[Red Skull]

Can anybody refer to me some great speakers and writers concerning moderate Socialism?

Please note that I am not interested in Marxist or Communist expressions of Socialism.

[mikema63]

What on earth do you mean by moderate socialism?

No form of socialism is moderate because it definitionally cannot coexist with capitalism.

[Red Skull]

What on earth do you mean by moderate socialism?

No form of socialism is moderate because it definitionally cannot coexist with capitalism.

When I think of modern forms of moderate Socialism I think of Democratic Socialist countries of northern Scandinavia for instance.

I am opposed to Communism and Capitalism both. I believe we live in a post Communist and Capitalist world.

They're both failed ideologies in my mind.

[Conscript]

You would probably like Strasser, and apparently there was some other guy that came up with the phrase national socialism 30 or 40 years before Hitler.

[mikema63]

Democratic socialism is a form of capitalism, not socialism.

[Red Skull]

Yes, very few people even know that National Socialism existed way before Adolf Hitler. Hitler and Germany didn't create National Socialism. Germany was merely the first to implement it. I am familiar with the writings of Strasser.

I guess I am looking for some modern writers and authors.

Also, these modern writers don't necessarily have to be race oriented in that I am looking for stuff purely revolving around an economic standpoint.

Democratic socialism is a form of capitalism, not socialism.

The way I look at it Democratic Socialism or moderate Socialism restrains and contains some of the more harmful effects of Capitalism. It is clear that Capitalism by itself left socially unregulated is harmful to society.

[Conscript]

So basically you're looking for modern writings on alternatives to liberal capitalism, not necessarily with an emphasis on race and nation?

We really need to rename such alternatives from socialism to social capitalism or social democracy.

[Red Skull]

So basically you're looking for modern writings on alternatives to liberal capitalism, not necessarily with an emphasis on race and nation?

We really need to rename such alternatives from socialism to social capitalism or social democracy.

I am not keen on Democracy. Direct Democracy could work but even with that I have my doubts on it.

Social Capitalism seems interesting. What's that?

I view Capitalism as something that needs to be socially regulated and restricted.

[Conscript]

Don't focus on the democracy part of the name too much, I'm just suggesting new names since it has even less to do with socialism than democracy.

As for social capitalism, no idea, I've heard it used by third positionists before rather than 'corporatism', because thanks to the center-left nobody knows what the word means anymore.

Perhaps I am speaking out of place, but I'd ask Rei Murasame about this stuff, I think that member might have some answers you're looking for. Ask about Japanese right-socialism among the officer corps, the path of national labor, and stuff.

It's not moderate socialism, but frankly from a Marxist POV it accomplishes the exact same shit anyway.

[The Immortal Goon]

Michael Harrington is the best of the American Democratic Socialists (which isn't saying much).

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-w ... ngton-say/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... st/378331/

But you're not going to find a lot of socialists that aren't interested in democracy. Maybe the Nazbols or something, but those fucks are fascists.

[Dagoth Ur]

It's not moderate socialism, but frankly from a Marxist POV it accomplishes the exact same shit anyway.

Explain.

[Truth To Power]

I am opposed to Communism and Capitalism both. I believe we live in a post Communist and Capitalist world.

They're both failed ideologies in my mind.

Capitalism and socialism -- including communism -- are failed ideologies because they are factually in error. By commingling land and capital as "the means of production," they refuse to know the fact that land and capital are fundamentally different. The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital, the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land.

If you are interested in a great speaker and writer who got the relationship of capital and land right, you might enjoy "Progress and Poverty," by Henry George (who is certainly a far better writer and economist than the cretinous Karl Marx). The modern geoists have gone beyond George, and they are the only school of political economy that is objectively correct on the principal facts of economic science.

[Red Skull]

Capitalism and socialism -- including communism -- are failed ideologies because they are factually in error. By commingling land and capital as "the means of production," they refuse to know the fact that land and capital are fundamentally different. The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital, the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land.

If you are interested in a great speaker and writer who got the relationship of capital and land right, you might enjoy "Progress and Poverty," by Henry George (who is certainly a far better writer and economist than the cretinous Karl Marx). The modern geoists have gone beyond George, and they are the only school of political economy that is objectively correct on the principal facts of economic science.

Interesting, I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

[The Immortal Goon]

Capitalism and socialism -- including communism -- are failed ideologies because they are factually in error. By commingling land and capital as "the means of production," they refuse to know the fact that land and capital are fundamentally different. The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital, the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show a source where some half-assed so called Marxist defines land as:

[quote="Marx, examining capital",]Money as distinguished from coin is the result of the circuit C—M—C and constitutes the starting point of the circuit M—C—M, that is the exchange of money for commodities so as to exchange commodities for money. In the form C—M—C it is the commodity that is the beginning and the end of the transaction; in the form M—C—M it is money. Money mediates the exchange of commodities in the first circuit, the commodities mediates the evolution of money into money in the second circuit. Money, which serves solely as a medium in the first circuit, appears as the goal of circulation in the second, whereas the commodity, which was the goal in the first circuit, appears simply as a means in the second. Because money itself is already the result of the circuit C—M—C, the result of circulation appears to be also its point of departure in the form M—C—M. The exchange of material is the content of C—M—C, whereas the real content of the second circuit, M—C—M, is the commodity in the form in which it emerged from the first circuit.[/quote]

[quetzalcoatl]

Democratic socialism is a form of capitalism, not socialism.

What is socialism? You will usually get something like this (wikipedia):

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[8] "Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9]

Mike's statement is pretty much correct, if we are primarily only looking to maintaining consistent categories. However, in the real world, the categories are much more muddled. A definition of socialism usually includes language requiring social ownership and democratic control of the means of corporation. We have had the social ownership part, but not the democratic control (perhaps experiments during the Spanish Republic might be cited as an exception). Democratic control is not consistent with state-owned enterprise model, nor can a dictatorship of the proletariat be made consistent with democratic control of the means of production, IMO. Socialism can never exist without democratic units controlling production, organized from the bottom up. This is not a matter of mere fairness or equity, it is a fundamental categorical requirement.

By most accepted definitions of socialism, the Soviet and current Chinese models do not qualify. Not based on some standard of fairness, but actual categorical distinctions.

I would also point out that forms of socialism that incorporate some form of market mechanisms do not necessarily fall outside such a definition, so long as social ownership and democratic control are enforced.

[Rich]

I am familiar with the writings of Strasser.

Why does that not surprise me?

[Piccolo]

Perhaps you would be interested in some forms of market socialism. You may wish to read Socialism after Hayek by Theodore A. Burczak and works by
David Schweickart, particularly Against Capitalism.

EDIT: You may also wish to look into syndicalist and guild socialist writers, although they are perhaps more radical than moderate. S.G. Hobson's National Guilds: an Inquiry into the Wage System and a Way Out and G.D.H. Cole's Guild Socialism: A Plan for Economic Democracy are good books covering guild socialism.

[quetzalcoatl]

Perhaps you would be interested in some forms of market socialism. You may wish to read Socialism after Hayek by Theodore A. Burczak and works by
David Schweickart, particularly Against Capitalism.

EDIT: You may also wish to look into syndicalist and guild socialist writers, although they are perhaps more radical than moderate. S.G. Hobson's National Guilds: an Inquiry into the Wage System and a Way Out and G.D.H. Cole's Guild Socialism: A Plan for Economic Democracy are good books covering guild socialism.

It may not be "moderate", but one can make a case that the existence of 'employees' is not consistent with true socialism. An employee of a state-owned enterprise has the same relation to capital as does the employee of a private company, even though the state may in the first instance act in loco parentis for the workers (in some theoretical sense). This is an entirely fictional implementation of the socialist idea.

Control of the means of production actually does mean control of the means of production, a concept which is conveniently ignored by just about everybody. Are the workers organizing the enterprise, selecting its managers, and setting goals? Do they have the right to collectively hold managers responsible, and to fire them? Do worker collectives, organized from the bottom up, dictate the polices of the national administration? If the dictatorship of the proletariat is to have any validity, it must be dictated to by the workers, not vice versa.

[kobe]

I would also point out that forms of socialism that incorporate some form of market mechanisms do not necessarily fall outside such a definition, so long as social ownership and democratic control are enforced.

I agree, because there would still be merit to the idea of comparative advantage. Eventually there would be an easier way to allocate production of goods but for a time it would be fine.

@Red_Skull: is the issue here that you do not want to call yourself a fascist? Because in my opinion you sound like a fascist. I mean that as no insult, by the way, it just seems to describe your predispositions perfectly.

[Red Skull]

Perhaps you would be interested in some forms of market socialism. You may wish to read Socialism after Hayek by Theodore A. Burczak and works by
David Schweickart, particularly Against Capitalism.

EDIT: You may also wish to look into syndicalist and guild socialist writers, although they are perhaps more radical than moderate. S.G. Hobson's National Guilds: an Inquiry into the Wage System and a Way Out and G.D.H. Cole's Guild Socialism: A Plan for Economic Democracy are good books covering guild socialism.

Thanks for these helpful suggestions. I have a great deal of books and writers on my wish list to start reading when I get some spare time from work or school.

I agree, because there would still be merit to the idea of comparative advantage. Eventually there would be an easier way to allocate production of goods but for a time it would be fine.

@Red_Skull: is the issue here that you do not want to call yourself a fascist? Because in my opinion you sound like a fascist. I mean that as no insult, by the way, it just seems to describe your predispositions perfectly.

I like some ideas of Fascism but not all of them. I am a modern National Socialist first and foremost.

Still, I believe in worker unions and employee or worker collective bargaining. I am a staunch economic protectionist as well.

I have been working class all my life and this has shaped my perspective through a great deal of many experiences being such.