#1 'socialist' document: "WE THE PEOPLE..."

Socialism is what we do indeed have in this country, (for a minority)

Socialism is like Basketball, a real team sport. You have your role players and you have your superstars, though they all need to work together to win as a team. The better the player the better the paycheck, though it benefits everyone on the team to do better and to help out the less gifted players. Their reward will be your reward.
Capitalism is like Golf. This is great if you already belong to a country club and have all the gear and training. You work hard to become the best, by beating everyone and eventually you make so much that you can afford equipment that no one else can, so no one has a chance to even compete. This is great for you and the people who make the golf clubs. You will claim that everyone has the same opportunities if they work hard enough, you know rent some shitty clubs on a public course. Yet roughly half of Americans believe they have a chance to beat the kids born on a golf course.

I don't think anyone has lived under socialism, at least not the people that lived in communist countries, which were neither socialist nor communist ...

Likewise, we don't live in a capitalist country, we live in a corporatist nation.

Anon at 17:52

Please tell us more about your experience living under Socialism. I'd like to give it a try! Where were you? I really do think that the Biblical description of a Christian life style at Acts 4:32-35 sounds wonderful. So did Marx, apparently, it's where he got his famous "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Look, I'm all for capitalism people. I believe capitalism is the only system of economics that has proven itself to be sustainable and prosperous over the long term.
HOWEVER, the situation we are in now underscores what I consider one of the inherent flaws of American society, particularly how we practice capitalism: we are TOO freaking capitalist! In the United States, capitalism gets taken to utterly insane, often ridiculous extremes. We are, after all, the society famous and infamous worldwide for our ability to merchandise ANYTHING!
I think that some socialized programs are good. I am all for socialized medicine, socialized welfare, and even socialized education. I believe that in this country, good health, long life, and a good education should be inherent rights of the citizens, not luxuries that get bought or sold. We pride ourselves on being a global symbol of prosperity and fairness, yet we treat such issues as if we were in the third world, where they are indeed scarce.
I believe in capitalism, like I said. But I think the crisis we endured and its aftermath should be a lesson. There have to be rules, there have to be limits, there have to be restrictions. Capitalism is very much like a force of nature-when it runs wild, destruction on unimaginable scales follows.

@lysander
-"In the end reason and compassion must trump hateful ideologies such as socialism. Recognizing that other people are just as morally worthwhile as yourself is the first step to recovering from a socialist position."-

The basis of socialist theory is that all humanity is worthwhile and deserving of equal rights and protections. That collective humanity should not be abused for the sake of any individual. How is this not a compassionate ideology? How is it hateful?

The only thing that people keep forgetting is actually very simple to comprehend:

1. In East Berlin the Communist/Socialist government always had a problem keeping their citizens IN.
2. In Cuba the Communist/Socialist government always has a problem keeping their citizens IN.
3. In the People's Republic of China (PRC) the Communist/Socialist government of Mao killed 30 million of its own people.
4. In the USSR the Communist/Socialist government killed 20 million of its own people.

So I have a suggestion: Everyone who wants to live under Communism/Socialism move to that type of controlled country. I lived and taught in the PRC for one year - and that was enough for me. The REAL conditions in China are unbearable for the BILLION poor people who are virtually enslaved there.

Read CHINA HOUSE if you want to get the full story.

Wake up America! You don't even have an inkling as to what is REALLY going on in the name of Communism/Socialism.

And you had better hope you never find out.

Lawrence Klepinger

@Anonymous 19:49: Capitalism is sustainable? Please explain how a system which demands constant growth can ever be sustainable on a finite planet. What part of "massive ecological crisis caused by over-exploitation of resources" don't you understand?

Unfortunately for all of us, most socialist theorists haven't really tackled the problem of how to create an economy not based on growth either.

At this rate, the human species may not be around long enough to figure it out.

It's not an easy discussion to have: besides the fact that the word Socialism has emotionally-loaded connotations for many people that do not correspond in whole or even in part to any reasonable definition, it is also true that the term as it is being used in this article is vague. There is not one Socialism but many. I suppose the one non-negotiable would be 'worker control over production' - but aside from that there are serious disagreements among people who call themselves Socialist on an number of points including economic policy, means of organization, analysis of history, the role of the state, and so forth. So when the author talks about Socialism's potential, I don't know which Socialism is invoked (I'm assuming its the Troskyist version?). This kind of post and the book it reviews are useful to a certain extent, but until we know what exactly we mean when we say Socialist and how exactly we propose to create such a society, what we are are doing is having a lot of separate conversations - conversations of the "for" or "against" type - that never really leave the level of generality, and never reach any level of specificity.

Our banking system and population growth demands constant growth. The rewards of Capitalism have lead to virtually all great significant discovers.

Labels become camouflage in a flash. Poor folks are better advised to start for-profits, which are expected to fail by officials, than non-profits, which are often expected to be pets of the wealthy for benefit of their friends and relatives. Avoiding nepotism is nearly impossible for almost all forms of organization. Nonetheless, enforcing transparency and a culture of cross-training and everybody knowing everything is possible, I have read. A business owner who needs to deliver can tell his own kid to listen to a lineworker--it's possible. I have also seen organizations where the alleged leader hops and serves when asked and does not confront lowerarchs directly. Culture matters.

. . ."But they also reveal a profound lack of knowledge about socialism, the class struggle, and theories of governance". This quote from the article implies that the general population is educated about world history. The non-progressives in our culture are conspicuously uneducated, and that is no accident. It is no accident that education is whittled down and neutralized by the powers-that-be. Information is a powerful tool. People are more controllable without it, and we have two generations of under-educated citizens who are easily frightened and manipulated. Particularly ironic in the "information age". Maybe the best thing to do is to convince people to read again. Tutor children and teach people to read!!

To be too simple, capitalism believes that people should serve the needs of profits; socialism believes that profits should serve the needs of people. The father of U.S. propaganda, Edward Bernays, showed advertisers and politicians how to bend the masses to the will of their leaders. In his 1928 book Propaganda, he argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

Then Big Money bought the wires which control the public mind, and the rest is history.

Funny how all of the fans of socialism always employ straw man fallacies which compare an utopian (and impossible) version of socialism (where all of the hateful and harmful aspects are ignored) with state run socialism (which they dub "capitalism" inaccurately).

Ask yourself why not embrace reason and compassion, rather than the hateful and harmful ideology of socialism which says that the ruling elites really are the only morally important people?

Compassion means first and foremost that the other is equal to yourself. You cannot have compassion for humanity, and steal from some, or enslave some. You cannot honestly and consistently just pick and choose which group of people are morally worthwhile.

Embrace reason and compassion already.

Many contributors seem to have unusual definitions of socialism and "sas" makes a very relevant point that the definition needs to be more precise:
So here i go with my own definitions of the "ISMs": Firmly tongue in cheek...

Communism: the state owns the assets and dictates how much is produced. The population is paid by the state. The politicians tell the producers what to do.
Fascism: The Corporations own the assets. The population is paid by the Corporations. The Corporations tell the politicans what to do. The US operates this system.
Socialism: The state owns the assets and dictates how much is produced. The population runs the state. The population has committees which tell the producers what is fair to share. The state ensures that the poorer sections of society are supported by a higher tax on the richer section of society. I can only think of Vietnam having this in its pure form.
Capitalism: The individual has the right to develop products and by selling large quantities he can accumulate considerable wealth. He can gain assets without restriction until he gains the means to bribe anyone and control everything. Mass production and marketing help modify consumer behaviour generating more sales, this in turn causes a collapse in value of older goods, thereby allowing the poorer population access to assets they would otherwise never be able to afford. Eventually markets are saturated and capitalism faces a crisis. By destroying assets, preferrably in another nation, the capitalist economy can thrive again from rebuilding programmes.
Feudalism: A small section of the population controls a disproportionate share of assets and maintains its grip firmly by keeping the workers in a perpetual state of poverty through low wages.
Authoritarianism: The State has full control over the population. It retains control through intimidation and fearmongering. It stops short of (mass) execution of its citizens because it needs the productive assets.
Totalitarianism: The State has full control over the populations activities and all productive assets. Refers both to an extreme form of right-wing fascism and also an extreme form of left-wing communism. This ism involves extreme forms of intimidation to maintain control. The state has no respect for the life of its citizens.
Proportional Representation: A mature society accepts and embraces diverse opinions. PR prevents extreme forms of isms taking hold of society. The poorer section of society has an equal voice and can seek redress. If Switzerland can work with PR, why not the USA?
Anarchy: The most noble form of political order. It relies on each citizen being free to do as he likes as long as he does not harm the interests of his fellow citizens. There is no need for government or police or military, since the citizen exercises self discipline and social conscience. This is also the most unrealistic political order since no elite is going to loosen its grip on power nor does it want to share.
 
The USA was up to 1945, a feudal society with some socialist protest movements modifying the excesses of feudalism (viz Roosevelts use of the National Guard to protect workers attacked by corporate bosses)  Post 1945, the USA converted to a fascist society. From 1980 the USA became more authoritarian and repressive. It is now heading for totalitarianism at a pace that most Americans are too blind to see. A rich elite has brainwashed and deceived the population into believing that casino capitalism equals free enterprise and freedom, when it is actually turning the US back into a feudal society through organised theft. The US government, being fascist, does indeed have a strong control over the public purse, as "Lysander" noted but this has nothing to do with socialism.
 
The Soviet Republics and East European nations lived under a form of communism which was actually totalitarianism ie an extreme form where an elite was in control through repression.  The reason for Lawrence Klepingers view (which i fully agree with) is because the Soviet system also brainwashed its citizens into believing they had "Socialism" or "Communism" when in practice they had "Totalitarianism." Not sure that casino capitalism has helped the population move from feudal totalitarian communism to a better society...a few yes, but not the mass of the population.
 
No form of extreme state control or totalitarianism is acceptable. Here the USA has totally destroyed any credibility it ever had, over holding any moral high ground. The mere existence of Guantanamo / Bagram and the absence of any prosecution of Blair/Bush/Cheney shows where the USA is headed ( i maintain the rot set in with the Warren Commissions report on Kennedy). Does the freedom to consume goods excessively, compensate for such abuses of fundamental laws? is that a "Nicer" form of freedom?
 
Western Europe is a free enterprise, capitalist society whose excesses are modified by social democratic principles. Here Europe is surprisingly consistent, with similar socialist policies accepted by politicians of the left wing and right wing alike, regardless of European country. Any financial crises in Europe such as Greece, Spain, Ireland and weaknesses in the UK, Italy, Portugal are firmly rooted in the tentacle like spread of casino-capitalism from the USA. Greed and profligacy seem to be infectious...
 
Vietnam and Cuba are fundamentally socialist societies which are run on authoritarian lines because of paranoia over an existential threat from a predatory USA. Vietnam has been able to move to free market principles after realising that its authoritarian approach was self destructive and that the USA no longer posed an existential threat. Cuba continues to face an existential threat through unneccessary trade restrictions. But dont knock Cuba: this authoritarian society has better healthcare than the USA.
 
Latin America has been under the feudal yoke of US corporate interests and because of socialist movements, has been able to grow more rapidly, as a higher share of citizens gain a higher share of national income. By no means perfect but getting there...
 
The reason for right wing fearmongering in the USA about socialism, is because the feudal system would be upset. If the richest 1% of Americans own as much as 95% of the rest, then any wish to have a higher share by the 95% is of course an existential threat to the richest 1%. The only way that the 1% can retain control, is by turning the USA into an authoritarian state, which is where the USA is in my view, firmly headed. Other nations have torn down walls: the USA and Israel are the only wall builders currently.
 
Contrast this with Europe: because of post 1945 socialist movements, a financially strong working class and middle class has been able to gain a higher share of national income. This in turn spreads more finance over a wider population: By being more socialist, Europe has developed sounder capitalist principles than the USA. Ironic really that it has been hijacked by casino - capitalism.
 
Fundamentally, there are basic services such as the supply of gas, water, electricity, rail transport and city bus services, healthcare, low income housing, and telephony, which should be under the control of the state, with state regulated pricing, to create an equitable social environment. Most privatisation has simply increased the trend towards feudalism. Any arguments that state control is less effective than private control, misses the point that a fair society will have fair regulation. Maass relies on socialism being accepted through a fundamental decency and ethic deep within man: This could be applied in certain mature cultures, such as Scandinavia or Switzerland but feudal forces appear to be too strong in many societies (particularly those in which the USA has some military or political control) to allow any reasoned discussion of new and more equitable social orders...
 
The richest 1% of Americans, cannot put all the finance they have accumulated back into stimulating the economy. They can only manage the discontent of the other 95% by organising domestic repression and intimidating other nations through perpetual warfare and increasing the volume of propaganda...but it creates a distopian
Orwellian society which will decay, like all such empires with unsound political, social and economic structures have in the past.
Seen from Europe, the hope certainly was that Obama would be more socialist but the evidence points to his embracing of the status quo in matters of finance and military as well as healthcare reform and that makes him as right wing as his predecessor. But Obama did point out that steering the ship of state out of turbulent waters was tricky when the ship was so large...Time for him to throw the money changers out of the temple?
 
In my student days in 1974, i made a prediction that the Soviet Union would one day embrace freedom and the USA would turn totalitarian.
I also made a prediction that scientists would one day be able to put a laser onto an aircraft and shoot down satellites or other aircraft with it.
In both cases my pontifications were ridiculed by fellow students.
 
Its been fun waiting to see if my predictions will come to pass...


But Why Federal? Why does it have to be a one size fits all system, why not respect each State's sovereignty and social differences. Centralized control leads to corruption and misery every time, if a country is large. Local is good, local taxing authority, local spending, local oversight. I have spent time in two Communist countries and they are lousy places to live and very repressive. Anyone here who glamorizes such a collectivist system needs to talk to some of the people who have suffered the indignities of immigrating to the US to get away from those miserable societies before forming an opinion. Go to Miami and talk to some Cubans - they are in shock that we could be so stupid as to consider increasing Socialism here. Our wealth has already been redistributed - to private bankers - that's where it went. That's what centralized taxing and spending authority will get you - broke for three generations to come. Courtesy of 'Progressives' and 'Conservatives' alike - the titles are such a con - like we've made any progress or saved anything - welfare or war - take your pick. The third way is a return to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, local control, freedom to trade in the currency of our choice (such as gold and silver, without being taxed on it as a 'collectible'), shutting down the Fed, getting Federal troops out of our communities and leaving law enforcement up to local authorities, restoring habeas corpus - vote Libertarian - give both parties the boot.

The whole Capitalist/Socialist debate will be argued for decades to come - with no clear consensus as to which is the better ...

What the world - for all it's advancements into the education and knowledge/insight into understanding, respecting people's sociology-political dispositions- along with tolerance and respect for people's ethnicity, culture, languages and traditions - have yet to come to grips with Humanism/Collectiveism ... general compassion for the survival of our Beloved Mother Earth and all species - for corporate greed and the instant gratification of the materialst "me-me" generation still rules by the practice of denial ...

Not only do world markets determine where the masses "belong" but that everything they have perpetuated under the guise of a Judea/Christian value system. Unfortunately- even governments of vastly differing systems are kept in place ... propped up by nefarious corporations - the real rulers of the world ... sigh ...

Okay, one more time! You can call anything you want "socialism." Bismarck called his programs "socialism," Hitler called his crap "socialism," and Stalin called his repression "socialism." Nobody has "lived under socialism," got it? Saying you've lived under "socialism" because you lived under a "communist" dictatorship that called itself "socialist" is like saying you lived under "democracy" because the country called itself "the democratic people's republic of..." Marx said that the working class, not some crazy "vanguard" or some half-assed wannabe "leader" would have to "win the battle of democracy" and take power. And the only way a class can run things is via democracy. The tiny ruling class of super rich and powerful runs itself like a committee. Think Council on Foreign Relations type organizations, etc. If the working class (which is really almost everyone) was in charge, we would have democracy. Instead of having a small vampire class of freeloading "investors" creaming off all the wealth they can and a large unemployed class increasingly being supported by regressive taxes (so also on employed workers' backs), everyone would actually have to get a job and work. If we did away with profits for absentee owners and put them and the unemployed to work and got rid of the products and services that are clearly harmful, we'd all get an enormous pay raise and work a shorter week. We would own the workplaces where we worked, but they would also have to meet community health and safety standards, environmental rules and transparency guidelines. Companies wouldn't own other companies, and less efficient companies wouldn't be forced out of business, because they wouldn't have the state-granted monopolies we call patents, and they would all have access to the same technologies and easy credit from the credit unions (not private banks, which are just vampires). So we would have real competition that would make the market work, not an ever-accelerating spiral of creeping monopoly and private fortunes big enough to tempt the rich to rig the system. Would it be perfect? Probably not, but it sounds a lot better to me than what we've got running us off a financial, social and environmental cliff right now. And until we see this sort of thing in practice, we haven't seen socialism, no matter what some gang of self-appointed conspirators has set up or what they call their fake "socialism." You want to see Socialism in action? Join a union.
Erik

This is truly the stupidest article I have read in awhile. First of all, capitalism does not fund world governments or our nuclear program. The government stealing from us (ie, taxes) funds these things. Free market capitalism in its proper form, is NOT what we have and all of these crises are fueled by government intervention. If govt got out of our lives and allowed the free market to regulate itself, rather than imposed its own inane regulations, things would look much better. AND if the government would stop stealing from us, there would be no 6 billion dollars to spend on military occupation and unjust wars.

Oh wow, that makes a lot of sense dude.

Lou
www.online-privacy.de.tc

This is really academic. As long as the majority of the American people believe that progressivism and the brutal, oppressive totalitarian Soviet regime are synonymous, we will continue to move to the right.

The American people have been brainwashed into a pathological fear and loathing of government as an institution.

The crux of this article is disturbing. The idea of Socialism is a response to the alleged theft of worker's labor. Even if that could be proven, you still have only a private justification for action by the robbed employee and the thieving employer, not a general justification for system change.

Tell me, how are laborers robbed by their employer of anything (assuming they freely bargained for their wages), when it is only because of the employer that they have a job at all.

We are not capitalist, we are corporatist. In our corporatism, we transgress free markets and capitalism. Were we truly capitalist, and a pure representative republic as originally designed, these problems would not be. However, because of the meddling from everyone in government to everyone in corporations, we are not what we were intended to be and will not go where it was intended for us to go.

Change should indeed happen, but people like Obama will not bring it and people like those in corporations will fight it every step of the way.

Cool story bro.

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith

"Capitalism" isn't working because it doesn't exist in this world.

Also, stop calling it capitalism - the word was created by none other than socialists long ago.. The proper term should be "free enterprise" and if we truly did have that things would be much better.

Socialist agendas and corporatism are the enemies to our society. Don't get me wrong, helping those in need is often a good thing but punishing the hard working money makers to do it is not.

Corporatism is the major problem in the USA. Government and corporations in bed together equal all sorts of bad things. What do you expect to happen?

Also think about this, when people complain about "capitalism" who are they complaining about? Do they cite small and medium sized businesses? Really, do they say oh those small businesses are ruining this country? No they don't, they complain about big corporations. They are the problem, and specifically their influence and collusion with government is the main problem.

So before you start blaming "capitalism" for our problems do some serious thinking about the real source of the issues at hand. You'll find the problems have little to do with capitalism and a lot to do with corruption in government.

Anon your comment about Marx is sickening, you should leave this country and go to China where I think you will enjoy it more. They are a murderous country just like Marx was.

Point me to the purely capitalist economy that you are criticizing. No economy on planet as far as I known is purely capitalistic. They all have socialistic elements to them. So how do you decide that it is the capitalist side of the economy that is to blame? Maybe the problem is corporatism. Maybe it is the fact that all the politicians are in bed with the corporations which is a completely independent issue. I really hate this trend of capitalism as failed articles. It is a straw man fallacy every time until you prove to me that the economies that you are criticizing are actually capitalist. Without any actual real world examples, this is just drivel. Congratulations on creating another one of this stupid articles.

There is no white or black. There is no real, capitalist-to-the-bone country. There are elements of socialism in every capitalist country. The US is FAR from being a pure socialist country. There are historic tendencies that change. Right now there is a tendency more to the center, away from purely capitalist ideals.

@doris,

"I am not a Christian, but many capitalist conservatives claim to be, and put money interests above human interests as a matter of policy, even though their own God makes it clear that the love of money is the root of all evil."

No, that is not what the Bible says. It says that money is the "root of all kinds of evil", not "all evil".

I Live in the richest nation that ever existed with all of the best opportunities to grow strive and succeed. I have access to cheap food, any type I could possibly want, any piece of technology I could possibly want, most which could be bought with a weeks paycheck if I make minimum wage. We have a powerful army to protect us, the freedom to say and worship any god we please or no god at all.

YET THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I don't like it I want more more more for doing nothing. This world owes me. I've never lived in a socialist nation but I'm sure it's better than stupid capitalism.

This article is ridiculous. Why is Socialism good? Apparently because X number of people say so. There isn't anything substantive as to the theory of Socialism or why it supposedly trumps Capitalism. Of course, I would expect nothing less from a Socialist writer who is incapable of thinking in principle. And as to all those poor, exploited workers -- who the hell do you think gives them jobs in the first place? Business owners like me, that's who! And hell yes, I plan to make money off their labor, just like I plan to promote any one of them all the way to the top if warranted based on their ability to produce.

Here's a tip -- You want a practical, real-world result demonstrating the best Socialism has to offer? Take a look at the EU. The best it has to offer is three countries in financial default and no way out except for the central government to print more fiat currency which thereby devalues the labor of the only country on that continent that knows how to put in an honest day's work -- Germany.

"I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt

Thank you! I have been looking forward to open debate on the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism. All forms of government have limitations and drawbacks. Selfishness in capitalistic societies causes problems (I hold that it causes problems for socialist systems as well).

I have a question about a central belief of socialists- that value is stolen from the worker to benefit the few:

How is value stolen from workers when we as workers choose to trade value for value...the value of our time and energy for the value of our paycheck? Workers create value with their labor that is TRADED for other things of value. Employers and corporations profit by taking the risks necessary to provide productive opportunities for employees.

My opinion is that legalized theft occurs when governments create more currency (inflation which causes a rise in prices) to pay for social programs. Also, legalized theft occurs when property is taken by force from one individual for the sole benefit of another through tax systems that support lopsided social welfare schemes. Taxes for roads, bridges and military protection are one thing, but taxes that force redistribution of wealth are a form legalized theft.

I think Greece's current economic situation is a good example of the dangers socialist policies can present. The nation took on debt to finance social programs but now the piper is demanding his payment.

Thanks,
William

Im not supporting lazy people. If you work hard in high school and keep your head out of your ass you can get into college. Work hard in college and you can get a good job. I did this and so did my wife. We both make about 40K a year, s0 80 K together. That is more than enough to live a happy in most places. Dont tell me that cannot be done by most people. I didnt come from some rich family, I simply didnt expect anybody to pay my way and I worked hard.

anybody for this current system, and against a new start, is going to face a brutal end.

I cant believe the ridiculousness of this whole argument!

Too many mistakes to even begin really, but I'll pick one.

The assertion that lots of people in the world are poor is the fault of capitalism is beyond stupid, but I'll stick to calling it a massive logical fallacy.

You could equally say that the aforementioned poor countries need more capitalism so they can stop being poor...

I would point out that Africa has consistenly been run according to Socialist principles (exchange controls and whole lot of regulation leading to mass poverty and corruption)

I would point out that the greatest human misery and poverty occurred under Socialist principals (PRC, India post-independence, The Soviet Union).

Further, capitalism is NOT about money over people. It's about people living their lives as they see fit, engaging in commerce with others as they see fit.

And last but not least, can we ditch this idea that capitalism invented greed. People have been driven by self-interest since time immemorial. ALL societes invent luxury goods, status, and power accumulation.

Poor people in 'evil' capitalism are the luckiest poor people who have ever lived by any standard. We've always had poverty, it's now relative rather than absolute...

Anyone who suggests socialism is an acceptable and viable way of governing the economy and society is a fool.

Like Creation or Evolution, people who feel they know anything in this area are black and white on their declaration of Socialism vs Capitalism.

Anyone who thinks America is entirely capitalist is a fool, there are many approaches in place in the US, including Socialized public systems, and capitalist economics. The approach couldn't be better. National public systems such as roads and water systems are best run as national systems by the government to ensure the same, high standard for safety. Never forget, humans are flawed, so let's not call up specifics. The system as a whole does excellently well considering the demands.

Anyone who doesn't believe in a synthesis of ideas or benefits is a fool, and anyone that tells you Socialism is a viable economic model is the same. Capitalism is the most efficient model of goods distribution; but it succeeds only when people recognize that Socialized systems are good for all people. Checks and balances. That is what helps Capitalism thrive.

Socialism didnt work either... see Greece

If you want socialism, please consider moving to another country where it is embraced. My opinion, socialism breeds laziness. If you want something, work for it - don't expect a handout.

The Crux of the capitalist system is being completely ignored here.

"meeting the needs of the largest number of people in society" is NOT the goal (and here's the philosophical difference) nor should it be.

The issue is scalability. On a local level where people are directly in touch with and accountable to their neighbors, collectivization is required to get anything done, and slackers are dealt with at the local level. When you scale up, the social space in which you can become a net drain on society without consequence increases geometrically until it is MORE personally rewarding to be a drain than a benefit to society.

What capitalism offers is not justice, nor some nonsensical religious fulfillment nor the greatest benefit for the most people, but something that speaks FAR more directly to the human psyche, OPPORTUNITY. Earning disparity is a GREAT THING in that it provides REAL, tangible benefits to working hard and being creative. Yes there will be tragedy, but EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of society is empowered to improve their lot in life, and history shows that they will. Civil society is perfectly capable of feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.

I have the impression that you do not know who is a socialist and the evils it causes in the world. A Democrat may be a socialist capitalist without their ideas (those of you) harmful.

Capitalism has not failed, because it is no longer practiced... When you have a mix of both, they do not work.... Tell me of a Socialist country that is doing better then a Capitalist country(and I use Capitalist loosely).

Wow, where do I begin? Not enough time to or space to list ALL the reasons AGAINST Socialism as there are too many. Suffice it to say if you're idiotic enough to believe anything other than Government is absolutely and only a necessary evil and that politics is an inherently corrupt entity and has to be given very limited powers then you belong in Venezuela with a delightful Dictator named Hugo Chavez.
Always easier to just take the production of my labors than work hard yourself and actually earn a living. Pathetic.

"How else to ensure that every person on the planet has enough food, water, shelter, education, and leisure to live a fulfilling and productive life?"

this is the conclusion of the article, but keep in mind, having food, water, and healthcare are not and should not be the RIGHTS of everyman.

if you're a lazy a-hole, and i'm a hardworker, then you perish and i succeed. this is how every species works. to think that government can magically "fix" this "problem" by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is lunacy. in fact, the more power we give them to treat us like children, the more corrupt and tyrannical they will become.

Has anyone here actually read any of EK Hunt or Marx? If not please do or at least bother to learn something about economics before you talk about this topic. I've learned it's too complicated to be discussed on the surface without any real depth of knowledge.

If you wanna see the fruits of socialism I say look toward the current ticking time bomb that is Greece and the rest of the "Club Med" countries.

Great opening line, except....

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...."
Joseph Goebbels.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin.

in the link the author suggest that socializm is a response to capitalizm which is a "theft" from the "workers". Imo this is false construct - capitalizm is a recapitulation of the *feudal system*. Once you see this proper responses become easier. The paradigm of "left-right" is a false one.

The issue of apportionment of wealth is not a simple one. No single concept alone can or will be sufficiently complete so as to be equitable nor functional. A dynamic system is required. The issue then becomes which rules are required to achieve what results. No simple to derive...

no ideological or dogmatic thesis will produce the proper result...

Please do have a look at Venezuela and how much the misery and crime have increased, how the GDP is in steady decline and how people that are not payed by the government (and even some of those who are) watch with despair how their country is driven to the ground by a "socialist" president.
My issue is not with sharing, but there is a big difference between providing equal opportunities and handing stuff out to keep the masses quiet (panem et circenses).
Another case in point: last couple of weeks' financial turmoil has been caused by liberal-socialist countries in Europe. How can a country with most of it's workforce employed by the government (in non-productive activities) have enough money to keep their European Union life standards? Answer is they can't... they need other countries to bail them out.

Just a quick note. The US is quite socialist, was even before the term was widely used. This socialism is a little different in that it socializes costs but privatizes the profits. There is not an industry in the US that does not receive direct or indirect money from the government. Argibiz receives huge subsidies directly, but also indirectly due to lower land use taxes, no sales tax on certain items. And in the west subsidized water, water delivery, and power. Same with most all the extraction industries. And transit, pharma, banking. the list goes on. And if you choose not to believe me, check out opensecrets.org - it lists the corporations/industries and what they give to politicians to keep this gravy train in place.

Well, Anonymous on 5/28 at 3:54 - Obviously, no one is going to tell you to follow the rules, even it's as simple as getting your terms correct; Chavez is not a dictator just 'cause you don't like him. He was democratically elected TWICE.

Once again, as always, the people writing against what they describe as "Socialism", display an almost staggering level of ignorance about the subject, as many other comments point out.
To describe Obama as a Socialist is beyond ludicrous. The man is clearly a Capitalist Corporocrat of the first order, as evidenced by his cozy relationship with Wall Streeters like Geitner and Summers, not to mention his forgiveness of BP and others.
The constant equating of Soviet Russia and the PRC with Socialism is just plain BS.
Where is has been practised successfully, as Social Democracy, in countries like Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands et al, Socialism seems to be just fine.
Where it has been practised successfully, in countries like Japan, and most especially the United States, Capitalism seems to be an unmitigated disaster for all of us except a few greedy, rich sos of bitches at the very top of the heap.
Every time I read the coments on Truthout, I am amazed at the ignorance and basic lack of education evidenced by most people who argue for the political Right. Whatever happened to intelligent Conservatives like William F. Buckley? Now there was a Right winger who could argue with some sense!

Socialism is not going to stop war....the greedy leaders need the profits to maintain the bottom line in their bank accounts. What will we do with our military if we eliminate war.

Socialism will not cause any equitable distribution of wealth. We're have two groups: us and them.

Socialism will not end poverty and hunger.

Pushing people into "sustainable communities" so out-of-touch and corrupt academics, out-of-touch and corrupt CEO's, and out-of-touch and corrupt government leaders can take care of us for the common good is a ridiculous pipedream. These people do not want to take care of anything or anyone other than themselves!

Does anyone really believe that Bill Clinton or George Bush (either one), had the good of average and ordinary people at heart? And how bout their henchmen, Cheney, Rummy, North, Hillary, Kissinger. It's time to take back the country from these psychopaths.

I lived under communism before the Berlin wall came down, and frankly, other than the TV, it was better than the American system.

"I could go on for pages describing the misery of socialism, but I doubt it will do any good. However, it's a fact that the ONLY people who want socialism are the ones who never lived under it. I have. Most of the time I have respect for other people opinions, but this article is just pure stupidity."

NO. This boilerplate capitalist propaganda rant is pure stupidity. Polls all over the former East bloc say life was better even under the rickety, undemocratic communist party form of socialism than it is now. The best standards of living are mostly in the socialist countries now, with the exception of France, which the US calls socialist as well.

Have to love the commentary by the RW Libertarians here who seem to be under the delusion that an average worker (one of say, 100, who applied for the job in the first place) can negotiate on anything approaching a level footing with a prospective employer. "Oh, I want $10.00 an hour to do this job... and benefits" when the employer knows very well that someone out there in the line will accept $3.00 a day and a moldy sandwich they can eat while on the floor for a job. It's a race to the bottom.

Now I can't say if socialism is the answer, though there's a good chance that an effective balance of capitalism and socialism might be a heck of lot better than what we have in the states now. But one thing's for certain--we have proof that social democracies actually work. All the righties have, at best, is theory. Folks, read a Dickens novel. Study U.S. history between the end of the Civil War and WWII. This is the world they'd like to recreate. No thanks.

African Mango - Weight Loss: http://mhlnk.com/29EE7418
African Mango - Weight Loss
[url="http://mhlnk.com/29EE7418"]African Mango - Weight Loss[/url]

Viagra,Cialis,Weight Loss,Stop Smoking,Propecia: http://getproductsofic.com
Viagra,Cialis,Weight Loss,Stop Smoking,Propecia
[url="http://getproductsofic.com"]Viagra,Cialis,Weight Loss,Stop Smoking,Propecia[/url]