A discussion for Alan (American Socialism)

[Despanan]

So, I was thinking the other day about a way to create a distinctly American brand of socialism which would appeal to the average flag-waving American. The problem with this, as we have seen with the Tea Party's 1776 fetishism, is that American culture has an innate distrust of the State, as the popular consensus holds that we are a country born out of revolution against a state which did not represent us.

The other major ideological stumbling block to socialistic reform in the US is the popular concept of "The American Dream" ie: social standing is raised through hard work. There is a resistance to social programs because many Americans (incorrectly) believe that by taxing the wealthy, and enacting social programs to level the laying field for the less-fortunate you are unfairly stealing from those who have worked to attain the American Dream and giving others "Handouts". Thus encouraging laziness and flying in the face of concepts such as personal responsibility.

It is not uncommon to hear the above arguments used as rhetoric by the American Right. These arguments are coupled with the McCarthy-era anti-communist fears, Jingoistic xenophobia (You saying EUROPEANS are better than AMERICANS?) and ad-nauseum recitations of "Socialism Doesn't work" and The Free Market is just BETTER. Even today, after the Bush era robbed the country of it's greatest economic surplus ever and nearly plunged us into a second great depression, the popular consensus is that "Republicans know more about, and are more responsible with money than the Democrats".

The problem is not that socialism itself is unpalatable to Americans, or that it actually flies in the face of the American dream or American culture, the problem is that the branding of socialism is distinctly foreign and it's language is not one that Americans really understand.

So here is my proposal: If there's one thing the average American understands, it's The American constitution, our system of checks and balances, and the founding fathers. We have these concepts drilled into our heads throughout most of our early school years, and the majority of the country sees American democracy as the model upon which the civilized world is built. Why not create an economic constitution and Bill of Rights? Why not approach planning an economy with the same/similar system of checks and balances that the American government utilizes in order to prevent despotism, and use it to combat corporatism?

What you would have is a distinctly American brand of socialism, which invokes the language and spirit of the American Revolution, with the emphasis on fair-play, personal responsibility, hard work, and freedom from economic oppression? No more would socialism hold the stigma of emasculated foreign nanny-states/excessive government supression of the free market, or at least these arguments would be deflated and the average joe would know what we were talking about.

What do you think Jillian? You now more about this shit than me. Has this been thought of already? Has it been put into practice?

[Alan]

I started writing a lot but I erased it because I realized I don't think I would advocate for an "American socialism"
I don't know how much to say about this subject, but I will say that the fear of the "Europeanization of America" is a valid concern. If an American socialism were simply an attempt at communism that doesn't simply try to make America more European, that'd be alright, but what things would be implicit in American socialism that wouldn't be implicit in socialism on its own?
It's kind of the same objection than the "religious charity" argument I was asking SansMerci some weeks ago.

[Despanan]

It would be more about branding and implementation than really making it differ from socialism on any real ideological level.

I'm sure there'd be some differences to make it more relevant to our culture, but right now I'm thinking about structuring it like the US constitution. We would create a living document which would set down rules and rights for governing certain industries, the subsidation of others, and the handling of specific property rights etc.

It would probably also avoid nasty language like "redistribution of wealth" and "proletariat" etc.

I'm not a communist, and I'm not proposing communism under a different name, I'm proposing we take the philosophy and structure behind the American government and use it to fashion a more socialistic, planned approach to economics in the United States.

Basically it would be fashioning a document which would mandate fair competition in business, fair hiring practices, work hours, and a fair profit margin cap before it must be re-invested in the company/given over to the government, put in language that the average American would respond to and understand, and invokes the spirit of the American Revolution: this time it's not against King George, but Corporatism.

[Despanan]

It would be more about branding and implementation than really making it differ from socialism on any real ideological level.

I'm sure there'd be some differences to make it more relevant to our culture, but right now I'm thinking about structuring it like the US constitution. We would create a living document which would set down rules and rights for governing certain industries, the subsidation of others, and the handling of specific property rights etc.

It would probably also avoid nasty language like "redistribution of wealth" and "proletariat" etc.

I'm not a communist, and I'm not proposing communism under a different name, I'm proposing we take the philosophy and structure behind the American government and use it to fashion a more socialistic, planned approach to economics in the United States.

[Versus]

May I say something?

[CptSternn]

Ironically enough there are many structures that already exist in America that are of socialist origin, yet they are fully accepted by society. Maybe one could look to those as an example of where to draw ideas.

Look at police, firemen, EMTs, ambulance drivers, school teachers, libraries, national parks, social security, medicare, and thats just a few examples - there are more sure.

[KontanKarite]

Sternn, seriously, man... I wish I could agree with you on that and I do, but I'm starting to think that the normative American may not even notice that those are indeed socialist entities.

Check it out, I just got out of a huge argument about socialism with this sociopath military dude who thinks it'd be totally american to live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Ironically enough, this is a 20 year man and when I pointed out that his entire livelihood is determined by a generally socially conservative form of socialism, he fucking flipped out and his buddy tried to explain that just because the military is funded by the government doesn't mean that it is socialist in this country.

Seriously... that's a real conversation.

[Saya]

Ever watch The Century Of The Self on the BBC? We watched the first episode in class and it talked about how when Roosevelt tried to socialize industries to create jobs and save the country from the depression, big businesses hired Edward Bernays to sway public opinion in their favor. What he did was push the belief that free capitalism=democracy. And that seems to be what a lot of the fear about socialism comes form, well that and the Cold War mentality. You would have to uproot that belief.

I think you could do that with the average American, but sadly a lot don't seem to be that rational about it.

[JCC]

The way to implement socialism in America is basically Kenyesian economics. Reconcile socialism with the overarching philosophy of capitalism so that it becomes more like an extension of capitalism than a different system. And appeal to the economic self-interest of socialism rather than any sense of collectivist duty, since America is basically built on individualism. I saw an interview with Mario Cuomo talking about the healthcare debate where he said that if more emphasis was put on how public healthcare could be cheaper for the individual, of a better quality for the individual etc. rather than making broader arguments about how it's unfair that the disabled/terminally ill/whatever are priced out of healthcare then it could've gone much further than it did, and perhaps we would have seen the implementation of a bona fide public option. It is a sad fact that America will not buy socialism as a collectivist ideology.

[Versus]

The courtesy time to say "No, I wasn't talking to you. Fuck off." has elapsed.

What is the "language and spirit of the American Revolution?"

[KontanKarite]

Basically, what he meant was to have generally a kind of pseudo economic revolution where a second constitution for the regulation of economics be written and abided by.

The constitution was originally written to combat overreaching authority of the state/government. But from what we've seen in this day, not all fascism wears a crown or a uniform. As important as the government's role is in our lives, so is the presence and practices of how business is done, something I don't think the founding fathers gave much thought to or even considered happening.

So he was thinking on adapting the language and spirit of that constitution to approach not just government, but economics in order to make the market more autonomous and egalitarian.

[Despanan]

Basically?

The American Government was built and is structured in such a way as to prevent one branch/person from seizing too much power at any one time, thus minimizing the amount of damage that they can do. The whole thing is structured quite rigidly (and brilliantly) in order to prevent despotism.

Well now it's nearly 2011, and regardless of what the republicans and the Tea Party has to say, America really doesn't have to really fear government encroachment upon their liberties. What they have to worry about is big business (especially Oil, Pharmasudicals, and Insurance) trampling on their rights (both as workers and consumers) in the name of their bottom line.

Basically we don't need to fear tyrrany from King George, we need to fear tyranny from Enron.

[Versus]

I understand what you said, but thank you both for the reiteration anyway.

What I mean is:

1)What, exactly, is the language and spirit with which it would be written?

2)And why would that specific aspect

-resonate with,

-and motivate,

the nation to pursue an economic revolution?

[Alan]

I can see why you would think this is a discussion for me, but in the kindest sense, this doesn't appeal to me at all.
The basic assumption is all flawed to begin with. First of all, it's not an American thing to love Constitution (note I didn't say "the Constitution")
This attempt tries to reconcile the "militia" wannabes from populism into leftism, but there's a myriad reasons why this can't, won't, and shouldn't happen.

Second, even if this were desirable, the love is not for Constitution but for the Constitution. If you were to propose to the hypothetical average American you're targeting, a new constitution, they would see it as blasphemy.
It's not like they think a piece of paper will be better than human judgment. It's that they trust the human judgment of the founding fathers, embodied in a piece of paper, and they really won't accept such a radical addition to it.
A better method would be to show them how socialism does not contradict the Constitution in any statute.

[Despanan]

I think Deadman has colored your perception of Americans.

While I agree, the "Constitutionalist" nutjobs (ie: Rednecks who see it as some sort of bible-esque document, and approach the American revolution with an air of fetishistic awe) would lose their shit over it. But they're going to lose their shit over everything so who cares?

The average American sees it in a much more reasonable light. They know that it's a living document (hence why some people and political groups pursue the addition of amendments for this or that).

I'm not talking about a new Constitution to replace our current one, I like the one we have. I'm talking about a supplemental Constitution crafted specifically to apply to trade as opposed to government.

[Alan]

Exactly. To those whom you can already convince for more socialist policies, the constitutionalist structure won't be necessary. And to those for whom you would need a constitutionalist structure, you're not gonna convince them anyway.

[KontanKarite]

Basically, I think all you really can do in that instance is pretty much show to the constitutionalists exactly what about unchecked free markets is unconstitutional. There's several ways to show it within the original document if simply applied over the economic structure now.

[LadyThoreau]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Basically, I think all you really can do in that instance is pretty much show to the constitutionalists exactly what about unchecked free markets is unconstitutional. There's several ways to show it within the original document if simply applied over the economic structure now.

A free market system is not unconstitutional. It's when governments start passing heavy regulation and begin favoring a particular company over another that we begin to have a corporate take over of society. A free market system is the most fair and democratic system we have. We have an ever changing selection, instead of two candidates. Our dollar is worth as much as anyone else's dollar, a truly equal vote that is wanted by the vendor. The vendor cannot cheat you because he risks losing your dollar. However, the politician can BS you, get your vote, and get away with it.
When you try to make an "American socialism," the loudest complainers will not be the idiotic Tea Party, which doesn't even know what its own stance on anything is. No, the fiercest opposition will be your libertarians. We know a government run monoply when we see one. Having the government take over healthcare will be no different to us than if Allstate were the only healthcare provider in America.
Then again, libertarians are generally smart enough not to try and tackle and oversized mob. We'd probably head somewhere like New Zealand or certain parts of South America to avoid this BS.

[KontanKarite]

But libertarians are idiots. Do you REALLY expect a business to value the life of a person over their bottom line? I highly doubt it.

Capitalism at its core, is NOT that democratic, especially when it's capitalism on this kind of scale. Basically, FUCK your perceived right to own industry and control it as you see fit.

You want to talk about the virtues of a capitalist system, look no further than the workers that make it possible, that have to work TWO fucking jobs and more hours a week and STILL work under the legal limit of full time so that they can't get insurance. Look no further than the CEOs and the hyper rich, that 2% of the nation that controls a 3rd of our nation's wealth. Look no further than companies that threaten their workers and use scare tactics against them unionizing.

You NEED protection from unchecked capitalism and it's those that champion capitalism the most that would rail against an American form of socialism.

Libertarians... you guys are fucking stupid. You know what Libertarians REALLY care about? A police force that'll protect their right to private property and whatever they think that private property should be.

So yes. I agree. Keep big business well the FUCK out of my government OR fucking regulate the FUCK out of industry and big business as if it's the domain of the mother fucking people by a truly representative democracy.

Tell you what. Tell me, instead of using rhetoric, how Libertarianism is supposed to work. Tell us how it is supposed to be the ANSWER to our economic woes. I bet you can't, other than the fact that you have faith that a company's board of directors actually GIVES a shit about the quality of life and morale of its workers.

Capitalism: maximizing your profit while minimizing your bottom line. It's really not that hard of a model to emulate and it's god damned abusive.

[Alan]

OH, goody, a capitalist, I shall destroy your beliefs and make you a commie.
Not right now, though, it's the weekend. Bear with me till monday.

[Alan]

Kontan, I know it's very hard but please wait until I can also participate in the conversation, this is something we gotta be in at the same time.

[KontanKarite]

You have my support and I know you'll have Despanan's. This bitch is gonna get totally dominated. Can I play bad cop? I'm so good at it.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Despanan

...
Well now it's nearly 2011, and regardless of what the republicans and the Tea Party has to say, America really doesn't have to really fear government encroachment upon their liberties. What they have to worry about is big business (especially Oil, Pharmaceuticals, and Insurance) trampling on their rights (both as workers and consumers) in the name of their bottom line.

Basically we don't need to fear tyranny from King George, we need to fear tyranny from Enron.

One glaring example is the South American Coca-Cola Company killing bottling plant workers who tried to unionize.
(http://www.killercoke.org/ ... Murder: it's the Real Thing)

And let's not forget Union Carbide's mass murder and mayhem in the pursuit of profits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

[LadyThoreau]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

But libertarians are idiots. Do you REALLY expect a business to value the life of a person over their bottom line? I highly doubt it.

Capitalism at its core, is NOT that democratic, especially when it's capitalism on this kind of scale. Basically, FUCK your perceived right to own industry and control it as you see fit.

You want to talk about the virtues of a capitalist system, look no further than the workers that make it possible, that have to work TWO fucking jobs and more hours a week and STILL work under the legal limit of full time so that they can't get insurance. Look no further than the CEOs and the hyper rich, that 2% of the nation that controls a 3rd of our nation's wealth. Look no further than companies that threaten their workers and use scare tactics against them unionizing.

You NEED protection from unchecked capitalism and it's those that champion capitalism the most that would rail against an American form of socialism.

Libertarians... you guys are fucking stupid. You know what Libertarians REALLY care about? A police force that'll protect their right to private property and whatever they think that private property should be.

So yes. I agree. Keep big business well the FUCK out of my government OR fucking regulate the FUCK out of industry and big business as if it's the domain of the mother fucking people by a truly representative democracy.

Tell you what. Tell me, instead of using rhetoric, how Libertarianism is supposed to work. Tell us how it is supposed to be the ANSWER to our economic woes. I bet you can't, other than the fact that you have faith that a company's board of directors actually GIVES a shit about the quality of life and morale of its workers.

Capitalism: maximizing your profit while minimizing your bottom line. It's really not that hard of a model to emulate and it's god damned abusive.

1. A business values the life of a person because people make up its working base and consumer base.

2. We wouldn't have to work two jobs just afford a relatively comfortable standard of living if it weren't for the heavy regulation and taxes imposed on us by the government. Also, that 2% that controls the nation's wealth will become the 2% elite who run the country if we turn to socialism. All socialism will do is remove the middle class. Why? That 2% control production. The products are needed by the consumer. The other 98% make up the consumers. I will go into how the free market system, not to be confused with what I define as capitalism, can remove this problem.

3. How can you say we need protection from unchecked capitalism if you don't know what that is. What we live in today is anything but unchecked capitalism

4. "Libertarians... you guys are fucking stupid. You know what Libertarians REALLY care about? A police force that'll protect their right to private property and whatever they think that private property should be."
I have no idea what you are confusing us with. As far as the libertarian articles say, we hardly want any government, and we feel society is safer and better without police, provided that we allow the individual to be armed. Please get your facts about libertarians from a libertarian source. They know what they hold as ideals when the media doesn't.

5. By regulating industry we ultimately only make it possible for there to be nothing but big businesses. Regulations ultimately mean that businesses have a set of rules to follow, but it doesn't ensure that they follow them. Think back in the news, all the greatest health problems related to products were in the regulated big businesses. Are those companies, such as Hasbro or Agra, out of business today? No. Regulation only serves to give this large companies a monopoly.

Now I agree with your definition of capitalism. That is why I prefer to define the best economic system as the Free Market system. It doesn't necessarily describe the goal as quick profit, no expense. The nature of a free market system is that there is no control on the system. This is the most accepted idea for Libertarianism. In fact, Libertarianism can often be describe as a variation of anarchy. The main difference is that pure anarchy doesn't allow the formation of any organized system. Libertarianism only wants all people to be completely free. We accept libertarianism ideas as fully capable of functioning because of humanity's general inherent goals.

Now we get into philosophy.

People all have wants and needs, all leading to an ultimate end. All of these ultimate ends are defined as an ultimate good. We all want to thrive, we all want to live, we all want beauty, we all want love, we all want to be able to relax, etc. We can discover these goods naturally. We will never stop enjoying a pretty sunset, and if you take away our ability to breath, we will fight to the death to protect our life. If we value our loved ones over our own life, which most people do, we will fight, and if needed, die to protect them.

What does this have to do with minimalist government system?

We think that humanity is perfectly capable of looking after its own wellbeing without the interference of the government. If we took away the basic law against murder, how many people will actually go and kill another person? I say that the numbers of murders will hardly change, if not go down all together. Why? People will fear the consequence. Sure, there's no police going after them. No, instead they will have to face the unforgiven wrath of the family and friends of the deceased, who in most cases will deliver a punishment far worse.
So you can see how this would work socially. People will hand out their own punishment for crimes, protect themselves with their own hands and firearms, and just try and get along with everyone else.
Economically, business owners would have the similar fear. Cut your worker's paycheck and you run the risk of them abandoning the business in order to force you to give better wages or to find better jobs altogether. If you make your product too expensive, your consumer might shop elsewhere or do without. Because there are no regulations, any person could open a business. It is not necessary for them to go jump through the costly hoops just to get a permit. This allows anyone, not just the lucky few, to open up a business. Those who open a business have to tread carefully or else they run the risk of pissing off their consumers and the business fails.

In the end, this whole argument will boil down to what extent you trust the nature of humanity. If you think humanity is geared towards violence, then this system sounds like an absolute horror. If you think humanity is neutral or good, then this system is the best because it protects the largest crowds and the sole individual. My biggest problem with communism is that history has seen it fail or just survive sub-par for thousands of years.


If we head into socialism in the manner in which we are doing now- put the population on welfare, and the fit remains in the military and piss the hell out of and make failing, costly attempts to defeat other nations, we probably will end up in a similar situation. Now. there have been instances were forms of communism functioned very well. Unfortunately, those were extremely small scale in comparison to what we are dealing with now. I'm referring to the Mayans. Everybody had a certain task to complete in running society and in exchange for completing that task, they would receive a daily allowance and a promise to be cared for in their old years. Trade was limited to neighboring groups. They didn't pick fights because war ruins infrastructure which ruins the people's livelihood.
Granted, there are places in the world were socialism works. These places aren't world superpowers, they lack political problems, didn't get themselves stuck in the Euro, and don't pick fights with other countries. For them, socialism works. However our nation's leaders are far too aggressive. I would not trust them with attempts to run a socialist society.
I suppose I should tack another phrase here.
If you accept libertarianism, you trust the common man more than the leader.
If you accept socialism and communism, you trust the government more than the people.
Remember, though, the common man, not the government, does the work that puts food on the table and a roof over your head.

I don't necessarily require that you answer every point I make in my post, I'd be surprised if you could. Not that you are incapable, I just think it would take too much time and a lot of scrolling. However, I'd be content if you could state why socialism would work in America. Run down a hypothetical set of generations going through the socialist system. Make sure to go through all classes, those who set the paycheck and the work, and the workers.

Also, please refrain from name calling, and I'm not necessarily referring to Kontan. I would hope those who decide socialism and run it would be more civil than that.

[Alan]

Jesus fucking christ. That's such a big block of text that I don't want to deal with it while drunk, but I will say something that annoyed me that you repeated a lot of times:
You don't know what you're talking about if you think socialism and communism are an appeal to an elitist government handing out things to the poor masses.

Seriously, we used to be libertarians. You ain't got shit by saying that we don't understand your philosophy. We understand it so well that we see it's fucking stupid (like Christianity), but you show your own ignorance by failing to understand the idea of socialism from below, and failing to grasp the difference between the Public and the Common.