What is Socialism?

[marmar]

from AlterNet:



Posted by rmontero at 8:21 am
July 28, 2010

What is Socialism
Posted by rmontero on @ 8:21 am


Some people would say its government control over the economy, or state ownership, others would say it’s the welfare state or government regulation, but these definitions generally come from people that do not identify as socialists. So we have to go to the source, what do socialists say socialism means. Eugene Debs was probably the most well known socialist in American history, he ran for president from Prison (he was put away for speaking out against WWI) and received 6% of the vote in 1920 (in the middle of the first red scare), and this is his definition of the goals of socialism. “The working class must get rid of the whole brood of masters and exploiters, and put themselves in possession and control of the means of production, that they may have steady employment without consulting a capitalist employer, large or small, and that they may get the wealth their labor produces, all of it, and enjoy with their families the fruits of their industry in comfortable and happy homes, abundant and wholesome food, proper clothing and all other things necessary to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So what does that mean? Well he went a little bit further about the choice of Capitalism and Socialism by saying “It is simply a question of capitalism or socialism, of despotism or democracy.” So to Eugene and other Socialists, putting the economy in the hands of the people is not just a question of sound economics it’s a question of democracy or despotism, how so? As we’ve seen in the last couple of years public policy is extremely susceptible to big business pressure, the public option had overwhelming support, yet somehow it was politically difficult for the government, and we all know it was from the insurance companies had something with more power than public pressure, money. Right now the insurance companies are entirely driven by profit, which means take as much money from you and give you as little care, and they have a stranglehold on the government because of their money. A public option however would be different, it would be run by the government, which means it would be run by the electorate, to the electorate the government health care’s profit isn’t the biggest concern, its the efficiency and quality of the healthcare, . Now imagine if the Oil companies were put under public control, how would energy policy be run, right now its for short term profits with out thinking about the effects on the environment, or even what’s best for the consumer (just what will get the most money out of the consumer), if it was controlled democratically, then the concerns of people would necessarily be concerns of the industry. If you take the major industries and resources and put them in public control then its not the big corporations that now control those industries and resources that will be able to buy public policy, it will be the public.

What about the Free Market? Isn’t the free market kind of a democracy? You vote with your cash? In a way, it is. Here’s the problem More than 70% of the wealth of the United States is controlled by the top 10% of the country, the bottom 50 % of the country control only 2.5% of the nations wealth, and the top 1% control 33.8% of the wealth, this isn’t getting better its getting worse. Usually these statistics are used just to show wealth disparity, look at these statistics from the viewpoint of political power, its more than just wealth disparity, it’s a lack of democracy. When it comes to the market, there is no Free Market, at least for the bottom 90% of Americans, its a market controlled by the rich, they have over 70% of the vote, so they control the market, your money is your vote, if you don’t have a significant amount of disposable wealth, you have no vote. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://blogs.alternet.org/rmontero/2010/07/28/what-is-socialism/

[Triana]

1. It's the opposite of sociopathy (which is the Republican Party)

;)

[mrcheerful]

2. Well I was going to say anything that doesn't benefit the top 1% is socialism

while providing the top 1% with government tax hand outs is good for the country and not socialism, its free market. But your post pretty much covers it all.

[patrice]

3. Socialism is about what the Group OWES the Individual and VICE VERSA.

Socialism makes a group a group and allows individuals to become individuals by means of the resources and agreements that make the group what it is.

.......................................

I like the following snip that you used from montero:

"Usually these statistics are used just to show wealth disparity, look at these statistics from the viewpoint of political power, its more than just wealth disparity, it’s a lack of democracy. When it comes to the market, there is no Free Market, at least for the bottom 90% of Americans, its a market controlled by the rich, they have over 70% of the vote, so they control the market, your money is your vote, if you don’t have a significant amount of disposable wealth, you have no vote."

We do not talk about this enough; it's not just that wealth is distributed disproportionately and that is unfair; it's MUCH MUCH MORE about how that extreme skew skews everything else within the group, introducing intrinsic handicaps into the system and ENSLAVING everyone, even the "happiest" of the proletariat. And, because of that slavery, denying to the group skills and abilities that would, otherwise, have made it a stronger more successfully viable group.

[marmar]

4. Agreed....That is such an important point.

nt

[randr]

5. A word t hat replaces Chicken Little's "the sky is falling" metaphor

[marmar]

6. How extraordinarily stupid.

nt