Socialists in the news (in the U.S.)

[lomiller]

Socialism is a socio-economic policy implemented as a totalitarian political system. As Boudicca says, "our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production."

Nope. As already mentions above there are quite a few ways to implement social ownership that don't involve government at all.

Furthermore a totalitarian government can only be socialist in name, because if the government is not democratically controlled anything it does if fails the social ownership criteria.

 

[sackett]

Socialism is a socio-economic policy implemented as a totalitarian political system. As Boudicca says, "our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production."

I said Americans can't define socialism.

 

[theprestige]

This is more conspiracy theory than reality. The number of people that actively promoting full on socialism is dwarfed by the number promoting crazy Laissez Faire ideas that are at least as far outside the realm of mainstream economic theory. Even outside the US where there is are more real Socialist and fewer Laissez Faire Capitalist the latter tend to be greater in number in the developed world.

Because capitalism actually works, in a way that communism doesn't. When people say, let's have more unfettered capitalism, we can argue about how much more, and at what tradeoff.

When people say, let's collectivize the means of production... well.

 

[Leftus]

Anything and everything is political for those who want it to make it so. Politics may get layered over top in order to promote or supress Socialism or Laissez Faire capitalism. Support/opposition is frequently political in nature, but IMOt he concepts themselves are not political it's only the advocacy that gets political.

The economic system requires the complete buy-in from those it is imposed upon. I would also agree that this is also true of libertarianism, perhaps with less completeness. You could form socialist communities inside a libertarian government, but a libertarian enclave inside a socialistic regime? Not going to happen.

 

[theprestige]

Nope. As already mentions above there are quite a few ways to implement social ownership that don't involve government at all.

Furthermore a totalitarian government can only be socialist in name, because if the government is not democratically controlled anything it does if fails the social ownership criteria.

Totalitarian in the sense that the state is all-pervasive. There is no scope for private enterprise or individual investment and return.

And, every time it's been implemented, no scope for individual politics or personal opinions. Even something as personal and individual as the choice of a career is constrained by the needs of the state and its view of your abilities.

And of course no scope for private charity.

 

[Bubba]

I guess my title a bit tongue in cheek, because despite Republicans going around calling Biden a Marxist, I don't really see any socialists getting on the airwaves.
Best we get is some foreign news coverage about Bolivia or the usual countries, but that seems to be it.

If there are some actual socialists getting airtime in the U.S. I'd love to see it.

Biden funder BLM gets lots of airtime. Here is BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors telling the world "We are Marxists".


Does that qualify?

Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers," she said, referring to BLM co-founder Alicia Garza. "We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.

Her co-founder got some airtime too



BLM Co-Founder Opal Tometi Linked to Communist ...

https://newspunch.com/exposed-blm-founder-opal-tometi-linked-communist-venezuelan-dictator-maduro/

Black Lives Matter co-founder Opal Tometi's links to Communist Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro have been exposed, adding weight to claims the group might be a radical leftist organization trained to disrupt American society and promote a modern multicultural variety of Marxist ideology.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm a DSA member and we are a coalition of socialists, communists, and anarchists who realize we need to actually take action in our political system. I'm a left communist myself. We are definitely NOT liberals, and we make very clear we are a Marxist and anti-capitalist organization to any one who thinks we are.

Bernie and AOC's popularity I think was a double-edged sword in a way. Even though Bernie was not a DSA member, his views brought a lot of new members in, especially after he lost the primary. But Bernie and AOC's views are very much reformist (publicly anyway) and don't really represent what we are about. Yes, we want to make things more equitable in our currently capitalist system, but our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production.

No disrespect to the DSA meant here. My comment was a bit unclear. DSA itself is a coalition ranging from left to center left politics, just as you say. My point is that the handful of US politicians that are affiliated with the DSA tend to present themselves, and act, as little more than progressive liberals with a whiff of demsoc tendencies. Like you say, the few DSA people of national prominence are not great representations of the political consensus of the DSA, which tends more left.

While the DSA may have unqualified socialists, very few of these people are in positions of national power nor getting much news coverage. The AOC's of the world are pretty clearly from the more progressive lib side of the DSA coalition.

 

[Trebuchet]

And there's your answer. Socialism is such a dirty word because we know there are people with this goal and this strategy.

We know that for some people, it isn't just about progressive taxation and expanding the social safety net. It isn't just about having government do some of the jobs that private enterprise isn't good at. For some people, it's about incremental gains and ratcheting the Overton window closer to the ultimate goal of common ownership and control of private property and the means of production.

If all you want is to make things more equitable in our currently capitalist system, that's a goal you share with the Democratic Socialists of America. But that's not all they want. So maybe calling what you want "socialism" and making fun of people who have a problem with "socialism" isn't really a good strategy. Unless you really do want socialism.

This is what progressives really believe.

Socialism is a socio-economic policy implemented as a totalitarian political system. As Boudicca says, "our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production."

Bull-*******-******

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 11 and rule 12.

ETA: You can't get much more totalitarian than where the Trumpublicans want to go. Voting rights? Only if you are the "right" kind of people. Freedom of religion? Only for the "right" religions. Freedom of speech? Only if you say good things about Trump!

 

[theprestige]

The AOC's of the world are pretty clearly from the more progressive lib side of the DSA coalition.

Or they're as far leftwards as the current Overton window will allow them to get without losing a chance at elected office.

There's no way AOC could get elected on a platform of nationalizing the means of production. But she is in fact in a coalition with people whose ultimate goal is exactly that. I don't think that's a coincidence, or an accident.

 

[theprestige]

Bull-*******-******

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 11 and rule 12.

ETA: You can't get much more totalitarian than where the Trumpublicans want to go. Voting rights? Only if you are the "right" kind of people. Freedom of religion? Only for the "right" religions. Freedom of speech? Only if you say good things about Trump!

There are literally dozens of threads where you can debate the totalitarianism of Donald Trump. This thread is about socialism. Please try to stay on topic.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Or they're as far leftwards as the current Overton window will allow them to get without losing a chance at elected office.

There's no way AOC could get elected on a platform of nationalizing the means of production. But she is in fact in a coalition with people whose ultimate goal is exactly that. I don't think that's a coincidence, or an accident.

Sure, I never said any different. I'm just saying, even in examples of politicians who are literally members of a socialist political org, they aren't really openly advocating real socialism. At best they are talking about aggressive expansion of social services paid for by taxes of the wealthy.

The reason there isn't more socialism in the news is because very few people in positions of significance are actually advocating socialism. Despite all the screeching from Fox News how this or that conservative Democrat is the second coming of Mao, even the so-called socialist politicians in this country are constrained to a much more conservative position.

 

[Lplus]

Sure, I never said any different. I'm just saying, even in examples of politicians who are literally members of a socialist political org, they aren't really openly advocating real socialism. At best they are talking about aggressive expansion of social services paid for by taxes of the wealthy.

The reason there isn't more socialism in the news is because very few people in positions of significance are actually advocating socialism. Despite all the screeching from Fox News how this or that conservative Democrat is the second coming of Mao, even the so-called socialist politicians in this country are constrained to a much more conservative position.

At the moment, because they want to be elected. If they were elected, would they then begin to advocate more extensive changes? I suspect so.

 

[theprestige]

Sure, I never said any different. I'm just saying, even in examples of politicians who are literally members of a socialist political org, they aren't really openly advocating real socialism. At best they are talking about aggressive expansion of social services paid for by taxes of the wealthy.

The reason there isn't more socialism in the news is because very few people in positions of significance are actually advocating socialism. Despite all the screeching from Fox News how this or that conservative Democrat is the second coming of Mao, even the so-called socialist politicians in this country are constrained to a much more conservative position.

I agree with all of this, but I'd like to clarify: You're addressing the main point of socialism in the news. I was addressing the sub-point of why socialism is a dirty word in American politics.

 

[dann]

I would like to add Wallace Shawn to the list. Most people may know him only as the endearing old geek on Young Sheldon, but that's fiction, that's just a trick, that's how these devious socialists slip beneath the radar: by pretending to be nice.
Developments Since My Birth (TheN.Y.Review, Oct. 27, 2020)

 

[lomiller]

Because capitalism actually works, in a way that communism doesn't.

Capitalism without measures to address market efficiency and inequality doesn’t “work” better than communism. Communism failed because it didn’t do as good a job at dealing with these issues as layering social programs and regulation over top of free markets, but the quality of life it provided was still better than what preceded it.

 

[lomiller]

And of course no scope for private charity.

Private charity can be a form of Socialism

The economic system requires the complete buy-in from those it is imposed upon. I would also agree that this is also true of libertarianism, perhaps with less completeness.

Both fail for the same reason. The "right" decision in the prisoners dilemma is for each to betray the other even though this leads to a worse result for all involved.

Similar issues come into play in the wider economy. "You cheat, no one else does" > "no one cheats" > "everyone cheats" > "others cheat, you don't". This means that unless you have a high degree of certainty that no one else will cheat and a high degree of certainty there will be punishments than offset the benefits of cheating, the best decision for everyone is to cheat even if it leads to a worse overall result for everyone.

 

[theprestige]

Private charity can be a form of Socialism.

Can't have private charity without private property. Can't have private charity without private ownership of profits surplus to your own requirements that you can save, reinvest, or donate to charity as you see fit. Collectivize the means of production, and you don't have private charity, you have collective charity. But you wouldn't call it charity at that point.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

If you have money left over to give to someone in need, you're getting more than you need. This is obviously a clerical error on the part of the collective, easily fixed by reducing your share of the collective profits until you have no surplus to give away. There is no scope for private charity here.

And if someone else is in need of your charity to begin with, that's also a clerical error on the part of the collective. Their needs should be getting met by their share of the collective profits. Probably the share that's being accidentally given to members who don't need it. There's no scope for private charity here, either.

If your Socialism allows for private charity, you're either doing it wrong, or it's failing to operate at a profit, or both.

ETA: Unless you mean that the private charity is the "from each according to his ability" part. Instead of offering the full value of your ability for whatever price the market will pay, and pocketing the profit, you contribute the full value of your ability to the collective in exchange for subsistence-level compensation only. But this is still regressive thought. You cast yourself as an individual, donating private resources to a collective. You should be thinking of yourself as a part of the collective, and that your individual ability is not your private resource to sell or donate as you see fit. It's a collective resource, no more your own than any of the other means of production that have been collectivized.

 

[dann]

Private charity can be a form of Socialism.

No, it can't. People have watched (and maybe even read) A Christmas Carol so many times that they tend to forget that it's fiction.

The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.
They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.
But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim.
(...)
The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute.
The Soul of Man under Socialism (marxists.org, 1891)

 

[theprestige]

"Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives."

Heh. A problem Socialism seeks to solve by tyrannizing over everybody's private lives equally and totally.

 

[dann]

In your imaginary dystopia.