My Brand of Socialism

[Mike C]

A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST STATE revised

 

We are supposed to have a US Constitutional peoples government as the Constitution (CN) dictates.

However, the aversion of the conservatives to Democratic Socialism, have replaced it with corporate socialism and that is a clear violation of our CN and its intent of serving the people.

 

Our (CN) has outlawed the self serving individuals like kings, dictators, emperors, popes and any other 'self serving' individuals like capitalists and criminals.

 

The words democracy and republic, also have roots that portray democracy as Constitutionally mandated while republic is not mandated.

Democracy comes from the Greek root ‘people power’ while republic comes from the Latin root ‘wealth + public’(Merriam-Webster latest dictionary, 1998). Since the word people or citizens are common in the CN while the words ‘wealth’ or capitalism is not, then it is obvious that the definition of our political system is described as a Democracy.

 

So then the most logical way to Implement and restore our CN democracy is to PROMOTE the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS by eliminating the corruptive influence of dollars that buy our politicians to serve these ‘self serving’ individuals.

This can be done by banning the private dollars from the government electoral function. Private dollars, that buy advertising to influence the electorate are NOT free speech and therefore can be legally banned.

Only government dollars should be used to finance this electoral function.

Through this process, the politicians would be free from having to solicit these corrupting dollars and direct their attention to the citizen issues. This would raise their ‘self respect’ and honesty and truly represent the citizens of our country.

 

Socialist is a form of government that would promote the people issues, such as the following:

 

Guaranteed jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!

Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel, government employees and any other responsible citizens.

Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens that should include the ‘alternative’ health care practitioners.

And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.

 

All the details would be formatted by citizen committees.

The wonderful thing about this program is that one would not need to save any money. They can spend it all to contribute to a thriving economy that creates jobs. Only spent dollars contribute to a thriving economy. Wealthy corporate hoarded dollars DO NOT. Instead, these dollars are used to create mergers, buyouts of competitors and the ‘media’ to censor critics, downsizing and investing abroad.

All these tactics REDUCE jobs and contribute to the stagnation of our economy.

 

So with the Socialist system, they would not need religion either since security is what people want. This would be compatible with the ‘Separation of Church and State’ mandate in our CN.

 

Our current economy is a lopsided one now where the people that do the least have the highest incomes while the workers are and have had their incomes reduced to a barely subsistence level.

 

There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature as a commodity and the worker productions.

RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles, homes and etc.

While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads. This is not tangible wealth. Therefore, workers deserve better and a fairer distribution of the RTW that they create.

 

However, in this Socialist state, ‘free enterprise’ would be allowed and government supported.

But there would be limitations on this accumulated wealth as determined by the citizens.

Income taxes could be graduated on SURPLUS income only, from a rate of about 95% for the top earners to a bottom rate of about 5% for the minimum earners. This type of tax would not affect the current living lifestyles of the citizens and even the capitalists.

Any other details can be worked out to restore our economy to a more balanced state...

 

Of course, all these reforms would result from the government financed and modified electoral system in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of the ballot box and NOT through any revolutionary means by radical communists or coup d’etat power conspiracies. .

 

Mike C

[charles brough]

I admire such well-wishing idealism! Imagine, if you will, this utopia-in-the-sky idealism has been around for several centuries to say the least, but there is not now and never has been a socialist state. All that has come into being is welfare states run by socialists. If you go to the library and get a book out on Socialism, what you have is a tome on the history of the Socialist MOVEMENT. Always, the state owneS stock in the big corporations and often at a loss, and taxes always discourage new business, and people continued to live separately instead of communally and for the difference in standards of living to persist. Prices continue to reflect supply and demand. In other words, "socialist countries" are just modified capitalist states. Even the Marxists in Asia have adopted capitalism!

 

If we are going to ever escape from the deplorable way the world is at present being run, we have to be realistic and really understand the problems and avoid simplistic old answers!

[eric l]

I'm affraid I have to aggree with Charles (I wish it were different).

So far, none of the "utopian socialist" experiments ever worked on more than a small to medium scale (say about a hundred families) and even those never lasted more than a couple of generations.

There are many reasons for that : like it or not, even a democracy needs something like a common goal if it wants to progress, and such a common goal is usually personified by a charismatic leader. Now, such leaders are few and far between, and not all of them are sufficiently idealistic to think first of the community or society they are leading, before thinking of themselves.

Even those who seem to stand the test rarely keep it up for a very long time : after a number of years they start to believe that they are sent by God or Allah or Destiny or whatever and they cling to power rather than to their ideal or to the best interest for their society or community.

Party funding or election funding will never be sufficient as an answer to this. In fact, rather than voting for the best program, people will vote eiteher for the most talented speaker, or for the one who aggrees best with their prejudices.

Am I pessimistic ? Let us say that I am, when it comes to the amount of improvement we can expect to see in our liftetime, but not to the role that our contributions will play eventually.

[Mike C]

I admire such well-wishing idealism! Imagine, if you will, this utopia-in-the-sky idealism has been around for several centuries to say the least, but there is not now and never has been a socialist state. All that has come into being is welfare states run by socialists. If you go to the library and get a book out on Socialism, what you have is a tome on the history of the Socialist MOVEMENT. Always, the state owneS stock in the big corporations and often at a loss, and taxes always discourage new business, and people continued to live separately instead of communally and for the difference in standards of living to persist. Prices continue to reflect supply and demand. In other words, "socialist countries" are just modified capitalist states. Even the Marxists in Asia have adopted capitalism!

 

If we are going to ever escape from the deplorable way the world is at present being run, we have to be realistic and really understand the problems and avoid simplistic old answers!

 

Your defeatest attitude is one reason why progress cannot continue.

If the people vote the right people in for political and economic reform, who is there to stop them?

 

Capitalist CORRUPTION is corporate welfare!

Incidentally, I support individual enterprise. But only if there are limits established to create more equality in our country.

 

In My Brand os Socialism, work (jobs) are guaranteed for everyone. So where is the welfare here?

Welfare only goes to those that do no work and that is what capitalism is.

Brains create nothing TANGIBLE.

Only HANDS (workers) can do that.

So the irony here is that the ones that create the REAL WEALTH are reduced to ROBOTS. That is your capitalisms final end product.

GET REAL!

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

I'm affraid I have to aggree with Charles (I wish it were different).

So far, none of the "utopian socialist" experiments ever worked on more than a small to medium scale (say about a hundred families) and even those never lasted more than a couple of generations.

There are many reasons for that : like it or not, even a democracy needs something like a common goal if it wants to progress, and such a common goal is usually personified by a charismatic leader. Now, such leaders are few and far between, and not all of them are sufficiently idealistic to think first of the community or society they are leading, before thinking of themselves.

Even those who seem to stand the test rarely keep it up for a very long time : after a number of years they start to believe that they are sent by God or Allah or Destiny or whatever and they cling to power rather than to their ideal or to the best interest for their society or community.

Party funding or election funding will never be sufficient as an answer to this. In fact, rather than voting for the best program, people will vote eiteher for the most talented speaker, or for the one who aggrees best with their prejudices.

Am I pessimistic ? Let us say that I am, when it comes to the amount of improvement we can expect to see in our liftetime, but not to the role that our contributions will play eventually.

 

There is only one way you can MUZZLE capitalism and that is with the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS.

 

This is a GOVERNMENT function and only government dollars should be used.

This reduces the politicians to make them serve the citizens as they campaigned to do.

Those that fail to do so can be voted out.

The government can send newspapers to all registered voters with the politicians programs. This would enable the citizens to make a decision on all the issues rather than just one or two.

This gives the citizens the information to make a more 'intelligent' vote.

 

Mike C

[Buffy]

There is only one way you can MUZZLE capitalism and that is with the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS.

If we are to have freedom of speech, who is going to decide who "CAPITALISM" is? When should some segment of our population not be able to express political beliefs? Should it be based on your income?

This is a GOVERNMENT function and only government dollars should be used.

How do we decide who to give money to? If it is to be by petition, how are you going to balance the "rich" folks who can easily pay to gather signatures versus those who must struggle to get them?

The government can send newspapers to all registered voters with the politicians programs. This would enable the citizens to make a decision on all the issues rather than just one or two.

This gives the citizens the information to make a more 'intelligent' vote.

How do you "control" what gets put in to these "papers?" "Setting the agenda" is what political leadership is all about. If you are going to have the government control this, who decides what questions "have" to be answered? How do politicians with new ideas get them included if all the others--especially those connected to the government officials who do the "deciding" on the questions--think those questions are "unfair" or "irrelevant?"

 

Only poor people should be allowed to vote,

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

Socialism results from a capitalist economy in which there is no market failure. Every step towards this goal has to be looked at for its own sake. Obviously forcing everyone to be paid the same (communism) didn't work, and a few other things failed also. Although personally I think these ideas were silly to begin with and the main socialist thinkers did not support them anyways.

 

I agree creating a system which results in legislative power being given to corporations is not a good idea. I also agree that some types of funding should be cut off towards this end. I really don't think TV commercials or planned speeches really tell us anything about the candidates anyways. I think they should put more legwork into letting people get to know them and decide for themselves whether or not they like them. I would like to see impromptu Question and Answer sessions with Candidates.

 

As technology progresses I think we should also look at heavy modifications to our government. Representation is necessary because the average person doesn't have the time or the knowledge to make determinations on every issue. However I think that we can move towards representative ideas rather than people.

 

People who do have the knowledge in a subject can create the advanced approaches and then everyone else can vote on them. People who didn't understand just wouldn't vote, people who do understand would. Only the 2 most ideas would be up for election at a time, perhaps determined by earlier votes. So for instance on a vote for gun control there wouldn't be a "I just want a gun dammit!" option.

[Mike C]

If we are to have freedom of speech, who is going to decide who "CAPITALISM" is?

 

Caoitalism is those that can buy government with their 'surplus UNneeded' dollars.

 

When should some segment of our population not be able to express political beliefs? Should it be based on your income?

How do we decide who to give money to? If it is to be by petition, how are you going to balance the "rich" folks who can easily pay to gather signatures versus those who must struggle to get them?

 

Income has nothing to do with the voting system I advocate. The government would run the system like it is supposed to do instead of DOLLARS in the hands of selected politicians by the weaalthy.

 

How do you "control" what gets put in to these "papers?" "Setting the agenda" is what political leadership is all about. If you are going to have the government control this, who decides what questions "have" to be answered? How do politicians with new ideas get them included if all the others--especially those connected to the government officials who do the "deciding" on the questions--think those questions are "unfair" or "irrelevant?"

 

The government would be required to print the politicians program in his/her own words. NO editing.

 

Only poor people should be allowed to vote,

Buffy

 

That would be illegal.

The wealthy can vote but their vote is equal to a poor persons vote. So here we have equality of votes. Ha ha.

The politicians here would also be placed in an equal opportunity situation for office. They might INFLATE their promises to the public but the people would catch on as to who is the phony ones. Ha ha.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

99

 

Who said anything about people getting the same wages?

 

I also said that 'free enterprise' would be allowed.

 

My only advocacy is to limit the dollar 'skimming' power of those at the top level of the corporations and their corruptive influence of the politicians with their hired representatives (agents) in the officials offices.

 

Mike C

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Although there are other names for these societies, how would you describe some of the tribes that existed in south america and africa? They can easily be described as socialist, not all members being equal but given the equal right to the resources necessary to them by the those in higher positions. When necessity runs the society, resources distribution becomes less of an issue. The assumption we have is that we do not live in society based on necessity, which may be true, but why?

 

The reason why there has yet to be a modern pure socialist society is because of seperation of countries and globalization. If other countries around them do not have the same ideals, those ideals will have an effect on the host country. The corporations in socialist societies are modeled off of other corporations around the world. If one country has to compete with other countries, it forces them to take on non-socialist values.

 

In a socialist society, those in charge should have the least to benefit from their decisions. This doesn't mean they don't benefit, but it allows them to try to help their people rather than themselves. This should be their reward.

[Buffy]

If we are to have freedom of speech, who is going to decide who "CAPITALISM" is?

Caoitalism is those that can buy government with their 'surplus UNneeded' dollars.

Define "unneeded" please.

 

And again, is anyone with "unneeded" money to be disallowed the right to free speech? Why? Is it simply that "all rich people are bad?"

When should some segment of our population not be able to express political beliefs? Should it be based on your income? How do we decide who to give money to? If it is to be by petition, how are you going to balance the "rich" folks who can easily pay to gather signatures versus those who must struggle to get them?

Income has nothing to do with the voting system I advocate.

My question was not about the "voting system" its about who has the right to speak freely in our society: you seem to be advocating strongly for restrictions on the speech of those who have "unneeded dollars." This might or might not be bad, but *how* you go about doing it could be every bit as evil as that which you rail against.

The government would run the system like it is supposed to do instead of DOLLARS in the hands of selected politicians by the weaalthy.

The question is, what is the meaning of "run the system like it is supposed to."

 

As mentioned by others above, its easy to say "if we just get rid of the bad people we'd have a great society!" The devil is in the details, and unfortunately you've put your idea out into the marketplace where other's freedom of expression may require you to fill in those details if you want others to take your idea seriously.

The government would be required to print the politicians program in his/her own words. NO editing.

So how do issues that the candidate does not want to talk about get to be exposed?

 

I'll repeat the more difficult question though: who gets in the paper *at all*? I posed a critical question about the process of "becoming a candidate" which is a very hard one to deal with in a practical manner. In order for this system of "government publishes the candidates positions, no advertising" you still have to decide who gets in and who does not. Its either a nominating process (thus infinite regression on people "paying" to be made a candidate), or its everyone who feels like it, in which case you end up with an election like the current San Francisco Mayoral election which pretty much guarantees that the incumbent gets re-elected because all the challengers steal each other's potential base.

 

One should absorb the colour of life, but one should never remember its details. Details are always vulgar, :phones:

Buffy

[modest]

Socialism is a structure created by laws and those laws have to be written. You are advocating a democracy which would mean laws are written by elected officials. In a democracy the political doctrine (either socialist or capitalist or somewhere in-between) is effectively decided by the people.

 

So, if you want a democracy you would need to concede the idealistic form of socialism you propose because it's going to be lost in the ballot box. If you want a pure socialist society then you’d have to concede some part of democracy. This is usually achieved by having only one party - a single party state known as a socialist republic (called communism in the west).

 

People as a rule just don’t vote for higher taxes.

 

So, I think buffy is quite right - you could almost plot socialism vs. individual freedoms as they vary inversely. Democracy and socialism are kept at a distance by the nature of humanity. And, it's probably a shame.

 

-modest

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

So which system do you consider more effective; socialism or democracy?

[modest]

So which system do you consider more effective; socialism or democracy?

 

Me? I love my democracy - it allows me to get angry at politicians. I saw a guy on TV cursing and taunting VP Cheney in Mississippi after hurricane Katrina. Cheney was trying to survey the damage on foot with a bunch of reporters while this guy just yelled profanity at him. What a warm feeling that gave me. I guess there are a lot better reasons to love democracy but this comes first to my mind.

 

I do, however, believe in many socialist reforms, and that’s the good thing about democracy. FDR is a great example of national political flexibility. The nation moved toward socialism when it was needed most. I hope the U.S. keeps that kind of flexibility. It is hard when politicians are always saying “to be American is to be a faithful member of our party” or how un-American the opposition is. Such things are said to win elections but end up getting planted in the national psyche at least a little. I’m sure most people reading this would say that the U.S. has already lost that flexibility - I hope that’s not the case. I want to be optimistic.

 

I guess I would say that democracy is more effective as a long term political doctrine because it is more flexible.

 

:P

Haven't you heard it's a battle of words

The poster bearer cried.

Listen son, said the man with the gun

There's room for you inside

;)

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

But socialism doesn't prevent its people from speaking against its leaders. The flexibility of democracy is an aspect not offered by many socialist societies, but its not unheard of. But I'll give you that one.

 

But, as for my question, which is more effective; flexibility is not more effective, it just makes us happier. And effectiveness is definitly not based on freedom of speech. These are just luxuries. Its easy to prove that democracy is better for moral, it idolizes the individual.

 

But more effective....?

[Kriminal99]

99

 

Who said anything about people getting the same wages?

 

I also said that 'free enterprise' would be allowed.

 

My only advocacy is to limit the dollar 'skimming' power of those at the top level of the corporations and their corruptive influence of the politicians with their hired representatives (agents) in the officials offices.

 

Mike C

 

Wages move towards equalizing the more information flows freely. If we could train a doctor in the same time it takes to train a burger flipper, and there was no other reason why less people could be doctors, they wouldn't be paid more.

 

Of course it's an unattainable goal, (barring some sci fi instant memory placement scheme) but any capitalist economy should strive to move towards that goal.

[modest]

But socialism doesn't prevent its people from speaking against its leaders. The flexibility of democracy is an aspect not offered by many socialist societies, but its not unheard of. But I'll give you that one.

 

But, as for my question, which is more effective; flexibility is not more effective, it just makes us happier. And effectiveness is definitly not based on freedom of speech. These are just luxuries. Its easy to prove that democracy is better for moral, it idolizes the individual.

 

But more effective....?

 

I see what you’re saying but I think it is flexibility that gives democracy its strength and makes it effective in the short and long terms. The history of any nation is marked by turbulent times of war, depression, revolution and the like. I believe a democracy has a built in device that allows it to bend without breaking in order to accommodate such times. As the people and the times change so does the leadership and the laws. This allows a democracy to deal with a Richard Nixon without resorting to something like the French Revolution. I realize this analogy is in many ways oversimplified, but I do believe it represents a truth. Would a 17 year old Anastasia or a teenage Caesarion have to die in a modern democracy? Let’s hope not.

 

I do agree with what you were saying about democracy and socialism not excluding each other. Like I was saying before, I believe human nature keeps the two apart. Hopefully one day we will evolve to a star-trek kind of society where people strive to improve themselves and their culture without regard to material selfishness. But, we are not there and at least for now our own nature precludes an ideal socialist society engaging in a proper democracy.

 

:phones:

I stuck around St. Petersburg

When I saw it was a time for a change

Killed the czar and his ministers

Anastasia screamed in vain

:phones:

 

-modest