Are there any modern Socialists?

[Lensky1917]

Yeah, I'm actually going to have to agree with Mark on this one. They don't happen to have a hari-kari emoticon do they?

 

[Cain]

Suddenly's a socialist?? What's this world coming to?

I did enjoy David Schweickart's book Against Capitalism. He has a more recent offering I have been meaning to read called After Capitalism:

http://www.amazon.com/After-Capital...d_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207250544&sr=8-2

Then there's also the whole Michael Albert/Robin Hahnel ParEcon model, which is sort of blah: http://www.amazon.com/Parecon-After...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207250739&sr=1-1

Some of the more interesting "socialist" ideas come from so-called No Bull **** Marxists (also known as libertarians, and "left-libertarians" in the U.S.). These guys tend to take Lockean arguments of self-ownership rather seriously, but the difficulty, at least for our society, is how we transition(ed) from self-ownership to owning the external world, (privatizing land for instance). Philosophers here are G.A. Cohen, Van Parijs.

An excellent set of arguments (favoring social democracy) come from Brian Barry in Why Social Justice Matters.

 

[Fnord]

Fair enough.
Though your definition of socialism is so wide-ranging that very few people would escape the label. Maybe only hermits living in the Rocky Mountains, or something. Unless that hermit asked you for a bite of your sandwich as you hiked past.

Gall-danged socialist hillbillies...

 

[Fnord]

Then it's my opinion that YOUR opinion is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I've read all year that wasn't intentionally rubbish. I mean good lord this is such a dramatic misrepresentation that deniers would be proud.

Thank you, it's good to be recognized.

Now, if someone has a more clearly-stated definition of "Socialist" than mine, I'd like to read it.

It might even change my mind...

 

[G-K-4]

I've read books by Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals, but I've never read one arguing for straight-out Socialism. So I decided to look at the library for some books... and they were all really really old. Like the newest one was at least twenty years old.

I'm not sure what you mean by "straight-out Socialism", but I'll try to help. Here are some leads to get you started for your next trip to the library. (Sorry, I can't cite any specific titles that simply sum up contemporary arguments. I know someone who might have such a recommendation, but I'll have to ask him when I see him.)

You might want to ask Radical Reference. They're Left librarians, and probably know how to help you find what you want. http://radicalreference.info/

There are various socialist and Marxist journals which still publish, reporting on theory and current events. For example, Monthly Review (from New York) could give you leads on current authors in the field. They also have a website (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/) and a publishing house (http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrpress.htm). There might be something there that is what you are looking for. If not, try following up on who the authors are and what else they've written.

The U.K. has a magazine called Socialist Review, which is from the Socialist Workers Party (UK). Since I don't know what country you're in, I don't know if you've already looked at this one. The only thing I've read in it was a hilarious science fiction story by China Mieville.

More leads here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_press_(U.S._political_left) -- Although I'm not sure just how, or which kind of, "socialist" all of these are.
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_publications_in_the_United_Kingdom

Robin Hahnel has a book about leftists developing new ideas about economic and political justice. Economic Justice And Democracy: From Competition To Cooperation (Pathways Through The Twenty-First Century) (2005) Doug Henwood seems to have liked it, but I haven't read it.

Looking here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism#Contemporary_socialism) I read of a man named Leo Panitch, but I don't know anything about him other than that he's a Canadian Marxist who has published relatively recently.

I also remember a couple of guys named Hardt and Negri hit the (small) big-time with a book called Empire in 2000. I haven't read it, but heard it's rather dense. You might want to shop around more first, since I don't know if it advocates a solution so much as describes a problem.

Participatory Economics might be on the edge of your 20-year range, since the initial ideas were developed in the 1980's. But it's still being refined and explored. A few people in the U.S. and Canada are trying to apply it as much as they can today.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/topics/parecon

It's definitely anti-capitalist, but I don't know if you can call it "straight-out Socialism". For example, it doesn't have the government own and run everything, if that's what you'd like to see someone argue for. But it does have a different means for public control of the economy, and it has worker control of workplaces.

One of the workplaces that practices parecon is South End Press. You can find more "socialist" books there. (http://www.southendpress.org/)

One of the guys from South End Press debated a professor named David Schweickart on the subject of parecon (http://www.zmag.org/debateschw.html). I'm not familiar with him, but Schweickart appears to have some books advocating some form of socialism, three of which have been published since 1993. I haven't read them so Your Mileage May Vary. http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/economicdemocracy.htm

There are also plenty of anarchists and similar folks around, like the aforementioned Chomsky. They're socialists by definition. An Anarchist FAQ has a lot of advocacy in it, and it has critiques of Marxism. http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html The FAQ quotes from many authors, so you might find more leads in it.

There are a couple of people working on an anthology called North American Anarchist Thought Since 1960. At the following webpage you can see many of the authors they are considering including, as well as the bibliography. Several of these titles are more recent than 1988 (excluding the retrospective collections)
http://libcom.org/forums/north-america/north-american-anarchist-thought-since-1960

One of the major anarchist publishing collectives is AK Press. They have tons of books. www.akpress.org or www.akuk.org But again, while this is libertarian socialism, I don't know if it's your "straight-up" socialism.

Part of the problem is that the idea of "socialism" (as it was commonly understood) was seriously discredited by the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. If you're looking for post-1989/1991 advocates of state central planning, I'm sure you can find them. Look at the big names in the various communist newspapers. They probably also have books, but I couldn't tell you if or how much their movement's thought has changed in the last twenty years.

You can also try to find links and leads in Wikipedia by poking around the subject headings at the end of articles on many of the people and currents I've mentioned here. Use these less as gospel and more as leads for your own research.

I tried looking at the websites for the third parties here, but they were all jokes.

The Communist sects usually are bad jokes, especially here in the U.S.

 

[Sefarst]

If I had to lay out my main priorities it would most likely be;

1: Freedom

In terms of freedom it would be secular democracy and freedom from capitalist power and capitalist abuse. Some libertarian values drop in, but certainly not the free market.

But I'm sure you all ready know the Libertarian response to this. Freedom includes the right to do what you want with your money and trade with whomever you like.

Ayn Rand had an argument that natural rights do not include the right to "enslave," as she put it. She defined "enslavement" as working for the benefit of another person under the threat of force. She therefore defined income taxes that go to paying for welfare programs as a form of slavery. I'm sure most of us can roll our eyes at that argument, but its worth recognizing that principally she's right, just not practically (or maybe she is, depends on how loose your idea of slavery is). Further she argued that natural rights do not include a right to an education or a right to healthcare because neither of those things exist in a state of nature. She argues that its an artificial right that arises from the coercion of those capable of providing it.

This all ties back to freedom and how you define it. Is there a rational grounds to suggest that individuals owe other individuals certain things by virtue of the fact that both live in the same geographic region?

And how would you be free from "capitalist power?" First of all, what do you even mean by that statement? Capitalism is merely a system in which the means of production are privately owned and individuals are free to engage in transactions as they see fit.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes, the word Freedom is ingrained in many different conceptions, and Libertarianism has a right, and often a good counter-argument to what it indeed means.

I am not an economist, but if I had to impose my limited understanding of markets on my conception of freedom, I'd argue that the capitalist system is inherently bound to a control of many by few. From a democratic viewpoint, this is the tyranny of the majority declaring a victory or a state of control without an elected mandate.

Perhaps my statement would be better described by there being checks and balances upon the capitalist system, mandated by the request of the many.

Part of the reason I am in admiration of democracy, in its ability to shape a discourse and a wavering consensus of philosophical disagreements on freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Rolfe]

If you are rich, American health care is the best in the world hands-down.

Can you really substantiate that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but so many of the axioms Americans cling to about how their country is the best in this or that way have been ground to dust recently that I'm wondering if there is actually any evidence for this one either.

For example, what can you get if you're rich in America that you can't get if you're rich in Britain?

Rolfe.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Thank you, it's good to be recognized.

Now, if someone has a more clearly-stated definition of "Socialist" than mine, I'd like to read it.

It might even change my mind...

I'm afraid I can't do exactly that, but I can point out what a socialist isn't. Here's a start, Cain is wrong.

 

[Sefarst]

I am not an economist, but if I had to impose my limited understanding of markets on my conception of freedom, I'd argue that the capitalist system is inherently bound to a control of many by few. From a democratic viewpoint, this is the tyranny of the majority declaring a victory or a state of control without an elected mandate.

And again, there is a typical Libertarian response (we'll just have to go through the motions until we get to the meat). In the Libertarian, free market world there is no real "control" in the sense you might mean it. There are only individuals pursuing their own self-interest. You are free to walk away from Capitalism at any point, refuse to work, and refuse to trade. However, in the Libertarian model, you will therefore starve to death unless you have close friends or family that are willing to feed you despite your unwillingness to contribute to society. Is this really control? In this sense, the Capitalist market forces you to work if you value your life and don't want to starve to death. The system won't give you anything "free." Is this really tyranny, though?

Perhaps my statement would be better described by there being checks and balances upon the capitalist system, mandated by the request of the many.

But why should the many be alllowed to interfere with decisions and actions that don't involve them? If I showed up at your house and said, "the other guys in the neighborhood and I took a vote and the majority of us decided to give your car to the man down the street because we think he needs it more than you," would we be right?

Part of the reason I am in admiration of democracy, in its ability to shape a discourse and a wavering consensus of philosophical disagreements on freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't quite understand what you mean here.

 

[plumjam]

G-K-4,
that, by all appearances, was an excellently written and researched post, for which I commend you.
Unfortunately I predict it may well get no replies. My friend, it is just too long, with too many links. My time on forums has taught me that you have to feed what you have to people gradually, maybe a paragraph or two at a time, no more than 2 or 3 links in any post. Otherwise they'll look at it, and think "I can't be arsed", and move on to the next post.
Please stick around though. We could probably learn a lot from you.

 

[G-K-4]

G-K-4,
that, by all appearances, was an excellently written and researched post, for which I commend you.

Thanks, but to be honest, I've done (and could have done) better.

It is indeed too long. It kind of got away from me. And when it comes to this subject, there are a lot of divergent opinions even and especially within the broad left.

I didn't post my reply to play in the thread so much as to give the original poster some help. I hope it did, and I might have some more info tomorrow. But we haven't heard from them at all since the first message (unless I missed something).

Tsukasa Buddha, are you still out there?

 

[plumjam]

Thanks, but to be honest, I've done (and could have done) better.

It is indeed too long. It kind of got away from me. And when it comes to this subject, there are a lot of divergent opinions even and especially within the broad left.

I didn't post my reply to play in the thread so much as to give the original poster some help. I hope it did, and I might have some more info tomorrow. But we haven't heard from them at all since the first message (unless I missed something).

Tsukasa Buddha, are you still out there?

Fair enough.
I recognise that not everyone posting in a thread necessarily wants to get into a discussion.
Good on you for your effort and your good nature.

 

[Suddenly]

I have to admit my political views do not come from being persuaded by some thinker or pundit or another. It comes mostly from reading a ton of history and having a job that lets me see the world from the bottom up. I have a degree in classical philosophy, so my idea of a cutting edge post-modern political philosopher is John Locke...

Howard Zinn's A People's History of The United States is a very eye-opening book to those whose understanding of American History is heavily influenced by the rather awful sludge that passes for history education in American schools.


In line with what Cain posted, I'm probably closer to a left-libertarian than a true according-to-hoyle socialist. When I first came to this board in 2002 (original account was closed... long story) I was a card carrying Libertarian.....

 

[IchabodPlain]

Howard Zinn's A People's History of The United States is a very eye-opening book to those whose understanding of American History is heavily influenced by the rather awful sludge that passes for history education in American schools.

Ah yes, Howard Zinn is a socialist as well, much in the same way you describe yourself. I remember reading People's History in high school.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

And again, there is a typical Libertarian response (we'll just have to go through the motions until we get to the meat). In the Libertarian, free market world there is no real "control" in the sense you might mean it. There are only individuals pursuing their own self-interest. You are free to walk away from Capitalism at any point, refuse to work, and refuse to trade. However, in the Libertarian model, you will therefore starve to death unless you have close friends or family that are willing to feed you despite your unwillingness to contribute to society. Is this really control? In this sense, the Capitalist market forces you to work if you value your life and don't want to starve to death. The system won't give you anything "free." Is this really tyranny, though?

Perhaps not tyranny, but it's a bit like 'The weak shall go to the wall'!

In a sense, and on the surface of it I suppose it can seem like freedom to decide to fall out of the capitalist system, but it entirely depends on where you were born and what economic system, from no mistake of your own. In a country of capitalist control, there is no way you cannot be given an unequal start in life.

Again, I am not an economist, but I'm very much against suffering. In an time of bad housing, crack, heroin and mental ill-health, forcing someone to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is something I regard as idealistic and in some cases immoral.

But why should the many be alllowed to interfere with decisions and actions that don't involve them? If I showed up at your house and said, "the other guys in the neighborhood and I took a vote and the majority of us decided to give your car to the man down the street because we think he needs it more than you," would we be right?

True, but if you had the same car in a parking lot, I'd expect you to move it or lose it if it was particularly large or in the way.

 

[Finnegan]

"To me that would indicate that constituents take parliamentary attendance and voting statistics a lot less seriously than do those who wish to smear Galloway and are reduced to dredging up such data because they fail to find other more convincing weaknesses in him."

Well, let me see now. Saluting Saddam Hussein for '[his] courage, [his' strength, [his] indefatigability' and then claiming that he was actually addressing the Iraqi people through the man that was torturing them? Or how about the time that he lauded dead Hezbollah terrorists as 'martyrs'? What about his famous suggestion that Syrians were 'lucky' to be ruled by Bashar al-Assad? We could be slightly intolerant and throw in the fact that he's a creationist, but why not just mention that in the last fortnight he's called a gay man hung from a crane in Iran a paedophile and written that “Tibet was always part of the Chinese motherland, and has been rescued from the mists of obscurantism under the demi-God Dalai Lama by the Chinese revolution”.

 

[christie malry]

Thought I'd drop in with a few recommendations (I am SWP so I'm coming from a Trotskyist angle).

If the discussion's still going on about Russia, Tony Cliff's State Capitalism in Russia is very good.

I'd also recommend the short anthology Party and Class also edited by Tony Cliff, which is about the role of the revolutionary party in working class politics.

And of course, Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet Reform or Revolution is a bit of a classic. Not quite current I suppose though.

I did enjoy Alex Callinicos' introduction to political Marxism, The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx and that was more recent.

and Mark Steel, who writes for the Independent on Wednesdays, is a stand-up comedian and SWP member (which makes him a Trotskyite revolutionary). Admittedly his columns aren't the sort of thing Martin Smith might do...

Oh, and for periodicals I'd recommend the American International Socialist Review, the SWP's quarterly International Socialism (or the monthly Socialist Review) and if you're soft-left, Red Pepper.

Sorry for the party political broadcast!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

"To me that would indicate that constituents take parliamentary attendance and voting statistics a lot less seriously than do those who wish to smear Galloway and are reduced to dredging up such data because they fail to find other more convincing weaknesses in him."

Well, let me see now. Saluting Saddam Hussein for '[his] courage, [his' strength, [his] indefatigability' and then claiming that he was actually addressing the Iraqi people through the man that was torturing them? Or how about the time that he lauded dead Hezbollah terrorists as 'martyrs'? What about his famous suggestion that Syrians were 'lucky' to be ruled by Bashar al-Assad? We could be slightly intolerant and throw in the fact that he's a creationist, but why not just mention that in the last fortnight he's called a gay man hung from a crane in Iran a paedophile and written that “Tibet was always part of the Chinese motherland, and has been rescued from the mists of obscurantism under the demi-God Dalai Lama by the Chinese revolution”.

Oh for the love of....He's a CREATIONIST? Good grief. I knew about his love for Saddam (and also the Soviet Union, oddly) but his creationism and views on Tibet are news to me. I stand by my opinions, that man is a waste of oxygen.

 

[Finnegan]

"I’m not really prepared to believe that from the bottom-dwelling slugs of the pond came the voice of Pavarotti. I’m not really prepared to believe that Albert Einstein and a spider are really the same thing, that they just took a different evolutionary path.” - George Galloway