Is the U.S. ready for Socialism?

[Thrilla]

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid aren't socialist programs? Of course they are.

no, they actually aren't.

the closet thing we get to socialism is the US post office, but even that is a mighty far stretch.

 

[jpn]

If we define "Socialist" in contemporary, 21st Century terms, the U.S. gets more socialist all the time, despite the resistance from backward conservatives every inch of the way.

Liberals have fought for socialist policies such as the 40-hour work week, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, environmental protections, Civil Rights, labor protections, product safety laws, and now affordable health care.

Today the Democratic Party fights for these social protections and more, against the forces of naked greed, ignorance, and prejudice.

 

[jpn]

The ussr was never totalitarian in any respect, totalitarianism was used to describe fascism. And many people used that word to criticize stalin by comparing him to hitler.

Hitler, Stalin. Peas in a pod. Roughly equivalent nightmares.

 

[TGN]

True, honest, authentic Socialism will never come to any society, it is not within the flawed human nature to implement such a form of government.

Then what do you call the Spanish Revolution (didn't you see the Orwell quote in the OP?) See this thread (that goes for you to Tigerace117: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/251891-orwell-anarchism.html

Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are socialists (as in libertarian socialists) by definition. And in Spain they did implement workers' self-management and increased productivity by 20% in Aragon, as this video mentions:


"While they lasted, some of these collectives successfully produced more food than the estates they replaced. In Aragon, equal to Catalonia in radical fervor and with a much higher percentage of collectivized farmland, food production increased by twenty percent." Spain in our Hearts by Adam Hoschild

As for the NEP Tigerace117:

"The New Economic Policy was universally referred to as NEP, and the 'privateers' who flourished under it were known as 'Nepmen'. It was a form of mixed economy, with an overwhelmingly private agriculture, plus legalized private trade and small scale private manufacturing." An Economic History of the USSR by Alec Nove

And the Stakhnovites were used as big propaganda piece for the USSR because they broke mining records at that time while using Taylorist methods of organizing, incentives, competing teams, etc. And didn't capital (I.e. the means of production) in the USSR remain largely under state control? (They didn't put it under workers' control like the Spanish anarchists did) How would you define state capitalism?

 

[dimensionallava]

Hitler, Stalin. Peas in a pod. Roughly equivalent nightmares.

whatever you say ronald reagan

 

[TGN]

In practice? Not communists and not capitalists.

The USSR was a collectivist oligarchy (for whatever reason, I've always liked this phrase) espousing ideas of totalitarian socialism. You could say they were socialists, just not the "proper" kind.

What do you call them?

State Capitalists.

"In the years 1921-2, and for a few years thereafter, the entire social-economic balance shifted. The private sector, the 'petty bourgeosie', came to act in a way that seemed to be in total conflict with the ideology and practice of the war-communism period. The role of the market, in relations with the peasants and even within the state's own economic sector, was dramatically enhanced." An Economic History of the USSR by Alec Nove

And thereafter much of capital (the means of production) remained in the hands of powerful bureaucrats.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Oh wait what.....we the people who let the economy rot and let washington rot and charge our conspicuous consumption to our kids ......are maybe ready for socialism???


:lamo :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[TGN]

Oh wait what.....we the people who let the economy rot and let washington rot and charge our conspicuous consumption to our kids ......are maybe ready for socialism???

There does seem to be wide acceptance of the term nowadays.

 

[Van Basten]

State Capitalists.

"In the years 1921-2, and for a few years thereafter, the entire social-economic balance shifted. The private sector, the 'petty bourgeosie', came to act in a way that seemed to be in total conflict with the ideology and practice of the war-communism period. The role of the market, in relations with the peasants and even within the state's own economic sector, was dramatically enhanced." An Economic History of the USSR by Alec Nove

And thereafter much of capital (the means of production) remained in the hands of powerful bureaucrats.

I'm well aware of its' oligarchy.

Is there a consensus of this amongst economists? That's the question when I always hear this go-to claim. And no, I'm not just discounting what Nove said.

 

[Hawkeye10]

There does seem to be wide acceptance of the term nowadays.

No, the bottom 60% have no idea what the word means but the top 5% are desperate that we have the opinion that socialism sucks.

Come on, it is obvious, and my parents were desperate that I be not one of the stupid ones.

The ones who must go first, because we cant save everyone ( one of my daughters told me this, bless her heart)

Yes this post is a mess, but I am a complicated guy who is probably having too much fun.

I don't apologize for that.

For winning.

JYYK

TYVM.

 

[TGN]

I'm well aware of its' oligarchy.

Is there a consensus of this amongst economists? That's the question when I always hear this go-to claim. And no, I'm not just discounting what Nove said.

Understood. State capitalism and statism are facts in and of themselves. We have examples of both in many nations including the present-day U.S.. For example social security as it exist is an example of statism while U.S. government owned enterprises do exist. The USPS itself self stamps, boxes, envelopes, etc. to the general public. But you already knew that.

The problem I have with pundits at least is that I've heard them refer to the USSR as communist, which makes zero sense as communism would be a stateless society which the USSR clearly wasn't. The Free Territory of the Ukraine on the other hand, well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Socialism? No.
Social democracy? Yes.

 

[Henrin]

Socialism? No.
Social democracy? Yes.

Because there is such a huge difference!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Because there is such a huge difference!

Uhhhh yea... One is literally about the fundamental theory of who owns the means or production, the other is simply about a welfare state

 

[TGN]

No, the bottom 60% have no idea what the word means but the top 5% are desperate that we have the opinion that socialism sucks.

I wonder, to the public at large, if this seems like it sucks:

"We were living the revolution instead of our own personal lives, an incredible expansion of consciousness...Everything was new and different, anything was possible, a new heaven and a new earth was being formed" Lois Cusick (formerly Lois Orr)

"Barcelona's Ramblas was dazzling...Red, yellow, green and pink handbills and manifestos floated about our feet. Bright lights on...cafes, restaurants, hotels and theaters lit up red or red and black banners saying Confiscated, Collectivized, CNT-FAI or Union of Public Performers." ibid

"I held out my pesetas...to pay the fare...The driver ostentatiously refused my filthy money. This bus, he proudly announced, was operated 'in service of the people.'" Charles Orr (husband of Lois Orr who both witnessed the revolutionary period engulfing Catalonia in 1936-37, courtesy of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT and socialist UGT, during their honeymoon)

Yes this post is a mess, but I am a complicated guy who is probably having too much fun.

I don't apologize for that.

Yes, your post provides a small challenge to reply to. Amusing though.

For winning.

JYYK

TYVM.

As long as you're happy.

 

[TGN]

Uhhhh yea... One is literally about the fundamental theory of who owns the means or production, the other is simply about a welfare state

Well, many pointed out that social democracy was what Bernie was actually proposing. Then there were his references to Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

 

[Henrin]

Uhhhh yea... One is literally about the fundamental theory of who owns the means or production, the other is simply about a welfare state

Not really. Social democracy is just a gradual approach to socialism.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Are you suggesting that the former wouldn't work or that you are just going with what you are familiar with?

Would work in maintaining a status quo for many European countries?

Not really. Social democracy is just a gradual approach to socialism.

In anti-capitalist theory to some self proclaimed socialists, yes? To all socialists, no....

 

[Van Basten]

Not really. Social democracy is just a gradual approach to socialism.

Few use it that way.

Most socialists would say "reformism" when referring to a gradual, democratic move towards socialism.

 

[TGN]

Few use it that way.

Most socialists would say "reformism" when referring to a gradual, democratic move towards socialism.

Also reminds me of Fabian socialism.

 

[Geoist]

There is not a shred of socialism in this country.

Welfare isn't socialism, that's right wing propaganda.

There is plenty of socialism in this country. Labor and welfare-subsidy laws are definitely socialistic. I don't see how else they can be defined. :shrug:

 

[Ntharotep]

There is no socialism coming, so what's there to get ready for?



The democratic socialists are really just pushing the same progressive capitalist policies that liberals used to champion. You could say many Americans are just yearning for New Deal coalition era liberalism, the good stuff.



Radical democratic control over the spheres of a classless society with the abolition of private property and worker control (industrial democracy). All with a fetish for mediocrity.

A bloody scam that always ends the same way.

It always ends like Canada? That wouldn't be so bad. I thought Canada was just the exception though.

Personally I think people are too polarized. There are already some socialist programs hiding in America and I don't mean the ACA which is really a waterlogged bandaid for the issue of healthcare.
I don't think we are going to become a socialist country anytime soon but I do think America might be ready to adopt some new socialist policies.

 

[Kurmugeon]

There is not a shred of socialism in this country.

Welfare isn't socialism, that's right wing propaganda.

The enemy is not within the gates, relax.

You define "True Socialism" differently than the Corporate-Cronnie-Welfare-Statism we see being called "Socialism" in America...

Okay, Fair Enough, from here on, I will refer to the Corporate-Cronnie-Welfare-Statism as Progressive-Fascism.

BOTH ideals have proven to be hugely dysfunctional, irresponsible, and corruptible over and over and over and over again!

I do NOT support any attempt to bring EITHER "Socialism" or Progressive-Fascism to America!

-

 

[Manc Skipper]

You prefer actual fascism?

 

[Kurmugeon]

You prefer actual fascism?

Don't put your propaganda words in MY mouth.

I explicitly stated I supported neither "socialism" nor "Progressive-Fascism".

I support what has worked well for over 200 years in America, the concept of Federalism(meaning most power is retained by the local and state government), implemented by a Constitutionally Limited Democratic Republic.

-