Good socialist newspaper

[Slap Your Love]

http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml

$5 USD for 12 issues. Can't beat it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

There's also socialistworker.org
but it's not a newspaper, just a site.

[PortraitOfSanity]

The Worker's Party has a really good newsletter.

[JCC]

Socialists suck, though.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Not those that work from the bottom up, e.g. SocialistWorker

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

What does bottom-up working entail?

[Godslayer Jillian]

It's the major difference between good politics and bad politics.
Let's put it in perspective:
Capitalism and fascism - bad politics. They are only politics of the top echelons for the top echelons.
Representation and social democracies - Sort of good. It's all about the masses according to them, but all the decisions are made by a few elites. That's working from the top to bottom.
Statist communism - sort of bad. That's literally and straight top-to-bottom politics. Lenin and Trotsky and those guys supposedly knew what's best for everyone and don't you dare question them.
Autonomism - quite good. It's not a name that's much known, but it works for this definition. It's the good form of socialism. The workers are the ones that take initiative in any change, and any form of administration is for once actually liable to the people it manages. Socialism with an honest social contract. That's the socialism I was referring to.
Marxism - pure bottom-up action. The whole point is that the workers of the world unite to create a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Anarchism in any of its forms - pure bottom-up action. Technically they're pretty identical in regards to the direction of power but it's cooler than Marxism.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Ahhhh so the actual people make decisions. I see.
I'm interested in this Autonomism thing. How would it be organized? Would people just say "We need more asparagus!" while the administration did things like taking census, going on diplomatic missions, and the like?
What would it be like in the way of taxes? And what about Health care?
Would it be a gradual thing that would convert existing framework to the new system?
I suppose allocation of jobs would be similar to the one we have now...
And such questions.

[tangent]
Dictators are best if they look at what food and stuff is needed by the people and dictate production based on that. (ex. this many bushels of wheat, this many of barley, so many pounds of tomatoes, this many cows, etc), with the rest of the land/labour being used to produce stuff for trade to get useful things that can't be produced in the country itself.
*hits a snag* >.< That sounds like a fucking difficult thing to balance... and people would probably have to do without some things, either on the side of things that can be made or of things that can be bought...
[/tangent]

[PortraitOfSanity]

You really can't call Socialism and Marxism too different ideologies. It's just that Socialism the broader term that Marxism would be a specific example of.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Just as anarchism is just another branch of socialism. I didn't even talk about Socialism in itself, because it's just an umbrella term.
All the ones I mentioned are types of socialism; it's not like the social democracy one is the Socialism.

[raggedyanne]

Yet hold many of the same values or ideals. Communism similarities to socialism fueled many arguments against it even when it (socialism) might be the better option of government. Take the current US economic issues and the bank failures. The government could have easily said "Bitch, please, we're regulating you fools" but they didn't. Because they were afraid of becoming communist .. . . and because they don't talk like that, but still.

Democracy and capitalism just cannot work together.

[JCC]

Marxists don't want dictatorship of the proletariat as you describe it, it's purely transitionary.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

*Snip*

Democracy and capitalism just cannot work together.

I think you're right on that one. I think recent effects on the economy aren't just due to poor leadership. It reminds me of this quote...sorry for not providing a link I couldn't find one. Basically it is to the effect of:
"A house divided against itself will fall."

I am definitely a person that likes the idea of socialism (as Jillian referred to it), however I have heard mixed things from people about countries where it is practiced.
For example, public health care. We already have a form of this called Medicaid and Medicare. I have heard horror stories. Hospitals, Drs, etc. don't take as good of care of the patients on government funded health care as the do of the ones who have private health insurance.
My husband's Grandmother is a perfect example. She was admitted to the hospital (though I don't want to go into details about her health problems) and they discharged her WAAAAAY before they should have because the government dictates how much the hospital gets paid for the hospital stay, etc etc. So in essence, hospitals lose money on these patients. Two days later, she died due to complications that arose from the reason she was admitted.

In essence, great idea in theory. I totally support a community that looks after everyone. It's my opinion (and just that) that a socialist society could EVENTUALLY (not yelling just emphasizing) lead to lower crime rates. My reason? When people feel bonded with a sense of responsiblity for one another, they are less likely to act agressively or otherwise towards another person. That is not to say that people still wouldn't be killing each other, or robbing banks.