Poll: Capitalism or Socialism

[TBF]

Poll question: Poll: Capitalism or Socialism

I'm curious as to where folks are on economic systems - now that we have spent 7 weeks Occupying. Has the Occupation changed your outlook (particularly after viewing the income gap charts)? Feel free to explain your choice as well and whether your outlook has changed due to the Occupy protests. If I've left something out please feel free to comment on that as well.

I believe I fall into the libertarian, syndicalists arena (direct worker ownership of means of production).

[RegieRocker]

1. The best government is the right mix of many types.

[Scuba]

2. We need a choice that's not on there...

... a blend of capitalism/socialism, with nationalization of banking, extraction and perhaps other industries.


A highly regulated capitalist economy with money out of politics would be my choice.


If we can't get the money out of politics, nothing else matters.

[blindpig]

5. The capitalists would never stand for that.

You'll not do that unless you take the government away from them, which is what we must do.

[Celefin]

10. What you said.

Nationalize the banking system, natural resource extraction and essential infrastructure provision such as water, electricity, health, transport (not freight, though).

And money out of politics. Without that, nothing elese matters indeed.

[TBF]

11. Yes, I went for major categories but I hear what you're saying -

there is a wide range of left views on this site and I'm sure there are others who might combine a couple categories.

[Starry Messenger]

3. I wonder who voted for Free Market.

:popcorn:

I voted Marxist-Leninist, although I will say that the reason why is because it is a flexible system, based on scientific observation of conditions. It isn't always perfect, but it doesn't just follow a formula, either.

[blindpig]

6. It's what gets the job done.

No more bullshit.

k&r

[TBF]

14. Yup, sure understand that view as well -

and certainly communism would be better than what we have now - at least far more equitable for most folks. The union is in my blood though, think that is why I am so drawn to syndicalism. I love the idea of workers owning/running rather than the state.

[white_wolf]

18. I'd prefer a Bolshevik-Leninist state.

As to your question,seriously though who did for free markets? We've been trying that for the past 200 years or so. It isn't working.

[TBF]

21. lol

Gotta put in a choice for the trolls ... :evilgrin:

[Starry Messenger]

44. Well, the Free Market fairy might come someday.

Maybe if we clap real hard. :evilgrin:

[joshcryer]

55. "scientific observation of conditions"

Social science, by definition, is itself an experiment, an ongoing experiment. Marxists' use 'science' in this context to invoke arbitrary, unprovable, social systems in order to hide behind reason and logic to further their power struggle.

"All Humans Do Not Require Private Property" is an 'objective' yet inapplicable statement, and effectively is the kind of 'logic' the Marxists have used for decades to perpetuate historical materialism.

"All Humans May Enjoy A Better Life Without Private Property" is a scientific hypothesis that must be tested, and it must be tested repeatedly.

[brewens]

4. Would you rather have a bureaucracy designed to deny medical care

to maximize profit or a bureaucracy designed to provide medical care? Definitely socialize banks and energy.

I'm a big believer in employee owned businesses. I worked for one for awhile. I can assure you the managers were just as hardassed about making us work as any other bosses.

I own a business with my girlfriend. If we get it going to where we need one or two more employees, I'd be all for cutting them in as part owners. The conflict with my girlfriend will be if that is going to be her family or not.

My experience working for and knowing families running businesses makes me think you get about 40 or 50 percent good employees that way. They think that is who they can trust to work hard for them but it's not always the case. I worked with some of the best and worst people at family businesses.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. Your last sentence echoes my experiences.

[JoeyT]

46. Yeah, your last paragraph nails it.

Working for or hiring family never works out well. Either you end up with employees that won't work, or an employer that won't pay.

[The2ndWheel]

8. One size shouldn't fit all

[Prophet 451]

9. I voted for Democratic Socialism but with reservations

I have an economic theory which I call the "backstop theory". The idea is that, while free-market capitalism works for many market sectors, it does not and cannot work for certain sectors because those sectors have a captive market. Those sectors (healthcare, utilities, mail, banking and one could make an argument for telecoms) have a captive market because we all need those services, or the option of them, all the time so, while you can jump from one provider to another, you cannot remove yourself from the market altogether. So my idea is that, in those sectors, the state should own and offer a not-for-profit "backstop", a bottom floor of service for cost which private companies have to compete with.

So, for example, the state would provide a basic retail banking service that you can have your paycheque deposited and pay your bills through. In order to compete with that, private companies have to offer either a better service or a better price or both. It's not the scary socialism because those state-run services are still competing with private companies but it means there is a backstop to prevent standards falling below a certain level.

I'm British. Here, the NHS provides a backstop in healthcare. The NHS tends toward generic drugs and spartan hospitals to keep costs down. There's also a waiting list for certain, elective, operations (that's a bug, not a feature). We still have private insurance companies here and people still take out private insurance for various reasons. Some want the option of skipping the waiting list, some want luxurious hospitals, some just want the status symbol. But because the NHS provides that bare bones service, private companies have to be better in some way to compete. The idea is to marry the low-cost, high-access of state ownership with the best features of private industry.

[TBF]

12. I have a friend who is British but has lived in the US a long time

(I believe they may have dual citizenship) - and she is moving back now because of health care. My husband is British and we may well end up doing the same thing at some point.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. I voted for the Marxist-Leninist model, but

in practice, I would BEGIN with the nationalization of ALL "general welfare" industries and ALL interstate industries. And a demand economy until ALL citizens are fed, sheltered, clothed, educated, and have a living wage job.

Within the confines of an individual state, it would probably be easier to support an anarcho-syndicalist model with goverenment backing (loans, tax breaks, etc.) for direct worker owned co-ops.

[TBF]

15. Love this sentence -

"And a demand economy until ALL citizens are fed, sheltered, clothed, educated, and have a living wage job."

Amen.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Fuck a bunch of "market" when the basics aren't met

for ALL of us.

Thanks for the poll, TBF! Lots of various "socialisms" in the answers. :)

[TBF]

20. I was curious because OWS has lasted longer than I thought it would -

and I wondered exactly how fed up people had gotten. Looks like they're way past that - 75% are looking for democratic socialism at the very least which is much more regulation (and social nets) then we currently have.

I have also learned why I find so few people in agreement with me on this site. I thought there might be at least one or two other anarcho-syndicalists on here ... :/

[white_wolf]

22. I like it, but I have my doubts about anarchism in general.

No offense, but I slightly disagree with your definition of some terms. Under my ideal socialist state the workers would directly control the means of production, but unlike under anarcho-syndicalism there would be a state because I don't think we can move directly to a stateless society without a transnational period. Oh, and I think Tavener is an anarcho-syndicalist.

[TBF]

23. That's cool -

fitting everyone into 5 categories on a left site is pretty hard. Should've included the Bolshevik/Lenin choice for sure. I know there are more than just you in that category.

Agree that it would be a transition to stateless society - I believe Marx saw "pure communism" as a goal in which the state would ultimately fall away. They of course tried with the Paris Commune and we all know that didn't last very long so it may be sort of an idealistic view in the end. But I still like it best out of the choices so I included it. :)

[white_wolf]

24. Yeah, you can't include everything. It is a good polll though.

I'm surprised to see how many at least support some kind of socialism. I wish Gallup would do a poll like this, it would be a lot more useful than "do you approve of Obama?"

[stevenleser]

26. Anyone who says they don't support some kind of socialism doesnt know what they are talking about.

We have a socialized military. Social Security is a socialized form of retirement. Medicare is a socialized form of health care. I dont think you can find a person who is against all three of those. I'm interested to hear from them if you do, however.

[TBF]

29. I know, right -

and the ones who don't support those do support socialism for the banks. It just comes down to priorities.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. Yeah, wolf's right about that Bolshevik-Leninist

choice, but I just picked the one that was closest to me. I didn't even think about it being Stalinist. :) You can also call us revolutionary socialists. :) We hard lefties get so picky sometimes. :)

[white_wolf]

19. As I said above I'd prefer a Bolshevik-Leninist state.

The OP likely didn't mean it, but Marxism-Leninism is Stalin's term. It was coined by him and refers to his ideology. Though I do like anarcho-syndicalism as well.

[Abel Baker]

51. One big reason for M-L socialist state

The feudal states in the industrialized countries were gradually swept away between the 17th English Civil war up to World War II to be replaced by capitalist liberal bourgeois democracies. These capitalist states still exist today, with a few feudal vestiges (the UK is called a "constitutional monarchy", although it does not have a constitution and does have a monarch).

There have been utopian dreamers for centuries on how to replace this. I mean, we could have a movement to be a kumbaya hunter-gatherer society like the Sioux and Apache. Of course, they were wiped out, just like any other attempt such as this has been.

The USSR is the only country that successfully defied capitalism. The French would probably still be in Vietnam, Rhodesia would probably still belong to the queen of England and so forth. Of all the models that have existed, it is the only one which has successfully defied capitalism.

It doesn't mean one should join some M-L organization, but that they got somewhere, while all the utopian pie-in-the-sky people got nowhere, shows something.

[socialist_n_TN]

56. The Bolshevik-Leninists' were the one who overthrew

the capitalists in Russia and won the civil war. Welcome to DU.

[TBF]

59. True - though Stalin is the one who kept it going so long

(for better or for worse - not looking to fight that one here ...) :)

I agree with Abel Baker that my love for direct democracy/stateless society is quite idealistic. Have always been a dreamer ...

[socialist_n_TN]

60. But you're not the only one........

:)

[Exultant Democracy]

17. I'm a strong beliver in bet practices and it looks like the Germans found a mix that works well

why do we just copy what works.

[meow2u3]

27. Mixed economy and social democracy

What you termed "democratic socialism" is in fact a mixed economy. A mixed economy is the ideal middle ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[TBF]

28. Yup -

I used the word "blend" but "mixed" might have been a better descriptive. I figured quite a few would be in that camp.

[moondust]

30. Mixed.

The northern European economies are probably about as good as it will ever get. Part of the problem with "pure" this or "pure" that is that whatever it is would have to be more or less imposed from the top. As soon as you give people a choice/vote you'll naturally have lots of people on every side of the issue and thus the purity dissipates. Aside from military operations, imposing things from the top down without giving people a real choice has a known history of going badly for most everybody except the small group doing the imposing.

[Taverner]

31. There needs to be a Social Dem >> Socialism >> Anarcho-Syndicalist Option

Marx predicted societies evolve along this path...

[joshcryer]

54. You can't get to anarchy via transitioning through the state.

Simply impossible.

[Taverner]

61. Do you have evidence of it being impossible?

The Paris Commune was able to do it, until Versailles killed them all

I take this kind of jingoism as a knee jerk reaction you learned long ago, like "Socialism is impossible" or "Capitalism is the only system that works."

[TBF]

62. The Paris Commune did it for all of 2 months (and that's being generous) -

we are going to need a lot of education and discipline to accomplish it ....


Here is what Marx had to say on the subject (you've probably read it but I include it here for any other readers who may be interested):

In short, the political immaturity of the working class prevented a successful revolution in the 19th century. The proletariat hadn't - and hasn't yet - created the political leadership needed for a successful worker's revolution. Creating such a political leadership was the project Marx pursued throughout his life, both as an activist and as a theoretician. Objective conditions frequently present revolutionary opportunities. Yet without political leadership that advocates socialism, that instills class consciousness, that understands the history of political struggle and the necessity for decisive action (including revolutionary terror) against the bourgeoisie, any revolutionary movement will fail to create socialism. <24> Historically the most important missing element of socialist revolution has been the subjective factor: the revolutionary socialist party. While it had some members in key positions of the Paris Commune, the International Working Men's Association was not yet the revolutionary party needed for a successful transition to socialism. It lacked the theoretical clarity, critical mass and organic connection to the working class necessary to lead events.

A revolutionary party cannot be created in the midst of civil war, armed occupation, social chaos, economic disruption. Long before a revolutionary situation arises, the party needs to develop its theory, test it in practice and gain credibility among the working class. When it begins to fight against the bosses, the working class looks for ideas to advance its struggle. Without a legitimate revolutionary working class party, these workers will often be tempted to follow the well-meaning, charlatan " of a different stamp" Marx described above. However, if a revolutionary party has established itself in advance of the struggle, gaining sufficient size and the respect of workers, it can lead the fight to a successful conclusion: socialism.

Much more here: http://www.runmuki.com/paul/writing/marx.html

[dionysus]

32. isn't option 3 kind of contained within option 2?

[Shagbark Hickory]

33. That's really something. Currently the commies are outnumbering the capigalists.

[BanTheGOP]

34. We need to eliminate ALL capitalism

Capitalism implies no wage limits, limited tax revenues, very little (if any) redistribution of assets from the repressionists back to the productive. We need to institute a 100% tax on all income over, say, 10 million dollars; 90% tax on all income over a million, and 70% on all income over 250,000. All medical, school through doctorate, public transportation, Internet, voting, and unlimited unemployment should be in place, as well as housing and energy rations. NOBODY needs a mansion, nobody needs an SUV for personal use, etc.

But again...UNTIL we BAN the republican Party, capitalism will always rear up its ugly head. It must be beaten and DESTROYED. Just like ALL rEPUBLICANS. Pure and simple.

[TBF]

35. I agree about getting rid of capitalism -

but I think we are a long way from that. Even in this small sample twice as many respondents prefer Capitalism or a Mixed economy. And with the exception of a few trolls that always slip in this is a site for folks who vote for the democratic candidate. If 2/3 of democrats want capitalism or a variety thereof, it doesn't even matter whether we have republicans or not. And I think Obama's administration has aptly demonstrated that I am right about that.

[TBF]

36. Not really - democratic socialists are capitalists too -

they just want much stronger regulations and safety nets.

[white_wolf]

37. Not entirely true.

Social-democrats want regulations. Democratic Socialists like Eugene Debs want to abolish capitalism, but want to do so using the framework of the current state.

[TBF]

39. I thought it was the other way around -

I thought Eugene fit into my 3rd category (socialists - or social democrat). A democratic socialist (my 2nd category) would be someone like Bernie Sanders.

[white_wolf]

40. Social-democracy is sometimes called democratic socialism.

Originally social-democracy was an ideology that came out of the Second International, even Lenin and Trotsky were social-democrats. Today, the term refers to the system in place in some European countries like Norway, and Germany. Sanders is a social democrat, but honestly labels aren't nearly as important as whose side you are one in the class war and we know Sanders is with us.

[joshcryer]

53. While the terms are unclear the poll options make it clear what democratic socialism...

...the OP was referring to.

I do call it social democracy because it's not in my opinion really socialist (socialism rejects private property, which therefore rejects capitalism). But it does have socialist tendencies. The OP was kind enough to elaborate further on the terminology, and I think the respondents understood what he meant.

The US was actually a very strong social democracy before Regan came along.

[joshcryer]

52. No, I'm pretty sure "regulated capitalists" are outnumbering both.

Both capitalists and communists.

[TBF]

58. Yes - the preference is very clear here.

That is what I was interested in seeing. I'll remember to do the poll again at some point in the future and see if it changes at all.

[Cal Carpenter]

38. The problem with the concept of a 'mixed' economy

is that capitalism always wins. It usually goes one of a couple ways.

---The economy within a nation (usually small and homogeneous) does a good or even great job of taking care of it's own - high taxes on income, good education system, health care, housing, relative income equality, etc. But the wealth of the nation comes from industries exploiting workers and resources in other places, and a strong financial industry that does the same. (think Scandinavia)

----The economy within a nation (usually small-medium and less homogeneous population) does an okay job of taking care of its own, sometimes, when the political climate is right. But there is a significant underclass, often invisible, often brown and black skinned, that has few resources and opportunities. Income inequality is still a problem. Again, the wealth that the nation comes from industries and financial systems that exploit resources and workers in other places, and the benefits that the society has are regularly chipped away and require constant defense by the working class(es). (think Great Britain and Canada)

---The economy AND political system within a nation leans far left towards socialism and nationalization of industry and something closer to 'direct democracy'. The nation's wealth is shared for the benefit of most people. The country tries to hold its own in the global economy but is forced to either isolate itself (think Cuba) or compete in the global market against the entrenched imperialist capitalist countries (think Venezuela) and keeps a tenuous hold on its gains under constant assault and anti-left propaganda about dictatorships and such by the so-called 'democratic' western capitalist nations. This often leads to an amount of authoritarianism to keep the threats at bay which do not sit well with outsiders and give credibility (whether or accurate or not - usually not) to these accusations of dictatorship, repression, etc.

At the end of the day, within each nation or globally, or both, the concentration of wealth and power continues. That is the inevitable result of capitalism and we are seeing it happen all over the world today.

Mixed economies are a losing battle. Socialism and capitalism cannot co-exist. It is simple math. Capitalism must continue to expand and grow infinitely - that is how it works, that is the basis for its existence. That is also why it is unsustainable and cannot last forever.

We will have to let go of capitalism one way or another, eventually.

[War Horse]

41. Social Democracy

Mixed economy with STRONG unions.

Definitions vary a bit, though - at least in my experience. I've often seen Democratic Socialism referred to as to the left of Social Democracy.

I've also seen different definitions of Social Democracy. Some are closer to "Third Way-ish" (Blairism), while most are more or less a description of the Nordic model.

I favor the latter - I have no use for (what I perceive as) Third way.

[Raksha]

42. K & R - good poll and good discussion.

I voted for #2 but I'm now leaning towards #3, and maybe further left than that since I also believe capitalism is inherently unsustainable.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

45. Grateful for all the replies here -

it's good to see where we are. I'll repeat this again - maybe in 6 mos. or so.

I'll define a little more too. I meant the first 2 choices as capitalist: free market or the mixed economy of socialism/capitalism such as we see in the Scandanavian countries. Second 2 were socialist choices: state-sponsored with workers having much more participation and the second libertarian stateless socialism. Third was communism, but should've broken it into two - Boshevik/Lenin vs. Marxist/Lenin.

Thanks for everyone's comments!

[unkachuck]

47. K&R....n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

48. hybrid

socialize necessities and privatize luxuries

[MedleyMisty]

49. I just saw a conversation on Twitter

between a person who supports OWS and a rightwinger Christian who doesn't.

They did find common ground.

They agreed that our government is pushing us towards socialism.

So Occupy isn't changing the outlook of everyone.

*drowns herself in tears, goes to watch Idiocracy*

[TBF]

57. There is certainly all kinds of crazy out there -

that's for sure. Anyone who sees Obama as socialist clearly doesn't remember Reagan (because that's who he most clearly resembles in policies). This is where the economics as entertainment from FAUX news comes in - their slogan should be that they are mis-educating citizens 24/7.

[white_wolf]

63. *drowns herself in tears, goes to watch Idiocracy*

Ehh I don't watch the news anymore, I find it depressing. :)

[Capitalocracy]

50. Number two with strict rules concerning exploitation

Step 1 is a living wage.

[Marazinia]

64. Democratic Socialism, please

Call me an Einsteinist, because that's what he supported. He just didn't dare speak on it much because of how dangerous it was in the USA to do so.

[GliderGuider]

65. NOTA (None Of The Above)

All economic systems based on the abstraction of money have destroyed their own underpinnings: the natural world from which all resources, raw materials and energy flows. In the process they have destroyed forests, lakes, rivers, the land, the oceans and the air, and have decimated non-human populations. This has happened in every economic system we've tried, regardless of its -ism, ever since the abstraction and subsequent fetishizing of money.

Since we’re doing a theoretical exercise here, I vote for going back to a gift economy.

[Courtesy Flush]

66. Neither unrestrained commerce, nor unrestrained government.

They both have their place, and they both need their limits.

[grantcart]

67. All systems are blended capitalist/socialist, varying only in degree of private control

[obliviously]

68. Lenin rocks!