HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Not Socialism?: The R...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:13 PM

Why Not Socialism?: The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective


from In These Times:


Why Not Socialism?
The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective.

BY Maria Svart


President Barack Obama owes his victory to the efforts of black, Latino, trade union, feminist and LGBTQ folks, who rallied to thwart a Romney campaign that relied on voter suppression and coded appeals to white nationalism. But unfortunately, the economy is still in the dumps, and Obama will not follow his reelection with an all-or-nothing progressive push. Rather, the exit polls and ballot initiative results will be read by the president’s neoliberal advisors as a mandate for so-called “compromise” policies—i.e., further austerity, further cuts.

An ideological vacuum will be created on the Left when the president tacks back to the center and the GOP even more to the extreme Right, and democratic socialists are in a unique position to fill it.

Democratic socialism provides a counterweight to the Tea Party agenda of reaction and division. We advocate for an expanded electoral and economic democracy along with deep citizen engagement. We know that many Americans share these values. People want a voice in decisions that affect their lives, and they know that the only way to cut the deficit is to put people back to work. We also know that 49 percent of people aged 18-29 have a positive view of socialism, according to a Pew poll released last year, and that class consciousness is on the rise.

Now is the time to continue building a political movement capable of challenging the neoliberal capitalist consensus. It is clear why we need a socialist organization in the United States. The Right has been too successful in its red-baiting, stymying even the most moderate reforms to rein in corporate power. We need a movement explaining and de-stigmatizing democratic socialism in order to create the rhetorical and political space for progressive, if not socialist, change. .......................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/14191/why_not_socialism



204 replies, 12973 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 204 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Not Socialism?: The Right’s red-baiting has been far too effective (Original post)
marmar Nov 2012 OP
PETRUS Nov 2012 #1
white_wolf Nov 2012 #2
OneGrassRoot Nov 2012 #49
Whovian Nov 2012 #161
David__77 Nov 2012 #3
truebluegreen Nov 2012 #61
leftstreet Nov 2012 #4
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #31
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #5
leftstreet Nov 2012 #7
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #9
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #15
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #44
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #51
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #58
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #96
patrice Nov 2012 #119
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #16
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #20
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #30
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #39
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #43
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #45
Diclotican Nov 2012 #83
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #85
eridani Nov 2012 #66
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #122
eridani Nov 2012 #154
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #164
eridani Nov 2012 #176
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #187
eridani Nov 2012 #190
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #193
eridani Nov 2012 #194
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #195
eridani Nov 2012 #196
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #198
eridani Nov 2012 #200
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #201
eridani Nov 2012 #202
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #203
eridani Nov 2012 #204
tama Nov 2012 #179
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #22
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #90
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #37
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #47
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #48
Diclotican Nov 2012 #65
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #69
Diclotican Nov 2012 #73
eridani Nov 2012 #63
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #84
hack89 Nov 2012 #91
white_wolf Nov 2012 #11
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #97
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #12
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #19
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #40
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #46
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #70
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #57
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #81
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #23
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #41
Diclotican Nov 2012 #78
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #87
PETRUS Nov 2012 #14
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #25
PETRUS Nov 2012 #29
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #34
PETRUS Nov 2012 #36
gollygee Nov 2012 #127
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #175
YOHABLO Nov 2012 #77
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #17
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #18
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #26
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #33
maddiemom Nov 2012 #72
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #82
Diclotican Nov 2012 #178
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #183
Diclotican Nov 2012 #185
Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #53
Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #192
rug Nov 2012 #64
patrice Nov 2012 #88
tavalon Nov 2012 #68
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #80
patrice Nov 2012 #86
Ken Burch Nov 2012 #93
patrice Nov 2012 #116
BarackTheVote Nov 2012 #191
quinnox Nov 2012 #197
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #6
marmar Nov 2012 #8
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #10
Canuckistanian Nov 2012 #13
Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #35
Jack Sprat Nov 2012 #21
sendero Nov 2012 #24
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #27
sendero Nov 2012 #59
WillyT Nov 2012 #28
banned from Kos Nov 2012 #38
WillyT Nov 2012 #54
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #32
Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #42
Jamaal510 Nov 2012 #56
gollygee Nov 2012 #50
redwhiteblue Nov 2012 #52
Diclotican Nov 2012 #74
JEFF9K Nov 2012 #55
sigmasix Nov 2012 #60
Diyames Nov 2012 #62
tavalon Nov 2012 #67
eridani Nov 2012 #71
War Horse Nov 2012 #95
patrice Nov 2012 #110
eridani Nov 2012 #136
patrice Nov 2012 #158
War Horse Nov 2012 #170
patrice Nov 2012 #171
War Horse Nov 2012 #173
patrice Nov 2012 #174
eridani Nov 2012 #177
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #98
eridani Nov 2012 #149
NuttyFluffers Nov 2012 #165
Snarkoleptic Nov 2012 #75
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #76
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #79
patrice Nov 2012 #89
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #94
patrice Nov 2012 #100
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #101
patrice Nov 2012 #103
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #108
patrice Nov 2012 #109
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #112
patrice Nov 2012 #113
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #141
patrice Nov 2012 #148
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #150
patrice Nov 2012 #153
patrice Nov 2012 #117
patrice Nov 2012 #118
patrice Nov 2012 #123
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #125
patrice Nov 2012 #129
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #132
patrice Nov 2012 #134
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #135
patrice Nov 2012 #140
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #143
patrice Nov 2012 #152
patrice Nov 2012 #138
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #144
patrice Nov 2012 #159
patrice Nov 2012 #130
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #139
patrice Nov 2012 #142
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #145
patrice Nov 2012 #155
patrice Nov 2012 #126
patrice Nov 2012 #128
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #133
patrice Nov 2012 #160
patrice Nov 2012 #162
patrice Nov 2012 #114
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #137
patrice Nov 2012 #157
white_wolf Nov 2012 #146
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #147
white_wolf Nov 2012 #151
patrice Nov 2012 #156
Hissyspit Nov 2012 #92
WiffenPoof Nov 2012 #99
War Horse Nov 2012 #102
patrice Nov 2012 #105
tama Nov 2012 #180
gulliver Nov 2012 #104
patrice Nov 2012 #107
Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #106
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #111
patrice Nov 2012 #115
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #120
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2012 #121
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #124
patrice Nov 2012 #131
tama Nov 2012 #181
patrice Nov 2012 #182
tama Nov 2012 #184
Old and In the Way Nov 2012 #163
colsohlibgal Nov 2012 #166
patrice Nov 2012 #172
tama Nov 2012 #186
patrice Nov 2012 #188
tama Nov 2012 #189
brewer1100 Nov 2012 #167
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #168
uppityperson Nov 2012 #169
davidn3600 Nov 2012 #199

Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:48 PM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:51 PM

2. You may have read this article, but here is Einstein's take on socialism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:42 PM

49. Brilliant. Thank you so much! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:16 PM

161. That was effing amazing. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:51 PM

3. What does that mean?

Non-public economy emerging as a significant sector? That's not really socialism necessarily, just a mixed economy, like most of the world currently has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:41 PM

61. And like we used to have--at least more than now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:51 PM

4. The Democrats are so Right, the GOP can only go Left

strange times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:21 PM

31. +1.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:52 PM

5. Socialism crushes individual initiative - that is why.

 

Why write a book if the profit is not yours?

Socialism is a disease that rots the human experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:54 PM

7. Yes, SS and Medicare recipients lack motivation



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:55 PM

9. That is why Sweden is a place where there is no creativity

At all...wait...the US of the 1950s was also barren of any creativity.

No, not any sarcasm needed here, just a laugh tract.

Son, what they are talking about is a mixed economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:01 PM

15. Sweden is not socialist. Private property is still respected there.

 

Sweden is capitalist with a safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:35 PM

44. No, it is a social democracy with a mixed economy

You really need a reality check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:45 PM

51. A social democracy is not "socialism".

 

Socialism is


Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


American Heritage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:14 PM

58. Who said it was? You did.

That said, it is way to the left of accepted discussion in the US, which is narrow and right trending as can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #51)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:36 AM

96. Heritage Definition


Not the way that Marx, Engels, or Liebknecht or any of that lot would have used or understood the term.

"Socialism", in Marxist thought, is the precursor to communism. It is transitive and mixed in its nature.

I blame Lenin and his fellow state-capitalist cohorts for that particular change of lingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #96)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:09 PM

119. Thank you! "state-capitalism" - that's what has lots of people confused. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:02 PM

16. Sweden has a capitalist economic system, with some social programs. Just like the U.S.

Sweden has more social programs, but it is still a capitalistic economic system.

I think some people may not understand what capitalism is and what socialism is.

If you think you have the right to sell your junk on E-bay to the highest bidder, you are a capitalist.

If you think you have to sell (or give) your junk to the person who demonstates the most need for your junk, regardless of what they can pay, you are a socialist.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The hippie communes found out that socialism doesn't work very well. There's no incentive to work hard every day, when your fellow communer only half-ass does his job, but he gets the same reward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:05 PM

20. You used the word "communes."

You are talking about communism.

They are not the same thing.

"I think some people may not understand what capitalism is and what socialism is."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:21 PM

30. Communism is a GOVERNMENT. Socialism is an economic system.

Hippie communes didn't have official governments, of course. They did have economic systems, many of them being socialistic. It didn't work.

Some of those hippie communes still exist, but they now have a capitaistic economic system. People work in gardens, they sell the produce, the workers get wages, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:29 PM

39. Ok, here is your assignment

Research the actual socio economic definition of socialism, communism, mixed economy and social democracy. For the record, Bernie Sanders is a social democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:35 PM

43. Here is your assignment: look up the definition of socialism, then look up Denmark....

Scandinavian countries, and Sweden.

You will find the Scandinavian countries have SOCIALISTIC economic systems.

As I said, communism is NOT an economic system.

I suggest that the next time you try to take an arrogant attitude toward another poster, you know what you're talking about. Which you clearly don't.

(my post did not mention social democrat or Bernie Sanders....so that switch and bait debate tactic, used when someone is losing, didn't work)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:36 PM

45. Alas I know

I have also read Adam Smith. He'd approved of Sweden, the US...not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:03 PM

83. Honeycombe8

Honeycombe8

Dear you - Sweden IS part of Scandinavia - the word Scandinavia is short for Sverige, Danmark and Norge.. Aka Sweden, Denmark and Norway..

We doesn't have a socialistic system by far - it is a long time since our governments have had the balls to play hard with big money - and where the STATE had directly control over large parts of the economical life.. We have a social-democratic system, where the private and public sector share the economy - in Denmark and Sweden they have maybe more of a private sector system - in Norway we have chosen a more "public sector" system - where the State own more than it does in Sweden and Denmark, and have a more direct control over what we have of industry - and the State own most of Stateoil... our oil company who is one of the biggest contributors to our current wealth.. Owned BY the STATE for the STATE and therefore - for the pepole of Norway - And by the way - we have also one of the largers invest founds in the world - in November we even beat Duai's invest found in economical terms...

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:06 PM

85. wait, you said sweden was capitalist...now i'm really confused...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:02 PM

66. A co-op is no way in hell capitalist

Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage." Wages are paid by owners, and those wages are always substantially less than the value of the product that workers produce. In contrast, workers in co-ops get the full value of what they produce. Some workers may get more than others, but there is no conceivable way that any of them could earn 300 times what other workers earn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #66)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:14 PM

122. "Getting paid according to how much time you put is no way in hell a "wage."...???

 

then what are those time-clock thingys all about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #122)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:57 PM

154. They are to fairly allocate 100% of the income to those who work to generate it

0% is skimmed off to give to someone just for owning the equipment. Unless that latter consideration holds, you are not talking about capitalism.

The timeclock differentials tend to be in the 10% or maybe 20% above average time. No way in hell does anybody ever put in 300 times as much time, or even twice as much time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #154)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:54 PM

164. some people's time is more valuable others.

 

skilled craftsmen contribute more than the person who sweeps the floors and washes the windows.
not all work is of equal value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #164)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:25 PM

176. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 100% of the take goes to workers, and only workers

Co-ops who need higher skill levels will set relative compensation higher, but the essential fact of a co-op is that there is never any third party who gets money just from owning production equipment. Only if that latter fact is the case is the operation capitalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #176)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:55 PM

187. those that own the production equipment deserve a cut of the proceeds.

 

if the co-op owns the means of production- fine.
if a third-party owns it- they deserve a cut of the proceeds acquired by the use of their property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #187)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:17 PM

190. I don't think so. Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production?

Just because it's widely thought to be OK? It wasn't all that long ago that "everybody" thought that slavery was perfectly acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #190)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:26 AM

193. to compare factory machinery to human slavery is just plain ludicrous.

 

as to "Why should anyone get to own anyone else's means of production?"

very simple answer- somebody invested the capital to aquire them.
if the workers want choose to organize and pool their resources and purchase their own means of production- more power to them.
or they could choose to work for a wage from somebody who already has a means of production, but needs more labor. if the.wage-paying job is their choice- they can organize with the others to form a union.

the problem being that not all of the workers will make the same choices and/or want to organize.

btw, one quick question- as long as you want to equate the machinery and factory with humans in bondage- how do you feel about corporate personhood and robot rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #193)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:37 AM

194. They got the capital by taking surplus value from workers

Why should anyone have the right to do that? And corporate personhood should be abolished. Wage labor is not a real "choice" if access to capital is restricted by capitalists.

BTW, farmers and independent tradespeople used to regard what they called "a job of work" (for someone else) as degrading--a significant step down from the self-employment which was the norm before manufacturing became dominant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #194)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:49 AM

195. how do you know how they got the capital...?

 

what if it's a worker who works two jobs and saves enough money to eventually purchase his own means of production?

"BTW, farmers and independent tradespeople used to regard what they called "a job of work" (for someone else) as degrading..."

farmers also used to use oxen to plow the field..they used to do a lot of things...times change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #195)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:04 AM

196. Then he owns his own means of production. Why should he own other people's? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #196)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:32 AM

198. he may own his own means of production- but he needs labor to make it work...

 

so he puts a 'help wanted' sign, and people who are interested in working for a wage could fill out applications and leave them with the receptionist. decisions are made and workers are hired, and the guy still owns the mean of production.

as to why he should own other people's means of production-

because he can afford to.
and because not everybody wants to have their very own means of production, and would instead prefer
to work a job for a fair wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #198)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:14 PM

200. Or he could invite other people to become co-owners

People don't want this responsibility because work for wages seems normal, in the sense that slavery used to seem normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #200)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:45 PM

201. Exactly- by means of an IPO. If people want to be co-owners they can buy stock in the "company"...

 

aka- the means of production.

but that's how it already works.

"People don't want this responsibility because work for wages seems normal, in the sense that slavery used to seem normal."

actually it's more like in the sense that breathing used to seem normal. and still does.

btw- the whole slavery canard you're trying to use is almost stupid enough to be offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #201)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:43 PM

202. Members of our species have been breathing for 100K years, minimum

Wage employment has occurred for only a fraction of that time. Can you explain the disparity?

Sure, workers can purchase IPOs--but what if ONLY workers were allowed to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #202)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:49 PM

203. civilization takes time.

 

we'll get there.

if only workers could purchase ipo's- they probably wouldn't generate enough of the needed capital the ipo is supposed to raise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #203)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:12 PM

204. If they got more of the money that they are responsible for generating, they'd have plenty

The average family gets only about 1/8 of the value they produce for their employers. You could make the argument that a worker may wish to trade some income in return for not being as actively involved as ownership would imply, but only getting 1/8 of what they produce? If they got even a third or a half, there would be plenty to capitalize the company.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/09/american-companies-going-strong/

Deep cost cutting during the downturn and caution during the recovery put the companies on firmer financial footing, helping them to outperform the rest of the economy and gather a greater share of the nation’s income. The rebound is reflected in the stock market, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average at a four-year high.

Overall, though, the Journal found that S&P 500 companies have become more efficient—and more productive. In 2007, the companies generated an average of $378,000 in revenue for every employee on their payrolls. Last year, that figure rose to $420,000.



http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/12/news/economy/median-income-poverty/index.html

Middle-class families continued to suffer in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and the poverty rate fell slightly, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Wednesday.

Median household income fell to $50,054 in 2011, down 1.5% from a year earlier. Income inequality widened, as the highest income echelon experienced a jump, while those in the middle saw incomes shrink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:38 PM

179. Communism is anarchy

 

ie. classless society without states and borders. International revolutionary socialism is Marxist transition phase into communal anarchy. Reformist Social Democracy had Marxist roots, but they are by now mostly diluted and forgotten, and as political movements they have fallen into the trap of national socialism and corporatism. Which is pretty much same as fascism in terms of economics.

Intentional communes come in great variety, and their number and strength is growing. For example there are now 1300 community gardens in Detroit. Many communes, as said, function as anarchic co-ops, in capitalistic socio-economic environment and as alternatives to capitalistic logic of profit and greed and class hierarchy. There are communes that develop local fully self-sustainable ways of life, alternative local money systems, internet communes based on gift economy (Linux etc.), etc etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:06 PM

22. Thank you for a ray of reality here.

 

I am disappointed in DU today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:54 AM

90. Well, we'll go to our room without supper now

taking our facts and accurate definitions with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:28 PM

37. It s a mixed economy with a very strong government sector

And a private sector, like the oh US in the 1950s...people really need to learn the actual definitions of political and chiefly economic terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:39 PM

47. You really need to learn the definitions of economic and political terms, nadin. Sweden

has a capitalistic economic system with broad social programs. Like the U.S.

Look it up. That's your homework assignment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:41 PM

48. They are a social democracy

With a mixed economy. Sorry, that is what they are and where we were headed until oh I'd say 1965 with Medicare. Since the 1980s the war on the weak safety net, by the rest of the developed world standards, has been under attack.

I am sorry that you can't see that.

But Sweden has a mixed economy, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:58 PM

65. Honeycomb8

Hey,

Sweden denmark and norway have in one way or another a strong public sector where the government, or the state if You want have a interest in keeping control of the economy. It can happened dire cly by ownership of industry or by indirectly owning shares in company es Who dose businesses, and therefore the government would like to have a say in many cases. It can Also be as in sweden and norway and to,a degree Also in denmark where the state outright own large spaces of public land Who is not up for sale anytime Soon. The system is called social democratic or a system where the private an public sector work together for the benefit of,all.. In resent years, specially after the fall,of the ussr,mot have some how changed, but the state still own and have control over the economy inna way i doubt any american government have been aviable do since themgreat depression in the 1930s... The system Also have a great interest in social programs Who i believe to be stronger,mans maybe more just than in the us.

The social Democratic system have its flaws, and it have been under "attack" for,many years now. Specially from the more conservative holds, but it have support from most people ute, even when it Also make most of us pay more taxes, Who i know is something americans have a issue with.

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Diclotican (Reply #65)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:12 PM

69. Wait, you do live there



Part of the problem is that most Americans have no idea what these terms mean. Hell, Germany, especially under Adenauer, was (still is) also a Social Democracy. Even under Merkel is far to the "left" of where Americans would comprehend.

Oh and my friend, happy holidays, in case we don't see each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #69)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:33 PM

73. nadinbrzezinski

nadinbrzezinski

Yes I do - so I hopefully know a little of it.. Even though my personal opinion is that I believe we have turned to far to the right, i would like to turn the ship little to the left - to safeguard what we have managed to build since world war two... We have our share of crybaby es who is little sad about paying taxes for programs they might never experience firsthand.. The system is not perfect - it have its share of snags - but I would better have this system, than the US form, who is more or less, you are on your own.... I once was thinking about emigrating ot the united states as a young... Thankfully I did not - and as I have been on disability for some years now - I am thankfully I don't did it... (

Germany was, at least in the rebuilding after world war two - more social-democratic than it was before and after but compared to what is in the US, I suspect even Merkel, who was living in East germany and have always been strictly critical about some of the systems who have been part of german fabric after the war...

If we doesn't see each other in the meantime, happy holidays to you too.. Have seen you around here and there..

Diclotian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:46 PM

63. Utter nonsense. Selling on ebay has exactly jackshit to do with capitalism

Selling something on ebay does not mean you owned the machinery that produced what you are selling. Only owners of the means of production are capitalists. Ownership of personal property is an absolute that has existed in all societies, hunter/gatherers, feudalist, capitalist and communist. Even totalitarian dictatorships have people who own appliances, clothing, etc, and who often sell those things to other people.

All public goods are socialist. The fire department is run entirely by the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, straight out of Karl Marx. The more your property is worth, the higher the taxes you have to pay. And they'll never send a truck out unless you have a fire or other emergency. This works quite well, counter to your assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:04 PM

84. i think you're confused. yeah, sweden is capitalist. the rest...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:32 AM

91. Free market capitalism is the core of the Swedish economy.

there is little government ownership of the means of production.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:57 PM

11. Every time I read one of your post it becomes more and more clear why you were banned from Kos.

This post sounds like something I'd read on Free Republic. Oh and your example is terrible. No decent author writes for the sole purpose of making profit. No one goes into the arts to make money, if they do they will fail, because art isn't about profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:39 AM

97. It is plainly obious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:58 PM

12. Tell that to Volvo, Saab and Mercedes Benz. All companies that succeed in socialist countries

Not to mention this:

Which countries are thriving the most? Answer: Denmark
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/global-wellbeing-survey-_n_851059.html#s266158&title=Denmark__72

Your argument is invalid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:05 PM

19. Germany is socialist? This is laughable.

 

The profit motive is more popular than Octoberfest in Germany.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:32 PM

40. Yes, merkel is from a Conservative party

But Adenauer was a social democrat. Also Angela Merkel is quite to the left from any democrat in the US and Germany has a very strong public sector. You really need to do your homework.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:38 PM

46. You just agreed with me. Germany is not socialist!

 

You DO YOUR homework.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:16 PM

70. I did? Where? By any standard definition, it is

And has since 1945. Here s where it gets really funny, some things, like worker rights and seat n corporate board rooms were imposed by us. Do you know who Adenauer is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:04 PM

57. Germany is most definitely a Social Democracy

The country has very strong social support policies, universal health care and paid education.

All of the things you would probably call "socialist" and with good reason.

And "profit" is not a dirty word in socialist countries, despite what Fox News says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:59 PM

81. Lol, again, you have no clue what Socialism is.

Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is a self-described democratic socialist eg.

We need 300 of him in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:09 PM

23. Denmark has a capitalistic economic system, like Sweden. It has a liberal trading

policy and a market economy. It has wide ranging social programs, but it does not have a socialistic economic system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:33 PM

41. It is a mixed economy

Like the United States was in many ways in the 1950s under yes, IKE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:52 PM

78. Honeycombe8

Honeycombe8

I think you have to go back to your homework, and read up on the difference between SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC systems, and SOCIALISTIC systems.. The later is where the STATE own most of the properties, and where factories and industry for the most part is owned by the State...

In a Social-democratic system, state and private Enterprise work rather well together - In most of the Scandinavian country's the government OWN land, and OWN parts of "critical industry" who is deemed to be important for the safeguard of the country - Most of the Scandinavia country also have a rather big tax base - compared to the United States we pay a lot of taxes in different forms....


Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:08 PM

87. denmark ain't a socialist country.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:00 PM

14. Profits don't go to artists/inventors under capitalism

Profits go to the owner of the copyright or patent, and that is often someone else. Who did the actual creative work has nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:14 PM

25. Artists who are the creators own the copyrights of their work.

The Bee Gees, the Beatles, etc., all owned the songs they wrote, until and unless they sold those rights.

They got/get profits every time the song is sold, no matter who performs it.

Artists who are merely the performers and don't "own" the songs, still get a piece of the action, if they write that in their contract. They don't get a salary. They get royalties (profits) every time the song is sold. Same thing with actors.

If you're just starting out, and you need the company to finance you and take a chance, you have to sign a lousy contract that may not give you royalties. You don't HAVE to sign it (that is, you must sign away your rights), but if you want that first chance, you have to take what's offered. Then when you make a name for yourself, you re-do the contract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:19 PM

29. Onliy sometimes.

You're not accounting for work for hire, or purchasing of intellectual property. I made my living that way for years. The bottom line is ownership, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:23 PM

34. Yes, if I write a song, I file for the copyright. Unless I sell it or give it away. Period. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:27 PM

36. okay...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:21 PM

127. If you write a song while you're working for X Inc. and your job involves songwriting in any way

Then they own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #127)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:41 PM

175. Only if you're not an independent artist, but EMPLOYED by the co. or your CONTRACT

gives your rights to the company. As I said, beginners sign whatever bad contracts they have to, in order to get their start.

But if I'm an artist, under contract with Sony, I own my own creative works UNLESS I SOLD THEM OR GAVE THEM TO SONY in my contract. Or unless I later give them away or sell them.

You remember how Paul McCartney got furious at Michael Jackson for buying the old Beatles "book" of copyrights from Yoko? That's because McCartney had sold them or lost them years earlier...Yoko ended up with them. But the ARTISTS owned the copyrights, until they sold them or contracted them away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:48 PM

77. What about the Michael J. and Paul M. dispute?

Jackson, before his death, held the rights to Paul McCartney's work/songs and would not sell them back to him. McCartney was the creator. How did Jackson buy his work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:02 PM

17. Written like someone who has no motivation beyond acquisition.

 

Not only crass, but a really pointless way to expend your life. That's how we got here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:03 PM

18. Wow, ignorant, stereotyped and absolutist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:15 PM

26. In what way? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:23 PM

33. yeah, there were no writers in communist countries & if there were, their books

 

were all shit propaganda extolling the Great Leader.

Because the very best books are written for profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #33)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:30 PM

72. The very best books are written for profit?

Perhaps you'd like to rethink this. Most writers would like to be successful at their craft, but it's a hell of a risky way to the big bucks. I seriously doubt that getting rich drives anyone with an artistic bent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddiemom (Reply #72)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:01 PM

82. sarcasm indicator broken? it's the other poster you should be talking to, not me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:48 PM

178. HiPointDem

HiPointDem

Have you at all been reading russian books - both before and after the revolution in 1917... or the many books from the other side of the iron curtain, who was some of the best books ever produced in Europe?... I guess not.. Not everything written in east Europe and in Russia after 1917 was about telling how great the great leaders was - or what a wonderfully man Josef Stalin was... The books about Stalin and the other leaders is more or less forgotten now, but many of the great russian writers - who today is part of the world heritage was written great books, even if their works had to be smuggled to the west for printing - if their contents was not what the leaders wanted...

It was not easy to navigate true the different leaders - what was legal in 1950, was not legal ten years later on.. When new leaders was coming to power, it tend to have consequences for what was legal and not.. Some ended up in a prison cell because they do not "get the message".. Other times, writers who had been prosecuted and put in prison under Stalin, was rehabilitated and given both their freedom and a decent life for as long as they was living... And many continued to write books, who for the most part is part of the classical russian heritage today... Russians have always been glad in writing and reading books, and they have great pleasure of reading books over there...

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Diclotican (Reply #178)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:23 PM

183. saecasm detector needs adjustment

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #183)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:52 PM

185. Hey

Hey

Maybe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:54 PM

53. I'd rather this country have socialism and everybody

having their basic needs met than what we have now, where millions of people are starving and we're the only industrialized nation without single-payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #53)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:07 AM

192. Japan does not have single-payer

Japan has a national health insurance system, but it is a co-pay system where the government pays 70% and the patient pays 30% of necessary medical and dental costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:55 PM

64. So much bullshit, so little time.

I'm going to eat leftovers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #64)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:08 PM

88. Probably to better effect than arguing with one who is blinded by Randian horseshit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:12 PM

68. It depends on the person or persons

It only takes one to have the attitude you have but we have four adults in my house and we work under a socialist model. One of us just had an car accident and all of us are trying to get extra shifts to help pay for it from the family account. I don't see a lack of initiative at all.

We each have an equal stipend and while some work is valued higher monetarily outside the house, within it is valued equally and the stipend helps reflect that. Now, we do have an added agreement that the individual can, if he or she wishes, keep half of their worked overtime, after taxes, etc. I'm choosing not to do that right now, because we need the second car back sooner rather than later. I don't make that choice for the other members of the household. I suppose you might say that that is where the individual initiative comes from, but all of us prefer more time to more personal money, so any of us actually trying to get extra overtime is unusual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:54 PM

80. You are confusing your terms. Socialism will not take away your

book profits. Only Right Wingers think that is what is Socialism is. Know any Europeans whose books are the property of their Socialist States?

Keep talking, I love your comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:06 PM

86. What is the point of doing anything that has no intrinsic motivation? That's what you're saying,

nothing is motivating in and of itself, so no one will do anything if there isn't some artificial profit in it. That's THE disease that is rotting the human experience, because it externalizes all sources of value and will, i.e. IDENTITY.

Without being fucked with by those who think they must provide our motives, people will do just fine figuring out what they want, need, or must do by themselves, thank you very much.

How did our species get through the hundreds of thousands of aeons before "civilization"?

What utter horseshit you've posted here.

Surely, you were being sarcastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:05 AM

93. There are many reasons to write a book even IF "the profit is not yours"

1)Because you have something to say;
2)Because you have the need to say it;
3)Because you simply believe that it is a good thing to WRITE books(or paint paintings, or to invent things)in and of itself.

You take the view you take because you've been taught that everything(and everyone) must be commodified...that nothing and no one can exist unless its or their existence creates material wealth...this is a view that turns everything, in the end, into a form of prostitution.

Life doesn't have to be that ugly, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:59 PM

116. Capitalism crushes all individual initiative that is not based upon FEAR. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:50 PM

191. That is SUCH horse sh*t!

You perform a creative endeavor because it is your natural inclination if you are a person with creativity. You write a book because you need to, because you have something to say, because you have a story to tell, or because you want to make an intellectual connection with other people. The same can be said for every art form. The artists who do things exclusively for profit are called sell-outs and their artistic integrity can be considered in the sh*tter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:21 AM

197. you have a very limited imagination indeed if you think profit

 

Is the prime or only motivation for creativity. Many artists never made a penny for their masterpieces. Yet they still created them, imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:53 PM

6. They KNOW it's a viable alternative

So they fight it with the most vehement propaganda, designed to misrepresent what Democratic Socialism really means.

Vulture capitalism is failing, and they know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:54 PM

8. 'So they fight it with the most vehement propaganda, designed to misrepresent'

A post above yours is the perfect example of that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:56 PM

10. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:59 PM

13. I saw that

And replied....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:26 PM

35. As i've said countless times before...

Socialism is practiced on the grandest scale in damn near every fortune 500 boardroom...they just don't dare to recognize it as such...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:05 PM

21. Let's do it.

 

Sounds good. If the corporatists plan on putting the squeeze on American workers, then I would hope the government would provide employment opportunities for our people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:12 PM

24. As I have said here many times..

... it's only a matter of a few more years until many of the anti-socialism rabble will be BEGGING for some socialism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:18 PM

27. We have some social programs in the U.S. What you mean is that people will want

those programs expanded.

Medicare, Social Security, unemployment compenstion, Social Security Disability, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance/subsidies, welfare payments in some states, earned income credit. Soon we will have subsidized health ins. for low income workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:24 PM

59. That is exactly what I mean...

.... because these folks will go from propagandized hubris to cold reality and they will want to eat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:18 PM

28. We Already Have Socialism To An Extent...

The military, police, firemen, teachers, government workers, etc...

It has ALWAYS been a mix of government programs with private enterprise.

The question, it seems to me, do we have the mix right?

I do not know, nor do I care, what the "market" can get for a Justin Bieber CD.

I DO KNOW I don't want my military, police, firemen, teachers, government workers, PRIVATIZED.

Let alone leave my old age pension in the hands of the "free market" vultures.





Onedit: & Rec !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:28 PM

38. In other words we have a mixed mode economy.

 

Nothing wrong with that!

But it is still a market system (capitalism) at the core.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:55 PM

54. Yes... But...

I would like to Socialize some of the requirements of human existence...

Not all... but to the extent we can... food, clothing, and shelter would be a great start.

Remember... the homeless epidemic happened after Reagan kicked a lot of folks out of state care facilities. And if you ain't gonna hire them, and you ain't gonna help them, you ARE gonna have to see them... for the rest of your, and their, lives...

Unless you want to go the Nazi route.

Me... I'd prefer to house and help them.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:22 PM

32. People have all different ideas in their heads about what socialism means, so

it makes it kind of challenging to have a conversation about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:34 PM

42. I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left.

Socialism just seems sensible to me. Of course, we're fighting to preserve even the tiny social safety net that we have now...any little bit to help working people is worth fighting for. I hope I live to see the day where we take a step toward the whole enchilada though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:01 PM

56. "I'm always surprised by the resistance to move more left".

This video should explain why, at 4:39 onwards.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:43 PM

50. The problem is that they're calling only the most extreme, radical form of Capitalism

"Capitalism" and everything else they call "Socialism" and "Marxism"

It's just propaganda.

And what they call "capitalism" is probably better called "corporatism" anyway, as they seem perfectly happy with governmental influence that benefits corporations, but only that governmental influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:52 PM

52. Harry Truman quote about Socialism


http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/viewpapers.php?pid=951


“The Republicans … will try to make people believe that everything the Government has done for the country is socialism. They will go to the people and say: "Did you see that social security check you received the other day—you thought that was good for you, didn't you? That was Socialism. Did you see that new flood control dam the Government is building over there for the protection of your property? Sorry—that's awful socialism! That new hospital that they are building is socialism. Price supports, more socialism for the farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you, my friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and your home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set—you are just surrounded by socialism! Now the Republicans say, ‘That's a terrible thing, my friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of socialism is to vote for the Republican ticket.’"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redwhiteblue (Reply #52)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:43 PM

74. redwhiteblue

redwhiteblue¨

By todays republican standard I suspect Harry Truman to be a rabid left leaning communist, who want to destroy the "traditional America" once and for all... Even though Harry Truman was the man who looked down Stalin, and was not amused by what he was looking about in the early part of the cold war... And I doubt any american would call HIM a communist at that age...

Thank you for the quote, I suspect I have to put in on my face book

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:57 PM

55. ONE PROBLEM

One problem is that the Tea Party receives enormous support from the conservative-advertising-dependent media, which is about 99% of the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:37 PM

60. America isnt an economic system

The original post pre-supposes something about America that has never been true; that America is basically just an economic model or approach.

America is an experiment in departing from the dogma of economic predestination. We are a representitive democracy that uses a mixture of economic models to accomplish our shared goals and ideals. We have found that American pragmatism is the shining light of wisdom and knowledge to guide our choices for economic models. This is why we have elections that are supposed to be voted in by every qualified (read: steeped in American pragmatic thought and application) citizen. Sometimes capitalism, well regulated and taxed, accomplishes American goals. Sometimes the use of a socialist economic model is more pragmatic, as in basic human and civil rights and needs like healthcare, food, housing and education.

The OP takes too much for granted in disregarding the truth of the special nature of our great country and it's ideals, expressed through our shared history. We are so much more than an economic model.
.
.
.
Just my .02

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:42 PM

62. I'm in.

Free, quality health care and education for EVERYONE would be a nice start. Trying to convince republicans that that would be a good thing is the trick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:06 PM

67. If he won't listen to us, he would do well to emulate FDR and LBJ

Recreate government work programs and strengthen the safety nets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:20 PM

71. Looking over the thread, I'm seeing two different definitions of socialism

One is the traditional sense of no individual ownership of someone else's means of production allowed. This in itself could mean either ownership of all means of production by government, or it could mean that individuals could own their own means of production, or collectively own same in co-operatives of varying sizes, with the largest resembling governments.

The other is Harry Truman's definition--socialism is government collecting taxes from all and spending the money to provide public goods for all. Conservatives have been waging war on public goods for 40 years, and use the term socialism in Truman's sense except for labelling it evil. I suspect that most of the young people who now prefer socialism also mean it in Truman's sense--if RW whackjobs attack public goods by calling them socialist, then people who like public goods will see themselves as socialists in opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:50 AM

95. This

I was thinking the same thing. Kind of hard to have a discussion on something as long as people use different definitions.

When I see/hear the word 'socialism' I think of your first definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #95)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:46 PM

110. Do you think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism? without it, without government

ownership, a thing cannot be Socialism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #110)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:40 PM

136. Absolutely not. The anarchists of the 19th century opposing Marx--

---certainly thought of themselves as socialists. They called themselves "left socialists," in fact. They believed that everyone should own their own means of production or band together in collectives, the smaller scale, the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #136)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:10 PM

158. Thank you!! Trying to explain that down-thread & to refute the notion that profit for profit's sake

alone is not the goal of Capitalism and if it weren't for that FACT (look at our whole financial history), there would be no such thing as Capitalism at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #110)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:57 PM

170. No. It's a very common definition, prob. THE most common,

but the poster I was replying to didn't limit Socialism to just that

I just find it weird and counterproductive to refer to the Nordic countries and Germany (and probably the UK and France etc) as Socialist.

I mean, are Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown, Blair, Cameron, Reinfeldt, Stoltenberg etc etc all Socialists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #170)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:12 PM

171. The search I just did didn't think that they are. & Prob is people can conceive of NO

connection or set of relationships to a whole, other than government. That's stupid because we accept different forms of those relationships ALL of the time.

I think what drives this problem is the assumption that someone somewhere is going to get something for nothing, which, while incidentally possible, is NOT the purpose and nature of Socialism.

It's frustrating.

Here's a helpful discussion:
http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/08/02/fear_of_a_red_planet_socialism_isnt_communism--really

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #171)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:27 PM

173. I think you pretty much nailed it there

"I think what drives this problem is the assumption that someone somewhere is going to get something for nothing".

There very thought of that seems to drive RWers into a frenzy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #173)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:37 PM

174. It's frustrating because THAT's how things are now for the 1% & Socialist principles try to

recognize ways to even that out and guarantee authentic value in exchange for authentic value.

I really do see it as the opposite of what so many people mistakenly assume about it.

It's a concrete affirmation of what constitutes functional economic relationships for EACH person, not just for those with the financial power to define those lives for everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #170)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:37 PM

177. According to the original definition, no. According to Harry Truman, yes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:52 AM

98. Quite true.

I refuse to concede the term "Socialism" to the absolute collectivists.

The country I live in, the System I participate in as it now stands was formed by a fusion of traditional liberalism from the 19th century heavily spiked with some Socialist Social Democratic concepts ands mechanism in the early to mid 20th century.

Seen this way, "Socialism" is a question of degrees - most of the West shares a Socialist system, pinned on the democratic process, Europe tending more to the Socialist side while the US etc. tend more to the liberal side (Socialist/Liberal used here in a purely economic sense).

The term "Social Democrat" was conceived during the late 19th century when international leftism underwent a schism. "Social Democrats" while just as commited to Socialism as their Revolutionary friends, believed that any change for the better must come from the people and be backed by the democratic process. While the more revolutionary elements within the international left believed things to be so bad that only Revolution by a small, intellectually pure (and non-working class) cabal could bring true change.

Yet, both of these systems of thought of themselves as transitional, mostly. The majority of both wings, back then, believed that "Social Democracy" or "Revolution" (the 2 opposing strategies discussed above) would eventually lead to communism. This is one thing that Social Democrats, in Europe (generally speaking) have given up. European Social Democrats see Social Democracy not as a transition to something better, but a goal in itself, which is an essential difference, since it now is fully compatible with the democratic process. Albeit, the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, in it's party program, is still committed to "overcome capitalsim" (Überwindung des Kapitalismus). As a member, I can guarantee that this commitment is only lip service and not to be understood in a revolutionary, anti-democratic way.

I hope this helped. (This post was not adressed specifically to the poster that I replied to. It just seemed like the best place to put my thoughts on the subject.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #98)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:50 PM

149. Harry Truman would definitely agree n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:58 PM

165. social economics and social politics often gets confused.

often as much as capitalism gets confused as more than an economic structure, somehow magically bleeding into the realm of politics. i think RW think tanks see this as a deliberately useful muddying of the terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:44 PM

75. One major issue to be overcome in these discussion is the conflation of politcal & economic theories

Here's a chart that roughly illustrates the US political spectrum-


I find that many entangle democracy and capitalism while mistaking socialism for communism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:46 PM

76. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:52 PM

79. On some things, I'll take a socialistic stance. For the most part, socialism is crap nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #79)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:10 PM

89. Would you care to be more precise about exactly how that is so? Or shall we just take your

opinion for THE truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #89)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:40 AM

94. Socialust roads, fire departments, and police are cool. Socialist farms and factories sucks. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #94)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:39 PM

100. I'm honestly interested in why those things suck. Which ones are you referring to? China?

That's Communism, not Socialism.

Are there others? I really have not looked into this.

I wonder if you agree that one can put certain kinds of ingredients together in many many different ways in order to create something. Give me a sewing store or a grocery store and I can go in and select whatever and create something to eat or to wear. You, or anyone, can go in and select other or the same materiel and create things entirely different and/or similar to some degree to what I produced. However, just because someone could say that we both baked cakes, it would not be logical to assume that those cakes were identical. Just because someone could say that we both sewed clothing, it would not be logical to assume that clothing we produced is identical.

Do you see what I'm suggesting here? The ingredients/materiel that comprise Socialism can be organized in a wide wide variety of ways, some more or less like whatever it is that you are assuming about Socialism, some kind of different, other systems vastly different, but STILL Socialism.

So, what makes Socialism Socialism to you? I will venture that the essence of Socialism TO YOU, the way that YOU put those ingredients together, is that someone takes stuff from those who have it and gives it to those who don't. Right?

If an essential characteristic of anything is somekind of trait without which the thing under consideration would NOT be what it is, that is, without the essential characteristic of __________________ X would not be X, it would be some other thing entirely (Y, A, 2, *, # or whatever . . . ), well then, that trait, TTE, "takes stuff from those who have it and gives it to those who don't" does not meet the criteria of being an essential trait of Socialism. That trait, "takes stuff from those who have it and gives it to those who don't" is characteristic of so many OTHER things, some of which, e.g. Divine Right Royalty, e.g. Capitalism, are the anti-thetical opposite of Socialism.

So, what is it that makes Socialism Socialism and NOT something else? What are its most essential traits? I'd like very much to know what you think about this question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #100)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:03 PM

101. Socialism is government owning and administering the means of production

 

That shit sucks. No need. Ever.

BTW, that is the literal definition of Socialism. I oppose it and will oppose it to my dying day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #101)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:29 PM

103. So what you oppose is government ownership? Is Mondragon Socialism?

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG/Who-we-are/Introduction.aspx

Is Mondragon not Socialist because it is not owned by the government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #103)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:42 PM

108. Nope, Mondragon is free enterprise. It's a cooperative, but the government does not own and...

 

and administer Mondragon, so it is 100% capitalistic free enterprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:44 PM

109. So Mondragon is Capitalism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #109)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:49 PM

112. Yes.

 

It's a perfectly legitimate form of capitalism, too. Cooperatives benefit all who participate. The goal is to make profit and share it amongst all within the cooperative.

Probably the best methodology to provide for a successful company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #112)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:52 PM

113. Wrong. Those who do the work DECIDE all of that. The profits are the workers' NOT a capitalist's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #113)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:43 PM

141. The decision is private in a private corporation, ergo, it is capitalistic. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #141)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:49 PM

148. Fail: There are MANY private entities that are not capitalistic. Private entities in which profit is

not the SOLE goal, or, in some cases, any goal at all, so privacy may be a necessary condition of Capitalism, but, apparently, it is not a sufficient condition to constitute Capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #148)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:50 PM

150. Profit is NEVER the sole goal in ANY corporation

 

Live in the real world. Leave your made up world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #150)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:55 PM

153. Any OPTIONAL secondary goals are served ONLY by profit. Look at our Capitalist history. How can

you deny what market cycles throughout history and most notably in the Derivative Crash of 2008 very obviously prove?

You are the one living in a fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #112)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:03 PM

117. The profits are based upon SOCIAL principles & processes, not the idiosyncracies of Capitalism.

At Mondragon, certain things are done and not done BECAUSE of social principles and none other, read their page on Organisational structures. That's stuff that would be anti-thetical to Capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #117)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:04 PM

118. Just because they make a profit doesn't mean that they are Capitalists. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #112)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:17 PM

123. What Capitalists has "social welfare and Insurance" as the 2nd & 3rd objectives of FINANCE, link:

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG/Who-we-are/Organisational-structure/Finance.aspx

FINANCE AREA: The Financial Group, with Caja Laboral and Lagun Aro, embraces three specific activities: banking, social welfare and Insurance.


That's "social welfare and Insurance" NOT profit for profit's sole sake, ergo NOT Capitalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #123)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:19 PM

125. It is still capitalistic

 

A profit is made and shared.

Just because the cooperative demonstrates moral objectives along with profit does not alter the fact that it is a capitalistic venture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:25 PM

129. You mistake the natue of Capitalism. It's SOLE objective is profit. The purpose of profit at Mondrag

on is in SERVICE TO the group/SOCIAL nature of their incorporation, not profit alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #129)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:36 PM

132. Well, if you redefine terms they can mean whatever you want

 

I don't redefine terms.

Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

I reject your redefinition of Capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #132)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:38 PM

134. And you don't get that that applies to you too? Who died & made you God?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #134)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:40 PM

135. I am not the one who is redefining any terms, YOU ARE.

 

First you redefined Socialism. Then you redefined Capitalism.

And you did both to fit into your preconceived notions of what the words should mean, not what they actually mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #135)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:43 PM

140. Me? Tell me that profit is not the SOLE motive of Capitalism. You are the one redefining here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #140)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:44 PM

143. Profit does not enter into the definition, you are adding it to the equation

 

Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Where does it say profit for profit's sake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #143)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:52 PM

152. Try to tear yourself away from other support and think. Tell me now, logically, that there'd be such

a thing as Capitalism at all if it weren't for the profit for profit's sake alone principle.

Please tell me how that would even be possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #132)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:42 PM

138. You reject that there'd be no such thing as Capitalism without profit for profit's sake alone?

You, sir, are not a Capitalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #138)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:46 PM

144. I reject that it enters into the definition of capitalism

 

The decisions about profits are made in private by those who own or invest in a private enterprise. What those decisions are do not enter into the equation.

But keep redefining terms to fit a twisted notion of what you think the terms SHOULD mean rather than what they actually mean. It seems to make you feel better about yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #144)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:14 PM

159. Oh! hoh! That's rich! Perhaps you'd like to discuss the definition of "is". :-)))))) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:29 PM

130. Profit for profit's sake alone is clearly proven in the Capitalist financial history of the USA. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #130)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:43 PM

139. That is a redefinitiion of Capitalism.

 

The definition of capitalism says nothing about what is done with profits from an enterprise, only that the decisions about how a company operates are made privately.

Mondragon fits the definition of capitalism perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #139)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:44 PM

142. LOGIC: HOW can Capitalism even survive unless profit is it's SOLE motive? Please answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #142)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:47 PM

145. LOGIC: If profit is the SOLE motive, an enterprise WILL NOT SURVIVE.

 

Please, live in the real world, not some made up twisted version of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #145)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:58 PM

155. NONE of those other goals would be goals at all without profit. PROFIT first always, otherwise the

capitalist does not succeed, the enterprise ends and whatever those other goals are are fucked.

All of which begs the ESSENTIAL question of who makes what decisions about any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to RomneyLies (Reply #112)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:23 PM

128. What kind of Capitalist allows WORKERS to manage & guide their own education & training?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #128)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:37 PM

133. Any can.

 

Look up the word. You are redefining it.

Sorta like how you are redefining Socialism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #133)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:16 PM

160. YOU are limiting the entire, REAL LIFE, discussion to an entry in a dictionary. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #133)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:17 PM

162. Come on, own up, you're a "Libertarian" aren't you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #101)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:54 PM

114. So what you oppose is government ownership, i.e. government as CAPITALISM. Me too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #114)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:41 PM

137. Then by definition, you oppose Socialism. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #137)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:06 PM

157. You are wrong - and - you are narrow-minded & refuse to at least recognize that FACT.

Once again, who died and made Cthulu/you god?

- end of "conversation" -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #101)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:48 PM

146. Anarchists are socialists and don't think the government should exist at all.

So your definition of socialism is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #146)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:48 PM

147. My definition of socialism is the ONLY defintion of socialism

 

Anarchists, by definition, CANNOT be socialists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #147)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:51 PM

151. So we should just ignore all the anarchist writers and theorists because you say they don't count?

Could you be more arrogant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #147)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:01 PM

156. How can anyone who does not identify with a set of values define them? You may HYPOTHESIZE

a "definition" but the thing itself is not yours to say, since you reject the reality of the principles in the first place.

What you are doing is the same thing as letting atheists define God.

Horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:47 AM

92. For the most part, capitalism is crap.

There. My comment is as deep and convincing as yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:36 AM

99. So, If I Am To Understand...

...your position, we should offer something far enough to the Left that it counterbalances movements like the Tea Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:24 PM

102. I really don't like it when Social Democrats are called "Socialists"

Especially by other leftists. It's the kind of thing right wingers do to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. And yes, it's red-baiting.

Not that I'm accusing anybody here of using such tactics, mind you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #102)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:31 PM

105. Well, one thing they are doing is assuming that old saw about government owning the means of

production is absolutely the single and only and most essential definition of Socialism, when it is very very far from that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #102)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 09:57 PM

180. Many European Social Democratic parties

 

call themselves "Socialists". And muddied waters of all terminologies become bogs/marshes/swamps when more attention is paid to words than to comprehension of the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:29 PM

104. "Socialism" means different things to different people.

That's why it is so threatening in America. Some think the term is simply code for communist intellectual buffoonery (e.g., Marx and Engels) or monstrous power-madness (Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot). You don't name a German baby Adolf, and you don't call an American movement "socialist."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #104)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:41 PM

107. True! and yet, there must be some essential trait in common that makes it all Socialism, otherwise

there are a whole hell of a lot of people who aren't talking about the same thing, but make the mistake of assuming that they are.

My sewing analogy applies here again: we can take materiel, each of us, some materiel the same as what other use, some different, and each of us put our materiel together and produce clothing, but we could look at all of that clothing and see a practically infinite variety of ways in which a given piece of clothing is constructed and, yet, we call all of it clothing.

So of all of the different ways that people think about Socialism, what is it (like a Venn diagram) that all of them have in common and without which you would not be talking/thinking about Socialism at all, but rather MISTAKING something else for Socialism that lacks one or more essentially Socialist traits.

I have my own answer to this question, just curious what other people think, especially since we see ONCE AGAIN that mistaken old saw that it isn't Socialism unless the government owns the means of production. I don't think government ownership is an essential trait of Socialism, because government ownership does not necessarily accomplish one of, if not *THE*, most essential goal-traits of that which is Socialism or is Socialistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:36 PM

106. Rec. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:46 PM

111. I Like John Lennon's Defintion Of Socialism

He was asked in one of the final interviews of his life if he was a socialist he said "If socialism means that the government should make sure that granny gets her teeth fixed, then, yeah I'm a socialist."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #111)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:56 PM

115. +++1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:11 PM

120. credit for Obama's re-election is not "owed" to any one group or demographic over others.

 

they ALL contributed to the effort, and without the others- no one group could deliver a victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:12 PM

121. "Am I my brother's keeper?" - Socialism says "yes". Capitalism says "Fuck you."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:18 PM

124. Full-on socialism woulf be just as bad as full-on capitalism.

 

getting the right mix of the two is the real trick. hopefully we'll get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMan Votes (Reply #124)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:32 PM

131. Agreed. Socialistic/workers'-profit-sharing for the necessities. Capitalism for everything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #131)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:01 PM

181. You asked everything else

 

including Mother Earth, how they feel about your suggestion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #181)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:12 PM

182. Just talking about the USA & what's doable, compared to 0 change. Perhaps I should point

out that co - operatives CAN be most efficient, less waste, and even more sustainable if they so desire. It depends upon the workers and how they decide to operate. They have those kinds of powers in co - operatives that they would not have in capitalist corporations.

My assumptions are that if this becomes anykind of model, it will be for NEW enterprises and that would be relative to younger generations who are much more likely to adopt Earth friendly traits than existing enterprises which don't operate by co -operation mostly anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #182)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:49 PM

184. I don't think

 

that in terms of human size USA is doable in any way - it's an archetypal creation (but not too big to fail, rather guaranteed to fail archetypally as all empires do... )

Agree that Co-ops, intentional communities and such are human size doable and livable as humans to humans and part of nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:40 PM

163. Name one great country populated by anti-socialists.

Kind of impossible to have a great society that is dominated by anti-socialists..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:03 PM

166. Why Not Indeed

Democratic Socialism. An even playing field. The access to upward mobility for all people. A nation where no person risks bankruptcy because she/he had the misfortune of having cancer or being in a bad accident. A nation where no ceo or ruling board of a health insurance company can siphon off tens of million from premiums - for what? For profit health care makes no sense, we just need bookkeepers, like it used to be.

Everyone thinks they are going to be the one who amasses 800 million. Without a silver spoon leg up the odds are ridiculously high.

All capitalism wouldn't go away, we had lots of it in the 50's with republican Dwight Eisenhower - who governed with a top rate of 91 or 92 % each year he was in.

My view is that taxes should be a little higher for most people and progressively higher for the wealthy. Education through grad school should be provided for very little or nothing, the same with health care - a level field.

Can you imagine the health benefits emanating for the reduced stress on the middle and lower classes?

The right played the long game to get the discussion slanted their way, all laid out in Lewis Powell's long strategy memo of 1973. It worked, we need to change it back.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #166)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:22 PM

172. Right on! Health & cognitive benefits from reduced stress = more EFFICIENT economies at

many different levels, not to mention authentic, as in actually NEW, entrepreneurship.

I'm having a HARD time understanding why people can't see this potential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #172)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:52 PM

186. Less GDP

 

and medical bills debts to Banks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #186)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:59 PM

188. Could you explain that please? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #188)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:07 PM

189. Why TPTB

 

can't - and don't want to - see the potential of more healthy people needing less help from medical professions. Macroeconomic measuring is based on growth of GDP and system is based on people being debt slaves to Banks.

And, no it doesn't really make sense, it's just insane. Sauron archetype running rampant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)


Response to brewer1100 (Reply #167)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:27 PM

168. Welcome to DU my friend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #168)


Response to marmar (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:40 AM

199. Democrats are not a socialist party, they are center-left

Both Republicans and Democrats are capitalists. Obama is a capitalist despite what our Republican friends thinks he is. If anything, Obama has helped big business. The rich have done quite well under the recession. The top 1% increased their net worth by 15% under Obama, while the middle class lost 35% (due mostly to the real estate crash since the middle class has most of their wealth in their home). The Obama administration has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against the big banks. Welfare for Wall Street continues. None of the Democrats in congress seem to have any intention of raising the minimum wage.

We don't have a socialist or far-left party in the United States. The two big parties have polarized both sides of center. Which pretty much gives the moderates full control of our government. It's also why we are so gridlocked.

We are stuck. There is no momentum for a political movement because each party is too afraid of losing the center and therefore giving power to the other side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread