It’s a hot topic these days. Discuss.

What do you define as socialism?  There is, at this time and never has been a successful experiment with pure socialism. The recent special on China indicated that some western nations are more socialistic than that Communist country. 

Conservatives will scream loud and clear that we are on the road to socialism if Obama gets elected but I submit they don’t know what they are talking about.  Pure socialism is defined as follows:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Anybody seriously think this is possible in the US where, in fact, multinational corporations hold sway?  Folks, in my opinion for this to happen would require an armed revolt of the workers.  As for social programs, money the government is wasting or being scammed out of would more than pay for most social programs. Stop wealthy tax evaders, stop waste in government spending, particularly on the military, end corporate bail outs and subsidies, after all, pure capitalism should stand on it’s own with out tax payers footing the bill as they do now.

Ask me, I’ll show you the numbers.  just posted on this very subject over on Topix.

TomH - 23 July 2008 04:38 PM

Just posted on this very subject over on Topix.

Can you invite those lively lads (and ladies, I suppose) to post their thoughts on the subject here as well? I’d love to know their thoughts.

Do we really need more Rural Racists around here?

Steve Shanafelt - 23 July 2008 04:42 PM

TomH - 23 July 2008 04:38 PM

Just posted on this very subject over on Topix.

Can you invite those lively lads (and ladies, I suppose) to post their thoughts on the subject here as well? I’d love to know their thoughts.

No. Bugg is right. 

Jason Bugg - 23 July 2008 04:43 PM

Do we really need more Rural Racists around here?

Perhaps for flavor.

TomH - 23 July 2008 04:45 PM

No. Bugg is right.

I don’t have a Topix account, so it’s really a moot point.

In 1995, former ADM CEO Dwayne Andreas is famously quoted as having stated to a reporter, “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.” Discuss.

I love the topic but what’s to debate? Nice ideas but everytime anyone, anywhere has tried to put it into practice-they get thrown in jail, executed, or invaded by pretend-democracies and turn into a dictatorship under the pressures of war that new systems are apt to fail when confronted with. I’d give up my guns, my money and my property in the interests of something that was truly fair. Where do I move to to experience such fairness? Heaven, hell, a schizoid dream-life? I’m agnostic on the first two and the third, well...I meet those people on the street without envy.

Guess I’ll stay here in the US of A. It’s not fair and what goes on here is not right but… where do we go?

There is much fear reflected in forum chatter that electing Barack Obama will mean we will become a socialist nation.  According to Ted Koppel, during his recent special on China’s emerging capitalism, the US and many European nations are already more socialistic than China which has, in fact, no free health care and nothing called social security.

I offer the idea that no single theory or system can possibly address the needs of all the people, therefore what is evolving and must continue to evolve, is a mixed system with elements of capitalism and socialism woven together in a symbiotic way.

In recent years we have seen businesses drop or severely reduce health care and retirement benefits for their employees leaving many on the brink of total destitution.  All of this is in response to a need not only for profits but for the very survival of some industries in the face of international competition.

The question is as much a moral dilemma as it is an economic one. Is it right that workers who slaved for years in some factory are suddenly set adrift like so much flotsam?  Is this what American workers have to look forward to for their loyal service?  I had occasion to watch a program that compared the behavior of the Electrolux Corporation, a Swedish based firm, which summarily closed a huge plant here in Michigan pretty much devastating the community and the same company moving an operation out of Sweden to the Balkans.

Here, they basically abandoned the workers leaving behind the worst economic and health crises one could find in any previously prosperous community.  The Swedes in contrast, made the company pony up big bucks to prevent this from happening.  So, do we really want to support a system that treats it’s workers like the MI people or has Sweden got an answer that we might borrow from?

On the moral side it just makes my skin crawl to read posts claim the best way is every man for himself and the same people espousing conservative religious precepts applauding the words of Jesus while espousing the most selfish of motives in total denial of the teachings of Christ which focused on serving the poor.  Yes, Jesus is Lord but second in command to the almighty dollar. I believe the words seen on some of our currency, “In God We Trust” should be replaced by “In Gold We Trust”.

The difficulty I see is, we pay our lower level workers far too little for them to make a living and then tell them they should have gotten an education, worked harder etc. Well folks, I submit that this society would come to a grinding halt if not for the backs of those wage slaves that serve our needs while not sharing in the so called “American Dream”.

Somebody needs to recognize our dependency on this work force and stop treating them as expendables. Sure, it’s easier to replace a field hand than a CEO but so what?  These people are human beings who deserve to be able to put food on their tables, clothes on their backs, a roof over their heads and not live a life of despair.

Well, perhaps this post will get a C- for organization but I’ve presented some ideas to kick off the debate, so let’s hear it, any ideas y’all?

Mr. Yuck - 24 July 2008 12:36 AM

I love the topic but what’s to debate? Nice ideas but everytime anyone, anywhere has tried to put it into practice-they get thrown in jail, executed, or invaded by pretend-democracies and turn into a dictatorship under the pressures of war that new systems are apt to fail when confronted with. I’d give up my guns, my money and my property in the interests of something that was truly fair. Where do I move to to experience such fairness? Heaven, hell, a schizoid dream-life? I’m agnostic on the first two and the third, well...I meet those people on the street without envy.

Guess I’ll stay here in the US of A. It’s not fair and what goes on here is not right but… where do we go?

The greatest repressions in the history of mankind have occurred during the past century under the guise of socialist experimentation. There have been more people murdered, more people enslaved and more people starved to death under a red flag than in any other circumstance of human governance. Most people have forgotten about a man named Alexander Solzenitzen who while no great friend of our American ideals laid bare the realities of socialist life and expectations. Hopefully, he can be studied again and better minds will prevail than those of the mislead souls wallowing in the shallowness of an Obama nation.

So, capitalism, which encourages the possession of private property,
encourages alienation of man.  Capitalism, which encourages the
amassment of money, encourages mass production, to optimize
productivity.  Mass production also intensifies the alienation of
labor because it encourages specialization and it makes people view
the workers not as individuals but as machines to do work.  It is this
attitude that incites the uprisings of the lower classes against the
higher classes, namely, the nobility.

Capitalism did not exist in Russia or China at the time of the revolution.  Both nations were feudal societies with all the wealth in the hands of the royalty.  Marx was a Western European who saw capitalism and the exploitation of the workers as a first step. Ironically, Marx himself was not a revolutionary.

The Soviets and the Chinese attempted to impose the structure from the top down.  The workers never did acquire ownership of the means of production. All remained in the hands of the state which replaced one tyranny with another.  Even today, the one huge example of the system is less socialistic than many nations in western Europe, than the US for example.

Actually what really derailed socialism from coming into play in the West as a serious force was the advent of labor unions which forced the bosses to share a larger percentage of their accumulated wealth.  Conditions are far closer to Marx’s vision right here in present day America where the gap between the multinationals and the workers is growing exponentially.  But, in spite of this huge disparity between the rich and the middle class is not yet oppressive enough to demand such action.

Remember, the key element in true socialism is transfer of ownership of the means of production from the wealthy entrepreneurs to the workers. Capitalism never existed in either the Soviet Union nor China till this day and it has happened with a vengeance in China but the dictatorship remains and the gap between the haves and the have nots is beginning to resemble our own with the bulk of the country still living in poverty while a growing middle class is enjoying the high life.  Yet China still has nothing resembling our own social security program nor free medical care.

The bottom line is this, philosophers can dream about all sorts of ideal situations but reality rarely provides the conditions for their theories to come to fruition. Extremes never work for the tendency of all men is to gravitate toward a sort of golden mean, the middle road.  Economically this means that neither pure communism nor pure capitalism exists.  We live with a blend of both, where social benefits tap into the wealth created by the capitalists, a method which tends to prevent the kind of conditions Marx envisioned.

The problem with capitalism, which is growing increasingly obvious, is the profit margin rules and in the process, what companies once to offered as incentives like a good health care and retirement benefits are falling by the wayside in favor of ever increasing profits for the investors. No sir, we have never seen socialism as defined by Marx, operating in this world and likely never will. 

A successful economic system must allow for both a healthy share of the profits in the hands of the workers and a big chunk to remain in the hands of the movers and shakers.  If big business does not reverse the current trend government will increasingly be required to intervene in order to maintain the domestic tranquility.

I conclude with a final quote from the source noted above:

Aside from the small inconsistencies in Marx’s philosophy, he exhibits
sound ideas that do seem to work on paper but fail in the real world
where millions of uncertainties contribute to the error in every
social experiment on Earth.  Communism never gets farther than
socialism in its practice in the real world and that is where the
fault lies, in the governments that try to cheat the system while
still maintaining their ideal communist society.

Socialism defined by Wikipedia online encylopedia:

“Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. [2] This control may be exercised on behalf of the state, through a market, or through popular collectives such as workers’ councils and cooperatives. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments.

The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late–19th century working class movement. During this period, the term “socialism” was first used by European social critics, who spoke against capitalism and private property. Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, wrote that socialism would be achieved through class struggle and a proletarian revolution.[3] Marxism has had a lasting influence on most branches of socialism.

Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries and Marxists and non-Marxists. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies, while libertarian socialists advocate cooperative worker ownership of the means of production. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that controls all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[4] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers’ councils.”

TomH says no “pure socialist” government has been tried. HUH? Perhaps no pure fascist government has ever been tried either. Want to keep trying to get that philosophy right? Socialism has been a failure over and over again. Give the government too much power over the people, and it will always end badly. Actually, socialism and fascism have a lot in common. Left or right, powerful governments always eventually abuse that power and the people get shafted. The new “elite” in socialism? Why government employees, of course. What a slap in the face to a philosophy that supposedly champions the “working man”.

William and traveywavey, what do you think of the former CEO of one of the nation’s largest food additive business (ADM Arthur Daniels Midland, in case you live in a cave) claiming that this country is, in fact, socialist, due to the amount of subsidies that taxpayers basically give to enourmouse farming conglomerates?

I am convinced that Senator Barack Hussein Obama II is a socialist.

1) A socialist system includes the redistribution of wealth.

That is a policy I am firmly against. I do believe that people should help people in need, but I also believe that forcible distribution of wealth removes incentive to succeed. It also opens the door to corruption among those deemed worthy to decide who gets what. Public assistance is better handled by the local community, in my opinion. Distribution of wealth perpetuates a welfare state.

2) Socialism often refers to “common ownership”, as defined at…
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php

“In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions. Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them.”

That implies that the simple majority would be able to dictate the lifestyle of the minority. In the extreme case (China for example) the minority can dictate the lifestyle of the majority. Socialism takes away personal freedom.

Another quote I found while seeking the real definition of socialism is “Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities.”
http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html

To me, that says I can not run my own business. How can competition work in a socialist system?

It seems like human nature dictates that there will always be more lazy people than hard workers. In a socialist system, there is no real incentive for hard-working people to do their best, because they can not reap the rewards of their efforts.

I spent most of the night, and half of this morning reading about this stuff, trying to find some evidence that Obama is not a socialist. But all it does is make me more convinced than ever that socialism would be bad, and that most Americans would be against it, AND that Obama IS a socialist.

Points where I believe Obama to hold socialist views…

Obama is excessively pro-Union. In my opinion, unions do more harm than good, and have driven many businesses into bankruptcy. Unions are also the major cause of “outsourcing”, causing millions of American jobs to be lost to foreign countries.

Unions use terrorist tactics to force people to follow their views. That irritates the hell out of me. I see similar behavior in “demonstrations” by various extremist groups. They try to block freedom of speech for those opposing their views, sometimes even violently. There are numerous accounts of that kind of behavior in the news.

Obama believes universal health care would be good for America. I disagree.
Many people of other countries with “universal health care” come HERE if they can afford to, because they get substandard treatment in their own system.

I think the whole argument for universal health care is a scam - another way to raise our taxes and increase the government bureaucracy that will oversee it. Our government does NOTHING efficiently, and it would be a waste of money, mainly going into the pockets of already wealthy people instead of helping those who really need it.

From everything I read, it seems like under Obama, government-supported labor unions would take away individual freedoms.

Obama’s associations with extremists trouble me. His friendship with William Ayers, for example. Ayers is another of the self-proclaimed intellectuals who believes his views are the only correct views, and that violence is acceptable to harm those who oppose his views. He’s a professor of education at the University of Illinois, and he’s a former member of the Weather Underground, a left-wing terrorist group that planted bombs in the Capitol and in the Pentagon back during the 1970s. On September 11 2001, Ayers told The New York Times “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Obama has too many associations with people that strike me as either anti American or criminal. William Ayers. Louis Farrakhan. Jeremiah Wright. George Soros. Tony Rezko. To me, it all adds up to trouble.

Obama’s socialist associations date back at least as far as 1996 when Obama received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America. The Democratic Socialists of America describes itself as being the largest socialist group in the U.S. and boasts that it is the principal affiliate of Socialist International for the United States.

Obama campaigned for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIlIpOkRh2A

An Obama bill, “The Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) was rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the help of Joe Biden and republican Richard Lugar. The legislation commits the United States to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the “Millennium Goals” established by the United Nations. That, to me, clearly demonstrates Obama’s socialist views. The United Nations does not have the best interests of America in mind. They only want our money. And they are likely to steal it. Look at what they did with the Oil for Food program.

In Durham North Carolina, during a campaign stop Obama said (to a 5 year old girl) “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”

TomH says no “pure socialist” government has been tried. HUH? Perhaps no pure fascist government has ever been tried either. Want to keep trying to get that philosophy right? Socialism has been a failure over and over again. Give the government too much power over the people, and it will always end badly. Actually, socialism and fascism have a lot in common. Left or right, powerful governments always eventually abuse that power and the people get shafted. The new “elite” in socialism? Why government employees, of course. What a slap in the face to a philosophy that supposedly champions the “working man”.

No, while your definition of socialism as a transitional phase maybe acceptable, the real question is not about Marx but about Jesus or to be more precise, compassion.  There seems to be a fear on the right that if government gets too involved in the welfare of it’s people we are flirting with socialism or worse yet, communism. However, it has been shown unalterably that the free market cares little for anything but the bottom line.  That impulse toward greed and domination by a ruling elite has no place in a so called democratic society.

Neither pure socialism, nor pure capitalism can work and thus, like it or not, some force needs to come into play to modify the economic system in ways that will benefit the whole instead of the few.

Socialism can also be defined, in a non-Marxian manner, as simply implying a pro-worker government that will use state policies to improve the lives of working people without any presumption that the state will try to create communism.  Indeed, some socialists (defining their socialism in this non-Marxian way) might even be opposed to communism and simply favor a more benign form of capitalism

Sweden has an interesting system.  We shy away from it, no doubt, due to the very high tax rate but that being said, the benefits to the Swedish people are considerable.  While I do not favor government controlled health care, some major changes need to be made in our present system. If we can manage this while maintaining a system of private health insurance, all to the good.  In terms of Obama’s proposed plan this is exactly what would evolve.

Barack Obama’s Plan: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

I’ve suggested that the entire health care system from top to bottom be removed from the hands of disinterested investors and ownership be given over to individual subscribers who become the stock holders.  Further, the entire system needs to be put on a not for profit basis.  Some fat cat on the mountain top nearby should not be profiting from my need for medical care.

The system that exists now is so driven by the profit motive, insurance companies hire individuals who’s sole job it is to find ways to refuse a claim. The medical community needs to be the deciding factor, not some business man who could care less about the patient and serves only the stock holder. Whatever the solution is, the result must be an end to ever increasing costs of health care especially in the realm of drug prices.

The fact is, sick people make very unproductive workers.  The system needs to favor wellness rather than treatment.  A good insurance policy will allow for all the necessary tests and examinations required to discover and forgo more expensive treatments needed when illnesses go undetected, in many cases because even the insured can often not afford these things. 

Both right and left see the problem, the left advocating a government take over (bad) the right continued dominance by the private sector (not working).  It’s a case where pure market capitalism with it’s focus on the bottom line has created some horrendous inequalities that need to be addressed.  The solution lies somewhere in the middle but a solution must be found.  Ours is simply not working.  People are traveling abroad to get expensive surgery and even dental work.  India, for example, offers a whole array of excellent medical care to “tourists”.

This is not, however, a solution that will work for the vast majority of uninsured or poorly insured who could not even afford the trip to India.  Health care in the so called wealthiest nation on earth is a disaster.  It needs to be rectified if we, as a nation, intend to maintain our position in the world.  The US ranks 37th just below Costa Rica.  We should be first.

Below you’ll find the most up to date world wide health care rankings by the World Health Organization. Consider that every country on this list except for the United States has a universal health care system.

posnideus - 25 July 2008 10:44 PM

William and traveywavey, what do you think of the former CEO of one of the nation’s largest food additive business (ADM Arthur Daniels Midland, in case you live in a cave) claiming that this country is, in fact, socialist, due to the amount of subsidies that taxpayers basically give to enourmouse farming conglomerates?

posniteus,
I do not agree with your example of Mr. Andreas nor for that matter do most CEOs and people who have managed business. I have never worked in the agribusiness field however I have managed people and resources in pulp & paper, forest products and automotives. Rather than being the beneficiaries of socialist government subsidies, I have seen foreign socialist subsidies harm our competitive position. One issue close to home would be the Canadian government’s economic subsidization of it’s forest products industry. When demand for dimensional lumber and panels was high, the United States was exporting timber to Canada and in turn receiving imports of finished lumber all the while thousands of forest products workers in the US were being laid off. In simple economic terms it is called “dumping”.
I have witnessed first hand the export of paper pulp to China only to see that heavily socialist subsidized paper industry turn around and flood western markets with undercut pricing on the paper you feed into your personal printers. I think it is fair to state that socialist subsidies affecting the pulp & paper industry are accountable for half the decline of the North American industry (the other half being a lack of capital investment in the face of an oligopolistic consolidated printing industry).
I would be curious to see what government subsidies the MountainX receives so that we can confirm your theory.