My Brand of Socialism

[Mike C]

A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST STATE revised

We are supposed to have a US Constitutional peoples government as the Constitution (CN) dictates.
However, the aversion of the conservatives to Democratic Socialism, have replaced it with corporate socialism and that is a clear violation of our CN and its intent of serving the people.

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

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

So then the most logical way to Implement and restore our CN democracy is to PROMOTE the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS by eliminating the corruptive influence of dollars that buy our politicians to serve these ‘self serving’ individuals.
This can be done by banning the private dollars from the government electoral function. Private dollars, that buy advertising to influence the electorate are NOT free speech and therefore can be legally banned.
Only government dollars should be used to finance this electoral function.
Through this process, the politicians would be free from having to solicit these corrupting dollars and direct their attention to the citizen issues. This would raise their ‘self respect’ and honesty and truly represent the citizens of our country.

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

Guaranteed jobs for all citizens.......... No unemployment!
Guaranteed pensions for all citizens.............For workers, management personnel, government employees and any other responsible citizens.
Guaranteed health care.............For all citizens that should include the ‘alternative’ health care practitioners.
And any other essential needs at a reasonable subsistence level.

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

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

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

There are only two sources of ‘real tangible wealth’ (RTW). These sources are Nature as a commodity and the worker productions.
RTW is what we see and feel like the skyscrapers, bridges, highways, automobiles, homes and etc.
While on the other hand, the conservative capitalists creations are all in their heads. This is not tangible wealth. Therefore, workers deserve better and a fairer distribution of the RTW that they create.

However, in this Socialist state, ‘free enterprise’ would be allowed and government supported.
But there would be limitations on this accumulated wealth as determined by the citizens.
Income taxes could be graduated on SURPLUS income only, from a rate of about 95% for the top earners to a bottom rate of about 5% for the minimum earners. This type of tax would not affect the current living lifestyles of the citizens and even the capitalists.
Any other details can be worked out to restore our economy to a more balanced state...

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

Mike C

[charles brough]

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

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

[eric l]

I'm affraid I have to aggree with Charles (I wish it were different).
So far, none of the "utopian socialist" experiments ever worked on more than a small to medium scale (say about a hundred families) and even those never lasted more than a couple of generations.
There are many reasons for that : like it or not, even a democracy needs something like a common goal if it wants to progress, and such a common goal is usually personified by a charismatic leader. Now, such leaders are few and far between, and not all of them are sufficiently idealistic to think first of the community or society they are leading, before thinking of themselves.
Even those who seem to stand the test rarely keep it up for a very long time : after a number of years they start to believe that they are sent by God or Allah or Destiny or whatever and they cling to power rather than to their ideal or to the best interest for their society or community.
Party funding or election funding will never be sufficient as an answer to this. In fact, rather than voting for the best program, people will vote eiteher for the most talented speaker, or for the one who aggrees best with their prejudices.
Am I pessimistic ? Let us say that I am, when it comes to the amount of improvement we can expect to see in our liftetime, but not to the role that our contributions will play eventually.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by charles brough

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

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

Your defeatest attitude is one reason why progress cannot continue.
If the people vote the right people in for political and economic reform, who is there to stop them?

Capitalist CORRUPTION is corporate welfare!
Incidentally, I support individual enterprise. But only if there are limits established to create more equality in our country.

In My Brand os Socialism, work (jobs) are guaranteed for everyone. So where is the welfare here?
Welfare only goes to those that do no work and that is what capitalism is.
Brains create nothing TANGIBLE.
Only HANDS (workers) can do that.
So the irony here is that the ones that create the REAL WEALTH are reduced to ROBOTS. That is your capitalisms final end product.
GET REAL!

Mike C

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by eric l

I'm affraid I have to aggree with Charles (I wish it were different).
So far, none of the "utopian socialist" experiments ever worked on more than a small to medium scale (say about a hundred families) and even those never lasted more than a couple of generations.
There are many reasons for that : like it or not, even a democracy needs something like a common goal if it wants to progress, and such a common goal is usually personified by a charismatic leader. Now, such leaders are few and far between, and not all of them are sufficiently idealistic to think first of the community or society they are leading, before thinking of themselves.
Even those who seem to stand the test rarely keep it up for a very long time : after a number of years they start to believe that they are sent by God or Allah or Destiny or whatever and they cling to power rather than to their ideal or to the best interest for their society or community.
Party funding or election funding will never be sufficient as an answer to this. In fact, rather than voting for the best program, people will vote eiteher for the most talented speaker, or for the one who aggrees best with their prejudices.
Am I pessimistic ? Let us say that I am, when it comes to the amount of improvement we can expect to see in our liftetime, but not to the role that our contributions will play eventually.

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

This is a GOVERNMENT function and only government dollars should be used.
This reduces the politicians to make them serve the citizens as they campaigned to do.
Those that fail to do so can be voted out.
The government can send newspapers to all registered voters with the politicians programs. This would enable the citizens to make a decision on all the issues rather than just one or two.
This gives the citizens the information to make a more 'intelligent' vote.

Mike C

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Mike C

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

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

Originally Posted by Mike C

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

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

Originally Posted by Mike C

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

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

Only poor people should be allowed to vote,
Buffy

[Kriminal99]

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

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

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

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

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Buffy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only poor people should be allowed to vote,
Buffy

That would be illegal.
The wealthy can vote but their vote is equal to a poor persons vote. So here we have equality of votes. Ha ha.
The politicians here would also be placed in an equal opportunity situation for office. They might INFLATE their promises to the public but the people would catch on as to who is the phony ones. Ha ha.

Mike C

[Mike C]

99

Who said anything about people getting the same wages?

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

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

Mike C

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

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

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

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