[1]. If I had one wish for America and Americans it is that socialism, and what this word actually means, would be understood properly as the just, reasonable, and compassionate systems that it represents.
[1.1]. Socialism is not directly synonymous with communism. If it were, there would be no need for two separate terms. On my page concerning communism, I outright deny its ability to work given human psychology and the need for a fluid marketplace (building projects, enterprise, etc.).
Only extreme left-wing socialism is indicative of communism. Even many of the most conservative free-market thinkers in history expressed the need for help for those who need it, as well as providing free shelter, food, and clothing as basic necessities that can be provided for in a state. Workers must, in even the most capitalist-framed environments, be able to sustain their lives in order to be productive.
[1.5]. There can be free markets, free enterprise, and rich people in a socialist framework that is conservative in terms of economics- I do believe markets create a dynamic, fluid way of allowing for people to express their financial visions. But I also think certain circumstances must trump the freedom of the market as in cases where pollution or mass extinctions, for example, are concerned.
If humanity's last chance against an oncoming asteroid requires the using and taking of someone's private property, for example, then I think there is just cause to do so and violate the generally held principles of private ownership. Some things, like water, air, and perhaps even land, must be shared because we all need some degree of each to thrive.
[2]. Socialism is principally the idea that people should be helped where needed and where it is beneficial to society to do so. All public things are socialist things. Capitalism, at its most pure, allows for nothing public- be it roads, schools, parks, or even a police or military force.
[3]. Socialist government programs are those that help the people who need it or who are entitled to such help in a fair, just, and equitable economic and social environment. Despite a corporate media machine that says so, socialism is absolutely not the philosophy
used when the government bails out banks, car companies, and the rich
corporate sector. This helping of the rich and powerful corporations,
banks, etc. are examples of fascism, not socialism.
[4]. Common misconceptions about the word "socialism" in early American 21st century society:
- "All Socialists are the same". This is absolutely false.
Conservative socialism (America), moderate socialism (Canada,
Australia), left-wing socialism (France, Netherlands), and
ultra-liberal socialism (Sweden) are all very different ways of looking
at socialism. As a libertarian socialist, I think individual rights and privacy are of utmost importance but I also think the largest tax burden for the public good (police, firefighters, space
exploration, military, public schools, highways, bridges, canals,
healthcare assistance, food assistance, shelter assistance, clothing
assistance, etc.) should fall on the wealthiest citizens and
corporations.
Those in the middle to
lower upper class should pay less, followed by the upper middle to
lower middle classes. And finally, the lowest economic classes should
be helped with their lack of wealth though not necessarily given free
wealth for nothing. The earned income credit in America, for example, is a form of help as redistribution of wealth, for those who work but earn low wages.
The problem becomes, where is the economic assistance for those who
want to work but can not find a job? What about their families and
their children when jobs are scarce as in times of economic recessions
or depressions? In 2011, America is somewhere between a recession and a
depression, but not for the upper classes- a case that is generally, historically speaking, true.
Therefore, the severity of the economic decline will be downplayed by
those who least suffer from it but also own the media outlets and run
government.
Most self-proclaimed socialists will generally agree on most the following things:
| |
(A)
Workers, or the working class(es), which are represented by the lower
to upper middle economic classes of working people, should all make a decent living wage, have safe working conditions, not be forced to work long hours, and be able to have time off for family, vacation, and illness.
(B)
The wealthiest or richest individuals and corporations should pay the
largest share of taxes for the common good of the people (rather than
use loopholes in tax codes to pay nothing or next to nothing). The
poorest should receive help in the form of just or fair redistribution
of wealth in such a way that it does not promote stagnation.
(C) Universal access to decent healthcare,
decent food, decent air, decent water, decent shelter, and decent
education are all needs, not wants, for an enjoyable life. As such,
these needs should be provided for all citizens from a fair system of
taxation. Keep in mind that the definition of "decent" is subjective
and what my meaning is meant to convey is
not just enough to be survivable but enough to be adequately good
enough to allow for happiness of the individual or family receiving
help.
I do not condone stagnation of the body or mind in
welfare systems, though it is quite inhumane to allow non-working
individuals or families to starve or live homelessly. A good way to
balance this problem may be to provide adequate but not very desirable
living circumstances for those who may become generationally stagnant
in terms of their desire to work or their drive to receive education.
America is a very conservative socialist country because it has some,
but very little, social programs to help the needy. We do use some of
the money from taxing those who have some more wealth to make public
schools, roads, bridges, and to fund police and firefighters. Anything
paid for by the government and which serves the public is a socialist
thing- be it your public sidewalk or a public library- be it public
national parks or public drinking fountains.
(D)
A relatively isolationist foreign policy in terms of war and military
expansion. Most socialists are concerned for the well-being of others
in their society and humans in general. Most socialists would reserve
the use of the military for dire circumstances rather than in order to
usurp resources or install favorable political puppets in resource-rich
countries (like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)
(E) Systems of decent help for the physically or mentally disabled.
(F) A system, like social security, that ensures economic stability for the retired and elderly.
(G) A justice system that helps rehabilitate and educate criminals
rather than a justice system that harshly and severely punishes
individuals who are made less beneficial for society by their time in
the system.
(H) A peaceful, respectful, and helpful police force rather than a force that subjugates and abuses the population.
(I)
Universal government transparency to ensure justice in elections,
foreign policy (reasons for wars, etc.), and to erode corruption from
the system.
(J)
The removal of private money from the political system so as to ensure
fairness for those less well represented who have less money. Where
money counts in elections, the wealthiest have much greater voting
power and influence over who gets elected, resulting in the inability
of a democracy to represent the majority of people but only those at
the top. |
|
- "Socialism is Communism". This is absolutely false.
Communism is more extreme than socialism as socialism, in various forms
and degrees, accepts economic and social disparity to some degree or
another whereas communism is the attempt at perfect equality between
people. One can be a socialist and see the flaws in communism. One can
be a socialist and see the need for humans to earn or have different
amounts of wealth.
- "Socialism was the Nazi doctrine". This is absolutely false.
The Nazi party was a fascist regime based on totalitarian dictatorial
rule. Simply because a party is called the "National Socialist Party"
does not make it socialist in practice even though the word is
referenced. Just because the "Defense Department" is called something
with the word "defense" in it does not mean it is only for defense.
- "Socialists want Something for Nothing". This is absolutely false.
Socialists generally understand economics and the limits of the
governments in helping their people. All workers can not make, for
example, a thousand dollars an hour and still allow for the
profitability of most businesses- although this is the going rate for
some lawyers, doctors, and consultants. Bank executives, for example,
though they fail miserably at their jobs, make tens or hundreds times
this amount of a thousand dollars U.S. per hour.
Socialists generally understand that an overabundance of too great or
undeserved handouts and giving freely to those who do nothing to
enhance the viability of the society can ultimately cripple the system.
However, socialists also agree that no human in a society should be
left to starve, freeze, die of dehydration, or perish due to a of lack
of access to healthcare.
Everyone in America, for example, could however, easily
make twenty dollars an hour ($20.00/hr) for all forms of work in
America as a universal minimum wage. This may sound very extreme to
some individuals and to most companies, but the heightened pay would
not necessitate a rise in costs of goods or services but only a
reduction in profits at the top.
To
maintain high profits for the owners in the capitalist system, it is
true that the prices of goods would need to be raised. For some
corporations, profits must be maintained for the shareholders and
corporate executives salaries among other high-earners. But, if it
became law that $20.00 an hour was the Federal Minimum Wage, companies
would have to chose between existing or paying those at the top less.
Perhaps such a change would be a problem for existing small businesses
and this could be met by subsidies for a transition period or for
relatively tiny companies whose profits are too low to survive the
change.
The American government already subsidizes employees through food
assistance programs, housing assistance, and tax credits when the
companies who employ them could easily pay enough for these employees
to not need or qualify for such assistance. But, if a business can pay
an individual less and know they government will give them the rest of
what they need, what incentive does a corporation have, for example, to
pay enough? Is this not corporate welfare, or, in other words, welfare
for the rich who absolutely do not need any help at all?
And, although this minimum wage sounds prohibitive for smaller
companies, it would simply require that businesses be capable of
profiting enough to sustain a workforce at that wage level. Some may
argue that a small restaurant, for example, would no longer be capable
of operating. But, at $30.00 an hour, no one needs tips and the general
public would have more capital to spend on things like dinners at a
restaurant. Perhaps the $10.00 meals become $20.00 meals and the need
for tipping vanishes. All of these numbers and ideas are just examples.
- "Socialists are Anti-Christian". This is absolutely false.
Being a socialist has nothing necessarily to do with one's religion or
metaphysical beliefs about reality. Left-wing economic socialism is the
doctrine of Jesus, for example. He chastizes the greedy moneychangers
in the Temple. According to Jesus, the rich will never see heaven while
the poor are the blessed ones. This economic doctrine is similar in
many strains of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and in many other religions.
- "Socialists are Anti-American". This is absolutely false.
Being a socialist has nothing necessarily to do with one's opinion of
America or any other country. America is what we make of it and it is a
dynamic function of the people who are active and influential in it.
America is based on freedom of belief and all Americans are rightfully
free to chose their political, economic, and social paradigms.
- "Socialism will Ruin the Economy". This is absolutely false.
Socialism can be very economically healthy because the population will
have a greater share of the wealth to spend how they chose. How can the richest people on earth remain so? By hoarding, not spending, their wealth. This is why "trickle-down" economics is ridiculous. This is
rather than the alternative of wealth being hoarded by the richest
individuals who often keep large segments of their wealth rather than
spend it. This is not to say some of the rich are not very generous or,
for that matter, that some are not some type of socialists themselves.
Older Thoughts on Socialism from 2009-2010:
__________________________________________________
[5]. Socialism
is not a bad word as many would have Americans believe and as many in
America do believe. It is a word that does not necessarily imply communism but only the goal of making society just in its economic and other systems.
[6]. I
argue strongly against communism elsewhere on this site. Socialism,
like most systems, has its far right and left sides of a spectrum and
communism would be a far left socialist paradigm. I would be a moderate
or centrist socialist, depending on the context and country in which
the debate is taking place, or perhaps, in some countries, a
right-leaning socialist. This does not mean I think education should be
compulsory and uniform, this does not mean I accept the idea of making
free speech illegal, or even that I think gun rights should be
infringed.
[7]. Economic
socialism can be kept distinct from social libertarianism, though this
combination is not often found in practice- there is no reason it could
not be implemented with adjustments to the current economic paradigm
here in America.
[8]. I do think
humans should be able to gain wealth based on their work and aptitudes,
but I also think that, as long as extra wealth exists, it should be
used to provide the needy with basic necessities for a decent life.
What these necessities include is at the heart of the debate among
political viewpoints.
[9]. The
most basic example of socialism is thus: if there are ten people
stranded on a deserted island, it is best that the ten people, somehow,
find a way to cooperate and share the resources of the island rather
than one person hoard it all and cause the others to suffer or die.
[10]. Pure
communism would be absolute equality between the sharing and
anarcho-capitalism would be absolute strongest takes whatever they
want. Socialism, of some form, would imply that there may be unequal
sharing, but the needy get what they need and the hardest workers get,
perhaps something more for their work.
[11]. In
America, we have only the most bare-bones socialist framework with some
variance depending on the particular state. A basic socialist tenet
would be that all humans, if possible, should have access to decent
healthcare, water, and some form of shelter as these things are seen by
most first-world countries as necessities rather than desired things.
[12]. Socialism
does not necessitate that something is given for nothing if that
something is not necessary. Conservatives will argue about what is and
is not necessary.
[13]. A
conservative socialist government, for example, can be found in America
at the present with such socialist programs like social security,
public schools, public roads, public museums, beaches, and even the
publicly funded military. We need not give up a strong bill of rights
in any socialist structure but merely tax those who do well according
to a just and fair scheme that benefits the society as a whole.
[14]. Socialism
means we look to make society more fair with knowledge that life can
never be completely fair. A living wage, healthcare, public
infrastructure, good schools for all, and help for those in need are
all that this word "socialism" need imply. I do not think "socialism"
must imply hive mentality, communism, forced work, forced job
direction, a lack of free enterprise, or any of the other aspects that
make an economy or society workable and enjoyable.
[15]. Socialism
is the doctrine of Jesus, for example. I am highly skeptical about
religion and profit figures, but the teachings that the poor must be
helped and we should not judge others are very important regardless of
how we came to know about such truths. Regardless of the ontology,
treating those who are lesser with compassion and help is part of an
ethical society. If we do not help the poor, then we are anti-human.
[16]. My opinion of the best possible system, for humans in their current evolutionary state:
Peaceful, Anti-Imperial, Free-Market Socialist Meritocracy/Democracy with a strong Bill of Rights,
in other words, Libertarian Socialism, or what I call "Solitarianism" for short (Socialism + Libertarianism = Solitarianism).
[17]. Conservatives
in America think socialism is a bad word yet call themselves
Christians? That makes no sense. This is simply the slant and
propaganda of the rich and powerful in order to maintain the status quo
or, in the case of 21st century western nations, roll back social,
economic, and civil rights and powers earned through decades of
struggle by the working classes.
[18]. Austerity
measures, as they are known, are nothing more than a ploy to return to
a great divide between the haves and have-nots and, as can be seen
throughout the world, this divide is getting worse though one must look
through the main-stream media's spin to see this clearly.
[19]. Why
should the rich pay? Because they could not be rich without the
contrast of the poor. The rich make money from the poor and the poor
work for the rich. This is ok if the difference between the rich and
poor is subtle enough that sometimes, the poor get to relax once in a
while and have some small things too. This means decent wages and help
with aspects that make their lives worth living too. When the poor no
longer think their lives are worth living, then there will be problems.
Problems like we see growing around the Mexican border.
[20]. Do
you really think people would run drugs if they had anything to lose?
When people are that poor and there is so much money to be made in a
black market, do you really think it will ever stop? Prohibition works
great, doesn't it? Maybe for the people making money off of the war it
does.
[21]. In a healthy society,
everyone is middle class. In an unhealthy society, there is no middle
class. Where is there no middle class? Basically everywhere things are
the most fucked up.
[22]. There is
a confusion about the meaning of the word "socialism". "Communism" is
the bankrupt theory that attempts to have the state dictate everything.
"Capitalism" is the bankrupt theory that money and freedom is best. We
know what freedom and money do, they result in economic pillaging.
Socialism is a balance between these extremes of greed and communal
fairness.
[23]. We must balance.
Socialism is not some horrible theory of society, it is the false
warring and brainwashing done to make you think it is. Any form of
government can lead to a despotic imperial tyranny. All of them. The
more regulation and enforceable laws we have, the closer we may be able
to keep a watch on the central problem of all governments: Uninhibited
Power or (UP).
[24]. UP is the
problem. People who believe they should have UP are the problem. UP
corrupts and UP is being had and given to people in governments.
Perhaps we should have oversight commissions called The Commission to End Uninhibited Power Centers.
We need watchdogs for the biggest players. We need an end to secrecy.
We need to bring power back down towards the people because the people,
all around the world, are tired of being robbed of all their power. The
people have power because without us, they can not carry out their
agendas. We must realize that their agendas depend on our ignorance and
willing cooperation.
[25]. Just
look at what free-market capitalism has done in the Gulf of Mexico.
This is a dead economic and political philosophy. It is a corruption of
justice. Free-market capitalism is an immoral and unethical free for
all where the whole world suffers under the weight of human aggression.
We must balance our lesser and better selves.
[26]. Peaceful
democratic socialism with a vigorously strong bill of rights to
self-defense from tyranny, freedom of speech, and a right to privacy
and justice, is the best society I can imagine. We should all be free
to make money and live however we want.
[27]. But
government should stay away from consensual interactions between
adults. A free market is central to a good and peaceful democratic
socialist society. These economic theories have nothing to say about
war and aggression and that is the greatest lie being put forth by the
media in America today. Socialism does not mean communism and it does
not mean the abandonment of a free market.
[28]. Also,
it does not mean we go to war like the Nazis. The powers that be are
trying to confuse everyone and divide people. We can have freedom and
pay taxes to help our population with education, food, and shelter if
need be. We can make lots of money and have nice public roads and
universities. It is a lie that socialism must be invasive and militant.
[29]. There are plenty of
peaceful, functional, socialist nations on earth today. Too much
capitalism or libertarianism leads to debt slavery and monopoly. We
need regulations, oversight, and a dissolution of secretive government
power. We need real transparency and real concern for human well being.
[30]. I am a democratic socialist. I am also a capitalist.
Contrary to what some would have people believe, capitalism and
socialism are not incompatible at all. It is possible to amass wealth
while still requiring that everyone pay for socialist things like
public schools, environmental protection, firefighters, national parks,
sewers, police, highways, space exploration, veterans care, and the
military.
[31]. I would go a
little further in requiring that everyone have shelter and access to
the internet provided to them but not necessarily given to them. There
is a huge difference between providing housing and giving someone a
house. Providing housing may simply mean subsidizing rent or building
decent shelters.
[32]. I have often
seen socialists who think socialism necessarily means communism, where
workers own the means of production. Democratic Socialism in Europe is
based on a capitalist economy with a push towards greater
redistribution of wealth. If leftist socialists are communists then why
not call themselves communists and leave the term socialism for any
push towards social good that still allows variety in the accumulation
and acquisition of wealth? I suspect that communists want to call
themselves socialists because communism is, and should be, a dirty word
in the west.
[33]. It is a
socialist thing to do to make sure everyone has enough food to eat so
that they do not starve. It is a socialist thing to do to make sure
children are not forced to work and to ensure that everyone has access
to healthcare. Many Americans think socialism is the same as fascism.
Fascism is corporate socialism aligned with dictatorial control,
extreme nationalism, homophobia, xenophobia, and imperialism.
[34]. Socialism
without capitalism is communism and this is why China has not been a
communist country for some time now. 1930s Germany, Japan, and Italy
were not socialist countries, they were more or less brutal fascist
dictatorships. Capitalist countries are just as vulnerable as socialist
countries in terms of their ability to be influenced by those who would
lead their country to unneccesary war and to the removal of the rights
of citizens.
[35]. Socialism does
mean the forced redistribution of wealth through taxation and I do not
see any problem with this. In a democratic society we can
democratically decide that the poor should be fed, sheltered and
clothed with money that is not needed but is luxury. Because people are
greedy and will tend not to help each other, systems must be put in
place to provide for the necessities of life for those who do not or
can not create enough wealth.
[36]. I
do not agree with socialism that rewards stagnation. I agree with
socialism that provides life and encourages education and work for
those who can and provides life sustaining wealth for those who can
not. By life sustaining wealth, I mean healthcare, food, shelter, and
clothing. We do have programs in the United States towards these ends,
but various conditions and cracks exist that allow large segments of
our population to go without.
[37]. I
believe in the taxation of luxury money. We must decide, on an ongoing
basis and with respect to economic conditions, what an individual,
couple, and family needs in terms of wealth for survival. If we had
adequate healthcare, shelter, food, and clothing distribution, there
would be little need for additional money distribution other than to
cover people's sundries.
[38]. We
should not tax ourselves into a situation that wealth can not be
accumulated. But, I do believe that there should be larger and larger
taxes on the wealthy up to a point of, perhaps, 70% on those
individuals earning more than a billion dollars a year. This may sound
outrageous to billionaires across the world, but it is supposed to.
[39]. Here
is a reasonable and very simple tax code (this may contradict other
places I have listed tax percentages, but this is the best I have so
far):
Imagine that [ P ]
represents the poverty level in terms of a dollar amount, [ I ]
represents someone's income, and [ T ] represents the income's tax
percentage or tax bracket. The following is the logic of the new tax
code:
IF (P = I OR P > I) THEN (T = 0) AND IF (I > P) THEN (T = I / P) AND IF (T > 70) THEN (T = 70).
[40]. Translation:
If your income is equal to the poverty level or less than the poverty
level, your taxes are zero percent. If your income is greater than the
poverty level, then your tax percent is equivalent to your income
divided by the poverty level amount. Also, the tax percentage maxes out
at 50% for anyone making any amount of money.
[41]. What
does this mean? It means, take your income and divide it by the poverty
level and the result is your tax percentage. So, if the poverty level
is $20,000.00 for an individual and you make $100,000.00, then your tax
rate would be 5% of your income, or $5,000.00.
[42]. For
someone making $200,000.00, the rate would be 10% of your income or
$20,000.00. $300,000.00 of income would be 15% or $30,000.00.
$500,000.00 would be 25% or $125,000.00. $1,000,000.00 would require
50% taxation. Maybe we would begin the ceiling of tax rated income at
70%. Essentially, this means the richest pay for public services like
education, roads, environmental protection, etc and working-class
people are taxed only lightly.
[43]. It
seems that no one at all recalls that the tax rate under FDR for the
richest was 94%. All this ever amounts to is basically telling a few
thousand people that they should give back a large chunk of what money
they have taken from the rest of society. Why should wealth be funneled
all to a super-privileged few?
[44]. The
system in America as of 2010 is that billionaires pay, roughly, 0% in
taxes. That's right, roughly nothing. That's because the tax code is
designed to benefit those who can afford to manipulate it through
corporate entities and tax loopholes. The middle and lower classes pay
almost the entire sum of taxes in America in 2010, in essence, to
support the government subsidization of the ultra-rich.
[45]. All
of this is very arbitrary and is only intended to show a rough scheme
of what I think a just tax paradigm looks like. If this were the tax
paradigm, it does not mean that America would suddenly become better
because the government takes more money. Perhaps the money could be
spent on the military and the poor would still suffer. Rather, I mean
that a large portion of this money should firstly go towards ensuring
the basic necessities of life for all Americans.
[46]. I
also believe in Earth socialism. Wealthy countries, like wealthy
people, should pay other countries to increase their standards of
living. This is fraught with difficulty in many places because there is
no system of redistribution of wealth. Microloans from citizens and
from governments to large swaths of people are a good idea. Equipping
people with the internet and educational opportunities, all over the
world, will allow them to become independent.
[47]. Many
people believe that redistribution of wealth is not fair. I,
conversely, believe that not redistributing wealth is not fair. Why
should one family inherit a billion dollars and another live under a
bridge? Why should one child starve in a nation where people wear
jewelry worth more than some will make in a lifetime? It is not fair
that the rest of society takes some people's money to give it to
others, I agree. But, it is much less fair not to. It is not about what
is absolutely fair or just but what is best for everyone.
[48]. All
of this said, I do not condone attempts at communism, which is an
extreme form of socialism. People will not be motivated and the system
will collapse from inefficiency and stagnation. People must be able to
have some degree of difference in their accumulation of wealth to
represent their work and aptitudes.
[49]. My
understanding of the best possible government would come from some
combination of northern European economic systems with our bill of
rights to protect personal liberties. I am not fond of government
intrusion into the private lives of citizens in the form of
surveillance. Such surveillance does and should sicken Americans.
