[trombonepolitician]

I've been musing on what pragmatic transitions we would need to transition to a social economy here in the US. And I have been examining this from more of a social liberal and communitarian perspective.

The reality is, we, in certain ways, have the worst parts of both capitalism AND standard socialism- namely with personalized gains and socialized losses (bailouts, compensation for shareholders, etc). I do not see this as "moral"- I believe that people should be able to pursue their dreams with as little restraint as possible, that the means to that production should be spread out as widely as possible, and that if the state is to provide any social services, they are to the mutual benefit of everyone, not just the rich giving to the poor, middle class, etc.

As far as proposals this is how far I've gotten:

Many civil society institutions should be set up to provided to give loans to people to start their trade, and this should be in competition with private banks

Many lower levels of representative government should be promoted, such as more flexible municipal and regional councils

An education ministry

And a health ministry

What I struggle with is how do we implement all of this through legislation when much of our public leaders are bought by special interests? I know overturning Citizen's United is one huge step, but it's not the only step. Secondly, the US is a very large country, and therefore I think that our many levels of governance have to be checked and balanced out by flexible lower levels of governance. I don't have the best answer for it though. And that is why I come to this forum because there are probably some great minds here to help me out with that (specifically those that are social democrats, liberals, and democratic socialists)

[Decky]

You would have to get rid of all the Yanks and replace them with normal people. If you tried to implement free healthcare they would come out and protest against you even while they were dying of preventable diseases.

If you tried to give them more employment rights they would donate part of their pitiful pay to fox news to create propaganda to stop you.

If you tried to build them decent housing they would scream at you from their trailers to stop.

American political culture is suicidal.

[trombonepolitician]

You would have to get rid of all the Yanks and replace them with normal people. If you tried to implement free healthcare they would come out and protest against you even while they were dying of preventable diseases.

If you tried to give them more employment rights they would donate part of their pitiful pat to fox news to create propaganda to stop you.

If you tried to build them decent housing they would scream at you from their trailers to stop.

American political culture is suicidal.

Well that's a great answer if you're trying to troll the heck out of someone asking a legitimate question. Thanks!

[Decky]

It's not trolling,that is genuinely my opinion. Americans will fight and die for their right to be exploited by the capitalists. Their whole war of independence was won by poor people who fought for the right for a few rich landowners to not pay their taxes.

[trombonepolitician]

I guess I'm more optimistic than you

Maybe perhaps I just hope that a change of mind will come when the older generations die off

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

You would have to get rid of all the Yanks and replace them with normal people. If you tried to implement free healthcare they would come out and protest against you even while they were dying of preventable diseases.

If you tried to give them more employment rights they would donate part of their pitiful pat to fox news to create propaganda to stop you.

If you tried to build them decent housing they would scream at you from their trailers to stop.

American political culture is suicidal.

Well said. I'm a socialist myself but it's clear that it'll take a massive overhaul of American society and terminology/attitudes themselves. The Red Scares of the 20s and 50s did a major number on progressive politics in America. Socialism and communism are dirty words within mainstream society, and what's interesting is that people who call for true universal health care (more comprehensive than Obamacare) and other progressive institutions are called extremist or liberal by a Republican Party that long ago sold its soul to the Christian Taliban and big business. JFK's speech here calling for universal health care is ironic:

[youtube]-RupNaKbwH8[/youtube]

Average Americans are so grossly ignorant and dumbed down by "politics" coming out of CNN and Fox News that it's as if everything is treated like a sports game, with an equal level of maturity and depth. Everything is either liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, despite how both parties in reality are just capitalist parties and often don't really operate much differently, despite all the bullshit they say.

Trombone, you really just need to listen to the things said by the Republicans/Teabaggers. Keep in mind most of these people who seem fervently in favor of giving more power to the wealthy and the already-powerful, who are in favor of destroying many institutions of government in this country, who are opposed to much education funding, who want to privatize everything in sight and turn back the clock on labor rights other rights our citizens have fought hard to earn are actually working class people. That's why socialism is not going to make a comeback in this country or have the kind of momentum it did in the early years of the 20th century, because our political parties are either extreme reactionaries or incompetent. Pretty much both though.

[Rainbow Crow]

It doesn't help that socialist countries all over the world have consistently failed and are still failing even now. People want to turn a profit for themselves when they work. The idea that they should give their profits to others who didn't contribute to their efforts has proven impossible to execute or even to coherently quantify.

Bashing Republicans doesn't answer these questions.

[Someone5]

Many civil society institutions should be set up to provided to give loans to people to start their trade, and this should be in competition with private banks

These already exist; they're called credit unions, and they're fairly common. They just don't deal in the immense amount of capital that private banks do, so they're not really suited (currently) to displace much demand for loans from privately owned banks.

Many lower levels of representative government should be promoted, such as more flexible municipal and regional councils

Sure, but that's entirely up to states. The federal government has almost no role in this, except providing CDBGs and such. That fight will need to be fought in each of the fifty states.

An education ministry

Education in the United States is on example of a public service in the United States that is actually managed at small regional levels. Wouldn't it run counter to your second goal to put all the schools under the federal department of education directly?

And a health ministry

We effectively already have one. It serves the interests of large capital and insurance companies, not patients.

What I struggle with is how do we implement all of this through legislation when much of our public leaders are bought by special interests?

You displace the special interests. There is nothing that socialists could do that would result in the government forcing socialism on everyone else in the current situation; what is needed is the ground work to establish ourselves as a powerful special interest group. That requires money, and it requires a significant control over the means of production on our own.

I know overturning Citizen's United is one huge step, but it's not the only step. Secondly, the US is a very large country, and therefore I think that our many levels of governance have to be checked and balanced out by flexible lower levels of governance.

"Special" interests exercise most of their control at those "flexible" lower levels of government. It's a lot less expensive and a lot less difficult to bribe local officials than national officials.

I don't have the best answer for it though. And that is why I come to this forum because there are probably some great minds here to help me out with that (specifically those that are social democrats, liberals, and democratic socialists)

This is not the forum to find liberals.

[trombonepolitician]

Thanks for the help. I realize I'm a bit young and naive. I do plenty of reading wayyyy outside of FOX and CNN. It's just hard to comprehend all at once sometimes.

As for the "liberal" claim, I guess I just wanted to signal at the more moderate people in this area of the forum. I myself don't even know whether or not to call myself a socialist. I support private property, yet public services well-controlled by an informed public.

[Redalgo]

Personally, I think the modern Left in the U.S. is suffering from poor communication with voters.

Discussing inequality of wealth, class struggle, exploitation, the excesses of large corporations, romanticizing labour unions, and making other allusions to social justice play into capitalist caricatures of socialism as set on stripping away civil rights, confiscating personal property for state management, establishing a powerful state with tendencies reminiscent of the Soviet Union, or otherwise trigger prejudices embedded in the minds of the People by many years of immersion in cultures that are deeply, pervasively biased against left-wing theories. During election cycles I see minor party candidates trying to frame the debate. They cannot do that. They lack enough capital to persuade many voters to look at the world from their own perspectives. That's a lost cause for at least the time being.

What I think should be done is embrace and strongly appeal to core aspects of U.S. culture to make socialism sound "American" rather than make it appear that socialism will make the U.S. something other than "America." Focus on self-determination of the individual, expansion of individual liberties, increasing the extent to which terms of competition in markets are meritocratic, talk about individual empowerment in the workplace through democratic institutions and management for cooperatives, and the many matters on which socialists believe federal and/or state governments should get out of our private lives and allow the individual to do as they please. We should be openly distancing ourselves from and condemning many deeds of socialist leaders, currents, and countries from the 20th Century while couching our aims in the context of advancing individual access to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we must be negative, explain how capitalists restrain that access.

This does not mean becoming Third Way advocates - just that we need to speak the liberal language to make our case without being shut out the moment they learn we're red. The onus is on us to argue that we are not the ardent collectivists, authoritarians, militant atheists, etc. many folks make us out to be.

[trombonepolitician]

I certainly agree. Gar Alperovitz is a great example of someone that points out examples of non-partisan, "everyday socialism." It seems that it took a few decades for Europe to set up their welfare states in the 20th century, so it is only natural that the US is just experimenting now. However, I think that getting corporate money out of politics is an important first step if we want an efficient welfare state

[Someone5]

Personally, I think the modern Left in the U.S. is suffering from poor communication with voters.

Sure, but not for the reasons you state.

Discussing inequality of wealth, class struggle, exploitation, the excesses of large corporations,

All of that plays just as well as always--possibly better than ever, in fact. People have reached an end of their willingness to endure such depredations.

romanticizing labour unions,

The complete failure of the left in promoting labor unions over the last fifty years has been, without a doubt, one of the worst strategic decisions the left could have made. There is really no excuse for the right to be so successful in redefining what unions mean.

and making other allusions to social justice play into capitalist caricatures of socialism as set on stripping away civil rights, confiscating personal property for state management, establishing a powerful state with tendencies reminiscent of the Soviet Union,

How do you figure? "This corporation does not care about you, why should you want to give them more power..." simply does not translate into "let's strip away your civil rights!"

or otherwise trigger prejudices embedded in the minds of the People by many years of immersion in cultures that are deeply, pervasively biased against left-wing theories. During election cycles I see minor party candidates trying to frame the debate. They cannot do that. They lack enough capital to persuade many voters to look at the world from their own perspectives. That's a lost cause for at least the time being.

No it's not. The "left" in the US hasn't even been doing this for the last fifty years. The last hurrah for that in any big way was back in the NAFTA fight. Now the only time you hear about that from supposedly "left-wing" politicians, really, is during mass financial collapse or anti-globalization protests. And better than half of the "left-wing" politicians are supportive of globalization anyway.

What I think should be done is embrace and strongly appeal to core aspects of U.S. culture to make socialism sound "American" rather than make it appear that socialism will make the U.S. something other than "America."

Socialism is still pretty popular in the US, as anyone who has recently tried to attack Medicare has found out. No, what is needed is a functional leftist party--there isn't one in the United States. Right now the Democratic party is mostly comprised of neoliberals who have some differences of opinion with the right regarding gay rights and precisely how much they ought to cut welfare spending.

Focus on self-determination of the individual, expansion of individual liberties, increasing the extent to which terms of competition in markets are meritocratic, talk about individual empowerment in the workplace through democratic institutions and management for cooperatives, and the many matters on which socialists believe federal and/or state governments should get out of our private lives and allow the individual to do as they please.

That's not actually going to do anything except fracture socialists even further. What is needed is to; rebuild unions, get in bed with leftist churches, fine-tune the anti-corporate rhetoric (seriously, a national commitment to strip away corporate personhood would do wonders for grassroots support), and select three new (and extensive) grassroots programs to rally around.

We should be openly distancing ourselves from and condemning many deeds of socialist leaders, currents, and countries from the 20th Century while couching our aims in the context of advancing individual access to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we must be negative, explain how capitalists restrain that access.

Why ignore our history? Socialism used to be pretty popular in the US. The ideas and policy proposals still ARE popular. We shouldn't be ashamed of what American Socialists have achieved. We really do need to fight the media fight to reclaim our own image. That really is important and necessary--more necessary than any sort of short-term campaign could be.

This does not mean becoming Third Way advocates - just that we need to speak the liberal language to make our case without being shut out the moment they learn we're red. The onus is on us to argue that we are not the ardent collectivists, authoritarians, militant atheists, etc. many folks make us out to be.

We need to make it okay to be red again.

[empireofred]

Average Americans are so grossly ignorant and dumbed down by "politics" coming out of CNN and Fox News that it's as if everything is treated like a sports game, with an equal level of maturity and depth. Everything is either liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, despite how both parties in reality are just capitalist parties and often don't really operate much differently, despite all the bullshit they say.

Well said; that's what happens when you only have two dominant parties. Americans are treated like little children by the media and they don't seem to mind. Restoring the image of socialism in the eyes of the American people is, in my opinion, the first step for a change in the political scene.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

This is a disputed quote by John Steinbeck. Nevertheless, I think the magnitude of the truth it carries is enormous. Americans have bought the "American Dream" and truly believe that if they work hard enough they will "make it." When they find out that that was a pipe dream, it's already too late. I read somewhere that about 73% of college graduates surveyed, believed they would become millionaires. There's your pipe dream.

[Rei Murasame]

What I struggle with is how do we implement all of this through legislation when much of our public leaders are bought by special interests?

It is done by building a party to compete, but it must be built on two things:

• Labour and Trade Unions.
• Counter-Institutions.

Those two points are extremely important. What you call 'bought be special interests' is actually a mis-evaluation of the situation. Everything is a 'special interest'. In order to get into power over a country, a group of people must have resources and economic power, and people who are propelled forward by that power.

This means that you also need to have it, just you need to get it from a source that rivals their sources. Hence why I have suggested organised labour, and counter-institutions. S.G. Hobson explains:

Whatever unhappy vicissitudes politics has passed through since the glory of Greece set it on its way, it is as true now as ever that successful statesmanship is founded on enduring principles and not upon the appraisement or nice balancing of material considerations. There is a practical sagacity, notably in the obiter dicta of Bacon and later in Cromwell's policy, that does not disregard the economic factors; but that sagacity turns to cunning or opportunism if it lose faith in the fundamental principles disclosed by time and circumstance. This is not to deny the main fact of modern industrialism that economic power precedes and dominates political action. There is a sense in which that aphorism is permanently true; another sense in which it is a polemic peculiar to existing conditions.

It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. But whilst the fare must be available as a condition precedent to the journey, it remains a means to the end. Our aphorism is a polemic peculiar to private capitalism in that the fare to continue the metaphor is controlled by an interested section of the community, which can consequently decide the time and direction of the journey. But when the fare and sustenance pass from private to communal control, in the process increasing in abundance and availability, we find ourselves as a people free to embark on whatever spiritual or political enterprise we desire.

Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity. If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.

Upon the substantial truth of this hangs our conception of citizenship and State policy. I have consistently disclaimed for the future Guilds the control of wealth, conceding to them no more and no less than the control, through monopoly, of their labour-power.

[...]

The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity. If the former be abolished and the latter overcome, the [Guild Socialist] State possesses the means to achieve its purposes, so far as they depend upon economic resources. In this connection, it is not without significance that common parlance often describes a propertied man as "a man of means," and never so far as I know as "a man of ends." But it is usual to refer to a statesman as one having ends to be served by political methods. These philological distinctions are at bottom instinctive citizenship, a recognition that wealth is a means to an end.

You can see where I'm going with this.

Americans often speak of "getting money out of politics". That is impossible. Politics by its very nature demands and requires money, because all leaders are put in place by an arrangement of economic interests. So I would say you need to substitute in its place, "economic power precedes political power".

[Decky]

What Rei said, you need to get some politicians bought by special interests that actually represent the working class.

In Britain this used to be the Labour party (a party that was literally the political wing of the trade unions and thus of the working class).

The left is just as biased as the right (in that we work for our group and against theirs). Our group is the working masses and theirs is the idle shareholders at the top of society living off the labour of others.

[Rei Murasame]

Yes.

It's a little bit strange in a way that people don't understand this until it is explained to them, since it would be impossible to actually make sense of history if someone were to suppose that leaders became leaders without any economic backing, or that it were somehow possible for a government to not be an expression of economic interests in some way.

[trombonepolitician]

Rei-

Thanks. By the way I see you post alot and I have great respect for your intellect. Yes I was starting to realize that EVERYTHING is a special interest. I have taken some stark interest in the Gar Alperovitz strategy (I'm not well read on socialism, but I tend to favor organization based on communities across neighborhoods, groups, towns, and even the internet). So I am starting to realize that a greater political system will probably, and is probably already spawning from the grassroots (why are you sounding like an anarchist when you say you're a fascist? ).

[Rei Murasame]

Thanks. By the way I see you post alot and I have great respect for your intellect. Yes I was starting to realize that EVERYTHING is a special interest.

Thank you. I couldn't help but respond to this thread, because you wrote it up so well.

I have taken some stark interest in the Gar Alperovitz strategy

I think that strategy works, because it is re-saying something that Antonio Gramsci has already talked about. Hegemony originates from in civil society and not just inside the state institutions. The state institutions are simply the spear-point behind which the rest of civil society relays its instructions, and a gathering place where the ruling class in the civil society come together to write down their priorities and decide on policy.

So to fight them, civil society is the place to start.

So I am starting to realize that a greater political system will probably, and is probably already spawning from the grassroots (why are you sounding like an anarchist when you say you're a fascist? )

Well, basically:

• I would not assume that there's a movement spawning anywhere, since a movement cannot exist without leadership and structure. Perhaps there are people out there who have been seeded with opinions that would be useful to you when you try to form a movement. But that is not the same thing as having a movement. You all need to get the ontology right in order to maintain clear thinking.
  
  So think of it like this, socialist theorists are not the socialist movement, they are the think tanks which are studying to nurture and guide the course of the socialist movement. In turn, the socialist movement is not socialism, the socialist movement is the movement which is fighting to build a socialist solution which can then be enacted as socialism.
  
  And of course you can replace the words 'socialism' and socialist' with whatever it is that you are doing, since it applies to all ideologies.
  
  
• I would counsel against using the word 'grassroots' at all, because it's too indistinct a word, and the mainstream politicians have completely wrecked the word to the point where if you use it, most people will actually switch off immediately.
  
  Instead of using that word, you should say exactly who those people are and what they should be believing. For example, I might say, maybe "the working class and middle class recognising their shared interests and standing together", because that creates an inescapable amount of specificity, no one would be able to say that they don't know what that means.
  
  
• As for why what I say sometimes sounds similar to what anarchists say, it's probably because anarcho-socialists share a common root in syndicalism, various traits of which also appear in fascism and marxism-leninism. So it's basically a case of us all agreeing that the sky is blue, on this issue.

[Julian]

calling all politics economics or all economics politics is muddling

so for example if I were to claim that Trade Unions exercised economic power throufgh their labour power I could claim that everything was reducible to economics. however I could equally claim that Trade Unions exercised politics power through persuasion argument and organising. in that case everything is reducible to economics.

infact the position is complicated Trade Unions have roots in the economy and politics. industrial organising amongst members of a factory and the pursuit of broader social justice for working class people sometimes coincide but sometimes they are very different.

many activities pursued by Trade Unions require patient education, argument and public advocacy. that is politics not economics.

its the sort of politics that is best articulated in a democracy with high levels of education, free speech and public engagement in decision making

[Rei Murasame]

It is inextricably intertwined with economics. Even during the section where you try to deny this, you actually invoke it:

industrial organising amongst members of a factory and the pursuit of broader social justice for working class people sometimes coincide but sometimes they are very different.

Why did you select an example like "industrial organising amongst members of a factory"?

Because most of the world is in an industrial economy, right? And because factory workers are a resource which can be 'made scarce' if they were to threaten to go on strike and enact that strike, right?