Why Not Socialism?

e¡Hola! Everybody...
The following is the result of reading several polls showing more Americans hold favorable views about socialism than those redneck Pee Farters... (see here and here)

In my estimation, nobody sells socialism better than the Republicans and the Teabaggers. For example, by labeling as “socialist” every policy that actually does people any good, they are actually making a convincing case for Americans that socialism must be a good thing.

Personally, I believe in mixed economies. The empirical proof demonstrates that the market is a miserable failure when it comes to health and education, for example. It’s also not good for long-term research and development. While I am no fan of the “market,” and also believe there’s no such thing as a “free” market, I’m also not going to throw it under the bus. but in my world, the market would be justly regulated and not seen as a cure all for social ills. This here is from the Democratic Socialists of America (click here)...

* * *

-=[ What is Democratic Socialism? ]=-

Questions and Answers from the Democratic Socialists of America

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically -- to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.

Q Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives. Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned.

While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Q Hasn't socialism been discredited by the collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.” Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle throughout the world.

Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Q Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions make private business more accountable.

Q Won't socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?

We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

Q Why are there no models of democratic socialism?

Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.

Q But hasn't the European Social Democratic experiment failed?

For over half a century, a number of nations in Western Europe and Scandinavia have enjoyed both tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens -- high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making. But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders.

Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work towards reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.

Q Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?

No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.

Q If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn't I focus on something more immediate?

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism. Many democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered organizations, anti-racist groups, and the labor movement. It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As socialists we bring a sense of the interdependence of all struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly challenge the capitalist system or adequately secure its particular demands. In fact, unless we are all collectively working to win a world without oppression, each fight for reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.

Q What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the US’s options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations. Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists. We have to work hard to change people’s misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and to overcome many students’ lack of interest in engaging in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of the virtue of “free” markets.

Q If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word?

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

* * *

My name is Eddie and I’m recovery from civilization...

Defining Freedom

¡Hola! Everybody...
When I got my life back, school was a huge part of that process. I always associate the beginning of the school year with new beginnings, change, fresh-faced children trooping back to schools. I commend our president in wanting to inspire young children to educate themselves, to stay in schools, and achieve. I associate education with freedom, which brings me to my post today.

* * *

-=[ Freedom & its Discontents ]=-

Whose freedom?

-- George Lakoff

The history of the last 1000 years, indeed the history of humankind, has been, in a very real way, the history of the struggle to define the word “freedom.”

Throughout much of history, in civilizations across the world, people have been ruled by the strong and lorded over by those simply born into power and privilege. Up until relatively recently few even questioned the divine right of rulers. Fewer still, challenged the idea that it was the place of the people to obey. Yet throughout history, the great thinkers had contemplated humankind’s ugly tendency to give in to its worst impulses of greed, fear, violence, and lust for power, and by the 1800s, this intellectual tradition had left its mark on the Western world.

Furthermore, advances in science and mathematics were changing the way educated people looked at the universe and were bringing a new understanding and respect for the laws of nature and the power of human reason. Centuries of political and religious turmoil in Europe inspired new ideas about the best ways for human beings to live together in peace, in the process rejecting the now antiquated notion that an invisible old and angry white dude with a beard preordained civilization and its structures.

I’ve just described about 600 years of the evolution of the definition of freedom in two paragraphs (not really, but close! LOL!). Missing from this all too brief description are some important points and nuances. One point in particular needs a little more treatment. in the 1200s, some powerful gang leaders (actually, “feudal lords” but same shit) confronted King John of England. They owned much of the economic wealth and basically told the king that if he wanted to continue to acting like a king he would have to sign a document they had drawn up called the Magna Carta. It guaranteed that before the king could imprison one of them he would have to show probable cause, attested to by witnesses, and sworn testimony, that the person had committed a crime (we’ve all watched Law & Order, right?). This is a right known as habeas corpus.

For four hundred years, the right of habeas corpus extended only to the British nobility, but shit started hitting the fan in the 1600s and it was then extended to gang members such as the more “commoner” knights and to a few others. Otherwise, you were shit out of luck -- no habeas corpus for the rabble.

However, the Enlightenment era of the 17^th and 18^th centuries brought about a new concept of freedom that took root. John Locke, for example, held that all men are created equal, with natural born rights to life, liberty, and property, and that these rights are always in jeopardy unless people compromise their absolute freedom and form law-abiding governments under which to live. Government, it follows, then, is legitimate only if it is by the consent of the majority of the people, and its power must not be absolute. Government must be limited to powers that the people have given it and that serve the public good.

We take these concepts for granted these days but at that time, Locke’s ideas were considered so radical that Locke, fearing for his life, never admitted he was their author until shortly before his death. In the American colonies, those ideas helped start a revolution...

With its opening phrase, We the people, our Constitution boldly proclaimed that the source of all government is from the people, and only the people. Well, some people, but that’s another discussion altogether, and I’m nearing the end of my 1-1/2 page Word document limit. The definition of “freedom” evolved between the 13^th and 20^th centuries, but it was mostly grounded in the notion that much of freedom had to do with individuals being free from harassment or imprisonment by government, or by exploitation by powerful groups or individuals. With the large-scale industrialization of the 19^th century, another form of freedom took hold. Historically, a minority held wealth and one dimension of freedom was at least the ideal of protection of the average person from exploitation by those of great wealth.

However, with the 20^th century came the development of some rather weird concepts of freedom. One such aberration -- fascism -- arose in Spain, Germany, and Italy in the early 1930s. In a fascist state, the right of property was absolute. While fascism was active in providing for the needs of the people, the reins of government was controlled by economic elites. Fascism has been defined as “A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.” Fascism promised freedom through a strong control of the average person, with a core governing concept that the business elite of a nation was far more qualified to run the country than were mere “people.”

Benito Mussolini, for example, spelled all this out in his treatise titled, “The Doctrine of Fascism.” He plotted out a government, not by and of the people, but a government for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.

In 1938, Mussolini manifested his vision of fascism when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazoni -- the chamber of Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to politicians on the sly, they were openly in charge of government and could write their own legislation.

Next: I’ll answer the question, “What the Hell does All this have to do with Kansas, Eddie?”

Love,

Eddie

The Pursuit of Happiness

¡Hola! Everybody… Like many other people in businesses across the nation, we’re having discussions about how to function in the middle of a huge credit freeze. People’s livelihoods are in the balance…

* * *

-=[ The “Free” Market Ain’t Free ]=-

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… ”

It’s an almost unspoken assumption that part of the “American Dream” that every working stiff should be able to earn enough to own his or her own house and support his or her own family. That’s what it meant to be middle class -- and part of the reason why Jefferson put “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” into the Declaration of Independence.

The people who wrote and signed that document knew that the middle class -- the bedrock of any democracy -- doesn’t materialize out of thin air. That’s why, in the preamble to the Constitution, they wrote that one purpose of government was to “promote the general welfare.” Unfortunately, the reality today is quite different from that sentiment. For more than thirty years the middle class, working poor and poor have been under an assault that has seen this guarantee evaporate. The bedrock of this country -- you and I -- has been subjected to undeclared class war that has eroded our freedoms and our ability to pursue happiness.

When compared to thirty years ago, we -- the middle class and working stiffs -- make less money for longer hours in jobs that are less stable. This is a fact, not an opinion.

That’s why I find it almost reprehensible that I’m still hearing sheep bleat bullshit about the free market. What has to happen before the conservative mantra is seen for the con job that it is?!! Folks, let’s make this clear: the current financial mess is the result of years of the anti-government, anti-regulation con that has effectively dismantled the government and any oversight.

They’re still saying the answer to this mess is more of the same. I say this is insanity. I hear people parrot this bullshit and suddenly I’m able to understand why some people willingly drank the Kool Aid. Let’ e make this perfectly clear: the logical end of the free market is not a democracy but a fascist state run by corporations. We’re almost there.

To listen to the right-wingnuts -- the people who put the con into conservatism -- they will tell you something different. Their belief is that a middle class will miraculously spring into being when the corporate lords are freed from government restrictions.

The way to “grow the economy,” according to these cons, is to “free” the market. “Let business do what it wants!” the cons rail. Freeing the corporate fat cats from government oversight will create wealth, and that wealth will trickle down to us, thereby creating a middle class.

Their belief in “free” markets is a lot like people’s insistence that the world was flat. The free-market propaganda is widely accepted by those in power and many of you reading this today. Anybody who challenges this orthodoxy is labeled unpatriotic or worse, a socialist! ::shiver::

Well here’s the reality for anyone interested in truth and reality:

There is no such thing as a free market

Markets are the creation of government

Governments (i.e., we the people), for example, provide markets with a stable currency for financial transactions. Governments (we) provide a legal infrastructure and a court system to enforce contracts that make the market possible in the first place. We (the government) provide an educated workforce through public education, and those workers get to work by traveling on public roads, rails, and airways provided by the government (us). Business that use the “free” market are protected by police and fire departments provided by the government (us), and they send their communications -- from phone to email -- over lines owned by the public (us) maintained by the government (us).

Most importantly, the government (us) defines the rules of Wall St. As anyone who follows sports knows, without rules, sports wouldn’t be much fun to watch. Similarly, the situation we face today, business without oversight (rules) will not work. A nation run by corporations is not a democracy but a fascist state -- a corporatocracy. In a corporatocracy the rules are made by the corporations themselves and they will always end of screwing you -- the worker -- in the arse. In a democracy those rules are made by the government (We the People), both through our elected representatives and through the power of collective bargaining with the Lords of Business.

Today we have a presidential candidate, McCain, who has spent the better part of the last quarter century fighting every regulation that ever came up before him. He is part of a movement that wants to quash government. He allies include the influential conservative, Grover Norquist who stated, “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

A government run by corporate lackeys who hate government will never result in a democracy.

For those saying there isn’t much difference between Obama and McCain, I say look again. The lines are clear here. One candidate represents a continuation of a regressive tax policy that benefits mostly the wealthiest 10 percent of the population and the dismantling of government (us). The other candidate is, at the very least, offering a resistance to more of the same policies that have created the current financial mess.

Ain’t nuthin’ free you fools!