Are you a Socialist?

[Douglas Carpenter]

Last edited Tue Jun 3, 2014, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Since some people asked - I am leaving the term "Socialist" open to the broadest possible definition ranging from Marxist or even Communist to those European style social-democrats who would call themselves socialist - Not all social-democrats would call themselves socialist - but many would. IN other words, do you consider yourselves a socialist?

33 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I am a Socialist
	22 (67%)
	No, I am not a Socialist
	11 (33%)
	I want to get high
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. A working definition would help.

But I voted "yes".


Does that mean I can't get high?

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. In the absence of another definition, here's an encyclopedia article:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism

[dawg]

3. No, I am not a Socialist.

Properly regulated capitalism, along with a generous safety net, is the way to go.

[tblue37]

26. Democratic socialism is also a form of socialism, a blend of regulated capitalism and

public welfare.

[TBF]

4. Libertarian Communist -

capitalism is killing us. It only "works" for the wealthiest and in the meantime it's effects are destroying both people and environment. I couldn't dream up a more unequal destructive economic system if I tried.


For those who are curious:

Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism, and communist anarchism is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism is the best social system for the realization of individual freedom. Some anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.

Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French Revolution but was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International. The theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin took importance later as it expanded and developed pro-organizationalist and insurrectionary anti-organizationalist sections.

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

[Scuba]

5. Lemme check... yep, my library card is in my wallet.

[HereSince1628]

6. I believe I am a commonist

I believe in the concept of 'commonwealth' and common-good.

I believe that the organizing principle of society is based on 'we' not 'me'. We are in this together, and our interests/concerns must be larger than ourselves. There are things which we should, and do, hold together and manage for the common safety and good of all.

[dembotoz]

7. well the rethugs say obama is a socialist--and i know i am left of him......

[TeamPooka]

28. same here

[Armstead]

8. We're all socialists to one degree or another, even conservatives

Just as we are all capitalists to one degree or another. If you purchase anything or chage a wage or price for the fruit of your labor, you are a capitalist.

It's not an either/or binary choice.

Even the right wingnut who rails against the welfare state -- but rushes to collect his SSI Disability if he gets seriously injured -- is a socialist.

Even the Koch Brothers who use our public roads to ship their products, and use public water to produce them, are practicing socialists.

It's just a matter of how far one believes that should be taken that matters.

[PowerToThePeople]

11. I think the question is, which of the two do you prefer.

I would love to give up all capitalism for 100% socialism.

The inverse of that (give up all socialism for 100% capitalism) is imo hell.

[Armstead]

12. Balance

I'd take either one in their pure form if it contained checks and balances to make sure it actually does do the reatest good for the greatest number of people.

Unfortunately, both systems are subject to human error and human greed and lust for more,more,more.

So I guess that makes me a liberal in the sense I understand it. Which is that we have a capitalistic system, and what we need to do is do everything possible to make sure it is balanced off by enough socialism to regulate it and protect the social safety net and also maintains a strong orientation towards "the commons" and public interest.

[Nye Bevan]

9. Absolutely not. On economic policy I mostly agree with President Obama (nt)

[Puzzledtraveller]

34. ^^this^^

[Ohio Joe]

44. Except for that pesky Citizens United thing...

There you agree with the repugs.

[Nye Bevan]

46. I said "economic policy".

On Citizens United I agree with the ACLU.

[Ohio Joe]

47. You don't think allowing corporations to buy elections has anything to do with that?

[Nye Bevan]

48. On issues where Obama disagrees with the ACLU,

I usually find myself agreeing with the ACLU's position.

[Ohio Joe]

53. And by coincidence, repugs

[Nye Bevan]

54. Not a big fan of the ACLU, are you? (nt)

[Ohio Joe]

55. I am not a big fan of corporate ownership of our govt

I think it's fucked up to be a tool of the 1%.

[MohRokTah]

10. Not now nor will I ever be. eom

[Lee-Lee]

13. It's sad that we have let the right malign the word so much

That even saying you are makes most people look at you lime you are a unicorn or something.

When are we going to stop being afraid to embrace the word and, more importantly, support more politicians like Senator Sanders who are not ashamed of it.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. The user name says it all......

[rock]

15. I pass because the term is too vague

I am however social and cooperative, and believe some activities should be left to the government (collecting taxes, building roads, printing money, incarcerating criminals. etc.).

[Prophet 451]

16. Not sure

It depends on what definition of "socialist" you use. I'm for the free market for most things but with state regulation and the state actually providing a state-run competitor in a few key areas (power, water, telecoms, retail banking and healthcare). The idea is that if the state provides a service, funded out of taxation, that service acts as a bottom floor. To compete with that, private industry must offer a better product at a competative price (I call this the backstop theory).

One example, healthcare: Under the backstop theory, the state would provide everyone with at least bronze level cover, funded out of taxation. If you want better care than that or lower co-pays or whatever, you go private.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. kik

[stone space]

18. Yes. (nt)

[Zorra]

19. Yeh.

Thanks for sharing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. IN other words, do you consider yourselves a socialist?

Since some people asked - I am leaving the term "Socialist" open to the broadest possible definition ranging from Marxist or even Communist to those European style social-democrats who would call themselves socialist - Not all social-democrats would call themselves socialist - but many would.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. another kick

[baldguy]

22. We are all socialists. Good thing, too.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. f0r more results

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. again

[Dirty Socialist]

25. Socialism Can Be A Relative Term

I am for socialized health insurance, and perhaps socialized banks and oil industries, since they are giving us the most trouble.

[Maedhros]

27. Proudly! [n/t]

[liberal_at_heart]

29. yes I am.

[Still Blue in PDX]

30. Yep.

When I took sociology and political science in high school it made more sense to me than anything else I heard explained. When I went home and talked to my dad about it the conversation segued into how we needed the Vietnam War to keep our economy healthy.

Still not sure whether he was arguing for or against capitalism, but it was the first time I really questioned what my parents taught me.

[quinnox]

31. Some fool at discussionist posted this thread as an example of DU being a "cesspool"

He then showed he had no idea of the differences between communism and socialism, and thought they were the same thing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. well yes, Both Mao and Tony Blair called themselves Socialist - so obviously different people mean

different things by the same term "Socialist"

[NuclearDem]

49. Socialism is such a broad topic that it's hard to nail down.

One particular compilation book put it perfectly, but I'll have to paraphrase since I don't have it on hand right now.

It said something to the effect of "trying to define socialism by a basic definition is like trying to summarize mankind's history of civilization by defining man by the biological definition."

[LeftishBrit]

33. In the Europaean sense, yes

[Puzzledtraveller]

35. I am poor, I am not a socialist.

If I were doing well, upper middle class, perhaps I may feel differently.

[hunter]

36. Yes.

I figure 51% of the economy and the wealth ought to be controlled democratically by "We the People" and 49% ought to be free market, but regulated tightly enough that it doesn't become too concentrated among a few individuals or giant corporations.

Imagine government medical, science, and technical research released to the world no strings attached.

Imagine high quality education and medical care available to everyone, no charge, all of it paid for by the people of this nation.

Large corporations these days strive to inhibit any sort of progress they cannot control, often by corrupting government regulatory agencies and the political process.

They also try to capture and control resources that belong to all of us for their own profit.

I think government agencies ought to compete directly with employers who do not pay or treat their workers well. Why are we giving WalMart workers food stamps when we might instead hire these same workers to do very necessary infrastructure improvements, teach them new skills, and pay them living wages?

With that kind of competition, directly from government, WalMart would have to pay their workers living wages and treat them fairly, otherwise they simply wouldn't be able to find anyone willing to work for them.

[KamaAina]

37. Yup. One of them there European-kind ones.

[DFW]

38. Social Democrats are not socialists, so no

Socialism implies state ownership of all means of production. That promotes inefficiency. Regulated markets where incentive is still rewarded, but excesses are not, seem to be the way to go. Being here in Europe, where varying degrees of socialism have been tried, the countries that have let government bureaucrats become all-powerful (and untouchable, and therefore indifferent) are the ones that tend to become the least pleasant to live in. Power DOES corrupt, and absolute power DOES corrupt absolutely. To be in the slightest bit benevolent, a government must still answer to the governed.

[TheKentuckian]

39. I favor a much heavier portion of socialism in our mixed economy than we have now for sure.

I also believe that all of our economic "isms" are ideas from a different era and that we are still fighting the last was instead of evolving to a new paradigm that reflects current resources and technology while looking ahead to new game altering innovations.

In an era of fusion energy and nano factories, neither capitalism nor socialism will make much sense at all.

We have legacy systems and ideologies and have fought about them so long we forgot that you must grow, change, or die and we still argue 200 year old systems from an age of low hanging fruit resources, barely technological, and drastically lower populations.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. k

[joshcryer]

41. In that I reject private property, yes.

[scarletwoman]

42. I pass. I very much dislike labels.

I do think that workers - NOT the State - should own the means of production in many, if not most, cases.

I believe that the "Commons" ought to be protected and actively promoted - e.g. National Parks, Public Libraries, water supplies, wildlife refuges, and such.

I am very much against the commodification of those things which are necessary to support life - like potable water, cures for diseases.

I am against corporate monopolies - of news media, seed stock, energy generation.

I have no idea if all those things add up to the label of "socialist", not sure if it matters.

[Ohio Joe]

43. By todays standards... Easily...

By the actual definition... No.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

45. Is the Pope a,

Catholic?

[KittyWampus]

50. I'm a Social Democrat in the vein of German politics.

[Adrahil]

56. Me too. NT

[yuiyoshida]

51. I don't know what I am...I do know

I am a democrat. ....and a SF GIANTS FAN!

[el_bryanto]

52. Is socialism the opposite of capitalism?

Or are they two points on a spectrum that runs from pure laissez faire capitalism/anarchy and a command economy?
Bryant