Socialism in America

Post Reply New Topic

Let's talk socialism, specifically within the context of the contemporary United States.

• How could socialism be implemented in the U.S.?
• Is the American system of governance fundamentally incompatible with socialism?
• Is a socialist revolution possible (even if quite unlikely) in the United States' future?
• Should socialism embrace the market as a determinant of price?
• Should socialism accept private enterprise?
• Is socialism best accomplished through a bureaucratic state apparatus or through voluntary association (i.e., anarchism)?
• Are contemporary Western European and Nordic social-democratic parties socialist? Should American socialists try to introduce their model?
• Are socialism and American liberalism at odds?
• Could socialists work for incremental gains through the apparatus of the Democratic Party?

Do you want either the government or the People's Committee telling you how to live?

ruveyn

Actually a better question would be why would we even want socialism in the US in the first place?

There are American socialists who would like a Socialist America. We will simply have to outvote them. Socialism is sometimes embraced enthusiastically by young folks in their passionate quest for Justice.

It was either Churchill or Clemenceau who said: If a young man is not a socialist at age 20 he has no heart and if he is still a socialist at age 50 he has no brains.

When I was young and not fully formed I had a brief infatuation with socialism. It did not last but I completely understand why so many young folks take it up.

ruveyn

I don't it just seems like stealing to me. could you explain?

Ruveyn, did you even read his post or just the first line?

Yes. Some people believe that property is theft. And some people believe that the profit made from the surplus value of labor is also a form of theft.

The argument between Socialism and Capitalism comes down to who gets to do what with the value created by labor (meaning the act of transforming matter from a less useful state to a more useful state).

Some people believe the the idea of Property is a fetish.

It could be argued there is no Property, there is only Possession.

And so on and so on and so on. The argument is endless.

All rational economies create surpluses. That raises the question of who gets what part of the surpluses created. A day may come when robots will created just about every good that people can use and perform many or most of the services that people need. When that day comes the robots will be the Proletariat and the rest of us will be plundering the surplus values created by the robots. But the robots are not people so stealing from them is not a wrong.

I leave it to you to figure out. I am old enough to realize that the questions are three levels above my pay grade.

ruveyn

Only over a period of gradual change, or a major shock.

No, just difficult for it. The ideal way to get around this is bureaucratizing the entire affair, and using these bureaucracies as the effectual governance on these issues.


Anything is possible.


Markets must be accepted. This is just that, as the information is nearly impossible otherwise.


It is probably necessary to some degree. The regulatory ability otherwise does not exist.


Probably a combination. Basically, it is probably best to set up laws on the formation of corporations such that all corporations have to be worker owned, from this worker ownership, we get a major socialist premise out of the way. As well, major welfare functions will have to be taken over by a bureaucratic apparatus. Socialist anarchism is likely to break down due to incentives against its maintenance, I'd think. I'd imagine that markets are more stable as equilibrium states. I am not an expert, but I'd really say that for a person really interested in this question, a good book to read is Ted Burczak's Socialism After Hayek, and I am trying to recall what was said in that text, as it probably is the most workable "socialist" idea I've seen.


No, they are not socialist. However, yes, it is strategically good to try to introduce their model.


In many ways, yes. American liberalism has softened on the issue over time, but the fact that we are a society with very capitalist roots is obvious in our political conceptions.


Yes, but they are best with a multi-pronged approach, which entails both using the democratic party, but never being tied to it.

Funny. When Bush and Obama performed the entirely socialistic act of dumping billions of dollars into the banking system to keep it from destroying itself no conservatives complained. When the socialistic act of subsidies for the oil companies is voted on no conservatives complained. When socialistic subsidies are made to encourage large agricultural corporations are put through no conservatives complain. When the military spends billions on all sorts of armaments to socially support the armament industry nobody complains. But when people in general cannot find work or find money to eat or keep from losing their houses and the government appropriates funds to help them out that is suddenly objectionable socialism.

The Obama administration has already gone a long way toward implementing it. The recent election was a setback, but by painting confrontation as the fault of the Republicans, and through massive vote fraud, er, "community organizing", especially focusing on graveyards, things could get back on track by 2012.


The constitution would have to be abrogated, but when has an old, moldy piece of paper ever stood in the way of progress?


It is already happening, though it is on hold for 2 years pending the aforesaid requirements for massive vote fraud.


No. Official prices should be set at which goods must be sold to the privileged, er, "needy" 51%. The other 49% can be left to pay inflated black market prices.


Socialism should make it clear that businesses operate at the pleasure of the government, and can be destroyed at any sign, real or imagined, of political opposition. With sufficient fear, they can take care of the details of production without any additional bother.


Voluntary association has never accomplished working socialism, because true socialism doesn't work. So no, the only hope of some semblance of socialism is through oppressive enforcement by the state.


Some are about as socialist as is possible without completely destroying the economy. Unfortunately, their model depends on cultural uniformity to convince the privileged majority to continue to work. That model will not work in the Americas, where social divisions will mean that the privileged 51% will insist on the other 49% doing all the actual work.

That does mean that American socialism inevitably leads to a downward economic spiral and a military coup to restore sanity after 5 or 10 years, but c'est la vie.


Modern socialism and modern American liberalism are well aligned. The only issue is keeping the liberal elite blind to what is going on until after it is too late for them to change things, but that should not be difficult given their unwillingness to pay attention to facts that don't fit their preexisting fantasies about how the world works.


As discussed above, they are already getting them.


Also an excellent question.

What the heck are you trying to say here?

Socialism is incompatible with the US Constitution but if and when the **** hits the fan and secession becomes a real possibility, the states that want to be socialist states can become one. I'll be in the state that respects personal freedom.

You're mistaken. The majority of Republicans in the House voted against TARP, and similarly for the other bailouts.

I certainly complained, in this blog post and many others:

How the government could cause the next depression (Oct 2008)

More here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/?skip=21&tag=economy

I'd just like the contrast between psychohist and Awesomelyglorious's answers to be used as a fine example of the difference between paranoid, fantasy based right-libertarianism and a form of right-libertarianism that is more tethered to reality.

that is an example of the right "straining at gnats but swallowing camels." or more currently, it is just class warfare against the inferiors.

The Republicans were able to raise a ruckus for political gain because they didn't actually have the power to stop TARP and face the repercussions. The banks were quite literally holding the entire financial system, and hence the entire economy, hostage. It was either let the government give the banks what they wanted/needed or let them kill the hostage. They were politically wise to let Bush, an already unpopular president, be the fall guy. Their votes against TARP had nothing to do with principle.