I'm a big supporter of Socialism. However, I don't see how

[MineralMan]

it could be implemented in the United States. It seems to me that it would require a rewriting of the Constitution, and that seems pretty much impossible.

Can we discuss ideas about whether or not the US could be turned into a Socialist country? I don't think we've had that discussion here. I'm a Socialist by philosophy. I just can't see a way to get to it in this country.

Note: This is not a silent thread. Make as much noise as you like.

[ReggieVeggie]

1. not a silent thread, a copycat thread

is what it sounds like

[MineralMan]

8. Nope. This is a discussion thread.

It's an important question, too.

[patrice]

16. can't be a copycat thread unless it's silent. nt

[pintobean]

19. Shhhhhhh

no clues, please

[cali]

2. I don't think you'd have to rewrite the constitution for the U.S. to go in a more

socialistic direction and I don't see why it couldn't be implemented if that's the will of the people.

[MineralMan]

7. I think you would. In our Constitution, the powers of government

are seriously restricted. I don't see how you could manage to control the means of production under the current constitution.

Socialism would require some major changes, I believe. While it might be possible for the legislature to pass some laws that would make us more socialistic, I can't see that happening, given the current political divisions. That's the same reason the Constitution can't get changed, really.

The "will of the people" is the problem. I can't imagine that a majority would be in favor of switching to Socialism, unfortunately.

[cali]

28. I think Medicare sets a precedent

I'm not talking about pure socialism but a mix of capitalism and socialism.

[MineralMan]

33. Yes, I'm a Medicare recipient.

And I don't mind at all paying for a supplement to cover what it doesn't cover. It's pretty affordable, actually.

A mixed system. I think that's going to be an essential part of any socialist-type of government here.

[Prof Lester]

69. We already have that.

Socialism for the big rich.. hard capitalism for the little people. The big rich have already gutted and destroyed the Constitution of the United States. Bush said it was "just a piece of paper". The only time they talk about the Constitution is when they want to use it to bash us with in order to steal more from us. Witness the recent bank bailouts. TRILLIONS given to BILLIONAIRES.. putting you and yours on the hook for it for many generations into the future. They pay themselves BILLIONS in BONUSES!! Bonuses? Bonuses? Bonuses for destroying the economy? Bonuses for ruining the country? Well, that's socialism for ya, baby. Crony capitalism is just another way of saying cradle-to-grave ultra-socialism for the big rich.

[socialist_n_TN]

80. Because the "will of the people" doesn't mean much

anymore. If it ever did.

[Drale]

3. We are never going to become a pure socialist country

and I'm not sure we ever should. I don't think any one pure system can work. What we need to do though is to nationalize important industries, such as energy, internet, so on so on.

[MineralMan]

10. That might be possible, but would require some serious legislation

that doesn't seem possible, given the current political climate.

[Demoiselle]

76. Is there a "pure" socialist country in the world anymore..

except, perhaps, for Cuba? China and Russia have a Brazilian millionaires .... Sweden and France et al have very wealthy capitalist citizens.... Not challenging, just asking....

[Drale]

78. Thats what I'm saying

none of those countries could make it as a pure socialist country.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. DUZY!

[patrice]

5. Assuming that we agree upon a definition for that word, I keep wondering why we don't learn how to

create co-operatives that engage in their own micro-lending amongst other things.

This seems kind of obvious to me, so what am I missing?

[MineralMan]

11. Now that would be doable, even today.

In a way, that was the idea of the credit union. Those still exist, and were founded with that purpose. They've become more bank-like, though, over time.

[joshcryer]

38. I don't think they have. Credit unions almost survived the recession unskathed.

Only a few dozen of them needed "bailing out" (and of those only a handful of them accounted for the majority of the bailout).

[MineralMan]

44. That's true. You're right.

Interesting. Perhaps it's their limited capital that is the problem, when compared to the national and multi-national banks. And that would link to the huge corporations, which have huge capital needs. Very interesting.

[blondeatlast]

57. I just visited a rather small town that is managing just fine without

easy access to any big-box stores or big groceries. I was amazed at how many businesses were surviving and thrivingthere and it occurred to me that it's like the little town I grew up in--local biz supported local biz and we were all better off.

My small town got a Wal-Mart and has died a sad little death and it breaks my heart. the other town has the same businesses that have been there for decades. It can be done.

This isn't a direct slam at WM, but that's the biggest difference I can observe between my little town and the other one. I can almost trace the decline; I still visit my little town often.

[patrice]

117. There's so much about "America" that we need to make a conscious commitment to, stuff

we and generations before us took for granted, or never really valued in the first place, until it became too late. We can't go back, but a Free people's movement ought to talk about why and how individuals could commit to shared values and I think we should also consider "how"s that include consensus agreements for some form of accountability, so that the whole thing doesn't just become talk. Isn't this, after all, the sort of things that chambers of commerce do? We need parallel organizations that are designed to implement Real Values, not just phony values like money and status.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

6. Nowhere in the Constitution

(I beleive) does it say anything about an economic policy or system. If we agree capitalism is a financial system, unrelated to governmental issues, which it is, then we can say the same thing about socialism. The Constitution doesn't say the United States must be operated using capitalism.

[MineralMan]

13. The Constitution doesn't spell out capitalism as the means of

commerce, but it pretty much leaves commerce up to the states, in theory. It does offer a bit of regulation for interstate commerce by prohibiting tariffs and the like within the country.

I think the primary reason the Constitution blocks Socialism is the freedoms implicit in the Constitution. It would be an easy argument that an individual could engage in any business he or she wished, or to join in groups to engage in business. That would allow those businesses to compete with any governmental business. I don't think the federal government would be allowed to engage in business under the Constitution, even though it actually does in many cases, through government owned corporations like the Postal Service.

Very difficult question.

[Fumesucker]

70. Vice laws put the lie to that statement..

Individuals are *not* "free to engage in any business they wish" at the current moment. Gambling, prostitution and "drugs" are three business activities that are explicitly banned in many, indeed the great majority, of places in the USA.

[joshcryer]

43. It does lay out a constitutional basis for private property, patents, and copyright.

The Fourth Amendment pretty much lays out the case for property, but it allows the government to take said property over with "just compensation."

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. Fifth Amendment

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentv

[formernaderite]

47. our constitution spells out a limited role for federal control

Do you honestly believe that 2/3 of the states would give that up? However, it can be done incrementally.... State by state. If it works well in a number of states... don't think others wouldn't follow behind.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

106. Oh I'm not saying it would ever happen.

:) I'm just saying that a living in a Republic , with elected representatives, does not necessarily rule out an economy based on socialism. I'm saying the taxes that are levied are used to support EVERYONE.... :bounce: in my fantasy world.

[nonperson]

9. It seems to me

that it's taken a re-writing of the Constitution to maintain what we laughingly call capitalism in this country right now.

Besides that, in reality what we have here in the USA is socialism for the top two percent and corporate welfare for the biggest corporations.

[crickets]

89. Good points.

Welcome to DU!

[senseandsensibility]

109. Welcome to DU!

You should expand on those excellent points and post them here.

[nonperson]

128. Thank you both for welcoming me to DU

I will do my best to expand on these points once I am able.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. just define socialism and you're halfway there

I don't see what in the Constitution would preclude us from being socialists if we so chose.

Thanks for the thread, Trotsky.

[chaska]

14. Evolve or die....

We will either evolve in a more socialistic direction, or more likely, the system reaches an absolute dead end. The latter is what happened in the USSR. How we get there is a complete mystery to me. At least in the USSR only the gov't believed in the system (and even that is questionable). Here most people still believe in this insanity. But there's always the possibility of that unexpected, tipping point, black swan event that changes everything overnight. But I kind of think that you don't get there without putting in the hours to push it to the tipping point. It's that, "it took me twenty years to be an overnight sensation" thing.

The thing is though, there is absolutely no guarantee that things - again, like the USSR - don't get worse after the fall.

[MineralMan]

17. It just seems to me that the process must be defined before

we can move in that direction. So far, I don't think I've seen anyone suggest a process, and I can't think of one. It's very difficult for the federal government to engage in business. We have the USPS, Fannie Mae, the TVA, and a few other quasi-government corporations, but there's intense opposition to even those.

There is strong opposition to the government competing with private business that's deeply ingrained in how our system operates. It would require some serious paradigm shifts to change that, and I'm not sure how those might happen.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Government, through its licensing franchise, could move us

quite a ways toward a more socialist economy without rewriting the Constitution.

To wit, medicine. Congress could pass and the President sign a law making all doctors employess of the federal government. It could further legislate that med school graduates who wish to 'practice' medicine in this country receive a license to practice medicine contingent upon their becoming employees of the federal government. Likewise, the government could simply nationalize all hospitals, compensating shareholders where appropriate.

[MineralMan]

36. Hmm....I'm with you on the licensing thing, but

don't see how the government could nationalize hospitals. They could create their own to compete, but I don't see a mechanism for nationalization.

As far as doctors go, I've long thought that the government could finance medical education completely for doctors who would become employee doctors, working for the government. Make that happen, and we'd probably have a great crop of new doctors in a few years, all working in the government health care system. I imagine they'd be lining up around the block to apply.

[coalition_unwilling]

74. I should have said 'licensing\permitting' franchise. By only

issuing permits for publicly-run hospitals and not issuing any permits to for-profit operations, the government could quickly move to a place where health is taken out of the private sector and placed firmly once and for all in the private sector.

But your question really is whether there are entrenched inherency barriers to implementing socialism. Interesting question. I have always it thought it somewhat moot, as long as the attitudes among the citizenry necessary for a socialized economy was not present.

[MineralMan]

91. Yes. I'm not certain there are any inherent barriers, although I do

believe that we'd have to have a Supreme Court with a different makeup than the current one to do what you suggest. There would inevitably be challenges to the changes you mention. Again, it doesn't appear to be anything that will happen quickly. And by quickly I'm speaking of one or two decades. I believe that any change toward socialism will require a longer period than that, and will happen incrementally. In any case, I do not be believe I will live long enough to see it. I'm 65. All I can do is to try to begin the process. I have time, and still enough energy for a couple of more major election cycles, I hope. Beyond that, it will have to happen without me, since even if I'm alive, I won't have the energy to be an active participant.

[coalition_unwilling]

102. It may happen sooner than you think, especially if the double-dip

recession\depression I see headed our way right now comes to pass. (I'm waiting to see what effect the rise in gas prices has on the nascent 'recovery' the economists had been touting.)

In January 1933, when FDR was inaugurated for his first term, the national unemployment rate stood at approximately 25%. Think about that: 1 our of every four able-bodied adults who wanted to work in this country could not find work. If this double-dip recession\depression happens, we could easily be looking at unemployment in the same range (U6, a more accurate picture, currently stands at roughly 18%, in contrast with the artificially low U2, which currently measures just under 9%).

One of the DUers who has (dem) socialist leanings has pointed out that in the past few months he has seen far more pro-socialist posts here on DU. I consider DU, for all its eccentricities, to be a leading edge of the left-wing sword. You will hear it here first and months later what you hear will hit the mainstream. That's not to say DU is a perfect forecaster by any means, but it does suggest that socialism and Marxism have acquired a certain gravitas here that they may not have had in the preceding decade.

I think at this point what we should be doing to further the advent of socialism in this country is to sharpen class consciousness among the working class so as to transform a class in itself into a class for itself (Lenin's phraseology, I believe, loosely translated). Wisconsin has offered some glimmers of hope that such a transformation is beginning to occur. But Wisconsin is merely one of the opening skirmishes in what is certain to be a long and drawn-out class war. I'm 51 and sometimes wonder whether I will see it in my lifetime either.

[Unvanguard]

15. What specific provisions do you think would cause trouble?

The most problematic probably is the Takings Clause, but it's hard to see a democratically-implemented socialism transforming the economy through a sudden total expropriation of corporate property; given the realities of democratic politics, and the risks of financial crisis, it would probably be a slow, gradual process that involved little forced seizure (and probably only with compensation.)

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, that would be a primary issue.

We have a few quasi-governmental corporations already, of course. Expanding those might be one path, or introducing new ones. However, I can't imagine Congress authorizing such expansion. There's a very strong sense that is historically based that militates against the government run corporation competing with private ones. I can't imagine that happening without a sea change in the political environment. Hell, we can barely hold a Democratic majority for more than four years. I can't see how we'd go even further, under the current Constitution. That's the problem I see as the biggest stumbling block.

[patrice]

22. I've always understood the assumption of some form of "takings" only as a consequence of

the obligation that the society/group OWES its members for their participation in the practices, mores, and customs of the society. It's that bondedness together that makes it SOCIALISM, not the takings. The takings are only the result of certain conditions under which the DEBT OWED by the group has not been paid, so the membership re-possesses some/or all of the value that they created by agreeing to act as members.

If the debt is satisfied in some other manner, if the group does not default on what it owes its members, there is no taking, but it IS still Socialism, so the question is HOW precisely, especially under certain conditions of economic stress, CAN the society/group give it's members what it owes them in exchange for the real value that they bring to the group. What are the alternatives for maintaining the relationships between the members and the group as a whole? I think we are thinking about this question in a fashion that is too limited by something we refer to as "money", which HAS NO REAL VALUE and, hence, is not an appropriate form in which to manifest the basic agreements that make the group a group, agreements that must be based on Real Value, such as Labor. Money could be secondary or tertiary, but it should NOT be fundamental to the functionality of the relationships which require various forms of Real Value in order to be economically viable.

[MineralMan]

24. The society...

Do we have such a thing? It seems to me that we do not, at least in numbers of people who share the same values. It seems to me that our "society" is nothing of the sort. It's a hodgepodge with no unity in any particular direction.

[patrice]

29. I agree completely and see at least part of that as a result of mistaking phony value for real value

and, then, getting really pissed off when you get taken, which happens ALL OF THE TIME, not just recently. Even the people who possess a lot of phony value KNOW instinctively that they are under threat and even that they aren't all that happy despite what they possess.

[patrice]

42. Agreed. The takings would start out as perhaps small markets, in which it is agreed

that there is a commitment to a certain value, even when it exists in a cheaper form offered by capitalism.

[patrice]

45. P.S. Kind of like what is going on in organic food-circles right now. That's income that

has been taken away from agri-biz.

[readmoreoften]

18. That is the point of Marxist dialectics. It can't be "implemented" from above.

Becoming a socialist society is a material and interactive process, not a decree from above and it couldn't be implement by vote, not because a velvet revolution isn't desirable, but because the capitalist class will not permit their own destruction without a fight. (I consider Stalin a perversion and destruction of socialism, so note that if the conversation 'goes there' you're shifting from how societies become socialist to how societies can thwart their own revolutionary process after a revolution--which is a different question.)

So, yes, the constitution would need to be rewritten or reinterpreted but this is not compatible with democracy. The Mexican constitution, for example, says that the people of Mexico have the right to overthrow any government or governmental system that it deems to be unjust. That is far more democratic than our own. Of course, the Mexican people still suffer (in most cases worse than we do) regardless of the democratic ideals of their constitution. But that only proves my point: regardless of the beauty and elegance of a state document, becoming a socialist society is a material process. It involves political struggle, including electoral battles, plus labor struggles and a literal wresting of power from capitalists.

Because capitalism is global, it can't be a local or national process, which makes revolution even more difficult. The power socialism has behind it is that capital expansion requires constant growth which requires increases in the rate of exploitation. Without growth, it dies. And it can't grow without taking more resources and sharing less with its working class. The power of entertainment/distraction and police apparatuses is not infinite.

I agree, the US will likely be one of the last societies to go socialist in a revolutionary situation, but it is not "impossible."

Is it impossible for the US to suddenly become socialist by decree with no dialectical struggle? Yes. Absolutely. But that is a strawman because no one who is a serious socialist would ever suggest that it is possible.

[MineralMan]

23. I never implied that it could be done by decree. That's pretty much

impossible. I'm asking for ideas about how it might happen at all, given the current political divisions. I sure can't see it. There is no overwhelming movement that supports the shift. There is a small minority that wants a socialistic form of government, but far from enough to actually pull that off, I think.

A vote isn't necessarily what I'm suggesting. But there would have to be a strong enough "will" of a large enough mass of the population, I'd think. I don't know, but I'm not seeing that, either. Your Mexican example is a good one. Even though the people in Mexico have that right, they do not have the will, apparently. Or, perhaps, the current rise of the drug lords may be as close as it gets.

As for Stalin, I wouldn't go there in any way. The USSR was not actually a socialist state.

[readmoreoften]

56. Envisioning the transformation as an act of "will" is what socialists call "idealism"

The difficult part is that it doesn't come as an act of pure will, but by taking advantage of material conditions, which factor in economic situations, global political conditions, the material numbers of actual socialist organizers on the ground.

The analogy I generally use is as follows: if your electricity goes off, you originally check your own circuits and try to find the problem with your house. Then you look outside and discover the streetlights are off. Then you go outside and see if other people's electricity is out too. Eventually, you talk to those neighbors you don't know. If if goes on long enough, you begin to commiserate with them. Now imagine that situation going on for days. Eventually, you'd carpool to city hall. You'd form local organizations. You'd work together and in the process you'd get to know one another and begin to stand up for one another in other capacities as well.

A revolution works like that, but it takes a much longer time, much more sustained work. But it doesn't come from a "will", it comes from an admixture of material situations mixed with a normal and non-superhuman level of rational activity. Eventually uprisings evolve, and to those not involved in political processes they seem like sudden outbursts of "will" but they are actually the result of long methods of organizing and agitation (this was even the case in Egypt's recent uprising.)

We are at the very very beginning of left political organizing in the US after 30 years of entrenched right-wing reaction. That being said, socialist organizations are multiplying in the US--sure only into the thousands--but a few years ago they were only in the tens and hundreds at most. We are no where near the material conditions for a revolutionary shift. No. Where. Near it. But the swing is definitely becoming sustained in our direction as so many realize that capitalism and democracy are ultimately incompatible and wanting to do something (but not knowing what).

Building a socialist and democratic country and world is an unbelievable uphill battle. However, I still think its far more possible than the concept that late capitalism can somehow change its nature or its relationship to the state and becoming "regulatable". I don't think its possible for the US to successfully regulate capitalism to the point where it will not destroy its working-class majority. I see no mechanism possible for controlling it. Capital owns the means of production of goods AND services in the US, including information services. Much of the public apparatuses have already been privatized and I see no mechanism for changing this outside of changing the means of production.

And for the record, I don't think that "socialism in one country" is possible either, so I think it's even more of a struggle than usually imagined. That being said, I think its more possible than something that is at this point categorical impossible: managed capitalism.

[readmoreoften]

61. Glad that you agree that socialism is impossible to implement from above.

It's also impossible to implement by election, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that there aren't damn good reasons to support socialists in elections.

[HereSince1628]

21. Winston Churchill said

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

What seems to be missing currently is the recognition that for a society to be filled with blessings demands the best of both. How is it that we cannot see this as an optimization problem that should seek a middle ground?

Captialism at it's best is people pooling the fruits of their labor to achieve goals greater than any one could achieve on their own. Socialism at it's best is people pooling the fruits of their labor to achieve compassion on a greater scale than any one could achieve alone.

[MineralMan]

25. Very well put. Thank you.

It does seem that some sort of blend is required. Perhaps a limitation on the size and scope of the corporation would move toward that blend. We seem to have gone in the opposite direction in the last few decades. Perhaps we can reverse that trend and, ATT-like, pull a Ma Bell break-up of the largest corporations to trim them down to size. That might make a start. But, can we muster up enough support to make that happen? That, I'm not sure of.

[HereSince1628]

62. Imbalanced distribution of wealth is unsustainable

People reject it, they especially reject it when the piles of money turn into raison d'etre for the distribution of political power in society.

Andrew Carnegie was asked why he gave so much money away. His reason, at least as legend goes, was because he felt if he didn't give it away people would come and take it away.

When the people tire of the asymmetry, change toward a more compassionate system will be passionately demanded. This happens all over the world. Even if workers in the US have been slow to anger, the rich in the US have no reason to believe they are exceptional in this respect.

[MineralMan]

88. A good point. However, we seem to have accepted it to a very

large degree, so I'm not sure that's going to change anytime soon. Before we can change it, we'll have to change the makeup of our legislatures, both state and federal. That's going to be a slow process, I believe, and a process that needs to be started immediately with the next election. I see no sense of the population being ready to do anything other than vote in the next election. I see no uprising or any such thing on the horizon. So, it seems to me that we can start by convincing people that the right is the wrong direction and begin the shift to the left.

I see no option that speeds that process up, and nobody has suggested one.

[socialist_n_TN]

83. This would be my idea...........

IF you want to go interstate with a business idea, it either has to be fully worker owned (co-op/petit socialist) or government owned (socialist). Now if you're dealing with proprietary technologies and ideas, then license them. You'd still have some disparity, but not like what we have here and now. If you don't want to expand past the borders of the state you found the business in, then state laws would apply. This wouldn't involve a new Constitution, just interpretation of the commerce clause.

The interstate nature of government owned businesses in the US would be the roadmap for socialist business structures that take care of all the basic needs. PERIOD. It's not going to be socialist in a developed society if there are still people who are hungry and homeless.

Beyond that, if there's a consumer item that you want to sell over the whole country (or whole world) the government has to become involved on the side of the people before you can legally sell it. And rather than put together draconian laws and firing squads for capitalists who don't want to play this game and try to sell outside of their state and outside of the law, then they forfiet they're claims to proprietary tech and ideas. IOW, you put up a government factory (or worker owned co-op with the start up costs financed by government loans) to manufacture the item CHEAPER THAN THE CAPITALIST CAN.

Probably the FIRST step towards a socialist system is getting rid of financial influence in politics and maybe in society as a whole.

[MineralMan]

87. Thanks for your serious comment.

I'm pretty much in agreement with what you said. I also agree with the need to get rid of financial influence in politics. Again, though, that's going to require congressional action, so making that possible is going to be an early and primary goal, I think.

[white_wolf]

26. That quote shows that Churchill really didn't understand socialism at all.

He just assumed the Soviet system was socialism, that is to be expected from him though. He can't be called unbiased at all.

[ThomWV]

30. But you do ....

[white_wolf]

32. I do. Much more than Churchill. For starters I know that the Soviet system under

Stalin was not Socialism. If you think that it was, than you really have no understanding of socialism.

[MineralMan]

37. Yes, clearly Stalin's system was nothing like socialism.

So, let's put that aside and focus on what can actually be done here and now.

[MineralMan]

31. Thanks for joining the thread. You're smart. Do you have any

practical suggestions for how we might move toward socialism in the US? That's why the thread is here.

[white_wolf]

39. I'm going to assume that wasn't sarcasm, because you don't seem like the type.

As for practical suggestions, I think one of the keys is the labor force. We need to focus on unionizing the labor force than take it a step further by teaching the Unions that there is something better, a system where they don't have to bargain, but can make their own decisions to run their workplaces. Another step is educating the populace that the government isn't evil, like they have been taught. Some industries will have to be nationalized and that will require compensation to the owners, though sometimes I wonder if they haven't saved enough in tax cuts to be justly compensated.

[MineralMan]

49. No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I can be, but I signal my sarcasm

very clearly. Thanks for your input. Organization and education. Those are the things I've always seen as the prime movers, too. That's where we seem to be falling down on the job, I think. Perhaps we need to stop fighting among ourselves over individual issues and join together on the larger issues. So it seems to me, anyhow.

[HereSince1628]

72. I don't know what Churchill thought, my point in using it

was more to address the notion that their are positive aspects to both, and that having a functional socially responsible economy probably depends upon having aspects of both systems present. It's probably fair to say that everyone replying in this thread has different ideas about the meanings of socialism and capitalism.

I really think the problem is something of an optimization, and it's my feeling that the optimal mix is in a range where both capitalism and socialism take advantage of voluntary cooperation led by enlightened self interest.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Do you know what 'supporter' means?

The Constitution does not dictate economic policy. We are currently a mix of socialist and capitalist policies, right now. And the Constitution stands.
Just amusing stuff. What's your objective with all of these 'I love corn, but don't think we should ever eat it' threads? It must be rough to favor strongly so many things you feel compelled argue against, I feel for you.

[MineralMan]

40. I'm far from arguing against anything.

Let's hear your ideas. The thread is open. You can contribute any ideas you like. Your post is about me, not about the question. How does that contribute to the thread?

[Bluenorthwest]

58. First line of my post:

The Constitution does not dictate economic policy. We are currently a mix of socialist and capitalist policies, right now. And the Constitution stands.

[joshcryer]

35. The US constitution is compatible with socialism and even full on communism.

We do have socialist policies implemented (Social Security, Medicare).

[MineralMan]

41. OK, so how do we move things along in that direction?

What are the mechanisms we can use to do that? That's the question in this thread.

[leftstreet]

46. How was Medicare implemented? SS? Post office? The VA?

What mechanisms were used?

[MineralMan]

52. Exactly. Precisely. And that's the key to this whole thing.

We cannot have what we seek by wishing for it. We must elect legislators who are closer to what we want than opposed to what we want. And we will never do that in a single stroke. A couple of times, I though we were moving in the correct direction, only to see that reversed.

Is it not logical to seek to move in a direction, rather than to focus on individual issues? Would it not be logical to work as hard as possible to create a Congress that at least was a shift in the right direction, even if it did not go far enough in that direction in a single election? Doesn't that make sense?

And yet, when I suggest that here, I get shouted down. Why? Is our current situation, as of 2010 an improvement over the prior two years? How? We have another opportunity approaching. Should we not take the chance to move things in the correct direction, even if we do not meet every goal?

These are serious questions.

[readmoreoften]

63. There were active socialist and communist parties at the time. There was a real fear that inspired

officials to accept "bipartisan reforms" like the New Deal. Roosevelt was telling the truth when he said that he was the best friend capitalism ever had. He was trying to save it by undermining its opponents positions by co-opting them! A very powerful move and one that also helped the American working class (other working classes, maybe not so much...)

So the real importance is the movements below and participating in them, making them larger and combative. For that reason, I suggest that all supporters of Obama accept and welcome criticisms of his policies from the left, because that is the only hope for New Deal-type reforms. American presidents ultimately serve to reconcile capitalists with the American working class. They can't openly challenge capitalism. But they can say "look, this is what the people want, they've backed me into a corner."

[socialist_n_TN]

85. Truth, read truth!........

especially your second sentence in your second paragraph. It frustrates me to no end to have people use the "progamatic" excuse to SHUT down debate from the left. The attitude of "Well, I want the same thing as you do, but I'm not going to bring it up or support our ideas because we can't get them passed by Congress" is just a cop out.

Yes in each and every INDIVIDUAL bill being debated at some point in our system, you're going to come to a compromise or not point. But that should be after we all decide to fight for what we WANT first.

[MineralMan]

92. Yes there were. They had little impact. The Depression was the

motivating factor, really. Nothing like a Depression to get people thinking about change. Perhaps we're on the verge of that stimulation. I don't know. The over-reaching of the Republicans makes me think that we have a chance to at least flip the switch to get the motor started in 2012. If we bother to take that opportunity, that is.

[readmoreoften]

110. They had major impact. If Stalinism hadn't've taken root in the USSR, it would have been a bigger

impact.

Look at the response to the US invasion of the USSR in 1919--there was a general strike in Seattle. Labor unions were hard left until the red scare and infiltration by the AFL-"CIA". Even the LGBT movement, the Mattachine Society was started in 1951 by communist Harry Hay (before it was taken over by gay conservatives). After the fall of the USSR to Stalin and the failure of the German Revolution in 1923, the hope of socialism was effectively dashed. But the fear of it was preserved, its "spectre" produced a world of reforms. The fall of the USSR (not socialist since 1924, but still keeping the boogie man alive for to our benefit) destroyed the spectre and it destroyed the reforms.

My theory is that reforms were an epiphenomenon of existing states with socialist rhetoric. There is no longer a reason for the capitalist class to negotiate with us.

[joshcryer]

48. Regulate trade industries, single payer health care, education, housing "assistance."

It's not terribly controversial. Trade union empowerment (ie, all businesses may form unions).

You may want to read up on the Industrial Workers of the World, the United States was actually going in that direction before the Powers That Be decided, "Hey, if the workers have actual control over the means of production we won't be in power so much!"

[patrice]

51. IOW, Real Values. nt

[MineralMan]

54. Would that not require legislatures who might possibly do that?

Is that not the very basic step we must take? We cannot have any of the things you mention without their being enacted into law, and we cannot enact anything into law without legislative bodies that are willing to do that. Should we not, at least, try to move our legislatures in that direction, even if we cannot achieve the entire goal during a single election?

[readmoreoften]

66. I agree. But its important to qualify what "moving our legislatures in that direction" really means.

It can't mean voting for people who "in theory" support reforms and but who don't fight for the people. This is just enabling our movements to be cynically used by politicians who gladhand and cut backroom deals. Such opportunists can't be supported even if they are "a lesser evil". Lesser evils don't push us forward towards reforms, they give us a false sense of security and they occupy the place of someone who could really be fighting for us. I'd rather see a real adversary than have a comfortable place-holder in the spot. It just doesn't more us forward. It stifles the debate.

[crickets]

97. Well put.

This is one of our most frustrating problems right now even for middle of the road Democrats, much less the socialists voting with the party.

[joshcryer]

67. Absolutely, but you don't get elected on such platforms.

That's why I'm of the opinion that you gotta start someplace else if you want to "get it done." The US is too set in its ways.

[rug]

50. The Constitution is subservient to economic forces.

And has been since the day they wrote it.

[WillyT]

53. Aren't The Military, Police, Firefighters, Public Educators, Etc., A Form Of Socialism ???

In the sense that we tax the public, and redistribute the funds for the public good?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

55. Of course they are. That's not in question.

Now, how do we create more such things, and in other areas? That's the process I'm talking about.

[readmoreoften]

59. Fighting austerity measures is the best place to start.

This is why we need to be unequivocal on austerity at all times. We can't concede more public ground and must refuse any politician who uses the rhetoric of shared suffering. We must demand a tax-the-corporations policy and explain why lower taxes on corporations don't create jobs. Of course this kind of reformist demands work better as revolutionary organizing tools than as the winning of actual demands.

That's because its not really possible to win these sorts of demands on any scale. The reason why its so hard to debunk this information isn't because "Americans are dumber" or anything commonly cited (or "have less will") but it is in part the acceptance of the attack on the leftists in US universities and schools, the promotion of "academic freedom" for conservatives--even the establishment of endowed chairs in departments by Bank of America and other corporations (They support endowed chairs in Ayn Rand Studies and Entrepreneurial Development, etc.) which have eroded the university's ability to critically challenge their own situation.

[MineralMan]

94. Interesting ideas. Do you think this must happen incrementally,

or do you think it will require a massive, sudden change. In 21st century America, I think it must be an incremental process. There is much inertia working against progressive ideas, it seems to me.

[readmoreoften]

113. It depends on what you mean by incremental and what is changing incrementally.

For example, the 2nd International socialists of the victorian age are largely where we get our ideas of slowly being able to transform capitalism into an equitable society through progressive reform. I don't think this is possible, per se. In other words, I don't think that we can slowly and incrementally fight for one reform at a time and then someday achieve a free, democratic society through our reforms. My argument against this is simply that capitalists are stronger than the working class so long as they are running society. They have no reason to negotiate reforms with us. That being said, I am opposed to "spontaneism" as well.

It is not incremental progress, but an ongoing struggle against capitalists. In that struggle, we learn, we organize, we learn about each other, and we get stronger. Civil rights struggles are reforms, but they are reforms that are absolute preconditions to socialist revolution. When blacks and whites fight together (or LGBTs and allies, or men and women) we break down barriers in the working class. (Some may find it odd, but this method of socialist organizing originates in Lenin, who argued for the importance of political struggle for all oppressed people including women and minorities of the ruling class) Also, winning a reform whets the working class' appetite for more. Every victory creates an "if this, why not that!" way of thinking. Every loss creates a real understanding of the depth and intensity of the immiseration we suffer. So the struggle for reforms is essential for moving towards a revolution. The new left movements of the 60s might seem like a strange detour away from socialism towards identity politics, but the new union movements and working class movements work much more fluidly now that women, men, gays, straights, blacks, whites, and latinos can work together. It's a big deal!

So, no, I don't think there will be a spontaneous, massive, sudden change. But I also think that it happens faster than one thinks. Egypt is an excellent example. There were people working for years in organizing and agitating. But after years of struggling an ad hoc group found a way to organize the restlessness to produce a massive change in society. Notice, however, that this was after Tunisia's uprising. These uprisings seem spontaneous but they are the result of the hard work of thousands and thousands of people. They are an incremental step. Their ruling class (or ours) will hit back and they will have to regroup and take it a step further. This is what is meant by dialectic. Two steps forward, one step back. What we saw in Egypt was the beginning of change in Egypt, not the end result.

There are places where the material conditions are ripe for change. The US is not one of them. However, if other nations lead on this one and we continue to suffer the way we are (and we will) I can see us getting the psychological change we need (i.e. "inspiration") by the success of foreign movements. I don't think these step-by-step changes will originate in the voting booth. They'll originate in the street. They may very well be REFLECTED in the voting booth, but they'll originate in the streets. And I also think that if there is nothing going on in the streets, there will be nothing going on in the voting booth.

Thanks for this thread. I think it's a very interesting opportunity for discussion.

[HereSince1628]

65. I'm no longer certain the military promotes the public good

to a greater extent than it supports the desires of BIG Capital. I am not sure it has done that for many decades.

War for crude oil benefits whom most? I think it's arguable that the military has now become a tool used to promote strategic parity for American capitalists associated with commerce in that commodity.

[sabrina 1]

60. The U.S. Government runs the biggest socialist program

in the entire world. So I don't see the problem, it seems it's already been done with little objection from the U.S. Congress.

What other socialist program can anyone name that is as costly as the The U.S. Military or as anti Constitution since we spread that socialism around the world? Building nations, paying for schools, for law enforcement, for foreign military training etc. etc.

I think if we took all that money and spent on social programs here, it would be wildly popular and far more Constitutional.

The Constitution does not say anything about how the government spends its money on the people. So, I see no problem with this country becoming a more socialist society. We'd all be a lot better off and all those countries we 'bring democracy to' would probably be a lot better off also.

[crickets]

98. *applause*

[southernyankeebelle]

64. I always considered myself a social dem. Nothing wrong with government.

[xchrom]

68. Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

[jody]

71. patrice #5 and others said, first agree on the definition. That'll take until the twelfth of never.

[prairierose]

73. Democratic socialism in Europe works within ...

the type of government that already exists. I do not see why it would have to be different here. What we need is enough people to push democratic socialist policies and elect politicians that will carry them out. Unfortunately, we also have to fix the money in politics problem and the elections problems.

[Zax2me]

75. True. In so many ways.

I predicted, as others here did, that progressives would quickly grow disappointed with Obama once he was in office.
The fact is you cannot implement progressive ideas in a country that is built on capitalism.
You can, but it takes time. Or a rewrite of the constitution.
It's not impossible though. If things get bad enough. But apparently they aren't bad enough.
The country is split right now.
We don't need a 5-50 split for real change - we need a 90-10 split.
See ya in what, 25 years?!

[MadHound]

77. I don't think we would have to rewrite the Constitution

After all, FDR implemented a fairly Socialistic program during the thirties. Not to mention that we could simply turn into a democratic-socialist state.

I say we simply implement it plank by plank, take up where FDR left off.

[TheKentuckian]

79. I see little, if anything, that would prohibit socialism in the Constitution.

The secondary premise is accurate that the needed legislation isn't passable in the current environment but the premise in the OP (that Constitutional Amendments are required) is not strongly supported, almost to the point of being false and certainly overstated.

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. Silently rec'ing this.... shhhh! n/t

[TransitJohn]

82. This thread is trollery and flamebait of the highest order.

Either that or you are extremely ignorant. Congratulations.

[MineralMan]

86. Or, you have nothing to contribute to the thread.

The reply box lets you post anything you want. How about posting something that is an idea, instead of simply an attack on the original poster. That'd be much more useful.

Your either/or is incorrect. I'm neither ignorant nor am I a troll.

But thanks for reading the original post.

[franzia99]

84. How do you define socialism?

[socialist_n_TN]

90. OK, I've read the whole thread and commented .......

a couple of places, but I've got to admit I don't see much hope for "reforming" the country into socialism. The capitalists won't let it happen. As long as they've got the money to buy the levers of political power, they'll keep it from happening NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE PEOPLE WANT IT.

After all, we see how you can have a 2/3 majority favoring moderate and sensible taxation, social safety net (a small amount of socialism), and defense policies and it doesn't make a difference with the people who have bought their way into political power. They ignore a 2/3 majority and STILL enact policies that benefit their owners.

Nope, I'm much afraid it's going to take a revolution or near revolution to get ANY socialism accomplished. Hell that's what it took in the 30s and we're right back in the 30s today as far as economic policies go.

Because that's where we are economically today, everybody needs to study some history of the WORLDWIDE labor movements in the 30s and yes, study some Marxism too. The thing that I've come away with in MY studies of those time is that THEY WERE MILITANT! They weren't polite, they DEMANDED their economic rights loudly and rudely.

And they got a few.

[MineralMan]

99. Many people feel as you do. I'm just not sure that there is the

backing for such actions at this time. Even with the current unemployment rate, the majority of people are employed and living sort of as they have done in the past. Here in Minnesota, the official unemployment rate is 6.6 or 6.8%. We elected a majority of Republicans in both state legislative houses in 2010, something I did not believe could happen. Right now, fear seems to be a big motivator among those who are still doing more or less OK. So, I'm not sure where that revolutionary spirit is going to come from. I'm not seeing it in any numbers larger than the usual tiny minority that shows up to protest things. I'm at those protests, but they aren't really growing, to be quite frank. The 2010 election here was marked by increased apathy, if anything, from the people I'm talking about. The energy levels were extremely low. My precinct walking was very productive, with my precinct turning out 60% of the registered voters. That was better than most of the state. So, the people in their houses were convinceable, and did turn out when asked to by some old bearded geezer with a handful of campaign literature and some good talking points.

But, the turnout of GOTV workers was very, very poor. I'm still hopeful of a better showing in 2012, simply due to the surprising election of so many Republicans to statewide offices. Races were close, but we lost too many of them, including races we should have won handily.

My time is running out. Probably 2016 will be the last presidential election year I'll have the energy to be active in. More's the pity. So, I'll give it my best shot and keep my hopes up.

[socialist_n_TN]

100. Well just remember that it doesn't take a majority

to host a revolution. They have to be supported in general terms by a majority, but most revolutions are minority affairs. At least the active elements are.

And there's another problem that needs to be overcome, RE: elections. I don't think that a lot of people believe in elections anymore. Shoot, I'm not sure that I do. That doesn't mean I won't vote, I'm just not sure my vote counts in a literal sense. Other folks don't think that their vote counts in that it's just one out of MILLIONS, so it's too small to matter. And of course, that's exactly the attitude that the RWers want out of the populus. What this does though is make the revolution more and more possible. The longer you have these situations where 2/3 of the people believe one thing and the Congress enancts policies EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS, you have a situation where more and more people see no other choice.

[readmoreoften]

114. There are, in fact, much larger protest numbers.

What happened in Wisconsin was unthinkable 5 years ago. The international solidarity it generated was as well. Unfortunately, many of the union officials are conservative and broke the movement for a general strike in favor of lobbying Democrats and using the electoral process. This is always disastrous and it always breaks momentum.

When you're on the inside of the movements, you learn that is not the will of the people that is lacking. It's the will of the leaders who often have no personal/professional incentive to see a real movement take off. Unfortunately, our venues for revolt and real reform almost always turn their backs on us. This is, in my opinion, the major demoralizing factor of working-class politics in America.

[socialist_n_TN]

118. And this is where I part with some of my comrades

(including the EARLY Trotsky) on the need for a "vanguard" party. I'm just as nervous as the rest of them are ABOUT the "vanguard" being a vehicle for totalitarianism, but without a vanguard party calling for the general strikes and boycotts and street actions, doesn't get done. Or at least doesn't get done well. IMO, we NEED the vanguard, but yes it NEEDS to have some pretty serious internal controls over the leadership.

I've been worried about the momentum being broken too. There's obviously no assurance that the electoral process will work or that the electoral process is even honest, so why put ALL your Easter eggs in that basket. HOPEFULLY, the pieces are still in place in Wisconsin FOR a general strike if Walker overreaches again OR if the electoral process doesn't work.

[patrice]

119. Sounds to me as though each person's commitment to what they were trying to do was NOT left

to chance. It wasn't just "Hey, I like that idea! Yay, us; we're right! Look at all of those suckers out there!" and then . . . whatever.

There needs to be conscious, freely chosen variety of means, appropriate to the individuals involved, by which people can translate words and ideas into effective recursive (sustained on its own adaptive feedback loops) developmental action. Taking Edward Deming as my inspiration for this kind of stuff.

[Cleita]

93. I think the preamble actually hints at a socialistic goal for

the Union to achieve.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Promote the general welfare certainly points to the fact that we should look to one another to secure those blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. In order to do that you have to have socialism of the commons, not everything, but those things we hold in common with one another and that we need to have a quality of life.

[socialist_n_TN]

101. Yep that "general welfare" clause is where I base........

all of my belief that socialism is NOT unconstitutional comes in.

[Scruffy1]

95. Socialism is completely constitutional

There is nothing in the US constitution to prevent workers from controlling the means of production.
Historically the early corporations were state chartered for the good of the public, like Washington's Potomac Canal Company. They always had a defined purpose and were required to operate for the good of the public.
It wasn't until after the civil war that the large for profit corporation really took hold in the form of railroads. In this case the government supplied the "capital" in the form of land grants and the management took the profits. In the case of mining it was much the same, with most mining being done on public lands and the mining companies keeping the profits, but they usually had to put up the capital for equipment and operations.
Our economy has long been a mix of socialism and capitalism. It's just that a lot of our current system directs the surplus value to the very few on top while the masses get screwed. Could anyone run a business without roads, bridges, fire departments, mail, police officers, water and sewer?
Americans have been so brainwashed they automatically confuse socialism with state controlled economies which to my way of thinking is what we already have. It's just that now it's controlled for the benefit of the plutocracy.

[EFerrari]

104. McCarthy only worked this for a few years and we're still dealing

with the ignorance and the irrationality he promoted.

[theophilus]

96. If enough of the people want to do socialist things in the U.S. they will get done.

We might not call them socialism but we will move toward them as the necessity arises. The perceived failure of our system and way of life will possibly lead to a more socialistic reality. The capitalists in the power structure will resist but their utter disregard for the welfare of the "many" will eventually lead to change. The "perfect storm" of peak oil, climate change, and greedy financial institutions will transform our society. IMO

[defendandprotect]

103. Our Constitution doesn't mandate any specific economic system -- and so what if it did?

Capitalism is anti-democracy -- it's fascist, in fact!!

[patrice]

120. It is. But isn't that a matter of how capital is defined? What if we went with

Adam Smith's definition of Real Value, labor, as the fundamental form of capital and, then other types of value as secondary to that?

This would be "labor-capital" and we'd be talking more precisely and honestly about WHAT PEOPLE DO.

I am attracted to this notion by the things I and others have seen in corporate and bureaucratic structures (in IT mostly, but also in education). Perhaps you are aware of some of the total absolutely counter-productive absurdities going on in the more bureaucratic soft-ware development environments; think of the same types of things going on in "health" "care"! I also think the term "labor capital" would be almost universally applicable to most of the people, no matter how much money they have. It's concrete and perhaps it could help translate other, less PC, economic concepts into things that people can understand.

[defendandprotect]

123. Didn't the rightwing use "Adam Smith" to distort economics -- much as they have done with

other subjects?

I think "HUMAN VALUE" -- independent from labor -- has to be recognized before

humans as labor --

Founders gave us a "people's government" -- which is a higher value than if they

had said, "labor's government."

However, elites/capitalists have saddled us with the presumption that humanity's

value is its LABOR -- and not only that, but that we should LABOR for their profit!

They have been able to force that concept upon humans as they moved people off the

land. We have to really understand how much they conspired to control BEFORE they

moved to control us all!

If humans are truly free then they must be able to labor and live for their own

individual profit -- independent of anyone else's business or corporation!

Imagine where we would be had the dollar bill never been invented?

Or the right to property -- ie, land!!


I am attracted to this notion by the things I and others have seen in corporate and bureaucratic structures (in IT mostly, but also in education). Perhaps you are aware of some of the total absolutely counter-productive absurdities going on in the more bureaucratic soft-ware development environments; think of the same types of things going on in "health" "care"! I also think the term "labor capital" would be almost universally applicable to most of the people, no matter how much money they have. It's concrete and perhaps it could help translate other, less PC, economic concepts into things that people can understand.

One of the values of DU is that people can tell us what's going on in their own work and personal

experience -- usually to say how distorted things have become as corporations gain more and more

control. However, if you look at it from the highest perspective, I think the woman from the

Bikini Islands who made this comment after we dropped atomic bombs on her homeland to test them

says it all!! . . .

"Americans are really smart about really stupid things" --


She knew it wasn't really stupidity -- as we also know --

it's people who wake up every morning intending to find ways to have power and control

over others. Destroyers, ready to do any violence to seek and hold power over others.



Since this is already so long -- I'll also add my opinion which I state regularly here that

LABOR should not be dependent upon the workplace for verification of their labor rights --

or unionizing. Imo, we should all recognize ourselves as LABOR -- and form statewide and

national and worldwide unions where the members set the rules under which we will work for

anyone -- where union members set the standards, the wages, the conditions --

and the only way to secure labor would be to come to the UNION.

Anyway -- that's where we'd be if I were Queen!!

:hi:

[patrice]

124. I think the RW's propensity for warping things would apply to Adam Smith as much as anything else.

I assume that Human Value, like Human Rights, is/are a given upon which it is necessary to construct an economic system that serves those values. I don't see anything in the basic assumption of the Real Value of Labor, Labor Capital if you will, that controverts those human values out of which an economic tool manifests itself.

I guess what I'm saying here is something like: If I were an artist, if I had strong creative impulses, in looking at the universe of creative mediums, I might decide that clay serves my creative energies best, but once I have identified that fact, it is still necessary to identify HOW the clay will be developed into what expressions of the value that I place upon it. To me this is something like the relationship between certain meta-values, again - if you will, such as Human Value, and primary values, such as Labor Capital.

I think this relationship also serves those who cannot labor, those who some might assume have no Real Value, because - for whatever reason - they cannot work. It, in fact, serves their Human Value by recognizing and prioritizing the shared values of authentic Labor Capital and allowing that to create resources that will more than meet the needs not only of those doing the work, but also of those who are incapable of doing work. An example of this would be how care-givers could be valued as highly as CEOs, or even higher actually, because care-givers are like "killing two birds with one stone", they do work not only for themselves, but also for others who are incapable of work.

I'm also suggesting a re-definition, re-valuation, of the word "work". I worked in a long-term-care home for 3 years and one strong characteristic of that place was how many of the people entering that situation grieved, really grieved, over the loss of work (THINK! about how this affects their health) and it seemed to me, in just a cursory observation of some the tasks involved in being a long-term-care home, that there were plenty of ways that tasks could be distributed just exactly as they are in any healthy home environment. From my experiences in a major national IT corporation, I wonder if the same thing is not also true there, since there are indeed people in that kind of environment who have waaay too much work and people who have waaay too little work (and guess which ones get paid more and which ones get laid off if an important project does not succeed).

In short, I have to say that I don't know what good it does to say "Let's change things so that Human Value is universally assumed" unless we also think about HOW to do that in such a manner as to avoid the numerous ways in which that value CAN be abused by those who either do not understand what it means or who do not make that value the basis of all actions.

[defendandprotect]

126. PBS certainly helped with pushing Milton Friedman and his ideas --

and very distorted versions of "Adam Smith," as well --

That went on for a very long time on PBS!

I assume that Human Value, like Human Rights, is/are a given upon which it is necessary to construct an economic system that serves those values. I don't see anything in the basic assumption of the Real Value of Labor, Labor Capital if you will, that controverts those human values out of which an economic tool manifests itself.

Human rights, human value, unennumberated rights never surrendered should be a "given."

But imo you have to remind people of that -- and better to take things from the highest

perspective. That's just my opinion.

A concept of Labor Capital certainly doesn't "controvert" those rights -- however my opinion

on that labeling is that it is too close to the word "capitalism" and could be misunderstood.

Capitalism is the enemy of labor and self-determination -- and while I understand that you're

using "capital" in a different sense, I think it could be confusing for some.


I guess what I'm saying here is something like: If I were an artist, if I had strong creative impulses, in looking at the universe of creative mediums, I might decide that clay serves my creative energies best, but once I have identified that fact, it is still necessary to identify HOW the clay will be developed into what expressions of the value that I place upon it. To me this is something like the relationship between certain meta-values, again - if you will, such as Human Value, and primary values, such as Labor Capital.

Imo, LABOR is all -- it is everything, especially to elites/capitalists and those who seek

control. That's why denying elites access to LABOR is so powerful.

And LABOR is best used in the creative sense -- as we might identify the humanities --

for positive value -- though so much has been distorted by the right wing that many now

can be convinced that destructive measures are "reform" and that "up" is "down" -- !!





I think this relationship also serves those who cannot labor, those who some might assume have no Real Value, because - for whatever reason - they cannot work. It, in fact, serves their Human Value by recognizing and prioritizing the shared values of authentic Labor Capital and allowing that to create resources that will more than meet the needs not only of those doing the work, but also of those who are incapable of doing work. An example of this would be how care-givers could be valued as highly as CEOs, or even higher actually, because care-givers are like "killing two birds with one stone", they do work not only for themselves, but also for others who are incapable of work.

What you are saying prompts many new thoughts and needs a lot of discussion --

but I continue to think that if we begin by describing humans as LABOR then we place too much

emphasis on work. The value of humans is to ourselves -- and LABOR and work suggest that we

are here to provide a service to others for their profit. Just as the value of education is

to ourselves and should not be -- as many today are convinced -- interpreted as what we study

being directly related to our value to others -- i.e., in the work world!

Humanity has to be valued for its insight, common sense, powers of observation, philosophy --

emotions -- it is all to be valued. Companionship -- cheerfulness -- diplomacy -- on and on.


Human value has to be held in our own minds and hearts --

and where it is not present -- it should be taught.

That is a central focus, naturally, of those who wish to destroy human rights --

often by destroying human dignity.



ALL THAT DOES HARM TO LABOR IS TREASON -- Abe Lincoln

[patrice]

125. Plus: Wouldn't one of the best ways to resist a frame be to co-opt it for one's own purposes? nt

[defendandprotect]

127. That's the old rightwing/elite pattern -- co-option -- i.e., DLC and Dem Party -- !!

but I'm not sure what you're specifically relating it to in what I said?

:)

[fishwax]

105. I don't think it requires a rewriting of the Constitution

But it certainly requires a change in the political climate. Such changes can actually happen over a fairly short amount of time, and movements can move fairly quickly (historically speaking) from side-streams to main currents.

Incremental progress (as through elections at local, state, and federal levels) is certainly a good thing. It's not the only important thing, though, for several reasons. Most obviously, not everyone is interested in focusing on that and not everyone is good at the type(s) of work that requires. Focusing only on (to use a convenient though not perfect framework) pragmatic approaches doesn't make use of all the talent and energies that are available. Organization and education are essential, of course. Agitation for yet more progress is also a good thing. If that agitation involves organization, then it helps to create an infrastructure that can really pay dividends when opportunities arise to really move the center.

[OwnedByFerrets]

107. Go talk to Bernie Sanders. He will explain it to you.

[Sparkly]

108. We already have socialist elements. The ones even the Rightwingers love.

Our capitalism has always been tempered by socialism.

[applegrove]

111. All nations in the world are mixed market economies. Pure socialism and pure fascism lost.

[white_wolf]

112. Pure Socialism has never existed.

Sadly, it won't for a long time it seems. As for Fascism we may be on our way if things don't change.

[readmoreoften]

116. +1

[readmoreoften]

115. All the nations in the world are not "mixed" they are capitalists.

Even the Soviet Union under Lenin had not yet become "pure socialism" and Stalinism was not socialism, but rather some perverted form of state capitalist imperialism.

[and-justice-for-all]

121. We already have socialism here...

and what we need is a national health care system. There is not a 'purely' socialized country, capitalism still exist in the ones that have the most socialism, like Scandinavia.

[moondust]

129. Yes, it's always a blend.

Good government is important in creating the desired balance but it also matters what people teach their children and hold up as models of "success." The U.S. is way too much about moneygrubbing and getting rich and not nearly enough about sustainable living.

[and-justice-for-all]

130. That is correct...

People in Scandinavia live longer and happier lives because of the socialism and not the capitalism. They have the best health care in the world, whereas the states just have the most expensive and are run by real death panels; insurance companies.