It's a given that some form of Socialism is a better system

[MineralMan]

than what prevails in the 21st century United States of America. That's been something I've believed for over 40 years. The big problem is finding a path from our current system to that better system. I've been thinking about that since 1965. I'm not smart enough to have figured out a path to it that doesn't involve millions of people dying in some sort of revolution or starving to death.

I've read the writings of every socialist thinker from Marx and Engels onward to today. It hasn't helped to find a path to a socialistic society in this country.

I know all the slogans, and they're good ones, too. But how do the people get control of the means of production and keep production and the jobs it creates going? Every socialistic slogan, no matter how correct it is or how right it is, stops with the slogan. Rise up! Take Control! Power to the People! None of the slogans are very informative, however, of how we do those things. I know how it was done in the Soviet Union and China. I know how it was imposed on many other countries. I also see places like Sweden and Norway, which seem to have found some sort of balance. But, how do we do it here?

If all those who hope for some such solution would begin to construct a framework for the passage from this system to a new one - a framework that does not mean that millions die, then that would be a terrific thing. I'm an old man, now, and my health isn't that great. I'm not going to see any such new system. But, trust me: Slogans are not plans. Slogans do not create anything. They are just slogans. What's the plan, folks? How do we get from the capitalistic oligarchy that seems to be the state of this union and move toward something more equitable?

That's what's needed. A plan. A series of steps that takes us there. Broad steps, not details. Do this, then this, followed by this and this, which leads to this and this... Steps. There's no instant solution. There cannot be. Anyone who has read any Russian history that begins with the Revolution of 1917 knows that what happened after that is not an ideal situation. That experiment ended in failure anyhow, and sooner than anyone would have thought.

So, let's see some discussion of real world planning. I think that would be an excellent thing. I'd like to see a beginning before I die.

[valerief]

1. We could start with the guillotine for the Let Them Eat Cake crowd. nt

[leftstreet]

3. hehe

+1

[MineralMan]

4. Who's at the top of your list for execution, Valerie?

Start with violence, eh? Now, there's a great idea...feh!

[Nederland]

14. The four greatest mass murders in history

...were all self identified socialists (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot).

So I think it is rather important to insist we leave the guillotine out of the plan.

[MineralMan]

19. +100

A bit of reading about the French Revolution is very useful, isn't it? Too bad most people know nothing about it.

[Zanzoobar]

25. You'll find out that self-identification does not amount to a hill of beans.

[Nederland]

45. Then please enlighten us...

...and give us examples of how the economic policies of those four men were not Socialist.

Be specific and take your time. I'll wait.

[white_wolf]

46. Socialism is where the working class holds power. They held power in none of those instances.

Especially not in Nazi Germany. Private industry was allowed to exist in Nazi Germany. Hell, IBM helped the Nazis engineer the Holocaust.

[Zanzoobar]

48. Is there anywhere the working class holds the power?

[white_wolf]

50. Currently no.

We have had brief periods of success such as the Paris Commune or the very early days of the Russian Revolution. Simply because we haven't succeded yet is no reason to give up on the cause, democracy failed a few times too.

[Zanzoobar]

51. Let us make an assumption...

The working class holds the power.

There are leaders, I would assume. Are they elected? That's a pickle, leaders. Once there is a leader it gets hairy.

[white_wolf]

53. It really depends on which branch of socialism we are talking about.

I would suggest workers councils for the local communities where every member of the community has a direct vote in shaping local policy and distribution of goods and services as needed. On national scale we will likely need some form of representatives, but these leaders will be elected from the members of the councils themselves and will be immediately recallable if they go against the wishes of their community. I would also suggest that no one can serve more than one term until every eligible member of the community has served a term, regardless of how good they are doing. That way they can't hold on to power by means of demagoguery.

[Zanzoobar]

55. Take a look at the 17th amendment

Wherein the state, or collective community, was stricken from said responsibility.

Popular election of Senators killed that plan. So much for the common good of the community.

[Nederland]

57. Isn't that telling?

In the 150+ years since the ideas of socialism were first put forth, and despite the fact that numerous revolutions have occurred with the goal of creating such a system, no such system exists. Doesn't that tell you something?

[white_wolf]

59. You do realize that democracy itself has failed several times throughout human history, correct?

The original Greek democracies degraded into various tyrannies, the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire, the French Revolution gave us Robespierre, the Terror, and Napoleon, various democratic revolutions throughout Europe were put down.

[Nederland]

69. Yes I do realize that

The difference is, there were successful democracies as well as the failures. Roman and Greek democracies (although if they existed today would probably not be called such) were successful for centuries before failing. The French Revolution failed, but the American Revolution succeeded. In contrast, by your own admission Socialism has never succeeded beyond a few brief moments of Paris Commune or the Russian Revolution. In short, claiming that Socialism is a great system that just hasn't been implemented successfully yet is a bit like claiming that Feudalism is a great system that hasn't been implemented successfully yet. It can't be definitively proven wrong, but there is no evidence to support the assertion either.

[joshcryer]

66. There is no form of state socialism where the working class holds power.

[Zanzoobar]

47. Surely, you can define socialism?

Be specific. I'll wait.

[Nederland]

56. No problem

Socialism: An economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Zanzoobar]

58. State owned

That's a helluva hook in the definition. Widens your gap a bit, dudn't it.

[white_wolf]

26. So what do we do if and when the ruling class uses violence against us?

I hate violence, but total non-violence is purely idealist. As for you mass murderers comment. Hitler was no socialist in the actual sense of the word, anyone who actually thinks he was has no understanding of the word.

[Nederland]

30. Non-violence worked pretty well for Gandhi and MLK

on edit:

Obviously it didn't work out too well for them personally, but their followers did achieve their political goals rather nicely.

[MineralMan]

33. It did, didn't it? nt.

[white_wolf]

35. Non-violence only works when the alternative is worse.

The British had to choose between Gandhi or the potential of a violent revolt. He was the lesser of two evils.

[Nederland]

42. And how is that any different than today?

Those are the choices that Capitalists face too...

[Fool Count]

28. That's debatable. Neither of them can even touch the mass murder

perpetrated by capitalism and its apologists through centuries of exploitation, poverty, hunger, deceases and plain homicide.
In Russia alone the capitalist restoration started in 1991 killed more people through excess mortality than Stalin ever did, with
Russian population decreasing dramatically over 20 straight years of peacetime - something that never happened under Stalin.

[valerief]

31. And endless war

[white_wolf]

34. And the destruction of our environment that could very well wipe us all out.

[valerief]

37. War fallout does that. Fracking does that. Nuclear waste does that. Oil industry does that.

It goes on and on and on, doesn't it?

[FrodosPet]

You forgot your sarcasm thingie

Telling the world "We are going to kill people who disagree with us, who commited financial crimes" doesn't seem like it is going to win a lot of support. Of course, I might be wrong.

[Riftaxe]

63. This time robiespierre goes first

save a lot of trouble.

[MineralMan]

2. And now, I turn the thread over to everyone else.

Post your ideas. My day is over. I'm exhausted. I'll see what comes of this in the morning.

[Amonester]

61. My suggestion: start networking for a 'parallel' vote for...

(true) representatives, who will vow to get BIG monies OUT of the people's governments, and yes, ON VERIFIABLE hand-counted PAPER ballots...

True. Might be a rather 'symbolic' thing to do at first, but something has to be done, first.

[banned from Kos]

5. 80% Capitalism 20% Socialism

see how easy that was?

[MineralMan]

7. How do we get there? That's not a step, it's a goal.

For pete's sake...steps. Start from today, and describe the path to what you suggest in broad terms.

[Zanzoobar]

23. How is that going to work?

If it's that easy, a flat tax of 20% to support social programs is also a fat slice-o-cake.

[leftstreet]

6. If you're afraid 'millions will die,' better to stick with Capitalism n/t

[MineralMan]

8. I'm not a big fan of millions of people dying, to tell you the truth.

Nope. Perhaps that's a good for you, but I doubt you have much company in that.

[leftstreet]

11. How will these 'millions' die if Capitalism is defeated?

:popcorn:

[MineralMan]

13. How does it get defeated? You're still skipping all the steps that

lead to that happening. It's those steps that could kill millions. It doesn't seem as though you've actually given this much thought beyond the slogans. Enjoy your popcorn. You can watch from your comfy seat. It's just like a movie, for sure, if you want it to be.

[leftstreet]

15. If we had Single Payer NonProfit healthcare, would people die?

If we nationalized banks, would people die?

OMG!!!! Is that why postal workers 'go postal?'

[MineralMan]

18. I've supported Single Payer Healthcare for years. So how do we

get that? Do you not see that you're talking about results, not paths toward those results? Of course those would be good things. They're goals. How do we attain those goals? What's the plan for doing that? How would you start toward that goal? Popcorn?

[leftstreet]

20. You don't know that you have to remove the profit-takers? Yet you've read Marx and Engels?

[MineralMan]

22. There are many ways to remove the "profit-takers."

The problem is in deciding which way you do that. And yes, I've read them. I've seen the results of some societies that tried to implement their ideas, too. So, what's your personal plan for doing that removal. How will you be participating in that? Or will you eat more popcorn?

[leftstreet]

29. So you're back to being for it? Er... n/t

[MineralMan]

36. Again, I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

How are you planning to get rid of the "profit-takers?" Where do you start and how do you accomplish it? Plans, not goals.

[leftstreet]

44. Your vigorous construction of Strawmen makes me think Obama has released his Jobs Program

You're not doing too well here

You're trying to assert that the profit can't be removed because, well, uh, the profit makers would be sad about it. Or something

Millions will die!

[RKP5637]

9. It's a long journey IMO, but I think OWS is a good start if the momentum can

be kept up. One thing interesting is OWS cuts across party lines, so without the baggage associated with one party or another, there begins some commonality, someone on opposite fringes even might be able to say, hey, I've got the same issues. That, is key to me, affecting change without inciting a blood revolution. We've seen the history of change many times, sometimes for the better, but often for the worse too, and generally there is sadly a lot of blood spilled. That's why I find OWS interesting, it's intriguing interests and hopefully change. I just wish winter were not coming, so, somehow, warmer states need to pick up this winter.

[MineralMan]

12. Yes, it's interesting, and I admire the spirit of those who are there.

I was at Occupy Minnesota on Saturday. Nice crowd and good people. The focus was pretty diffuse, though. Before it leads to anything, the the focus has to be sharper, and way more people will be needed. A plan would help.

[RKP5637]

27. Definitely, a plan will need to be in the works soon with an articulated doable goal set, because

otherwise I think others are going to try to co-opt OWS. Eventually IMO a plan will also be needed to keep the attention of Americans on the peripheral, otherwise, they might lose interest. If the numbers grow and grow, at minimal, it could become a significant voting block to garner some serious political attention and affect change.

[MineralMan]

32. They've already started to co-opt it. Yup.

The libertarians and other groups have moved in and are beginning to move the thing in their own direction. Did you see the poll taken of one OWS group. 55% didn't vote in 2010. I don't think voting is that high a priority in this group of protesters, to be quite frank.

[RKP5637]

40. No, I didn't see that poll, I had no idea it was that low, none at all. Maybe this

movement might improve their turnout for 2012. The co-opting of OWS really bothers me.

[white_wolf]

43. Can you blame them for not voting?

I bet a lot of them voted for Obama in 2008 and he proved just how useless bourgeois politics are for helping the poor and working class.

[FarLeftFist]

10. Start Nationalizing things of extreme importance to the continuity and prosperity of our country.

Why have our countries complete well-being and prosperity be in the hands of others? We should have a Nationalized back-up plan in case capitalism fully implodes. A way forward without the need to rely on the foreign entities and corps. Take America into our own hands. A back-up plan with the notion of capitalism imploding is a start.

[MineralMan]

16. Right now, that's not something that can be done within the current

system. Congress could do it, with a President who supported it, to a limited degree, but there's that pesky Judicial Branch, which might just put an end to such a thing. So, how do we make such nationalization possible? What are the steps? We've been doing just the opposite of that for decades, and look what's happened to the USPS and Fannie Mae. What do we do to reverse that in the real world? Again, you're talking about a result, rather than a path toward the result.

[RKP5637]

17. My gut feeling is capitalism will eventually implode on this current course. The

notion of endless growth and pyramiding of cash in a few hands in a finite space will strangle capitalism, eventually. If nothing else, we will eventually see the outright wars between corporations as they fight for turfs and monopolies. Already some corporations have better security forces and wealth than some nations.

[joshcryer]

67. You cannot nationalize anything without just compensation. Constitution would need to be modified.

[white_wolf]

68. We could get creative.

I say we give them government bonds redeemable 100 years in the future by the original recipients only. Technically we are playing by the rules.

[joshcryer]

70. Sure, but that's trillions of dollars in liquidity that the government couldn't pay back.

[RainDog]

21. taxation on wealth over x amt is a start

personally, I think that mixed economies work best - a balance of self and public interest. we benefit from the innovation of free enterprise, but the free market, in and of itself, is not enough. we have a balance of powers to try to counter the abuse of power in our govt.

Having a balance of power through regulatory and tax frameworks to attend to the needs to the have-nots as well as the haves seems like a sensible policy goal to me.

We have a stake in the public good - in public schools, libraries, in health care, in caring for the sick and elderly - in helping those who are out of work find other work - our taxes can go to support work that helps to educate our population, keep them in good health, insure they have enough money to live with some dignity, no matter their age, no matter who their parents were or weren't.

I don't see that as anything so radical. I thought that was a basic idea of human rights that the U.S. sees as a valid goal and has since at least WWII.

[MineralMan]

24. That seems pretty distant right now. We can't even get people

on DU to agree that we must re-elect President Obama. I think we're a ways from increasing taxes on the wealthy. However, we do have a chance to move in that direction in 2012. I just hope we take that chance and run with it. I'm a little discouraged at the moment.

[RainDog]

49. The majority of people in this nation are not opposed to taxes on the wealthy

the push back on this is from legislators who are afraid to alienate their campaign donors.

and, as has been noted here before, Americans THINK our society has a far, far more egalitarian distribution of wealth than actually exists. If they really understood the enormity of the inequity, they would be even more vocal about their support for increasing taxes on the wealthy. but this requires a media willing to educate. we don't' have that, for the most part.

at this time, you know. OWS is about just this thing. The push back you hear about this movement is from the same media entities that benefit from inequality - as do those in political office - asking someone to endanger his or her job in order to do the right thing isn't a very popular notion among capitalists (which would account for all of our politicians.)

if the democrats who do so would stop the attacks on unions, that would help them a lot.

Corrections to our current problems do not require any revolution, any bloodshed, any harm to anyone, unless someone is an entitled ass who thinks raising his taxes is a personal affront - really, it's nothing personal at all - beyond the reality that self-interest doesn't fix all our problems, as we've seen.

I agree, however, that Congress is not willing to do what needs to be done to fix the problem. So, we'll continue down a path of class warfare - even tho, in the end, the rich will lose. If no national politician is willing to embrace the populism that is needed - none of those candidates will find much support from those who have had it. that's just the truth. you can't expect teachers or nurses, etc. to support a candidate who has spent a great amount of energy trying to destroy their unions.

[yurbud]

38. I'd settle for equal rights for labor vs capital

[War Horse]

39. Support unions, for one...

If not for strong unions, Scandinavia might look different.

Take health care out of the employment equation - make it universal.

[Odin2005]

41. One word: Co-ops.

No need for some economic planning monstrosity of the type that doomed the USSR. Just give workers control over their workplace.

[Jim Warren]

52. Existing model

At least a partial blueprint is available and close at hand:
FDR's New Deal, even a quick study of any of the widely available graphics that illustrate the time lines on tax burden and wealth distribution over the last 75 years hammers home the point.

However, a strong and seasoned leader would be needed to resuscitate it and remove the phrase New Deal from the gutter where it has been kicked incessantly by the rentier class and allowed to wither.

Some might know the history around the stories of "court packing" that FDR had to endure, but one thing for sure, he had to have a lot of fight in him to grab onto some high court judicial gonads and squeeze until they backed down.

[StarsInHerHair]

54. we use the Swedish/Norway blueprint as best we can

get rid of Reagan's law prohibiting the Federaal Gov from creating new WPA, create new WPA, new HOLC, take all American banks & turn them into publicly owned banks, Medicare for all, upgrade national infrastructure, shift to bamboo as a paper source, begin shifting away from plastics to conserve oil-for fertilizer & very large industrial uses, use Roman concrete to replace all roads & sidewalks, capture flood water & filter & store it, build new power plants that burn 'biofuel'-shift all sewage pipes to these new power plants, require 18th century style windows & skylights in every north-facing new home where possible, use teflon lined waste pipes, demolish empty/blighted suburbs & put farms in place, encourage local smoke-houses, actually encourage & subsidize small businesses, REMOVE oil government welfare & other gov subsidies to overlarge corporations, restore tax rates to 1980.

[Honeycombe8]

60. The nordic countries have a capitalist economic system, too.

I think people are confusing economic systems with governmental systems.

[wickerwoman]

62. I'd say we need to shift to a multi-party parliamentary system.

When we send advisors to emerging democracies, we don't advise them to follow our system. Most of the Eastern European countries went for something much closer to the British system where there are a large number of parties which then have to form coalitions to get the majority.

It's the "Coke or Pepsi" party system in the US that is undermining democracy by forcing the center to be much, much too conservative in approaching environmental issus and financial regulation. The US desperately needs a viable Green Party and a viable Labor Party (and, God help us, a Tea Party and a Libertarian Party and a Nationalist Party).

Nobody takes Peak Oil or Climate Change seriously because people who would otherwise vote for the Green Party are never going to vote for Republicans. So Democrats take their votes for granted and *the* pressing issues of our time take a complete backseat to things like prayer in school, abortion and gun control where the centist votes are won.

I think step one is publically financed elections. We have to get corporate money out of politics and we have to create an environment where new political parties can be viable.

[procon]

64. it's not one-size-fits-all

Most industrialized countries have some form of partial economic, social and/or political socialism, including the US. The degree of public acceptance or demand, is directly proportional the efficacy of government in keeping such systems focused on improving the lives of it's citizens.

There are many forms of capitalism too. Capitalism, when well regulated, taxed and controlled, works splendidly to benifit the whole population because it forces wealth downward. Not in a trickle, but a flood, and when vast sums of money gets pumped into business and innovation instead of casino banks, that sustains the economic powerhouse that is/was the American working class, which in turn fuels the economy.

Capitalism in the US has become a voracious Frankenstein's monster. Larded down government subsidies, loopholes, tax breaks and evergreen legislative gifts, it has become malignant and cancerous, and it can no longer sustain itself without continually buying off more and more politicians. We are at that tipping point where the whole bloated mess is ready to implode.

It's a delicate balance to manage the public desire for more social benefits while keeping capitalism robust but in check without letting one crush the other. We know how, we've done it before, but we seem to have become so small-minded that it's only either/or, but not both working in concert.

[wickerwoman]

71. But how would you address the problem of finite resources?

Capitalism depends on growth and fails to recognize that it exists in the context of an environment with rapidly depleting resources. So we get ten million Walmarts stocked to the gills with plastic crap that nobody really needs or wants while people starve to death and we rapidly run out of options for alternative fuel sources.

We've reached a level of technology where 14% of us working 40 hours a week can provide the basic *needs* of everyone else. It no longer makes sense to have a system that creates make-work to keep the other 86% of us busy or that excludes us from medical care, adequate shelter and food while refusing to acknowledge that the problem is that we just don't *need* that many people working 40 hours a week and not that people are just lazy or uncreative or are looking for handouts.

We're destroying our planet rather than acknowledging that enough is enough and we need to rethink how basic needs are distributed and how employment is divided between us. 1% skim off all the profits generated by "increases in productivity" (i.e. firing people and making the ones that remain work insane hours for the same money), 79% are worked like dogs to no purpose, 20% are left with no way to support themselves or to meet their basic needs and are treated like shit for having to ask for help and we're burning through the only planet we have to produce Justin Bieber t-shirts and strawberries in December in New York.

Regulation doesn't address the need to redistribute work and it doesn't address the question of finite resources.

[joshcryer]

65. The last thing you want is the government taking over the means of production. LAST THING.

It leads to monumental corruption beyond comprehension and you wind up with a mafia state.

What you want is a progressive tax code and socialized medicine (roads, fire department, air travel, rails, etc, are already as socialized as they can get).

All the United States needs are two terms with a heavily left leaning congress and the entire country would be fixed.

[JCMach1]

72. I don't think it is a given. Socialism is based on unit labor, just like capitalism

we need a paradigm shift that completely re-defines human worth (not in-terms of labor).