What would socialism really look like in America?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

I've been studying this topic for months now and still don't have a complete picture of what socialism in PRACTICE would look like here.

Also, do we already have some programs in place which are socialist in nature? Are socialism and democracy compatible? (I think they are, but there might be something I'm not thinking of...) So many of the web sites I go to to read about this are very esoteric and I'm having a hard time working out the particulars in my head (such as HOW would everyone own the means of production?).

I did find this quote, which I found interesting:

"Does everybody get the same pay in socialist society?

No, they do not. The skilled worker gets more than the unskilled; the manager gets more than the workman; the great musician gets more than the average musician; the farmer who produces 400 bushels of wheat gets more than the farmer who produces zoo; the miner who digs eight tons of coal gets more than the miner who digs six; and so on. People are paid according to the quality and quantity of their work.

The person who receives even the largest income in socialist society can continue to receive it only so long as he continues to earn it through work. He cannot ever convert it into unearned income by buying the means of production and then living on the labor of others. He cannot buy the means of production for the excellent reason that in socialist society the means of production belong to the people and are not for sale. The higher pay he receives by dint of harder or better work enables him to live better than others who earn less; but his higher pay does not enable him to exploit anyone else.

Though there is inequality of pay in socialist society, there is equality of opportunity. Though skilled workers get higher pay, unskilled workers have ready access to the training and experience necessary to become skilled; though administrators, engineers, writers, artists get higher pay, free education for all in proportion to their ability to learn opens wide the entrance doors to these professions. And "all" in socialist society means exactly that—it does not mean all who can afford to pay the fees, or all whose manners are beyond reproach, or all who are not Negroes or Jews.

Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

1. Kicking this

hoping for an answer or two to satisfy my curiosity, trying to see if this is something I could get behind...

[leftyandproud]

2. If you pay people according to what they produce..

you are still stuck with the "TO" each according to ability mindset...still stuck with the capitalist mindset. You need to erase this and change this "me" attitude in our society if you really want socialism.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

10. Are you referring to the quote I put in my post?

[mdmc]

3. Your Chi latte, President Kucinich

and the drum circle and hackysac circle are getting close to each other again on the Department for Peace front lawn.

I like it.

Basically, universal health care and education. Anything less would be uncivilized.

[shraby]

4. I take it then that the state owns the

businesses that employ people?

[mdmc]

7. I'm not too sure...

I'm gonna check out a link below.

[Kanary]

23. Try looking up Saab, a LARGE company in Sweden.

If you find any evidence of it being "state owned", please let me know.

Kanary

[eridani]

32. No--I'd revise traditional socialism in the following way.

No one else is allowed to own anyone else's means of production, ever. That means you own your own means of production, either as an individual or as part of a collective.

Defining 'collective' is the tricky part, and there are all kinds of answers. Collective ownership, or collective management? All stock could be employee-owned without changing the day to day operations of current companies much. Collective at what level? Partnership, neighborhood, city, county, state, region, country? Small may be beautiful, but big often works better.

Thinking that there is one predefined right answer leads you straight to Stalin.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

12. Hee hee

I would love that, too!

[many a good man]

5. The kind of "pure" socialism you're talking about

probably never existed and certainly won't ever happen here. History has taught us that the most effective system is a "mixed" economy that tries to find the proper blend of profit-driven incentives and social welfare. Outside the textbooks and theory, socialists have sought government control of only the "commanding heights" of the macro economy: those industries and institutions that should be operated for the good of all and not the private fortune of a few. Banking, energy, water, natural resources, telecomm, etc. The rest of the economy can remain in private hands.

Socialism has been shown to be ineffective because government economists with slide rules are not as efficient as the market in allocating supply and demand. Of course, there is no such thing as the "free market," so government has a crucial role in maintaining a level playing field that respects the rights of all parties involved, not just the richest and most powerful. Therefore markets and private business owners will always exist.

Socialism (broadly defined) and democracy are completely compatible. One is an economic system and the other is a political system. It is nothing more than right wing propaganda to say that they are incompatible. Socialism in America could very easily look very much like the social welfare states in Western Europe. I predict it is inevitable that we will some day come to resemble those states. Its OK for people to earn different wages as long as EVERYONE's basic needs are met and all are given the opportunity to advance. The challenge lies in fine-tuning and finding the right mixture of public and private policies to achieve the goals of full employment and social welfare...

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

11. Good post

thanks so much, exactly what I was looking for!

[JanMichael]

6. A "Participatory Economy".

Something like this. ParEcon for short.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

13. Nice link

thanks!

[ButterflyBlood]

8. New Deal maybe?

n/t

[Postman]

9. Go ask Halliburton, or Kellogg Brown & Root

or George W. Bush

[Kanary]

14. It will look like whatever *we* decide it will look like

This isn't a deal where we have to accept some pre-packaged, cookie-cutter program, rigidly set it on top of our system, and like it or lump it.

Y'know, other countries have taken some of our (US) ideas, and modified it to suit them. In the last analysis, it's all an experiment, but we have to make sure to look out first for the most vulnerable among us.

Kanary

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

15. Good point

I hadn't thought of that. I had just read a lot of theory about socialism but was having a hard time picturing the nitty-gritty of it. Know what I mean?

[Kanary]

18. Know what you mean..... I've now read enough and heard enough

from Scandinavian DUers that I'm pretty relaxed about it all.

Here's a suggestion.... there are some links given here that are worth keeping..... how 'bout starting a thread in the other forum for keeping these links together, so it's easy to point out to people who come to this conversation later.

It's a DU trait that the same conversation periodically reasserts itself, but the conversation starts over from the beginning.

The link below looks particularly helpful.

Kanary

[never cry wolf]

16. Here's some GREAT insight

This is an essay written by a Danish author. It is long, but gives a wonderful picture of what the europeans have accomplished. He starts off talking about a national strike in Denmark, and it sounds bleak, but bear with the story. These national strikes happen only about every decade and last for a week or two, the gains made by them are well worth the effort, IMHO. After about a third of the essay he gets into just what social benefits their citizens have, and how they benefit their entire society. It really does open ones eyes.

http://www.american-pictures.com/english/racism/articles/welfare.htm

[Kanary]

20. I remember seeing this quite a long time ago.

Some eye-opening thoughts for those who have the typical RW view of Socialism.

I met a woman whose son married a woman from Sweden. The inlaws were visiting from Sweden, and the mother-in-law said "You Americans work too much", and that started the discussion. The woman I met was dumbfounded at how different their system is, and how much healthier. She was sold. :)

Thanks for posting this link!

Kanary

[Kanary]

21. This one paragraph from your link should cause people to think......

"Children are deeply handicapped by poverty and end up with
tremendous rates of learning disabilities and crime rates. So a
country which chooses to loose one fourth of its children on the
floor will later have to invest enormous sums in policing and
incarcerating their anger - money the people in the welfare states
instead can go on vacation for!"

That remark about vacation is telling....... the Scandinavian countries value their time off, and get much more of it than USians do. Mainly because they consider travel to be educational, and expect their citizens to see other countries and other people up close and personal.

Kanary

[gulliver]

17. Regulated capitalism is the best.

Planning societies and economies is boring. It doesn't work anyway.

Take a few first principles and harness capitalism to them. That's the way to go. That's the way things were under Clinton.

Example: If you work at an honest job and play by the rules, then you will be OK. That is a basic guarantee that is in the best interest of the government to uphold. Clinton would even say it out loud. That is one of the things I liked about him.

That principle is such a simple yet powerful thing.

I'm against anything that lets bozos centrally plan how things go. I'm against a forced, suffocating communism or poorly interpreted socialism. I'm against crony capitalism and monopolism. Both end up concentrating power in the hands of asses. I like a well-oiled, balanced machine based on a few basic principles of fairness and sustainability.

[Kanary]

19. Oh yeah, things were soooooo great for poor folk under Clinton

:eyes:

[gulliver]

22. Better than now!

:eyes:

[Kanary]

24. Oh yeah, you're right..... those deaths didn't count because they were

under a Democratic regime.

:crazy:

[gulliver]

25. What are you talking about?

Really. What?

[Kanary]

26. DEATHS, that's what

But all the middle class cares about is whether they were "better off".

To hell with those who suffered.

Kanary

[gulliver]

28. Come on.

I'm just asking. What on earth are you talking about? DEATHS? Which ones. What deaths. Under Clinton? What? What on earth are you talking about?

[Kanary]

29. It's been talked about here many times, but the Clinton cheerleaders never

want to hear it.

I'm no longer willing to argue it. Do some investigation on your own.

Try watching "A Day's Work For A Day's Pay", for starters.

Then maybe you can find it in your heart to care about those who suffered.

Kanary

[ProfLefty]

27. My opinion.

This is a thoughtful and interesting post. Certainly there are a number of undeniably socialist policies such as univeral healthcare to name one which would be of great benefit to American society. However we should never make the mistake of completely abandoning a capitalist, free market based economy...at least for the most part. I believe that over time that economic model has been proven superior in results to any other. While pure socialism often seems to be an attractive philosophy it has many inherant problems (as of course all political philosophies do) and I do not think it would ever be truly viable in the U.S. Someone (I forget whom) once said that if one was not a Socialist at age 21 something was very wrong but if one was still a Socialist by age 35 something was very wrong.

[ElkHunter]

30. Democratic socialism remains my ideal but...

...the socialist project has certainly changed since the time of Marx. Let me recommend Michael Harrington's last book, Socialism Past & Future. Another excellent book is the Economics of Feasible Socialism by Alec Nove. Modern socialists have become realists and very few continue down the road of a command economy paved by Marx. Instead they embrace market socialism. Under the model of market socialism the "commanding heights" of the economy might be nationalized. But the larger part of the socialist economy would also include worker owned cooperatives and small private enterprise. To my way of thinking, though, such a project will not soon be on the political horizon short of a collapse of the capitalist economy. Therefore democratic socialists should defend and fight for gains that are possible under the banner of liberalism. But I still believe with all my fiber that a better world is possible, that we can truly have an economy to serve human needs.

[Kanary]

31. Thanks for the resource list. I agree with you, a better world for all

is possible, and certainly necessary.

But, when I think deeper into this, and look at what has happened to this country, it sure seems that affluence breeds selfishness, and it takes a certain amount of shared poverty to bring about a concern for others that is necessary for socialism.

I don't know how else that changeover is going to happen.

:(

Kanary