Am I the only DUer who sees socialism as the only viable future?

[GeneCosta]

The battle I see in front of us is larger than the minor disputes between Keynesian and Austrian schools of thought. I'm sick of watching politicians and capitalists continually screwing over the little person. I'm sick of watching humans squabble over not getting the newest mp3 player while more than half the world population struggles for a living.

The Right-Wing has succeeded in purging the Left from mainstream politics, but like hope, socialism can never die. The desire to have a world free of masters where the economy operates on a heart rather than greed is a continuity over time. No matter how many laws are implemented, no matter how many unions are busted, no matter how many protesters are shot at, no matter how many media stations are bought off, no matter how many periods of intense propaganda consume our culture -- socialism will emerge victorious.

The socialism I talk of is the honest-to-goodness socialism geniuses like Eugene Debs and Martin Luther King Jr. fought for. Not social democracy. Not Stalinism. I'm talking of wiping out capitalism completely, and with it the state. I'm talking about voluntary associations of people based on democracy and self-autonomy. I'm talking about a world where the 30% of the work force currently holding jobs to protect capitalism are freed to do other, more productive things. I'm talking about automating industries that humans generally tend to shy away from. I'm talking about eliminating the plight of crime, corruption, prostitution, gambling, and sexism by making capital obsolete. I'm talking about allocating resources to the betterment of humanity instead of war and legal paperwork.

These ideas are called pure utopian by many, but are they really? 200 years ago conservatives in Europe called the concept of liberalism "utopian." It continually failed to be implemented properly. Many monarchists claimed the masses were too ignorant to decide so much. We needed kings and queens and aristocrats.

I say we don't need capitalists and representatives. We need only ourselves. People don't need to be forced to do anything. A culture of cooperation will always defeat a culture of backstabbing and competition.

[magellan]

1. I wonder if we're mature enough for true socialism

...as a race of beings. Human greed and hate always seems to creep in and undermine things.

But I think we have to move in that direction. Capitalism has reached the end of its usefulness and is destroying us.

[BelgianMadCow]

3. I doubt it for the same reason - human nature, but

I think we need to move in that direction too.

Of course, I am a socialist :-)

Killing capitalism may sound impossible, but we ALL can kill our blind consumerism and guess what...
The power of the purse.

[Bobbieo]

7. It is only destroying the poor!

[harun]

26. We're not even mature enough for true democracy

Hence the representative republic, the electoral college, the 24x7 propaganda from the cable news networks and the other tools in place to keep democracy from happening.

[magellan]

36. Good point.

It's more a nanny-state democracy, democracy in name only, presided over by the wealthy and growing more corrupt because of it with every passing year. If we're to survive then a shift to socialist values will have to occur. I think there's the potential for this as people by nature are social animals and tend towards progressive ideals; they want what's best for themselves and their families, and divisive, regressive government schemes don't deliver. The obstacle to that is those who hold the power.

[personman]

39. "They who put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness."

They fill our heads with trash from school, TV and news, and then say we are ignorant.

Makes me think of Walther Lippman and his elitist conception of democracy. He is where the phrase "Manufacturing Consent" is believed to originate and he referred contemptuously to the masses as "the bewildered herd."

Chomsky has an interesting essay, Media Control, on the differences between elite and participatory conceptions of democracy:

"...Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free....

An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception..."

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html

Democracy, genuine participatory democracy, is a natural enemy of elite privilege. It's interesting to see that many historical figures revered as fathers of our democracy had such contempt for democracy and the people.

[ConsAreLiars]

2. Well, you're in the same camp as Einstein. His "Why Socialism?" essay is

very instructive. Not simple-minded rhetoric (don't send it to your RW acquaintances) but an exploration of the values that make us human and promote survival and the common good.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

[lligrd]

4. A Bit Of Competition Is Not Always Bad

Backstabbing is. Without any competition, I think we'd lose a lot of innovation. How to reward innovation while maintaining fairness for all is the problem. But, judging from all the political tests I have taken, I am basically a socialist.

[eridani]

5. I'm a proud sewer socialist myself

In Milwaukee and a number of other places long ago, socialists proved adept at actual real world governance. Bernie Sanders is nominally a socialist, though the fact that he runs as an independent rather than a member of some actual socialist political party tells you all you need to know about how seriously the generic American left takes representative politics.

[riverdeep]

6. The word itself has been corrupted.

Witness the fact that you had to define what you meant by it, what it means to you. Socialism in popular use is now taken to mean anything from Communism to the Social Democracies like the Netherlands.

To be honest, I'm still confused. When you say "I'm talking of wiping out capitalism completely, and with it the state.", it sounds like Anarchy as much as Socialism, which many consider to be a strengthening of the state.

As far as "eliminating the plight of crime, corruption, prostitution, gambling, and sexism", I don't think these things will ever go away completely. But certain social constructions will cause them to wax or wane.

I do agree cooperation needs to be a priority, and that the present form of capitalism is a mass pandemic-a sickness on the human condition, but individual or group incentives should not be eliminated.

[jzodda]

8. I only doubt it because I don't think we are evolved enough

Not because I don't wish for it one day. Not in my life probably. People are getting more selfish in their ways and one thing you need above all else for most of these ideas to work is the sense of community over the individual. I think we are in for very rough days ahead and much war, famine, poverty, growing class imbalance, unrest and death on massive scale and maybe when we come through on the other side some of this world will be ready.

[Apollo11]

9. But there are many different definitions of "socialism".

When I was a teenager I thought I believed in something called "democratic socialism".

But there are many different definitions of what "socialism" might mean in practice.

For me the most important goal is to establish a transparent, accountable democracy at all levels of government, that is not open to corruption and cannot be bought by corporate or other special interests.

I think this is the way to get government that works in the public interest.

If you want a "Democratic Manifesto" I would suggest Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" as a good starting point. Thomas Paine is a great political hero of mine (and of Al Gore).

When it comes to the economy I think you do need a certain amount of space for competition, creativity and innovation. You need to reward success and hard work, while making sure that everyone can have what I would call a decent life. You need a dynamic labour market so if someone is unhappy in their job they can go and get a different (better) job. You need a minimum wage that is set at a decent level so that workers can provide for their families and also be valuable consumers! You also need progressive taxation so that executives who earn millions of $ per year will pay most of that back to the state.

If you talk to educated intelligent people from Eastern Europe and tell them you are in favour of "socialism" they will look at you as if you had just said you were a huge fan of Adolf Hitler. For them - the idea of an entirely state-run economy is completely discredited.

If you are looking for examples of countries that have gotten things just about right, or at least are on the right path, I would look at the Netherlands and the Nordic Countries.

The Netherlands is a great country where they have a lot of immigration and very high population density but at the same time have achieved very low poverty and unemployment rates. The current government is a coalition of Social Democrats (PvdA) and Christian Democrats (CDA & CU).

Still in The Netherlands you have about 17% of the voters who would like things to be less market-oriented and more equal. They are represented in the national Parliament by the Socialist Party (SP). Personally I am not convinced that everything would be better if the SP were running things.

For example - the SP is anti-EU. The SP strongly opposed The Netherlands joining the euro (single currency) back in 1999. So it means they don't believe there are economic benefits to be gained from having the same currency as 12 other European countries in a single market of 27 countries.

According to wikipedia, the SP was founded in October 1971 as a Maoist party named the Communist Party of the Netherlands/Marxist-Leninist. In 1972, the party changed its name to Socialistiese Partij (Socialist Party). In its early years, the Maoist SP had close links with the Communist Party of China.

[Tesha]

10. No, you're not the only one. (NT)

[Warren Stupidity]

11. I'f gladly settle for universal single payer health care. nt.

[Chulanowa]

12. So in other words, anarcho-socialism

Won't work. See, the problem with anarchy as a political system is that it is not made of humans - the theory isn't, at least. If put into practice, the state would quickly reform out of anarchy, based on the exact same things it always had - personal power, military power, fiscal power.

Socialism, like capitalism, communism, egalitarianism, etc, is 100% amoral. It's just an economic system, and pinning the trappings of near-religious reverence to it will get you exactly what the Soviets got, just as turning capitalism into god's choice of economic systems has granted us our predatory economy. One must measure the effectiveness of a system to make a judgement of it. Socialism as an economic system does indeed take the cake as far as viable systems.

There's just one problem, at least for us.

A national economy must be built up on socialist ideas. You can't "patch it in" and expect it to work - as we have seen by the rape of unions, as we have seen by the meltdown of regulations, as we have seen by the dissolution of workers' rights, fair trade, and livable wages. All these ideas were stapled onto a nigh-immobile system that ran directly counter to these ideas, that of the rapacious robber barons. In order to have socialism in America, the system has to crash and burn and be rebuilt. Beyond the great Depression and the New Deal. It calls for an entire restructuring of how things work in this country.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Re:Prostitution

Prostitution will always exist as long as people want instant sex with folks "hotter" than them... It would exist in any economic or political system ...The only thing that would be changed is what is bartered for sex...

[flashl]

20. What about the - History of Religious Sex ? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Elaborate Please

DSB

[flashl]

29. the ritual of negation

From the History of Sex and Religion

"a man ejaculates, or leaves his negation, his semen inside the twat of the priestess, as a symbol that he is willing to give up his all in order to have his sins wiped out. The term negation came to be applied to the whole ritual or wiping out ceremony. Gradually through the centuries, the semen, and religious connection got lost and only the wiping out part remained.

...

In ancient times a priestess could be married or unmarried. She performed sexual purification rituals with all worthy men regardless of her marital status. In some cultures all women were required to serve in the temple.

...

It matters not what be the sum of money; the woman will never refuse, for that were a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. After their intercourse she has made herself holy in the sight of the Goddess and goes away to her home." That is unless she decided to continue as a full time priestess. The man was not paying for sex, but rather making an offering to the Goddess for allowing him to participate in the sacred ritual.

...

Religion gives many choices. Some give guilt for sex in this life and the promise of no sex after death. The religion of the Goddess gives love, pleasure, sex and spiritual knowledge in this life as well as in the life to come. It is for this reason that the Christian religions became the antithesis of the Goddess religions. In order to eliminate Goddess worship, early Christians changed Her joyous sexual celebrations into holidays for ascetic Christian saints. They brand priestesses as prostitutes and make religious rituals criminal acts, and changed the Goddess from a sexual, divine being into the perpetual virgin, the Virgin Mary."

[Yuugal]

68. DSB, Arent you glad you asked? nt

[Megahurtz]

74. Bizarre.

[GeneCosta]

28. By prostitution I mean the conditions which force women to enter it

as a profession. People will have sex until they're extinct. The tragedy of prostitution is not that women are doing it, but that economic conditions put them in the situation where it's a better alternative to the "White Market."

[flashl]

30. U.S. is #1 in Human Trafficking a.k.a sex slavery

Under these conditions, prostitution is not a "last resort” survival mechanism it is a capitalistic system.

[Echo In Light]

14. Yes, of the anarchist sort, but not of the nationalist variety n/t

[regnaD kciN]

15. Viable? Maybe. Achievable?

Unfortunately, not for the foreseeable future. Unless the entire world capitalist system utterly collapses, I'm afraid that "socialism" is considered by most people about as inconceivable as worshiping Zeus and the other Greek gods.

:shrug:

[cgrindley]

16. Post-Global Warming, it's probably totalitarian communism

I hate to be a fly in the ointment, but we're facing extinction. Anthrogenic climate change is utterly irreversible and within a couple of hundred years, the political structures of the planet will be unrecognizable.

[unblock]

17. personally, i believe in regulated capitalism. but there might not be much difference

i think competition is the fundamental engine of capitalism, and the source of all the theoretical good of that economic model.

what passes for "capitalism" these days, especially when bushy repubicons use the term, is an unregulated absense of competition, so please don't ascribe their model to anything i believe in.

proper capitalism requires government monitoring and intervention to ensure proper functioning and a preservation of competition. companies should not be permitted to merge for the sole purpose of eliminating competition. companies should not be permitted to engage in price wars for the sole purpose of eliminating competition. companies should be permitted to fail, even if huge, if they screw up or otherwise fail the market (government should take steps to mitigate damage to innocent third parties, however).

the more essential a good or service is, the worse capitalism performs. competition relies on people trying out suppliers and risking disappointment and then shifting to better suppliers. capitalism doesn't work well in the health care business, e.g., because people can't risk trying out an emergency procedure from an unknown doctor and figuring they'll go elsewhere next time if not satisfied. so some government intervention is needed. however, capitalism is fine for completely unessential things like jewelry (mrs unblock would disagree with me about this being unessential, but that's another argument.) not much need for government intervention there.

by the time i'm finished with government intervention in capitalism for the sake of preservation of competition, prevention and correction of externalities (effects to third-parties such as pollution), national security (including economic security), and so on, this might not strike you as much different from socialism.

[Skidmore]

18. I this world that has been so steeped in dog-eat-dog,

claw-your-way-to-the-top, more-is-better capitalism, I doubt that something like this would happen using institutions of government as the means of change. It would take the militaries laying down their weapons or by joining the people and probably only be accomplished the old fashioned way--armed insurrection. I can see the bastions of wealth being willing to give up on red cent willingly.

[Echo In Light]

19. Yes, change for the better never stems from the top-down, but from the bottom-up....

...Hence the enormous propaganda effort in America; if people can't be literally, physically controlled, the powers that be must control what and how the people think as closely as possible to reduce "democratic interference." This is called the manufacture of consent: coerce the slaves into not only accepting but exalting their subjugation. And the ones who aren't brainwashed pose no serious threat so long as there's rarely any substantive, collective action.

[flashl]

24. If you can remember ALL events around 9-11 clearly, think back

to study the brief period of calm and the REAL nature of what the joining of people looks like. Regular folks around the country dropped what they were doing and went to help and volunteer.

Or, think back to when the media people broke away from their training while reporting on Katrina. In response, the MSMs rushed in seasoned reporters from war zones to report on Katrina. Why? Then, the Katrina victims were called looters and refugees, I believe, to disassociate them from us. The MSM "echo chambers" only serves to create fear and mistrust among us.There are thousands of stories about volunteers being turned around or stopped from entering Lousianna to help.

I believe one of the greatest kept secrets is our natural good nature towards each other. And, the other is, the concept of scarcity.

[DCKit]

47. No, the BLACK people were looters.....

The white people were only trying to put food on their families.

[flashl]

58. You are right. n/t

[index555]

107. No, those running off with TVs, stereos,etc. were looters

Those just trying to get food, water and clothing I hold blameless, that was simple survival.

[SoCalDem]

21. That boat sailed long ago.. FDR was trying to put something like that into place

but he died and every democratic president after him has nibbled here and there around the edges, but never enough to help much, and then the republican presidents who follow them, make it their plan to UNdo whatever progress has been made..

push-pull-push-pull..that's all we end up with, and nothing really ever gets done correctly..

we keep wandering into the weeds and losing all our "extra" money, before anything get accomplished, and plans that would have to happen here would take a LOT of start up money, and a faithful attempt to see it through for a while until it got stabilized. We are too impatient as a country.. that;'s why we're in the mess we're in..:(

[KharmaTrain]

23. Try Changing Human Nature First

For the most part, socialism runs counter to the greed side of the human condition...otherwise known as capitalism. People don't mind sharing, if they already have something. Sadly, no matter how idealistic one can be, in reality, human nature prevails and even in a socialist system you'll have those with more than others (note the Soviet Union)...there will always be someone who determines who gets what and how much...and is there a failsafe way to make sure those who decide will do so fairly?

Capitalism drives competition which benefits all society when it means creating jobs and opportunities as opposed to a state-sponsored system that will either only produce what's needed or overproduce just to maintain jobs. Automate all you want, but at the head-end there's still gonna be a human plugging in the data...that creates status as well.

You'd have to deprogram the human condition if you really want a truly egalitarian system as status, ego and power are too intoxicating for most people and thus will always favor the individual over the group.

[paulk]

49. I wouldn't even call it "greed"

IMHO the desire for a better life - for self and for progeny - is hardwired into us. Competition is one of the basic tenents of life itself - not just for human nature, but for all creatures - it's what drives evolution - governments - or societies - throughout history have been attempts to regulate that competition (sometimes for the benefit of all, but often not).

[kenfrequed]

67. Well

I find it odd that people claim that socialism doesn't work BECAUSE of human greed, whent he system was actually postulated in response to human greed.

This is another one of those "Aspiring causes Headaches" arguments.

[The2ndWheel]

25. You want socialism without the corporation or the state?

Is that even possible? You pretty much need one or the other, or the combined entity of each.

"I'm talking about a world where the 30% of the work force currently holding jobs to protect capitalism are freed to do other, more productive things."

This would be where you would need some sort of structure to allow those 30% to do more "productive" things. Who gets to define what productive is? The 30%? Doesn't someone have to end up holding jobs to protect socialism?

"I'm talking about automating industries that humans generally tend to shy away from."

Well we're already doing that. That's part of globalization and outsourcing. That's part of capitalism. That's part of the reason why corporations and states have such control over life. They're making people obsolete by automating the fundamental jobs. Everything is so mass produced through automation that you don't really need a good paying job. Not to mention the environmental cost of such a system of production.

"I'm talking about eliminating the plight of crime, corruption, prostitution, gambling, and sexism by making capital obsolete."

How could you do that without some sort of state/corporate structure?

"I'm talking about allocating resources to the betterment of humanity instead of war and legal paperwork."

Once again, you need massive infrastructure to do that. Also, who gets to define "betterment"?

I agree with the general idea of what you're trying to say. However, no matter what we would do, it's not going to be perfect. I agree with your thoughts on the corporation and the state. But you can't then say you want to free people to allow them to do more productive things. What if they don't want to be, or have a different defintion of, productive? You can't then say you want to allocate resources to the betterment of humanity. There are 6.5 billion+ people on this planet, you would need a global state/corporation to do that.

You either have that voluntary association of people based on self-autonomy, or, you have capitalism/socialism/whatever you want to name the centralized authority that would govern and define life.

[Fly by night]

27. Prolly.

As someone who was part of a communal farm from 1969-89, my experience is that appealing to the group's needs almost always took back seat to what individuals wanted for themselves (out of their own labor and out of the group enterprise.)

Today, I prefer private ownership and responsibility for my own farm (I'm the only one remaining here from the original communal band) but with outlets and involvement for supporting and nurturing the larger community which I am very much a part of.

Enlightened community interest, involvement and support beats socialism, hands down.

[DangerDave921]

110. Excellent comment

I always have to ask: If the 1960's communes were so great, how come we don't still see them in existence today? I wasn't an adult back then but I've read. Seems the communes work well as long as everyone is doing their fair share and cooperating. But as soon as someone starts shirking, or taking more than they should, or is simply a bad apple in the community, things start to break down and we need a societal structure to intervene. It is natural to want to work hard, and to share, but it's hard to voluntarily share when you think you're working harder than everyone else and that you're being taken advantage of.

I too am in favor of private ownership with a moral compass.

[rAVES]

31. Its heart is in the right place.. which puts it instantly above the bastardized Capitalism we see

today.

[flashl]

32. I agree wholeheartedly

"{W}e don't need capitalists and representatives. We need only ourselves. People don't need to be forced to do anything. A culture of cooperation will always defeat a culture of backstabbing and competition."

[Deja Q]

33. Depends on your POV.

I think hard work, using one's personal strengths and gifts from God (or those enhanced traits we're born with), dedication, and loyalty should be rewarded.

A free market also doesn't allow buying of competition, but it would allow employees to move on from company to company when they feel their usefulness at the first company is over with.

It's about making the most of one's self. And sometimes, and I need to learn this myself, it's about getting one's self out there and stand out from the crowd. And take those chances. That too is hard work.

[personman]

34. K&R Nope, not the only one.

Excellent post, couldn't have said it better myself.

Chomsky makes a pretty convincing argument that we will either go in the direction you suggest or destroy ourselves.

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival."

[mmonk]

35. I'm for separation of business and state.

Co-existence, not corporate rule which we have now.

[leftist_not_liberal]

37. Recommended

Heartily

It's past time to see the world for what it really is







and to destroy the Lies the the OILigarchs would have us believe instead



so that we can carry it forward to what it can and must be

[Prophet 451]

38. Doubt it's possible and definately not for the US

Firstly, I really doubt that true socialism is possible on any long-term basis. I think humans are both inherantly selfish and inherantly heirarchial. Socialism removes many of the opportunities for one man to boast that he's better/richer than his neighbour.

I certainly don't think it's possible for teh US to turn to socialism. For fifty years, you've had your populace trained to think of Soviet-style communism and socialism as the same thing (I know the USSR never actually made it to either but the perception is there); enforced a false dichotomy between unrestrained capitalism and total Sovietism and fostered a culture of wealth-worship where your only value to society is your wallet. It's too big a change. You'd have to pretty much knock the nation over and start again.

The truest statement ever written on politics comes from the satirist Terry Pratchett and it is this: "People think they want freedom and justice for all. What they really want is an assurance that life will go on much as it did before and tomorrow will be very much like today". Humans are instinctively conformist (see Milgram and many others). We might bitch and moan about the current state of affairs but given time, we get used to it and learn to accept it (which is why politicians do their worst between election years). Change frightens us, especially radical change. No matter how good an idea socialism is (and I'm undecided on that), it's too big a change for us to accept.

[leftist_not_liberal]

40. Here's your trouble:

"I think humans are both inherently selfish and inherently hierarchical."

Human nature is not fixed but rather is a product of social relations...


Marx's theory of human nature occupies an important place in his critique of capitalism, his conception of communism, and his 'materialist conception of history'. Marx, however, does not refer to "human nature" as such, but to Gattungswesen, which is generally translated as 'species-being' or 'species-essence'. What Marx meant by this is that humans are capable of making or shaping their own nature to some or other extent. According to a note from the young Marx in the Manuscripts of 1844, the term is derived from Ludwig Feuerbach’s philosophy, in which it refers both to the nature of each human and of humanity as a whole. However, in the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach (1845), Marx criticizes the traditional conception of "human nature" as "species" which incarnates itself in each individual, on behalf of a conception of human nature as formed by the totality of "social relations". Thus, the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determinated in a specific social and historical formation, while some aspects being of course biological.



Geras says of Marx's work that: 'Whatever else it is, theory and socio-historical explanation, and scientific as it may be, that work is a moral indictment resting on the conception of essential human needs, an ethical standpoint, in other words, in which a view of human nature is involved' (1983, p83-84). Marx's work is littered with indictments of capitalism, very many of which reference its stunting effect on human nature. However, he never explicitly formulated this as an ethical critique; on the contrary, he was scornful of what he thought of as attempts to criticise capitalism, or propose its replacement, on 'moral' grounds. He seemed to have two grounds for this. One was that the language of morality and justice was cheap: it could be picked up by anyone, and used to advocate their position. The second was that there was, as he saw it, a tendency to conceive of the path to socialism 'idealistically' or 'ideologically' - rather that is, than a necessary product of hard proletarian struggle. He felt very strongly the need to differentiate himself from this position.

Alienation

Alienation, for Marx, is the estrangement of humans from aspects of their human nature. Since - as we have seen - human nature consists in a particular set of vital drives and tendencies, whose exercise constitutes flourishing, alienation is a condition wherein these drives and tendencies are stunted. For essential powers, alienation substitutes disempowerment; for making one's own life one's object, one's life becoming an object of capital. Marx believes that alienation will be a feature of all society before communism. The opposite of, alienation is 'actualisation' or 'self-activity' - the activity of the self, controlled by and for the self.

-wkipedia

[Prophet 451]

45. "Human nature is not fixed but rather is a product of social relations"

I disagree and (unsurprisingly) I think Marx was wrong on this one. I base this on the simple fact that in the 6-8 years of history of civilisation, the basic structures haven't changed much. Oh, the term change, the details vary. We don't have lords and peasents anymore, we have CEOs and employees instead but the basic structures remain the same.

Human civilisation is the product of human nature and I therefore have to assume that the basic structures haven't changed because humanity is incapable of changing it's basic drives. I think human society will always be heirarchial. Apart from anything else, humans are simply evolved animals in the end and most animal species have some form of establishing heirarchy as a way of attracting a mate (yes, I know we don't do things like that anymore but your reptile brain doesn't know that).

Heirarchy, tribalism, acquisitiveness. I think these things are inherant about humanity. We can structure society to minimalise them but I doubt we will ever be able to remove them from the human psyche entirely.

[leftist_not_liberal]

50. That disregards significant swaths of human history

Especially voluminous are Marx's notes on the Iroquois, the confederation of tribes with which Morgan was personally most familiar (in 1846 he was in fact "adopted" by one of its constituent tribes, the Seneca, as a warrior of the Hawk clan), and on which he had written a classic monograph. Clearly Marx shared Morgan's passional attraction for the "League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee?' among whom "the state did not exist," and "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles," and whose sachems, moreover, had "none of the marks of a priesthood?' One of his notes includes Morgan's description of the formation of the Iroquois Confederation as "a masterpiece of Indian wisdom," and it doubtless fascinated him to learn that, as far in advance of the revolution as 1755, the Iroquois had recommended to the "forefathers Americans, a union of the colonies similar so their own."

Many passages of these Notebooks reflect Marx's interest in Iroquois democracy as expressed in the Council of the Gens, that "democratic assembly where every adult male and female member had a voice upon all questions brought before it," and he made special note of details regarding the active participation of women in tribal affairs, The relation of man to woman-a topic of Marx's 1844 manuscripts-is also one of the recurring themes of his ethnological inquiries. Thus he quotes a letter sent to Morgan by a missionary among the Seneca: "The women were the great power among the clans, as everywhere else. They did not hesitate, when occasion required, 'to knock off the horns,' as it was technically called, from the head of a chief, and send him back to the ranks of the warriors. The original nomination of the chief also always rested with them" And a few pages later he highlights Morgan's contention that the "present monogamian family… must…change as society changes...It is the creature of a social system... capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained." He similarly emphasizes Morgan's conclusion, regarding monogamy, that "it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor?'"

In this area as elsewhere Marx discerned germs of social stratification within the gentile organization, again in terms of the separation of "public" and "private" spheres, which he saw in turn as the reflection of the gradual emergence of a propertied and privileged tribal caste. After copying Morgan's observation that, in the Council of Chiefs, women were free to express their wishes and opinions "through a" orator of their own choosing?" he added, with emphasis, that the "Decision (was] made by the (all-male) Council" Marx was nonetheless unmistakably impressed by the fact that, among the Iroquois, women enjoyed a freedom and a degree of social involvement far beyond that of the women (or men!) of any civilized nation. The egalitarian tendency of all gentile societies is one of the qualities of these societies that most interested Marx, and his alertness to deviations from it did not lead him to reject Morgan's basic hypothesis in this regard. Indeed, where Morgan, in his chapter on "The Monogamian Family?" deplored the treatment of women in ancient Greece as an anomalous and enigmatic departure from the egalitarian norm, Marx commented (perhaps here reflecting the influence of Bachofen): "But the relationship between the goddesses on Olympus reveals memories of women's higher position?"

Marx's passages from Morgan's chapters on the Iroquois are proportionally much longer than his of his excerpts from Ancient Society, and in fact make up one of the largest sections of the Notebooks. It was not only Iroquois social organization, however, that appealed to him, but rather a whole way of life sharply counter-posed, all along the line, to modern industrial civilization. His overall admiration for North American Indian societies generally, and for the Iroquois in particular, is made clear throughout the text, perhaps most strongly in his highlighting of Morgan's reference to their characteristic "sense of independence" and "personal dignity?' qualities both men appreciated but found greatly diminished as humankind's "property career" advanced. Whatever reservations Marx may have had regarding the universal applicability of the Iroquois "model" in the analysis of gentile societies, the painstaking care with which he copied out Morgan's often meticulous descriptions of the various aspects of their culture shows how powerfully these people impressed him. Whole pages of the Notebooks recount, in marvelous detail, Iroquois Council procedures and ceremonies:

at a signal the sachems arose and marched 3 times around the Burning Circle, going as before by the North… Master of the ceremonies again rising to his feet, filled and lighted the pipe of peace from his own fire; drew 3 whiffs, the first toward the Zenith (which meant thanks to the Great Spirit...); the second toward the ground (means thanks to his Mother, the Earth. for the various productions which had ministered to his sustenance); third toward the Sun (means thanks for his never-failing light, ever shining upon all). Then he passed the pipe to the first upon his right toward the North…

This passage goes on in the same vein for some thirty lines, but I think this brief excerpt suffices to show that the Ethnological Notebooks are unlike anything else in the Marxian canon.
http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/marx_iroquois.html

Your argument however is indeed the point of departure between materialists and those who, however well-intended, instead act as apologists for exploitative social relations as somehow "natural."

[RagingInMiami]

109. Notice how when governments have attempted to impliment Marxism

They proved that "humans are both inherently selfish and inherently hierarchical" because these institutions became more oppressive than the capitalistic institutions that Marx criticized.

[leftist_not_liberal]

113. that would be because a single government

cannot "implement Marxism"

Communism is a historic period yet to be seen and one that transcends nation states, i.e. is global.

BTW, Anarchism is nothing at all. It does not have any political philosophy of its own. Rather its economics are 100% Marx combined with some -ignorant bullshit- about Marx being too authoritarian...

Just sayin'

[RagingInMiami]

114. If you are referring to my avatar

I began using it when I joined DU after the 2004 election because I wanted nothing more to bring the Bush Administration down. It is my way of expressing that I do not recognize the Bush Administration as a legitimate government.

As far my political ideology, I'm nothing more than a progressive liberal. I stand solidly in the middle left.

The way I look at it, the further left you go, the further right you get.

[leftist_not_liberal]

116. Well I certainly appreciate your sentiments concerning

the election thief in chief.

:hi:

[DCKit]

41. It's still a Democracy if we elect a left leaning governemnt when the people feel we need one..

And a right leaning government when that's not working out. Then again, a balance of both doesn't hurt either: As long as their ideas and ideals live up to what they claim to believe.

What we really need are politicians who state their actual positions (after having thought them through) then do what they say, for better or for worse.

Our current crop seem to be more interested in the position - and holding it for life - than any concept of public service.

K&R for the comments the OP has spawned. You folks are THINKERS!!!!

[madokie]

42. maybe a change of labels would be in order first

I'm not sure we ever could embrace the word socialism even though I do think the idea of socialism would float if it wore different clothing

[fascisthunter]

43. Socialism Goes Back to Hunting and Gathering

It was a meeans for survival and has proven to be a very effective approach to building a strong unity. The rebuilding of America after the "great Depression", Europe post WWII and Japan are excellent examples.

Socilaism and it's roots go all the way back to the beginning of mankind. Sharing and unity is what creates strong nations. It also creates strong armies. Every marine understands that they are only as strong as the weakest amongst them. That's why they pull together. They all have a vested interest in each other.

[DangerDave921]

111. sharing

Sharing is only sharing when it's voluntary. If I take something from you to give it to someone else, that's no longer sharing; it's confiscation.

So I don't think you're talking about true sharing. You're talking about a governmental entity that has the power to take things from you to redistribute. And poof - we're out of voluntary sharing and into a strong centralized government. Which seems to be the opposite of what the OP had in mind.

[fascisthunter]

118. I'm Talking about Collective Sharing That is Democratically Decided

by tribes of old and nations of today. We already do that with taxation. We also democratically decide who our leaders are. That's very different from a government just "taking". For those who don't want to pay into the pot, they always claim money is being taken away from them. They rarely ever want to admit there is a practical reason for the taxes they pay, because they want to keep everything for themselves. Your notion of a strong centralized government that just taking and spending is exactly what Reagan and other "small" government republicans love to complain about. Yet they are the ones doing all the spending.

The OP is suggesting we probably have to go to socialism for a "viable future". I am suggesting he/she is probably right. It's been used since the times of tribalism, which goes all the way back to the beginning of man. I may be in favor of a centralized government and the OP isn't, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter. I'm in favor of a representative democracy that utilizes socialism. It's been proven to build a middle class in this country and has educated the masses enough to keep the powerful elites in check. It had started to unravel when our criminal Nixon came into office. From there we have seen a systematic chipping away of socialism in this country and it has had destructive consequences to this country.

[stranger81]

44. no, you're not alone! [n/t]

[blindpig]

46. To those of you who cite "human nature"

as the reason that socialism "will never work". From whence do you derive such an estimation? Is it from your friends and family? From people you know? Or is it just what you have been told. Is it the history that we've been force fed since grade school? Did those writers, editors, and those above them have an agenda? If so, what might that agenda be?

Don't trust second hand information, trust your own experience.

[Marrah_G]

52. Because through the course of history there are always leaders

Those leaders aways end up with more then others. Have you ever seen a leader live in the same manner as the lowest of their subjects? There has never been a country in which everyone lives within EXACTLY the same means. I believe it can be done in small groups, but nothing on a large scale.

Human nature does factor into things.

[blindpig]

62. Well, if you think it can be done on a small scale

then what must be done is to have our politics, economy, indeed our culture, work on a human scale. Would that not be better than forcing humans to adapt to a monstrous regime where we must distort our nature in order accommodate the requirements of eternal growth and wealth accumulation?

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. It might depend on what you want from life

If your wish is just for a few hundred people to choose a mate from, and you'll take the risk your particular habitat will survive from year to year, perhaps you could - if the whole world could be persuaded to make the same decision at the same time. If you want things produced by technology, like medicine, or the ability to live through natural problems like droughts, floods,and so on, then a state can be very useful.

[blindpig]

115. False choice

I understand what you're saying, but I believe it to be overly simplistic. You refer to the society of our hunter-gather ancestors, the crucible of our nature. There is no going back to that, our numbers, the loss of the great herds and other resources see to that. Rather what we might do is adopt what we can of those wise ways, in tune with our genome. Paul Shepard, one of the originators of such thought, declared as much at the end of his life. On the top of that to-do list is reverting to our natural egalitarian social organization. That would accomplish much.

As for technology and the state, they are bound together by capitalism in our current circumstances, but such need not be the case. We don't have to chuck the baby with the bath water, rather we might pick and chose what is appropriate and necessary, maintenance of the biosphere and preservation of biodiversity being part and parcel of what is necessary. And of course organization of the means of production would be greatly modified, not only egalitarian but with an de-emphasis of the "economy of scale", which has damaged much but only profited the capitalist. We could do it, we're actually a pretty smart bunch of monkeys.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. I'm highly influenced by what Jared Diamond said in "Guns, Germs and Steel"

(I don't know if it's derived from someone else) that small groups work by everyone having a basic idea of what all the other people are like - you know whether they're trustworthy, impulsive, cautious, wise and so on. But there's a limit to the number of people we can know like that. Beyond that, you have to have formalised mechanisms for conflict resolution and resource allocation - basically, the start of a state. And if you want the specialisation of technology, and long-range planning, you have to go beyond the numbers of people that you can know personally.

If you're proposing a formal state, but socialist, then yes, that might be possible. But I don't think that is "in tune with our genome", any more than capitalism is. "Working on a human scale" means working with people you know, rather than with formal laws. And even then, you get the problem of what happens in conflicts with other groups. Diamond says the murder rate in areas where everyone lives small groups is even higher than in large-scale civilisations, because the neighbouring groups are treated with extreme suspicion, and feuds and skirmishes with them are frequent.

[onelittleindian]

57. blindpig

I am fairly old and have seen enough to know that many are lazy and clueless. Many of these people could care less about pulling their own weight now and surely would not under a different system.
To many have an entitlement mentality and will keep it under socialism. If you think I am wrong you are a Blindpig. We will always have lowlifes that don't pull their own weight, they hurt themselves and hurt those who really do need help.

[blindpig]

64. There are always slackers

Got some in my family, bet you do too. Are they any reason to punish the rest of us? The majority are not slackers. Might it not be better to see that justice is delivered to the majority? Or do you prefer to see the majority suffer that the few might be punished? From that view capitalism is acceptable collective punishment.

[Megahurtz]

79. Excellent Post!

[leftist_not_liberal]

63. But that's not what they taught us in idustrial skool

[KansDem]

48. Socialism is becoming more necessary for human security, i.e., education, energy, health, etc...

But good ol' capitalism is still good for peddling Big Macs, CDs, and blue jeans...

[Marrah_G]

51. I do not believe it is possible here.

I believe a combination type would work. But not a completely socialist or communist form of government.

[librechik]

53. democratic socialism is the way to go for the global urban life we lead.

and we are way behind the rest of civilization on this.

[mdmc]

54. Einstein felt the same way my friend

Capitalism / Monarchy (fascism too) are based one self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Socialism is fair to all.

[stimbox]

55. You are not alone here.

[onelittleindian]

56. socialism

The same group of people that fair poorly under capitalism will fair poorly or worse under socialism.
Socialism is fine on paper but in reality only works when their are enough producers to counter the non producers and a fact we cannot hide from is that the US has many lazy people who don't pull their weight.

Why the collapse of USSR ? No reason to work hard because it is taken away and given to those who wait with their hand out. Why have so many others given up on this dream ?

Capitalism has worked very well. The problem we have with it now is that politicians are in bed with the capitalists like never before. If a well meaning politician tries to intro something good for the people, other pols and their lobbyist friends shut down the proposed legislation.

socialism is for dreamers that can't handle capitalism!

Hilliary Never, Edwards 2008!

[guruoo]

59. IMHO, capitalism, socialism have one thing in common....

Either one can be a poison or a cure,
it all depends on the dose.

[JVS]

60. Do you see a class that is going to build this socialism?

[blindpig]

84. They're all around you.

Look in a mirror. We're all working class if we're not capitalist(literally).

Si se Puede!

[robertpaulsen]

61. Through Peak Oil & Global Warming, you just might get your wish.

Our dependence on fossil fuels has taken society to the breaking point. Peak Oil and Global Warming are really flip sides of the same coin: Peak Oil has the potential to destroy society economically while global warming has the potential to destroy society environmentally. The positive ramifications of this is that capitalism, under its current incarnation called globalization, has no future. As the globalized economy evaporates, localized economies will have to do decide whether to try to survive under a system rooted in competing for dwindling resources or a system committed to equal distribution of dwindling resources. I believe our survival instinct will compel us toward socialism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. For some values of "socialism".

Socialism is used by lots of different people to mean lots of different things.

Some people use "socialism" to imply an alternative to capitalism. Such systems are universally bad ones.

Some people use "socialism" to imply a form of capitalism, practiced in e.g. parts of Europe. Such systems include the best economic systems yet developed.

[jgraz]

66. Most of the key tenets of socialism are supported by the majority of Americans

Equitable wealth distribution? Yep.
Universal health care? Gotcha
Strictly regulated corporations? You betcha
Dramatically strengthened social safety net? Oh yeah.
Drastically reduced defense spending? Once again, yes.


All of these are mainstream American values.

[paulk]

69. that's true, but there's a huge difference between that and what

the OP is suggesting.

I doubt that the majority of Americans want to eliminate capitalism.

[BornagainDUer]

70. Debs was jailed by the bastards, Sept. 14, 1918. Dissent had turned

to treason. The Morgan Empire employed every device possible to once and for all squelch civil and labor dissent. In this they had a common bond with fascism.

[BornagainDUer]

71. What do you mean? We've already got socialism...

socialism for the rich aka. national socialism. :evilgrin:

[DangerDave921]

72. Puh-lease

The pie-in-the-sky, 1960's fantasy commune is so dead and buried. Look, the things you advocate sound great. They really do. A world without war, crime, etc. would be great. But unless we can disregard thousands of years of human history, your vision is a pipe-dream and nothing more. Someone will ALWAYS be in control when there is any form of social interaction. Someone has to decide where resources are allocated. Nothing will ever be entirely voluntary.

Also, what exactly are the 30% of the work force going to do when they are freed to do "more productive things"?

Voluntary association leads to capitalism and free trade. It's a natural expression of the bargains that people strike up to deal with economics.

[slay]

80. I don't know how else to say this other than - you are wrong

That and your tone is very condecending. The planet is dying and you want to continue with business as usual? Good luck with that buddy. :eyes:

[DangerDave921]

87. My tone

If my tone is condescending, it is because I like to deal with reality, not fantasy. And when I see someone spewing fantasy -- even if it sounds great -- I criticize it. I have to call it as I see it. The OP had a great-sounding message with absolutely no practical means of accomplishing it. The OP painted a picture of no war, no violence, no crime, no rape, etc. Tell me -- when in the history of recorded civilization has such a place existed?

Human nature is a bitch. We can seek to tame it and ease its rough edges, but we will never be able to live in a world of peace and love and tranquility, where everyone has good food, a warm place to sleep, and no fear of crime or violence.

[GeneCosta]

96. I never claimed there wouldn't be any crimee

Please do not create straw man. I am far from a utopian.

If human nature is such a big factor, then why is it people complain about society today being so much different than it was 50, 60 years ago? Society is made up of people. Did human nature change over the course of 50 years, or was it people acting differently?

[slay]

104. I have no desire to live in YOUR world... we have the choice to change things

You just choose not to. Just cause things have been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean they have to stay that way. You own any slaves? Know any women who have the right to vote? Own a computer? Did you 30 years ago? See, things change, and can change... and will change, and do change. I hope one day you see that, and choose to change things for the better. Peace. :hippie:

[Vilis Veritas]

73. The problem is not capitalism it is corporatism.

The Corporate Oligarchs will not easily give up their shadow rule...

To your comment "I'm sick of watching humans squabble over not getting the newest mp3 player while more than half the world population struggles for a living." What do you suggest? Forced Re-education? How could you force an evolution of thought on those who have been brain-washed by the corporate oligarchs through media saturation without severly infringing on their rights and causing a huge amount of backwash?

All these are just questions, I understand the genesis of your angst, I just see no easy path towards a socialist utopia - there are approx. 200 million people at any given moment that probably have a different set of priorities...:shrug: No easy task...and lots of people who would put a bullet in the head of anyone who starts to get noticed...just ask MLK...oh wait, you can't...

Peace.

[blindpig]

77. "Corporatism" is not an abberation

It is the logical conclusion of capitalism. It is the most efficient means of capital growth, with bonus points for risk aversion.

Socialism is not utopian, nothing is perfect, but it is more human, more humane and our only alternative.

It is not a matter of changing people, but of changing their society.

[Vilis Veritas]

81. Still not an easy task...n/t

[sss1977]

75. You are not alone.

Some form of libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism makes a lot of sense to me.

As Henry David Thoreau said:

"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

[leftofthedial]

76. I see capitalism as the problem

the oligarchy uses capitalism to unlevel the playing field and to ensure that not all people indeed are created equal

capitalism uses corporations to implement its most egregious policies and to insulate the wealthy from the consequences of their greed-driven crimes

these crimes are the direct causes of environmental destruction, illegal and unending war, famine, poverty, poor health, most crime and indeed most of the afflictions of modern humanity

the oligarchy would cease to exist under socialism

victory for the people

[slay]

78. I TOTALLY agree

You made a good point about it being REAL socialism, not Stalinism. Very good points. Kurt Vonnegut also felt that socialism was the only way that would work in the long term. Good call cause this Capitalism has led to nothing but a larger gap between the rich and the poor, tons of pollution, a LOT of corruption, and out of control greed. I'm all for Socialism. :)

[DangerDave921]

112. Let's not forget the good

You list out all the bad things capitalism has wrought. What about the good? What about the highest standard of living in this country? What about the obliteration of many awful diseases that used to kill millions of people? What about technological advances? Abundant food? Advanced medical treatment?

Of course there are bad things in this world. No debate there. But can you deny the good things?

[Mike03]

82. I have no clue, but appreciate this question

We need to rewire our sense of what we "need" in order to feel out lives are comfortable and complete. This involves consciousness raising rather than politics. At some point, my hope is that human beings will overdose on consumption and the unhealthy habits we engage in that squander the world's resources and our fortune.

Once that desire for excess perishes, there's a motivation to share more of it with others. Maybe this is something that works better in a small town than in a city.

If people could come to the conclusion that there is no point in accumulating most of the things that we purchase, and to live more cautiously on this earth, without leaving a mess behind, the desire to help others will be overwhelmingly innate.

[ileus]

83. We're almost there now...

I'm working to give the state 56% of my earnings already.

[haele]

88. But if the state provides you with decent infrastructure,

good basic and emergency medical care, subsidized food, housing and utilities that you can use when you need it, you more than make up in benefits for all than you would if you were to pay some for-profit organization for the same things.
In CA, we're paying about 15% of our paycheck in various state and local taxes, but I make too much to get much benefit from it. I don't begrudge those who need it, and I certainly can't see how people making half what I make can afford to live, much less function, with our cost of living.

I would much rather give a bit more to Medicare if I could get the Medicare benefits for my family and self at any time than deal with this corporate rationed medical "insurance" I have that still costs me on average between $800 and $900 a month after what they take out of my paycheck to pay for the benefit. Not to mention the over $3K we owe for 3 emergency room visits, various labs, and physical therapy that I'm trying to pay off in bits and pieces as before they go to collections. Hell, I'd pay half my paycheck for single payer - after all, I'm paying over that right now for what little I do have, and risk losing that insurance if something happens to my job, or my employer decides they can't afford what they give us now.
And if any of these "free market" supporters dare talk about "waiting 6 weeks to see a doctor for a bum knee" with single payer "socialized" medicine, I'll raise them with a "waiting 6 months to see an Dermatologist for an itchy growing knobby scab that can't be treated OTC" - and waiting 3 months to see an OBGYN for a follow up appointment from an Urgent Care visit...". Both visits when we has access to a good local PPO system on insurance that is considered one of the best nation wide.

Sorry for sounding so hostile, but I work very hard to keep my family going and all it takes is one disability to dump you from solid middle class into borderline bankruptcy - even if you're making around $50K a year.

Haele

[Rosa Luxemburg]

85. you won't get much socialism in this society

this country is controlled by the rich and big corporations. Generally people are self-centred and greedy and socialism has no place in their lives.

[John Q. Citizen]

91. Nonsense. City parks are socialism. County roads are socialism. Fire departments

are socialism.The US military is one of the most socialistic institutions in our society.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

97. we are lucky they aren't privatised

only a matter of time

[Selatius]

86. I am a proponent of free market socialism.

It's sort of a left libertarian ideology. The forces of the free market work so long as a few firms are not allowed to dominate the market, as they have under the current order of things. Granted, larger business entities are better at doing some things that little firms can, but that's no excuse to allow an oligopoly to arise in any market.

[MLFerrell]

90. Socialism denies the fundamental tenet of human nature...

The desire to have more than your neighbor.

Competition for resources is genetically hardwired into our species.

[GeneCosta]

95. That's incorrect

I don't go to my friend's house and scrutinize every little object he has just to make sure I have more material wealth. If there's something I'm interested in, I make a note of it. If not, I pass it up.

The idea humans are bad is inherently conservative. Greed exists but it's exaggerated by the fact our who life is compelled on competition. It's either be greedy or die.

[Seabiscuit]

92. "eliminating... gambling"???

You mean I can't take any more mini-vacation trips to Vegas?

:cry:

[question everything]

93. Not the only DUer, but certainly in the minority

We are hard wired for competition, for killing and destroying others, for protecting our turf from real and imaginary enemies. The only thing we can do is enact laws to keep us in check.

Certainly in the U.S., where immigrants have been coming in pursue of the "American Dream" not pursuing wealth is considered "un American."

I think that it will be great to have a socialist party and to change the allocation of votes to see how many it can win, but don't count on it.

[John Q. Citizen]

100. There you go, questioning nothing again. I'm so disappointed in your handle.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe......money? Engraved on Statue of Gluttony?

Man, ever hear of the Irish? Escaping the potatoe famine? I'm sure they arrived here just hoping To be, what, a millionaire?

Ever read the Grapes of Wrath?

Ever listen to Bob Marley "Now you get what you want, do you want more?"

Huey Long, FDR, the bonus Army, Martin Luther King, the poor peoples march on Washinton?

Man this country was built by good socialists.

Blow up your TV, man. It's got you all twisted up.

[barb162]

102. There have been and are socialist party tickets in every recent election.

They get next to zero votes in the national elections. In the last national election they got a big 10,000 votes.

[femrap]

94. And don't forget...

the culture of greed....instead of the culture of sharing.

It's truly that simple.

edited cuz I can't spell.

[The Doctor.]

98. It is the inexorable resutlt of rampant, uncontrolled capitalism and profiteering.

Eventually, the people get screwed past their limit to tolerate it and drag the capitalists out into the streets and execute them. The only prevention for this is for the profiteers and power-mongers to realize their peril and lay off before it's too late.

This never happens, of course. Invariably they believe themselves invincible and in complete control. They believe their resources are enough to buffer and control the populace. They believe they have finally discovered the formula for controling information and therefore the people.

And every time, they fail. They are dragged into the not-so-figurative streets and dealt with. I don't want anything to get to that point, but where they never, ever believe they are vulnerable. This is often the result of living a priviliged life without facing life-threatening consequences. This is one of the reasons that 'new money' people are far more inclined to be populist than 'old money' people.

[killbotfactory]

99. No. I agree with you.

And so did Albert Einstein and H.G. Wells.

[mdmc]

120. kick

[pinto]

101. In re: one of your larger points; I support the role of a federal government,

and am OK with a representative government.

What I find disconcerting is that the majority of Americans don't vote.

75 - 80% voter turnout would make a big difference, imho.

[barb162]

103. No you're not but the socialist parties get almost no votes

Who was the socialist candidate for prez in the last election. I bet you can't name the person.

[Jim Sagle]

105. And what's so bad about social democracy, pray tell?

[bhikkhu]

106. Beware of social engineers

They always have your best interests at heart, and are so sincere in their hope for the good of mankind.

But the more they succeed, the more people die. Read some history, and consider whether some new ideology - imposed inevitably (be realistic!) by violence - would be better than simply upholding our existing constitution.

[provis99]

108. and capitalism doesn't have social engineers? what is advertising then?

You get social engineering whether you have socialism or capitalism. And capitalists are willing to kill plenty of us to get the kind of compliant, socially engineered society that buys their crap.

[bhikkhu]

119. Which rather demonstrates the point

The dictatorial control of the physical circumstances or psychological compositions of individuals is not a necessary or desirable objective of political entities. Nor should the the consent of the individuals involved be required. To measure the harm of any political system to "freedom", ask "what are the consequences to an individual of refusal to consent?"

The failures of capitalism might be seen as failures of control over participants, or overall lack of organization. Socialism can promise much greener pastures for all in some hypothetical future, based upon some unlikely theories about human nature, but it can only approach this future through an organized and entirely obligatory imposition upon the property and behaviors of individuals.

[GeneCosta]

121. "What are the consequences to an individual of refusal to consent"

If such question is the premise, then capitalism is one large monster that kills.

Your claim that it must only be approached through imposition is an incorrect one. Do you see where Stalinism has thrived? In regions where democracy was never part of society's ethos. Marx pointed out that socialism would first come in the United States, France, Germany, and the UK.

[bhikkhu]

122. Capitalism is a large carrot and a small stick

The consequences of refusal to consent to a capitalist system are poverty - if you won't work for wages, you have no money to buy all of those fancy things. If you insist upon growing your own food, self-sustenance and barter, etc, you will inevitably lack big screen tv's and fashionable clothes and so forth. In capitalist societies, consent is almost universal as a result, and it does not currently kill "its own".

Socialism is a small carrot and a large stick - my point being that to impose a socialist system upon an existing capitalist one would require a seriously large penalty for refusal to consent, at present.

I don't quite understand the references to Stalinism arising in the lack of democracy and socialism arising in established democracies. To some extent, democracy ended here a hundred years ago, and is not a particularly well defined concept in any case. A democracy is the rule of the majority, requiring the consent of the minority. Democracy is meaningless without a definition of individual rights independent of government, and so can vary freely from paradise to hell.