I Would Like a Democratic Socialist Government in the U.S.

[MineralMan]

That's the political philosophy I hold. That is the system I believe would be the best one for this country. I absolutely believe that such a system is impossible to obtain in the United States within the lifetimes of anyone capable of reading DU. I cannot get what I want, no matter how much I want it.

So, every election, I vote for the Democrats on the ballot. I vote in every election. In the primaries, I vote for the most progressive Democrat that is trying to get on the general election ballot. In the general election, I vote for the Democrat. I don't vote for a third party candidate who may actually be for democratic socialism. That candidate cannot win, and it's important that the Republican not win. Here's why:

Outcomes are important. There are many outcomes that I want to see. I wanted marriage equality. In a democratic socialist government that would be a given. In the U.S., it's not a given. In 2012, I and the other Democrats in Minnesota elected a majority of Democrats in both houses of our state legislature. In 2013, we got marriage equality. The year before that, the previous Republican majority actually put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would have made marriage equality almost impossible. Democrats vs. Republicans. Democrats moved toward my desired outcome on that issue. In 2013, that majority also increased the minimum wage in Minnesota, despite the outrage of Republicans. They did not raise it high enough, but they did increase it. They made progress toward a desired outcome. There are many other examples. Democrats froze tuition in our state's Colleges and Universities. That was not an optimal outcome, but it was progress.

I vote for outcomes. I vote for progress toward outcomes. I vote for Democrats because past performance demonstrates that progress is made when Democrats are in control of government. When Republicans are in control, progress toward desired outcomes is blocked or reversed. It is a simple equation. Sometimes progress is dramatic. Sometimes goals are reached. Sometimes progress is slow, but there is still progress toward desired outcomes.

I can't have my democratic socialist nation and still live in the U.S. I can't afford to emigrate. So, I vote for the candidates who can win and who are the most likely to make progress toward desired outcomes in a long list of goals. I vote for Democrats, because of the two parties who are always in control, only the Democrats make progress toward the outcomes I desire.

Elections are about temporary control of government. That's all they accomplish. We either get progress or the blocking of progress for a two-year time period. Then, we have another election, which affects another two years. We can vote or not vote. If we do not vote, there is a greater chance that the party which seeks to block or reverse progress will be in power. I want progress toward goals and realize that democratic socialism is not possible. So:

I Vote For Democrats!

[MineralMan]

1. Yes, I did Rec this thread.

I did not do so to get it on the Greatest page, but only after it already had. I Rec my threads because I believe in them. I stand by them. They are my opinion, so I do recommend this and other threads. I'm writing this reply, because some people seem to think it's wrong to Rec one's own thread. I disagree.

[Warpy]

7. I'm with you on this one.

Going to a mixture of capitalism and socialism the way western Europe did is the smartest course, especially if government people realize they need to rein in the bankers and discourage the private wealth we've seen billionaires amassing since Reagan handed the country to them.

Democratic Socialism might be a way to get there.

[MineralMan]

8. I just don't see a path to get there,

given the political split in the United States and the deeply-ingrained system we already have in place. I can't find any sequence of events that would lead to that kind of change. I wish I could. Maybe someone will reply to this thread with an outline of how it might be done.

[calimary]

33. I do the same thing, MineralMan!

I rec what few threads I start here, as well, because I believe in them and stand by them. Happy to recommend this one of yours because I believe in it and stand by it, too!

[MineralMan]

34. Thanks. I'm always glad to see your threads.

I know there will be something worth reading and thinking about there.

[Hekate]

42. I believe in your threads, too, MinMan. KnR

[upaloopa]

2. For Democratic Socialism to work I think it

would take a paradigm shift in thinking. Currently we champion competition over cooperation. We love playing zero sum games. For me to win someone has to lose.
I don't know how to change our society to one of mutual cooperation for the benefit and well being of everyone.
I'm thinking the commune idea from the sixties could come back were we have cells of cooperation and grow the cells to where they merge with other ones growing even bigger to become communities of social democracy.
On edit:
I think the idea going around yesterday that people didn't vote because their issue wasn't on the ballot or wasn't talked about is part of the problem thinking. Because we could also vote for the success of other issues even if they don't effect me. Thinking collectively rather than individually is needed.

[MineralMan]

3. I truly believe that it is impossible in the U.S.

As closely divided as we are, I cannot see any possibility of such a major change in our system of government. The process required to establish a democratic socialist government is just not there. Unless we could somehow disenfranchise almost 50% of the population, there is simply no way to do it. Not in our lifetimes, anyhow. Not even in the lifetimes of the millennials among us, I think.

I'm 69. I'm absolutely certain we will not have democratic socialism in my lifetime, so I'll just keep voting for Democrats and encouraging others to do the same. That's what I can do.

[upaloopa]

6. I'm 68. If the repubs don't fuck with my pension

and Social Security I will be ok even though repubs are in power. But that does not mean I don't care about the problems of Milenials. Because I have a vision of what a good life we could make for everyone in this country. I know it is cornball thinking to most of us but I believe that if we all had the same vision and wanted it bad enough we could bring it about.

[Stads...]

11. They won't change your pension...

or Social Security. I have no idea why you would think they would. Your pension is yours...they are not going to tax it anymore than it already is. Social Security requires some adjustment--as always--but it's unlikely either party would change the rate of entitlements on people your age.

If you have had a good life, you should feel confident others who are far younger will also have a good life by the time they're your age--if they are willing to work and earn it.

[annabanana]

17. I wish I could be so sanguine about it.

There is no chunk of money ANYWHERE in the body politic that is safe from these thugs.

[Raine1967]

28. Not so fast:

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T037-C000-S004-retirees-face-cuts-in-pension-benefits.html

Are you not aware that this is happening? Pensions are and have been cut.

[MineralMan]

51. Pensions have been lost completely, too.

There's federal insurance, of course, but many pension programs have gone bankrupt as a way for a corporation to bail out of pension agreements.

[KingCharlemagne]

4. Hell, I'll settle down and shut up for Social Democracy, never mind the Socialism. But

we're going to be lucky indeed to avoid neo-feudalism.

Mature adults have to vote AGAINST the greater evil. Whatever flaws the Dems have, individually and as a party, pale before the EVIL that is today's Republican Party. (See the poll by True Blue Door for a catalogue of recent GOP perfidy and treachery if you need a reminder. It will blow you away.)

[MineralMan]

5. Exactly.

[AZ Progressive]

9. FDR was the only president to get Americans to accept socialism

And those generations are mostly dead now. The majority of America's culture is anti-socialist due to its roots in Puritanism as well as the Puritan / Protestant work ethic, which endorses a winners and losers society.

"Enter a group of Dutch economists, who have discovered that the Protestant work ethic is real. A recent paper by André van Hoorn and Robbert Maseland:

Test[s] the relation between Protestantism and work attitudes using a novel method, operationalizing work ethic as the effect of unemployment on individuals’ subjective well-being. Analyzing a sample of 150,000 individuals from 82 societies, we find strong support for a Protestant work ethic: unemployment hurts Protestants more and hurts more in Protestant societies. Whilst the results shed new light on the Protestant work ethic debate, the method has wider applicability in the analysis of attitudinal differences."
- http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/protestant-worth-ethic-real-65544/


"Not all of the legacy of Puritanism suggests moral uprightness. Studies since the ’70s have also found that Americans who score high on a Protestant Ethic Scale (emphasizing self-reliance and self-discipline) or similar metric show marked prejudice against racial minorities and the poor; hostility toward social welfare efforts; and, among obese women, self-denigration." -http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/are-americans-still-puritan.html?_r=0

"According to the World Values Survey, Americans approval of competition is unmatched by any other industrialized country on earth. Americans also believe more strongly in the fairness of unequal outcomes, rewarding those who try and succeed and leaving those who fall behind to their own devices." -http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201208/why-do-we-have-obsession-winning

"Why the persistence of Puritanism in American life? “New England exercised a disproportionate influence on American ideals,” the historian John Coffey says, “thanks to a powerful intellectual tradition disseminated through its universities, its dynamic print culture and the writings of its famous clergy.” He also notes the power of Evangelicalism as a carrier of Puritan values and America’s resistance, compared with other largely Protestant nations, to secularization." -http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/are-americans-still-puritan.html?_r=0


You'd have better luck having the west coast and the northeast to secede.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes, I know. I said so in the first paragraph of my post.

There's more to what I wrote than the title.

[AZ Progressive]

22. I know, I just wanted to say that anyway.

[MineralMan]

23. OK, cool!

[Iliyah]

12. Dems will be ok and back in power which is much better for America

GOPers will fight with each other, and the crazies, the ones that corporate media didn't let known will backfire 24/7. Meanwhile looks like SC (the RWers justices) will again look nutso, and people right now are getting pretty much pissed off with them effing with ACA again, that will surely wake up the sleeping masses, especially the ones who will be affected. These two years will showcase how nutty these assholes (GOPers) are even corporate media can't help them.

It has already started.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes, perhaps. They could have won this year, too.

Sadly, too many people decided not to bother helping them do so.

[colsohlibgal]

14. Agree Totally

Education and health care quality should not depend on your checkbook. Upward mobility should be there for all.

This rather than a few obscenely wealthy people - in other words a level field and taxes high enough for the commons like infrastructure and worthwhile ventures like science and space exploration. Sorry Walton family.

California is heading this direction while the supply side job creator bozos are going broke. Remember that bridge in Minnesota that toppled. Just the tip of the iceberg, more will fall if things don't change.

[Iliyah]

20. GOPers don't want most Americans educated nor have good health

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Some say the reason why people did not vote was to hurt the Dem party, nope, it damaged America and her people.

I personally care about America and her people but at this point time, no vote, I don't care what they say.

[MisterP]

15. no, you want to have expectations limber enough that you can lower them to whatever you're handed,

and to blame and smash anyone who refuses to do so

remember that bluewashers and enforcers are a dime a dozen, and show only that the party has nothing to offer but a decade and a half of demands for loyalty, constant rightward stampeding, failure, and subsequent punishment of said loyalty

[MineralMan]

16. You are incorrect.

Too bad, too. You do not know me.

[BlindTiresias]

41. Naw

His post was pretty astute, actually.

[cry baby]

18. I totally agree. Thank you for writing this OP...

and explaining so clearly.

I'll be bookmarking and printing for future use, if it's ok with you that I use the post as an example of how to express these thoughts and ideas.

[MineralMan]

19. Thanks! You may use it however you wish.

What I write on DU is immediately in the public domain.

I really appreciate your reply.

[cry baby]

21. Thank you, sir. nt

[Leith]

24. I Agree with Most of It

The only time I did not vote for the Democrat was in 2000. I lived in North Carolina, which was going Republican. So a vote for Nader wasn't a throwaway, it was a statement.

We seem to be living in a repeat of the 1920s: stock market going up and up, people care more about money than people, the rich are worshiped, the poor are forgotten, right wing radio crowds out everything else, and the party rages on. It would be nice if we avert October 1929 - maybe we did. It's too hard to say yet.

Still, there was only 20 years between 1930 and 1950. The Great Depression was just getting started in 1930. In 1950, we had a middle class and people going to colleges and university, buying houses and cars, and looking forward to building good lives as the Middle Class.

We are in times that seem to be teetering between economic depression and the start of prosperity. Very few people thought 20 years ago that we would have the first black president in their lifetimes, but it happened. Very few thought that marijuana would ever be legal, but we're taking steps toward that (paralleling Prohibition). Talk radio is still reichwing and vicious, but people are speaking out against it. We're getting closer to universal health care. The poor are still forgotten, but we here are working on it.

I vote for Democrats, too, and for the same reasons. I want a better future even if I won't be there to see it.

[ErikJ]

25. A capitalist economic system favoring the rich has to be balanced by a socialist system

favoring the 99%.

[Phlem]

26. you were just rooting for the 3rd way the other day

and Hillary, which is it? you can't have them both.

[MineralMan]

32. No, actually I wasn't.

Not at all.

[GeorgeGist]

27. I prefer a Social Democracy ...

in addition to all the benefits of yours, the Republicans would have to admit, what we've all known all along, ... they're anti-social.

[Rex]

29. +1

That would be great.

[eridani]

30. Actually, cionservatives just love socialism

They think it's so great that only white people should b e able to have it.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/10/27/31372/palin-shares-wealth/

But Palin’s criticisms of Obama’s “spread the wealth” remarks are ironic, as she recently characterized Alaska’s tax code in a very similar way. Just last month, in an interview with Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans “share in the wealth” generated by oil companies:

And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.

In fact, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200.

As Hendrick Hertzberg notes, “Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it…but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.”

[RiverLover]

36. Interesting stuff. Thanks! ~nt

[ReRe]

31. I want that too...

... but getting there with a Congress bought and paid for, and actually run, by Corporatists is going to be tricky.

[Sparkly]

35. This country has almost always tempered capitalism with socialism.

Not that it was ever perfect at it... but now I don't see how we can turn back from becoming the United Multinational Corporations of America. Labor is exploited for every ounce of blood, sweat and tears the .05% can get, and then we fund that exploitation with our tax dollars in an effort to make up the difference... Citizens United. Profit-driven media. Bought-out politicians, by necessity.

Sucks.

[DemocraticWing]

37. I agree completely.

I don't think the real divide on DU is between progressives/socialists and Centrists, but really between people who largely are all way to the Left of the general public who are divided on the methods by which we should move the country in our direction. The Republicans have a similar split, but it explains perfectly why a person as extremist as Mitt Romney is called "moderate/liberal/Marxist/etc" by the Tea Party. Their divide, too, is largely one of style rather than substance.

There truly are Centrists who want to move the party to the right, and that's why voting in Primaries is such an important duty. I hope people in DU participate, because like I've already mentioned, I believe we probably represent the absolute left-wing of the Democratic Party.

[UglyGreed]

38. No change will ever come

if we accept what is fed to us time and time again.

[rug]

39. I always knew you were a firebrand.

[FrodosPet]

40. Me LAST, not Me FIRST

We must learn to accept our roles as members of the human collective, sacrificing our personal comforts and desires in favor of serving others.

Until then, there cannot be an effective socialist system. Far too many resources would need to be devoted towards its protection. For example, investigating and shutting down illegal markets and transactions, as well as fighting terrorism from right wingers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025785176

[airplaneman]

43. Good post MineralMan

I look at it this way. I would thrill to see an FDR type progressive today.
Every real democrat will vote for some (not all) progressive ideas at least some of the time.
Every Republican will always vote against all progressive ideas all the time.
And yes I have never missed an election and I have always voted 100% democrat.
-Airplane

[freshwest]

44. You express my position completely. Thanks.

[IdiocracyTheNewNorm]

45. Democratic Socialism is the only thing that will save this country now

Democratic Socialism is the only thing that will save this country now

In order to achieve that goal America either has to hit rock bottom, and we will soon, or the voters will have to get smarter or at least turn out to vote.

Getting smarter will not happen anytime soon, the GOP has a very big head start in keeping people ignorant. Right after the 64 Civil Rights Act the GOP went out and started to destroy Public Education, mainly in the southern states, they knew an uneducated population is easy to control. This simple action alone has resulted in damn near 50% of this country denying science and facts and think mythology is real. American Nationalism has seen to it that socialism is a bad thing and most Americans cannot even correctly define it but they do know it is bad.

Oh and when rock bottom hits, things are not going to be pretty.

As for turn out the vote, we saw once again that people don’t really give a shit and would rather wait for America to hit rock bottom, OK fine by me, I call roll that way too.

Bottom line is we cannot fix stupid, we are just going to have to face the fact that more hurting and suffering is going to have to happen mostly to whites in red states before America wakes the fuck up.

Something I would like to see happen but won't, is give the GOP what they want, everything they want, that is what people voted for, when they voted for republicans, they voted for suffering, well give it to em and pin every bit of it on the GOP and those 'Democrats" that side with them.

[rhett o rick]

46. Yes we have gotten some little progress in the areas of social issues,

but my concern is that while we are being placated on one hand with small gains, on the other hand the Oligarchs are stealing all our resources as fast as they can. The middle class is like the Titanic going down. It's cool if we can partake of a reefer and see same sex marriages, but the ship is going to sink. The Oligarchs are not stupid. Greedy but not stupid. And, while they like Republicans best, they also like Conservative Democrats. Oligarchy knows no Party.

I too vote for Democrats, but that's not good enough. Some Democrats betrayed us when George Bush the Dim-Son wanted to go to war. They participated in a decision that not only saw the deaths of many, the destruction of Iraq, but also deliver a fatal blow to our economy and democracy. Some democrats today side with the Oligarchs and want to allow fricking-fracking to destroy our ground water. And don't forget NAFTA, WTO, and now the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Voting for Democrats isn't good enough to save us. We have to decide now that we aren't going to allow H. Clinton-Sachs to be our president. If you didn't like the turnout last Tuesday, wait until you have Oligarch Thing 1 vs. Oligarch Thing 2 as our choices.

The middle class frog is in the pot with the temperature increasing. Will our choices in 2016 be Jeb Bush the "I'm the 'not quite so stupid'" son, who wants to turn the temperature to high, or H. Clinton-Sachs who promises only to turn the temperature up to medium?
We must decide now that we are not going to settle for boiling on medium. We must find someone that will help us get out of the pot. Then the American people might pay attention.

[glinda]

47. I agree but the the word "Socialist" will doom it to failure due to ignorant masses.

[MineralMan]

48. Yes, of course. Lots of things would doom it in the U.S., I'm afraid.

Things like equality and other such issues.

[glinda]

49. True but "Socialist" much more so.

[MineralMan]

50. Well, yes. Which is why Bernie Sanders won't win in any General Election

as President. The "Socialist" word will be the only focus by the Republicans if he managed to get the nomination.

[glinda]

62. we will see

[Half-Century Man]

54. Then take the word back.

The only reason the word socialist doesn't appear in the Declaration of Independence is because the Declaration predates socialism by some 40 odd years. The early socialists (Henri de Saint-Simon 1760-1825, Louis Blanc 1813-1882, Robert Owen 1771-1858, and Charles Fourier 1772-1837) were influenced by the rejection of monarchy by both the American Revolution (1765-1783) and the French Revolution (1787-1799). In both cases the existing monarchy was replaced by a Republic. The will of the people expressed in open voting to elect representatives to handle the everyday tasks of governance.

We are the fertile ground socialism sprang from. We are the kernel at socialism's core. Marx and Engel took socialism a few steps further into communism.

Take back the word. Socialism is the people working together to provide for each other.

Make that the talking point.

[Half-Century Man]

52. Sounds great

Lets do it

[SamKnause]

53. So do I.

[demwing]

55. Do you see Populism and Socialism as compatible or competitive?

and would you participate in my poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025787284

[MineralMan]

59. Populism isn't a political philosphy.

It's a strategy. Anyone can use populism to find followers, from the tea party to socialists. I will go and vote in your poll, for sure.

[Starry Messenger]

56. Most Socialists in the US vote for Democrats too.

The two-party system isn't rocket science.

[CreekDog]

57. Most socialists oppose physical/corporal punishment of children, but you don't

Until you change that position I think you should refrain from claiming any connection with enlightened thought.

[MineralMan]

60. How strange. I have never used

Corporal punishment on any child. Socialism is an economic and political philosophy, not a child-rearing method. I'm at a loss to understand your post. It's irrelevant to the topic.

[CreekDog]

61. Don't play games. I posted against corporal punishment and you littered the thread

With concerned posts about how it's wrong to take a position on the matter.

[Louisiana1976]

58. I'm a socialist and i vote Democratic. I vote Democratic because Democratic ideals are closer to

what I support than are those of the Republicans. I'd like to see single payer like they have in Canada and tuition-free colleges and universities like they have in Germany. Also marriage equality in all 50 states.