convinced that any pure form of government is the way to go.

Mixed economies and shared powers seem to work for most of the countries who utilize them (not including unstable countries or those currently in civil war). Those sorts of systems are good because of compromise. And compromise is the only way that we, as a society, can progress because I cannot think of anything regarding politics or the like that everyone will agree on.

 

[Ago Iterum]

You don't need to say why the socialism part is better anyway, socalism's the way to go. A lot of my thoughts are similar to some of the points you've made here, I've just never sat and put it into words like you have.

A good read

Of course he has to explain his point of view otherwise it carries no weight to those who don't share it. Also, saying that something is the way to go without giving your arguement some substance just makes you sound like an idiot. I may not share the original poster's viewpoint but I see it's well thought out and I respect that. On top of that, seeing as it is well explained it can be well followed and rebuked, at least I can make a point deeper than "nuh uh" or "no u".

Look, I was just about to go offline, I was tired, all I wanted to do was let him know how I agreed with his points, I wasn't looking to advance them further.

The not having to explain socialism part was just a bit of banter supporting socialism, to show I was in favour of it. It's not a big deal. A couple of simple, inofensive statements.

Now I would go on further, but I have better things to do than argue with someone with a beach worth of sand in their vagina.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

@Oktalist: I know that. I'm an economist, not a political scientist. You'll note that I used the term 'command economy' rather than 'socialist'. But you must learn that all terms, being human, are malleable, strange things that change according to the speaker. Definitions are not strict things, but simply a guideline for the reader to interpret.


And I have advised reading for all Oscar Wilde: The Soul of Man under Socialism. Read that, and then try and say that socialism is bad. His socialism seems to be reminiscent of the system we have now...

 

[Jaxon]

Socialism is nonsense. If you want world peace you need to have consumerism. It's money, trade, financial interdependance. That's what allows world peace. Peace is not love, it's business.

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.

Short and to the point. Well said.

 

[Whiskyjakk]

Really good opening post, by the way, great historical and logical argument against Libertarianism.

I think the problem with Friedman is that he takes a completely individualist view of society. Whenever anyone advocates state welfare or healthcare people come back saying, 'I work hard for my money, why should I be forced to give some of it to X'. X usually being some stereotyped, undeserving, lazy case.

However this ignores all of the social factors that determine whether or not you can earn enough to support yourself e.g. level of education, a secure environment in which to develop skills for employment and life and even the colour of your skin and the social class of the family you were born into. How can it be just for those who have benefitted from this social system not to support those who are just as vital in keeping the capitalist economy working but haven't had the same opportunities?

 

[Danzaivar]

In my opinion, a Government should provide education and defence. The rest should be left up to the citizens of a country. A free market can provide everything except defence, and with free education every citizen of a country can become a highly trained and thus important member of the work force.

Arguably health-care could be provided up to a certain age (Since you can't afford health insurance until you're old enough to work, and it's highly unfair to be held back because your parents suck).

Anything else is something a private company can provide, and competition means they'll do the best job for the lowest price. A government monopoly has no reason to try improve its service, and costs end up being astronomical (Read: The NHS). Businesses just react better.

Greedy shareholders are the main problem, but everything would eventually solve itself that way (Imo). Then again maybe i'm just blind to the 'glories of socialism' because of the terrible job it's done with my country the past decade or so. It has some very romantic ideals, but they're not even close to practical. Not. Even. Close.