Ok, again, what is socialism?

[rogerashton]

Bernie's use of the word "socialism" (and Kshama's prominence in Seattle) has brought back dispute about the meaning of socialism. Call me an egghead if you will, but I do think some history is to the point here. OK, I like history. Doesn't mean it's not important.

By about the 1820's, there were radicals who called themselves "socialists." Their socialism came from a critique of capitalism. That's important, because a critique doesn't tell you what the alternative is -- it only says what the alternative isn't -- so different people could share the same critique, be socialists, and disagree completely on the alternative they would support. And that has always been true of socialists, then and since. At this early stage, the critique was focused on profit, and in France and among the followers of Robert Owen in Britain, the alternative most supported was that workers should control their workplaces democratically, one worker one vote, and there should be no profits. In France, government financial assistance to these "republics in the workshop" was part of the program.

This is where Marx and Engels came on the scene. They were associated with a group of utopian communists -- inspired by a utopian novel by Cabet -- but their objective was to unify the various kinds of socialists around the common critique. Marx, without question a brilliant philosopher, shaped up the critique of capitalism and tied it to the fact that capitalism is a class society with specific historic roots. To the point -- Marx' theories are about capitalism, not about socialism. And there is a lot of truth in them, although they are based on the cutting-edge economic analysis of 1845.

Later, a new critique of the predominant system emerged. This critique focused on the shortcomings of market systems in general. At first, it had little intellectual content, and really only was clarified by some academic economists after midcentury. Before that, it was based on some observed facts that seemed to be examples of what the economists would call "market failure." Once again, people could agree on the critique and disagree completely on the alternative. This critique motivated both Fascism and what Americans call liberalism. It is quite consistent with "capitalism," if by capitalism we mean, as Marx did, a for-profit economy. But there were some socialists who put the two critiques together, and who promoted a substitution of government planning for market processes. Sidney Webb was the intellectual father of that strain of socialism.

In Europe, Marxism had become predominant among socialists, but that didn't eliminate differences about "chto dyealt'" -- what should we do -- and these differences erupted after the Russian Revolution. Stalin adopted Webb's "socialism," (minus the deomocracy) and mainly for that reason, it became the predominant form of socialism at midcentury. There was always an undercurrent among socialists that was opposed to the Webb-Stalin program, and with the failure of that program, most socialists would identify with one or another of those oppositional programs. Most, today, would probably return to the ideas of the earliest socialists -- workers' control at the local level.

In the twentieth century, there have also been people who adopted a socialist position because they thought Webb was right, but who focused mainly on the problems of market economies, who saw government as potentially the instrument of "society" as a whole, but who would be satisfied with a regulated profit system. In short, they do not accept the critique of capitalism that was central to socialism for its first century. I think it is fair to say that they are not "real" socialists. Is Bernie, then, a "real" socialist? Yes, I think so, primarily because of his focus on the billionaire class. That class analysis is also a critique of profit systems in general. "Market socialism," proposed in the 1920's, is a real possibility. But you don't have to be a follower of Sidney Webb to be a socialist, regardless of what dictionaries say to the contrary.

[snagglepuss]

1. Socialism is a broad term. On its most basic level, it describes systems

in which there is a significant level of public ownership of industries, alongside worker involvement in the means of production but the extent of this varies greatly. Communism involves complete or near-complete public operation, but that's just one form of Socialism.

Moderate Socialism like Democratic Socialism that Bernie espouses focus on creating more equitable distribution of wealth, either through the tax system or some other means.

[libdem4life]

15. I don't like calling it a redistribution of wealth. That has already happened.

Or raising taxes. Those are negative triggers for many folk. What I'd describe is fairness returned in the form of everyone paying their fair share and ending the sunny days of those not paying taxes at all..

That's how wealth has gotten redistributed. Raise the cap on SS witholding, that's not raising taxes...again it's their fair share. Making corporations pay taxes...end capital being stored offshore. That's not raising taxes.

[snagglepuss]

16. Good point that fairness is the better term. Your point that redistribution

of wealth has happened but it's been in favor of those with the most would be a great bumper sticker.

[libdem4life]

18. I like that...boiled it down nicely.

[TexasProgresive]

2. Thanks, Roger, for adding a bit of depth.

We often think we know all about something when really all we know is the name. Of course it feels good to think you know all but when faced with the paucity of your knowledge there will be pain. Feel the pain, feel the bern.

Note: I am not yet on Sen Sander's bandwagon but I like him very much. I just couldn't resist being a little punny.

[redstateblues]

3. Interesting post. If Bernie wins the primary, being a Socialist will be

A big asset in the GE. Especially with its connection to Marxism.

[libdem4life]

19. We're already benefitting from socialism...police, fire, teachers, Medicare

safe highways, the highways themselves, the infrastructure and many others. Does the kneejerk around "socialism" just happen at anything not formerly socialized? Hell, even prisons are socialistic.

False rhetoric.

[former9thward]

34. Except none of those are socialist.

At least outside of your private definition. And by that definition all societies and all countries for the last few thousand years have been socialist. Who knew?

[libdem4life]

41. That's where the word came from...society...people...working and living together

groups, culture...it's been co-opted to the extreme. I have a BA in sociology. Does that make me a Socialist? Like Communism got co-opted from The Community...again, culture...ditto the above.

We need to take back these powerful concepts and yes, add Democracy to the mix.

And it's true...government IS by its very nature, Socialist and acting in concert with the Community. Otherwise, we'd all be out there with our sticks and rocks trying to protect our huts and our kids from predators...animal and human.

[davidpdx]

48. Was going to post this anyway, but I'll post it for you first since your post covered it

[IMG][/IMG]

[ronnie624]

4. It is absolutely astonishing to me,

that millions of people can attend college for years, earn impressive educations, and then promptly forget about the finality of the fundamental laws of the universe, that they just, presumably, finished learning about. It demonstrates how easily people can be lead into suspending logic and rational thought, through continuous exposure to their culture's predominating ideological narrative.

If the goal of an economic system is to provide goods and services equitably, then it must be based on sound scientific theories, which respect the strict limits placed on it by the basic universal principles that govern conversions of energy.

If the system's goal is to concentrate resources for the sake of profit for a minority of the human population, at the expense of millions of others, then the system is very clearly wasteful, illogical, unjust, lacking in moral legitimacy and ultimately unstable.

Attempting to maintain an economic system, with no regard for the Laws of Thermodynamics or any consideration for justice, is folly.

In short, capitalism is horseshit.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. "In short, capitalism is horseshit."

Great post.

[KingCharlemagne]

60. But a clear advance over the pigshit that was Feudalism, something

Marx and Engels themselves recognized.

[hill2016]

17. sorry

but you're confusing normative versus positive economics.

[ronnie624]

23. A lot of people are confused about which is which, but I am not one of them.

"Creating wealth", as is attempted by mainstream economic theory, is nonsensical on its face, because the Laws of Thermodynamics forbid it. We do not create anything, as there can never be anything other than a net loss in any thermodynamic system, and that includes the ones associated with human economic activity. The only logical and just economic system, would be one that attempts to meet the basic needs of all people, and drive technological advancement, on behalf of the common good.

Time is limited. The use of logic and rational thought in the development of a just system, is absolutely essential to providing long-term security for our civilization.

[Maedhros]

28. My educational background is in geochemical thermodynamics.

I have some concerns with your labeling of human economic activity as a "thermodynamic system."

Thermodynamics deals with the relationship of energy to work, enthalpy (heat) and entropy (disorder). Economics considers entirely different relationships (resources, capital, labor, markets). There may be some thematic similarities, but Newton's laws cannot be used to explain the behaviors of economies.

It may be possible within economics to "create wealth," because "wealth" (like "money&quot is an abstract concept (just ask the architects of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco). Economics is more an analysis of human behavior than of fundamental physical chemical laws.

(Pedantic aside: it is not correct to say that there can never be anything other than a net loss in any thermodynamic system. In a closed system there can be no loss or gain (Newton's First Law - the energy of the universe is constant). Energy can change form, from heat to kinetic to potential to free, but it can't be lost. Of course, in an open system this is not true.)

If what you're saying is that to expect constant unending growth in a resource-based economy is fallacious, because resources are finite, then I'm in agreement.

[ronnie624]

30. The "behaviors" of economics, are guided exclusively by human values

and have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

And 'entropy' is NOT 'disorder'. I suggest you update your education.

Gotta go.

[Maedhros]

32. "Disorder" is a reasonable lay term for "entropy."

I suggest you drop the "superior intellect" crap.

On the one hand, you say that "the laws of thermodynamics forbid" wealth creation, then you say that economies "have nothing to do with the laws of physics."

Make up your mind.

[hill2016]

38. I can actually see his point of view

Let's see where this goes...To the extent that most of wealth creation is about processing raw materials and manufacturing stuff, most of human economic activity actually tries to reduce the amount of disorder in a system.

But then the question is how does it relate to intangible stuff which seems to be increasingly how wealth is created e.g. intellectual property, property rights, stock markets, etc?

[Maedhros]

39. I accept the thematic similarity.[n/t]

[ronnie624]

44. Completely unreasonable, actually.

http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/content.htm#top


And what I said was: The "behaviors" of economics, are guided exclusively by human values

and have nothing to do with the laws of physics.

What I mean by "behaviors", is how the economy is employed; whether it is used for the common good or in a self-serving manner, for the elite class of human society to enrich themselves.

[Maedhros]

46. Nice try.

Semantic arguments are all you have.

As I said, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to economies - and you apparently agree.

Anyway, you appear to be a troll. So bye.

[PowerToThePeople]

42. I'm diggin' on the thermodynamic idea

Ok. Hope my memory is good on this topic =)

First law -energy is never created or destroyed, just changes form. Thinking of earth as closed system. What we have is all we have.

Second law - entropy, when energy changes form is goes from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. eventually everything equals out at the same energy state. No further change is possible.

This is where I see the idea of capitalism fails. Capitalism as currently practised desires exponential wealth growth, but the second law states that it becomes more and more difficult to extract that energy (wealth) as time goes on. Thus more and more effort (human and resource capital) is required to extract the same energy (wealth) over time. Mass starvation, resource depletion, and grand scale impoverishment is the path of capitalism. It is unsustainable in a closed system.

[ronnie624]

45. You probably know more about it than I do,

but I don't think there is such a thing as a truly open system. The only significant amount of energy we receive from outside, is in the form of sunlight. All the other resources on this planet are forms of energy also, and are quite finite.

But there are also the issues of resource depletion, mass extinction, global warming and other forms of degradation to the biosphere. I think a wholesale change to the nature of human economics will be necessary, before we can mitigate these other problems.

I posted a link to an excellent essay in post #43.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. No, earth is not a closed system at all - we get energy from the sun

Without that, you can't think about energy usage on earth at all.

"the second law states that it becomes more and more difficult to extract that energy (wealth) as time goes on. "

No, it doesn't state that. You are making the mistake of thinking that because you've made an analogy (thinking of energy and wealth in the same way) then actual laws that apply to one must apply to another.

Wealth is the value we put on possessions. The spread of knowledge and ideas does mean that useful things can indeed be created without having to destroy something else (knowledge can be duplicated at almost no cost, but with great benefit).

But if you think the 2nd law should apply in economics in some way, why don't you think it applies to all possible economic systems? There's nothing in the 2nd law about 'growth', let alone exponential growth.

[PowerToThePeople]

54. Just saying that

I am not going to respond to you. You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Then please go and read a book about thermodynamics

Or economics. Ideally, both. You'll find out I'm right.

[PowerToThePeople]

57. Thanks, already have

I own several thermo books and 4.0 the class while getting my engineering degree.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. And I have an engineering degree too

but you are the one who is just giving up on a conversation without any attempt to show how the laws of thermodynamics apply to an economy, as was being claimed.

How did you get an engineering degree while considering the earth a closed thermodynamic system?

[PowerToThePeople]

63. You are totally missing the point.

We are not discussing thermal energy or radiant energy. Ugh. I have to go now, later in the day I'll come back and try to explain it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. We're discussing thermodynamics

Even if you mean we're discussing the global economy for 'the earth is a closed system', you still have to take into account actual energy coming to it from the sun that drives agriculture, and can be used for electrical generation.

[ronnie624]

58. In order for "wealth" or capital to have any meaning at all

as a useful symbol of something of value in economic theory, it must have an accurate reflection of something of value in the physical world. The "value" that "we" place on "wealth", doesn't mean squat when you're talking about energy conversions. The ONLY thing on earth with intrinsic, universal value, is energy. The "growth" that you are referring to, is an illusion that is perpetuated by ideological propaganda about "free markets" and other such twaddle. There is no such thing as a growth in "wealth", only an increase in the amount of stored energy being converted into usable energy, as the population increases.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Let's face it, the laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with this

other than as a metaphor. You can make arguments about finite resources that could limit physical growth, but if you actually want to talk about thermodynamics, you're just looking at energy transfer, and there's nothing in any proposed or existing economic system that has 'no regard for the laws of thermodynamics'. There's still a lot of energy in unmined coal; there's a huge flow of energy from the sun. Energy is not the problem.

[stevenleser]

24. Anytime I have seen the laws of thermodynamics as a metaphor for something other than physics

it has ended up sounding ridiculous.

Quelle surprise.

[ronnie624]

27. Not a metaphor.

An unbending Law of the Universe, that governs every physical occurrence.

Your comment Demonstrates conclusively, the abysmal ignorance of the general public with regard to basic scientific principles, the terrible failure of education in the US and the effectiveness of a constant barrage of ideological propaganda.

[ronnie624]

25. I'm referring to all forms of energy,

including stored energy in the form of resources and available energy in the form of human labor. Oil and coal are not available sources of energy. They are stored sources, and must be extracted and processed by human labor, which is the only source of available energy for driving economic activity, and it does not receive an adequate return on its investment. We're far from using sunlight as a major source of energy.

Coal? Seriously?

Show me a reference to the Laws of Thermodynamics by mainstream economic 'theory'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Economic theory doesn't have to refer to the laws of thermodynamics - that's the point

OK, which law are you talking about, and how do you think it relates to any form of economic theory. Be specific.

Of course oil and coal are available sources of energy. They are a store of chemical energy. "It does not receive an adequate return on its investment" - really? How much energy would you like to be able to satisfy you? You seem to desire an incredible amount of energy if you think we're not liberating enough from fossil fuels.

[ronnie624]

29. Your posts indicate

a lack of understanding of the nature of energy, in the context of physics. All things are energy, and anytime you convert one form into another, you sustain a net loss, that can never be recovered.

Oil and gas are not 'available' until they have been removed from the earth and processed into usable energy by human labor.

I don't need more energy. People throughout the world do, in the form of basic goods and services, like adequate housing, food, water and healthcare (ALL forms of energy).

I would love nothing more than to stay and abridge your ignorance, but I must go to work now. I'll post more later.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. For the sake of increasing your understanding, here are the laws

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium respectively with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses) the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the log of the multiplicity of the quantum ground states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

"and anytime you convert one form into another, you sustain a net loss, that can never be recovered". The entropy of the complete system increases. So what? Now that I've shown you the laws, you can put forward your idea on how that has any relevance to any economic theory. So far, you have not made any connection at all.

"I don't need more energy" - then why did you complain about the return on investment of oil and coal extraction? Everyone knows that the return is positive, and indeed profitable, because it's quite high. But you moan that it's not high enough for you - you are demanding even more easily available energy.

"adequate housing, food, water and healthcare (ALL forms of energy)" - and you're just using a metaphor, there. Actual physical laws do not apply to metaphors.

[ronnie624]

43. All goods and services,

whether they are food, housing, machinery, labor, fuel or electricity, are forms of energy, stored, available or otherwise, and there is nothing metaphorical about it. I find it exceedingly odd, that anyone with an education, can claim that they are not.

When I refer to energy return on energy invested, I'm referring to the return in the form of goods and services from the investments of resources by the ownership class and the labor of the working class. Anyone who lives in poverty, without access to basic goods and services, like clean water, sufficient housing and healthcare, is not receiving an adequate return on their investment of labor, and the reason why, is because the owners rig the system through their control of the political process, and hoard the necessary resources, for the purpose of generating 'profit'. 'Profit', of course, means even greater control over the earths resources.

And the oil industry is 'profitable', because the energy is not used for the common good, as it logically should be. Of course there is going to be a lot of 'profit' for a tiny minority. Duh.

Your posts indicate considerable confusion about the nature of the universe. Here is an excellent essay, for anyone who cares to read it.

http://markbc.net/doomer-economic-commentary/thermodynamics-for-economists/

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. You don't even understand what 'metaphor' means

let alone what the laws of thermodynamics mean, or in what areas it's valid to treat them as laws. If you want to make this about our educations, then I'm telling you to go and look up some basic definitions in a dictionary, then find a primary school teacher, and get them to explain a metaphor to you. Then go to a science teacher and ask them whether you can apply the laws of thermodynamics to economics.

[ronnie624]

50. Lol.

"what areas it's valid to treat them as laws"

Clearly, you have no idea how foolish that comment is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. You haven't even attempted to explain how you think you can apply them

I suspect you have no idea where to even start, but you like the rhetoric involved in claiming "you're not taking the laws of thermodynamics into account!". It makes you feel superior to someone, without you actually having to understand or think about anything.

The answer is: they are applicable to actual thermodynamics, and nothing else. You need to be talking about actual energy, and temperature, not things like 'housing'.

[ronnie624]

56. The default position,

is that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to every conceivable thermodynamic system, and converting the stored and available energy of resources and labor, into the usable energy of goods and services, is indeed an "actual&quot lol) thermodynamic system. You simply cannot create something out of nothing. If you think it is possible to circumvent them, then you are obligated to explain how that is possible. You're turning simple logic on its head.

And if you are truly interested in the movement to apply thermodynamics to economic theory, you should read the essay I linked to. The author is much better at this than I. I'm just a lowly working class person with an interest in world affairs, and the temerity to express an opinion about them. You should have no problem finding additional information about the subject, with a simple search.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. The economy is not a thermodynamic system

You saying that it is doesn't make it one. Thermodynamics is about real, measurable values - energy, temperature - and the real materials and forces that the physical world consists of, and to which energy and temperature apply. Vague analogies do not allow you to transfer the principles across.

Knowledge has a value. If I tell you something useful - how to make a metal, say - this makes your life better, without making mine worse. The spread of knowledge adds to the economy. So do new ideas. Economies can grow. They are not a perfect analogue of a universe of matter and forces, and so what is a 'law' in one is not in the other.

The essay you link to starts off explaining some aspects of thermodynamics, and then ends up saying "resources are finite, and growth cannot be indefinite". This is not 'the laws of thermodynamics'. If you look at the summary (from "And now to summarize" onwards), you'll see there's nothing about thermodynamics at all. It's incredibly long, but after pointing out genuine points of interest about thermodynamics - the efficiency of power generation, for instance - it turns into a long tract about systems of exchange.

[ronnie624]

62. The "value" that humans place on things is irrelevant.

It is purely subjective, and does not reflect the loss that is sustained when converting energy. It is an illusion, and tends to mislead people into believing nonsense about the physical world. The only real value that knowledge has, is in the energy that was used to produce it, just like anything else, and energy use in any form is indeed quantifiable.

I'm sorry, but your posts are simply illogical, for the most part.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. "The only real value that knowledge has, is in the energy that was used to produce it"

Wow. That is just completely unrelated to the definitions of value, knowledge, energy, or the real world.

You're just stringing words together without regard for meaning, by now. This exchange in pointless, thanks to you.

[ronnie624]

66. The development and accumulation of knowledge requires lots of energy,

so it has considerable value to our civilization, but the energy used to produce it is indeed quantifiable.

There is no such thing as magic, I'm afraid.

[JackInGreen]

37. +1

[LWolf]

6. Interesting read.

I'm not sure I agree with this part:

Is Bernie, then, a "real" socialist? Yes, I think so, primarily because of his focus on the billionaire class. That class analysis is also a critique of profit systems in general.

First of all, according to your post, a "real" socialist can be almost anything; it's not what they stand for, but against (capitalism) that gives them the socialist label.

Really, though, Sanders seems to be more about that 20th century focus on government as the instrument of society, with a regulated profit system.

Of course, I don't really even know where I stand. I'm one of those who opposes capitalism because of the class system, the haves and have-nots. I'm open to looking at many ways to move forward.

[TBF]

7. Is Bernie a socialist?

Eh, I don't think so. I have not heard anything about overthrowing capitalism in his talks. I'd argue he's an FDR-style dem, and that if folks want to save capitalism in this country he is your guy.

I like him because I think he will do the least amount of damage to average Americans, given the situation we are in.

But is he a socialist? I'd argue that he's a reformer, not a revolutionary. And that is a big difference. At best he has leanings towards Democratic Socialism and seems to be comfortable with that label - http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/

Who we are & what we do
Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few. We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people.

[Deadshot]

8. Bernie Sanders is a Democratic socialist.

This differs from Marxist-Leninist socialism, which everyone thinks of when they hear the word "socialism". A Democratic socialist supports a democratic political system along with a socialist economic system.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. Yes he is

So are most people who support the Democratic Party (except they don't know it).

[former9thward]

35. Possibly many on this board

but no, most people who support the Democratic Party are not socialist.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Please also post this Op

in the Socialist Progressive forum

for more visibility.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024

[DirkGently]

10. We can only gain by talking about it.

As it stands, we have millions of Americans who will scream "socialist" as an epithet, while threatening to shoot anyone who touches their SOCIAL Security or Medicare, without a moment's concern as to the yawning contradiction in values there.

People get away with a lot of name calling in politics, and a lot of weird, giant blindspots that we don't discuss.

America was not founded on the principle of unregulated capitalism, nor is that in the Bible anywhere, so far as I know.

But living here, you'd think that was the case much of the time.

Just having a high-profile candidate willing to espouse FDR-style economic reforms is a great benefit to everyone. With a bit of luck, policies and programs won't be dismissible by someone just burping out "Socialismmmmmmm!" at it going forward.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[libdem4life]

21. Yes it would be. My version is...So, when your house catches fire, you going to run to 911

or to your garden hose?

Someone breaks in your house, you going to call your neighbor to come help?

How about enrolling your Kindergartner in a private school?

Didn't think so. It's that ridiculuous.

[1939]

36. "Social Democrat" versus "Democratic Socialist"

Social security, Medicare, welfare, Medicaid, and all of the other safety net programs are "social democracy" and can exisit in a capitalist economy.

Democratic socialism is government ownership of the means of production in a government which is democratic and not dictatorial.

[Matrosov]

11. A centrally planned economy

"Marked socialism" is an oxymoron. Anybody who does not advocate the market be dictated by the government through centralized planning is not a socialist.

Some point to the oppressive political nature of the Soviet Union. Others claim that societies - especially in Europe - where government has a great deal of influence are socialist. In reality, socialism is simply an economic system that does not dictate how a government should handle political dissidents. Likewise, while every society in the world engages in at least socialized capitalism, there are less than a handful (for example, North Korea) that can honestly claim their system is that of socialism.

[rogerashton]

14. Many socialists, some of whom are anarchists, would disagree with that.

And if you are not a socialist, you have no standing to tell us what we believe. We determine that.

[lunatica]

12. I define myself as a Democratic Socialist

I don't use those two words together lightly. I believe in a Democratic government where (supposedly) the government is of, for and about the people. I believe in one vote per person. I believe in the opportunity for all Americans to have a say and to have equal rights and I believe in the Constitution.

But I also believe that it's government's job to make every one of these things happen. I believe in paying taxes, but I don't believe we need to outspend all other countries combined in building our military might. If we were to cut the military spending in half we would still be the most militarized country in the world, but we would also make sure every single citizen had true equality of their needs. Free education, free healthcare, housing for those who need it and food for everyone who needs it.

As far as I'm concerned anyone can go into free enterprise and make themselves as wealthy as they want as long as they pay their share of the taxes in order to make sure the standard of living in the country brooks no poverty or death due to lack of healthcare or inability to get an education.

And for anyone who thinks those who live off the government shouldn't be rewarded I would remind them that there are millions of people in this country who can't get a job. All children, the elderly, the handicapped, the mentally ill and retirees who've spent a lifetime paying their taxes. I consider stay-at-home parents are doing a vital and necessary job and should be rewarded for it. I believe single parents should get help raising their kids.

All these things I believe in are Socialist. And Democratic in the truest sense of the word.

[Starry Messenger]

13. Socialism is more than a person with socialist views.

Having a position and working with others to effect change are two different things. A socialist must work with others who are not socialists, but are allies in converging interests. Marx and Lenin are not prescriptions for society, but they write about how to map your present terrain of power, how to work in it, how to not work in it.

I write not to dispute anything you've written, but to key into the concept of the "real" socialist. It's easy to check off a list of qualities and be satisfied that you apparently have them and adopt the name. However, working to shape the way society can begin to dismantle oppression from right-wing power, capitalism, & social oppression takes more examination, imo.

[Nevada Blue]

33. best short description I've found

[IMG][/IMG]

[rogerashton]

40. No.

"Still a capitalist" means "rejects the critique of capitalism."

I've commented on that before. The two parts contradict one another since an economy run for capitalist profits is not run democratically.

[davidpdx]

49. ....

[IMG][/IMG]

[treestar]

52. government owning the means of production

but debate dumb right wingers - they slap the label onto any government regulation of their activities. Once they don't have 100% "freedom" to do what is best for them from the market perspective.