… Democratic Socialist … Socialist … CommunistI confess ignorance. What’s the difference between a “Democratic Socialist” and a “Socialist” sans modifier?
The ride was never free, and only the right-wing pretended it was. Sanders’ true supporters knew the cost and paid it. His programs came with ideas to pay for them. Only the Republicans pretended they didn’t. Yes, Sanders’ campaign is over, but our goals to give the country back to the rest of the 99% are not. The unicorn is not free, but then, it is not the little guy on the unicorn who has been stealing all the tokens either.
Public education is a social program, not socialism ….Again, I confess ignorance. What’s the difference between a “social program” and “socialism”? (I’m hoping for a definition, rather than an example.)
I must admit I may be in an error in my use of social program. The term should probably be public program.And the difference is? (I’m still hoping for a definition.)
… if Mrs. Clinton were so corrupt that some prosecutor somewhere would have at least indicted her…Some folks have a difficult time understanding the concept of “jurisdiction.”
The fact is that Bernie wears much more a Teddy Roosevelt shirt, with FDR on the back, not at all a “Che” display.
Love the “no socialism has ever succeeded” by folks who don’t recognize Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, or many others that have quite successfully adopted that “democratic socialism” Bernie keeps talking about. The problem is that with democratic socialism, EVERYBODY has to pay their share based on what they can afford, even the wealthy. Aye, there’s the rub!
Others have a different opinion of which “ism” has failed. " …To say Capitalism has failed, as a system for providing the greatest good for the greatest percentage of the population, is an understatement. When prisons, war and the looting of precious natural resources become moneymaking opportunities, leaving injustice, poverty and global environmental catastrophe as collateral damage, the result is the catastrophe of a system out of sync with human values and with nature that we see today. Looked at in another way, however, as a system for centralizing power and wealth, it has been a stunning success."http://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/01/can-we-all-agree-that-capitalism-has-failed/
Yes, indeed. I have tried several times to indicate some of the complexities and nuances of socialist history and theory, but it seems to have had no effect.
It’s very important to recognize that socialism is not an abstract philosophical theory. Socialism grew up as a response to real historical conditions in the early stages of capitalist economic development. These conditions were the miserable lives and working conditions suffered by working people at the time. These conditions were widely documented at the time: for example, in Engels’ book “The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844”; but also in Henry Mayhew’s “London Labour and the London Poor”, published in 1851; and also in novels, such as Dickens’ “Hard Times”, published in 1854. It’s very important to read about the conditions of the time and to try to enter into these in your imagination. These conditions seemed to be a direct result of the capitalist mode of economic organization, and that in turn seemed to be linked to a particular view of private property and the rights of individuals to own public goods. One example, out of many, was the series of enclosure acts, which took land which had been common property, and turned it over to private ownership. This was one part of a process which created a large urban working class which then had to turn to work in factories, often in truly horrible conditions.So this economic system was based on the claim that certain individuals had the right to own everything as private property, even property which had long been considered common; and it also claimed that private individuals had the right to unregulated profit based on the labor of the workers, who had no recourse against inhuman working conditions and who did not profit themselves from their labor beyond the minimum needed to keep them alive to work for the profit of capitalists. In effect, a worker became a commodity, not essentially different from any raw material used in manufacturing.So socialism was a response to this system, and instead of basing itself on the private property rights of capitalists, the rights of an individual to profit from public goods and from human labor seen as a commodity, socialism argued that public goods should be in some way held in common for the benefit of society as a whole. It is, I would argue, essential that socialism is based on a view of the rights of society as a whole to benefit from social goods rather than on the rights of private individuals to own and profit from social goods. Without some sense of why socialism came into being, and without some sense of what why the “social” matters in socialism, the definition remains superficial. More to come.
I will try to make this short, but of course that means I will leave out important points. First, socialists in general believe that social goods, including resources and the means of production, should not be privately owned and exploited for private profit; these should be somehow socially controlled. But exactly how this social control is to be organized has been a point of debate. It is by no means true that all socialists believe that resources and the means of production should be owned by the central government. There are several other models, but there’s no room here to go into detail. Myself, I’m a libertarian socialist, or as I prefer to say, an anarchist socialist, and I believe in the minimum of centralization.Second, because the goal of socialism is the general improvement of human life, socialists have never limited themselves to the narrow political or economic call for public control of the means of production. Here, for example, are some points in the 1891 Erfurt program of the German Social Democratic Party (the document is way too long to quote in full):Universal suffrage, for all men and women over twentyAbolition of laws which place women at a disadvantageReligion is a private matter (more or less what we call the separation of Church and State)Secularization of schoolsAdministration of justice and legal advice to be freeMedical treatment to be freeProgressive taxationAn eight-hour working dayNo child laborIndustrial health and safety lawsThe right to unionizeSo a comprehensive social program, what today we might call Democratic Socialism, was part of the socialist program back in the nineteenth century. This is nothing new. This is not redefining socialism to make it palatable. This is part of the socialist tradition. And, again, the point of socialism, is to make life better. Social ownership, in one form or another, is one tool towards that goal, an important tool, but not the only tool. But the dictionary definition of socialism gives absolutely no indication of the goal of socialism, the various forms socialism can take, or the wider social program of socialism. The definition is inadequate and misleading.
There is definitely an issue in how “functions of government” and public utilities relate as we see:“Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.”http://www.bbc.com/news/10461048Here the abstraction is the need to interactively communicate with everyone who is member of society. It’s very hard to relate today’s Republicans and Democrats to abstract Conservatism and Liberalism as there are so many particulars that contradict the dictionary definitions.
braindead Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Lisa once again displays the right wing belief that a Democratic Socialist, Sanders, is the same as a Socialist, and a Communist.
And the other poorly educated posters will chime in that he is also a fascist and probably a muslim.
Random Nick Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Ji2m, that was satire. New irony meter time.
Geezer almost 8 years ago
… Democratic Socialist … Socialist … CommunistI confess ignorance. What’s the difference between a “Democratic Socialist” and a “Socialist” sans modifier?
Mr. Blawt almost 8 years ago
The ride was never free, and only the right-wing pretended it was. Sanders’ true supporters knew the cost and paid it. His programs came with ideas to pay for them. Only the Republicans pretended they didn’t. Yes, Sanders’ campaign is over, but our goals to give the country back to the rest of the 99% are not. The unicorn is not free, but then, it is not the little guy on the unicorn who has been stealing all the tokens either.
Dave Ferro almost 8 years ago
No, the ride’s not over. Hillary is every bit the Socialist that Bernie is.
Geezer almost 8 years ago
Public education is a social program, not socialism ….Again, I confess ignorance. What’s the difference between a “social program” and “socialism”? (I’m hoping for a definition, rather than an example.)
kurt.zwicky almost 8 years ago
“Exactly. .Get the government out of education.”Precisely. We need more Trump Universities..
Geezer almost 8 years ago
I must admit I may be in an error in my use of social program. The term should probably be public program.And the difference is? (I’m still hoping for a definition.)
Geezer almost 8 years ago
… if Mrs. Clinton were so corrupt that some prosecutor somewhere would have at least indicted her…Some folks have a difficult time understanding the concept of “jurisdiction.”
Lyman Elliott Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Just to troll you. Hes a filthy jewish illuminatist. He grinds good Christian babies into his matzah.-Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Geezer almost 8 years ago
Democratic Socialism in a nutshell.
Dtroutma almost 8 years ago
The fact is that Bernie wears much more a Teddy Roosevelt shirt, with FDR on the back, not at all a “Che” display.
Love the “no socialism has ever succeeded” by folks who don’t recognize Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, or many others that have quite successfully adopted that “democratic socialism” Bernie keeps talking about. The problem is that with democratic socialism, EVERYBODY has to pay their share based on what they can afford, even the wealthy. Aye, there’s the rub!
superposition almost 8 years ago
Others have a different opinion of which “ism” has failed. " …To say Capitalism has failed, as a system for providing the greatest good for the greatest percentage of the population, is an understatement. When prisons, war and the looting of precious natural resources become moneymaking opportunities, leaving injustice, poverty and global environmental catastrophe as collateral damage, the result is the catastrophe of a system out of sync with human values and with nature that we see today. Looked at in another way, however, as a system for centralizing power and wealth, it has been a stunning success."http://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/01/can-we-all-agree-that-capitalism-has-failed/
superposition almost 8 years ago
lonecat almost 8 years ago
Yes, indeed. I have tried several times to indicate some of the complexities and nuances of socialist history and theory, but it seems to have had no effect.
Mike Herman almost 8 years ago
Don’t worry, Bernie. HiLIARy will ride that horse and wear that T-shirt.
lonecat almost 8 years ago
It’s very important to recognize that socialism is not an abstract philosophical theory. Socialism grew up as a response to real historical conditions in the early stages of capitalist economic development. These conditions were the miserable lives and working conditions suffered by working people at the time. These conditions were widely documented at the time: for example, in Engels’ book “The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844”; but also in Henry Mayhew’s “London Labour and the London Poor”, published in 1851; and also in novels, such as Dickens’ “Hard Times”, published in 1854. It’s very important to read about the conditions of the time and to try to enter into these in your imagination. These conditions seemed to be a direct result of the capitalist mode of economic organization, and that in turn seemed to be linked to a particular view of private property and the rights of individuals to own public goods. One example, out of many, was the series of enclosure acts, which took land which had been common property, and turned it over to private ownership. This was one part of a process which created a large urban working class which then had to turn to work in factories, often in truly horrible conditions.So this economic system was based on the claim that certain individuals had the right to own everything as private property, even property which had long been considered common; and it also claimed that private individuals had the right to unregulated profit based on the labor of the workers, who had no recourse against inhuman working conditions and who did not profit themselves from their labor beyond the minimum needed to keep them alive to work for the profit of capitalists. In effect, a worker became a commodity, not essentially different from any raw material used in manufacturing.So socialism was a response to this system, and instead of basing itself on the private property rights of capitalists, the rights of an individual to profit from public goods and from human labor seen as a commodity, socialism argued that public goods should be in some way held in common for the benefit of society as a whole. It is, I would argue, essential that socialism is based on a view of the rights of society as a whole to benefit from social goods rather than on the rights of private individuals to own and profit from social goods. Without some sense of why socialism came into being, and without some sense of what why the “social” matters in socialism, the definition remains superficial. More to come.
lonecat almost 8 years ago
I will try to make this short, but of course that means I will leave out important points. First, socialists in general believe that social goods, including resources and the means of production, should not be privately owned and exploited for private profit; these should be somehow socially controlled. But exactly how this social control is to be organized has been a point of debate. It is by no means true that all socialists believe that resources and the means of production should be owned by the central government. There are several other models, but there’s no room here to go into detail. Myself, I’m a libertarian socialist, or as I prefer to say, an anarchist socialist, and I believe in the minimum of centralization.Second, because the goal of socialism is the general improvement of human life, socialists have never limited themselves to the narrow political or economic call for public control of the means of production. Here, for example, are some points in the 1891 Erfurt program of the German Social Democratic Party (the document is way too long to quote in full):Universal suffrage, for all men and women over twentyAbolition of laws which place women at a disadvantageReligion is a private matter (more or less what we call the separation of Church and State)Secularization of schoolsAdministration of justice and legal advice to be freeMedical treatment to be freeProgressive taxationAn eight-hour working dayNo child laborIndustrial health and safety lawsThe right to unionizeSo a comprehensive social program, what today we might call Democratic Socialism, was part of the socialist program back in the nineteenth century. This is nothing new. This is not redefining socialism to make it palatable. This is part of the socialist tradition. And, again, the point of socialism, is to make life better. Social ownership, in one form or another, is one tool towards that goal, an important tool, but not the only tool. But the dictionary definition of socialism gives absolutely no indication of the goal of socialism, the various forms socialism can take, or the wider social program of socialism. The definition is inadequate and misleading.
superposition almost 8 years ago
There is definitely an issue in how “functions of government” and public utilities relate as we see:“Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.”http://www.bbc.com/news/10461048Here the abstraction is the need to interactively communicate with everyone who is member of society. It’s very hard to relate today’s Republicans and Democrats to abstract Conservatism and Liberalism as there are so many particulars that contradict the dictionary definitions.