Anyone here consider themselves socialists?

[Locut0s]

I posted this in another mostly Right wing forum and got some interesting results. Though I was glad to see there were also a lot of left leaning people there.

----

I thought it would be interesting to see how many people would be willing to call themselves socialists. The term doesn't have nearly the negative connotations outside the US as it does within. The right wing in the US love to throw the term around as a catchall term to smear anyone they deem too far left but outside the US it is seen in many countries as a viable political stance to hold.

For the sake of this thread I am defining socialism as "European" socialism. Think of the Nordic countries. Not communist socialism, see Cuba et al.

Edit: Ok right we should have a better definition. So for the sake of this argument socialism will be defined as follows:

A strong emphasis on public social programs such as welfare, universal health care, education, etc... This may or may not include free education for citizens up to or including university. High taxes to pay for said services. Redistribution of wealth from the top few percentage to the bottom 10 percent or so. A fairly liberal view of social values like gay marriage, drug laws, environmental protectionism, affirmative action and the like, but by no means necessarily all of these. All the above but still including a fully democratic legislature and other branches of government and a mostly open Market.

[silverweb]

1. Yup.

I define myself as a civil libertarian/social democrat (aka socialist), and I subscribe to the DSA newsletter.

However, for voting purposes, I'm a registered Democrat because I don't want reTHUGs winning elections.

[Indenturedebtor]

66. How are Libertarianism and Socialism compatible?

I really don't understand: Isn't a core belief of Libertarianism "No taxes"?

I am an American Socialist. There is no justice without social justice.

[armyowalgreens]

81. Libertarianism is simply the absense of authoritarianism..

Something like anarcho-socialism is the idea that we can remove forms of authoritarian government. They would be replaced with less abrasive cooperatives that would carry out the socialist goal.


There are left and right wing libertarians. With drastically different political goals.

[endarkenment]

88. anarcho-capitalism is deformed libertarianism

They went and hijacked the word 'libertarian', which outside the USA is generally interpreted as 'anarchist' rather than 'anarcho-capitalist'. One can be a libertarian socialist - for example see theories of decentralized democratic socialism or just google libertarian socialist.

[DailyGrind51]

91. Libertarianism was great when it only concerned personal freedoms,

like drug use, sex, and gun rights. When it included economics, it got selfish and nasty.

[blindpig]

100. Libertarianism is essentially about economics.

"personal freedom" stands for laissez faire economics, all of the rest of that is after the fact bells and whistles which the backers of libertarianism couldn't give a shit about. It's always been nothing but a tool of the rich.

[silverweb]

103. You left out a word.

I said I'm a "civil libertarian," meaning maximal individual freedoms, as long as they do not trespass on the rights of others.

A core belief of fiscal libertarianism is "no taxes," every person for themselves, etc, and I reject that for a socialistic view.

On edit: Also please note that I used the lower-case "libertarian" rather than capitalized "Libertarian," as in a general philosophical outlook on civil liberties rather than adherence to any formal doctrine.

[Indenturedebtor]

135. Well I can certainly agree with the "civil libertarian" piece :D

It is part of why I'm a Socialist: I believe that even today economies are fairly closed systems, and he who has a lot has in one way or another leveraged it from others.

[xchrom]

2. there's a lot if us here. nt

[Dollface]

3. I think socialism and capitalism are best when used together. Capitalism is good for private but

not public interests while socialism is better for public rather than private interests. One without the other is like the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.

[Lilith Velkor]

53. We do have both - we have socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor.

I'd rather have it the other way around, though.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. Absolutely. Way too much of a gap between the haves and have nots in this country -

making the whole "Christian Nation" thing a big, not so laughable joke. So count me in.

[Naturyl]

5. Yes, if it's the Scandinavian welfare capitalism.

Which isn't actually socialism. It's close to what most people imagine to be socialism, though.

I strongly favor the Scandinavian approach as the best interim solution until we can implement something better.

[valerief]

6. Isn't that why taxes are collected? Well, at least, in the abstract.

I'm a socialist. I'm a liberal. I'm a progressive. And I'm an American, an ordinary American, a usual American.

I just wish our American government was the same.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Pretty much, yeah. n/t

[sandyd921]

8. Yes.

The best mix for governing is regulated capitalism tempered by a substantial dose of socialism, especially in regard to providing for the health and welfare of the population.

[mix]

9. Oui, Je suis socialiste.

[liberalmuse]

10. Pinko commie socialist right here.

To be honest, I'm just a plain 'ol socialist.

[devilgrrl]

11. In the western European/Scandanavian sense I am.

There isn't a problem with that is there? :popcorn:

[SleeplessInAlabama]

12. Yes nt

[HughMoran]

13. I think socialism is the ideal to shoot for

Unfortunately, many of the more vocal socialists are pushy and really just want to obtain power, then dictate to those not in power. Democratic socialism is very rare indeed.

[Luminous Animal]

27. What is Democratic socialism? (n/t)

[tekisui]

114. Bernie Sanders.

Believe in the non-authoritarian, democratic system of government promoting Socialist polices.

[Selatius]

71. This is where the conflict between anarchists and communists began.

Anarchists wanted to push toward socialism in a decentralized manner, preferring the grassroots approach. The communists wanted to establish vanguard parties and capture power. Mikhail Bakunin, an early anarchist, disagreed with Karl Marx' approach. He said that if you won a revolution through a vanguard revolutionary party, the party would simply replace the old rulers as the oppressors. No, he did not live to see the birth of Stalinism in the Soviet Union.

[armyowalgreens]

85. Anarcho-Communism is an ideal. Socialism is the compromise.

[marasinghe]

14. + 1 (n/t)

[SmileyRose]

15. On human rights - I am a total socialist - on economics not so much

Economically I want us to have a safety net for those who hit hard times or need a hand up, but I can't wrap my head around the idea everything I have or ever will have - fiscally or brains/talent wise - belong to the community not me.

I want single payer universal access to medical care - but only because pragmatically that is most frugal way to get us all what we need. Like the fire department - pooling our money together gives us better buying power.

But, when I buy things, I want to buy them on the open FAIR market. so in that regard I'm a scum sucking capitalist.

[Hannah Bell]

74. a socialist on human rights, but not economics? what is this strange animal?

what does socialism "limited to human rights" even *look like*?

[anaxarchos]

107. Why pick on that one?

Most of these answers are pretty primitive.

"I'm for Scandinavian Socialism." What's that? Is that nationalized auto factories plus cross country skiing?

"I'm for a mixed economy." What's that? Is that when everything profitable and powerful is private but everything unprofitable but essential is tossed on the government heap? And then, do they bitch about "big government"?

"I'm for libertarian socialism." Which "liberties" would those be? How about the liberty to start an auto factory... hire hundreds of thousands of workers, corrupt every government and institution within reach, move your now massive "private" capital to Dubai, and then abandon your original workers? That seems fair, no?

In light of the inability to even get crap healthcare... coming at the end of an ocean of "can't gets"... a better question would be to ask how anyone can reconcile whatever they "believe in" with reality. Otherwise, it is just a fanciful discussion of civil religion, and I've got this bridge in Brooklyn...

[Hannah Bell]

137. because i knew what most of the other people meant, though

they're not talking about socialism in any sense that i understand it.

i literally don't understand *at all* in this case, what socialism limited to human rights could possibly mean. to the poster or anyone else.

[blondeatlast]

16. I've got no problem with capitalism--as long as people aren't suffering.

I'm very familiar with European style socialism and I'd be happy with it here.

[maryf]

132. Your avatar was a commie

had an affair with Trotsky in fact, my bit of gossip for this thread...
I wonder if there is such a thing as a capitalist society without suffering? seems beyond improbable?

[handmade34]

17. I have introduced myself as a Socialist

yes I am a Democratic-Socialist

[jhain]

18. You Said it!

I said it!
I said it again!

[tiny elvis]

47. ecky ecky ecky phtang zwoop boing mnomnmnm

i am with the nazionale socialist gardening club and am not committing war crimes

[usregimechange]

19. Nope

[kctim]

95. Not no, but hell no

[rug]

20. Yes.

[tavalon]

21. Heavens yes!

[patrice]

22. The group OWES each individual Real Value in exchange for the individual's investment

of his/her Real Value in the group.

And as has been clearly demonstrated time and time again here in America, the value of dollars and jobs is NOT Real but Arbitrary.

The group has a Responsibility to meet: Real Social Value in exchange for Real Individual Value.

Yes, I am a Socialist.

[Juche]

23. The majority of Americans are socialist

Ask them how they feel about making k-12 and college unaffordable by ending government subsidies, ending social security and medicare, ending progressive taxes, etc.

On social issues many are not socialist, but economically the majority of Americans are socialist. But sadly the wealthy and powerful control the media, so it has been turned into an insult.

[Mermaid7]

24. I've never labeled myself other than perhaps a Pacifist...

which doesn't really apply to an ecomonic philosophy.

But my feeling is that 'Capitalist' to me is a much dirtier word than a 'Socialist'.

To me it is the difference between someone who decides to be a Social Worker or Wall Street Baron.

Who cares the most about others?

[waiting for hope]

25. I do - frankly, who doesn't want to

live in a society where every life is validated and given the opportunity to be better people for the good of the community. But, the problem with that is the label, like liberal before, it's been given a bad rap. I propose a new name - Palinism....then perhaps more on the right would be interested and us here on the left can have a little wink wink over it .. :)

[Locut0s]

40. I think most on the left would claw their own eyes out before taking on the title Palinism ;-)

[waiting for hope]

41. But wouldn't that be the ulitmate scream?

Think about it - they would be embracing something finally that would be in their best interest - and it would diminish Palin as a person to boot.

[Critters2]

26. Yes. Used to be a card-carrying member of the Socialist Party, USA.

Would still be, if it had a chance in hell of winning an election. Its values are way closer to mine than either major party. But, until that day, I'm a loyal Dem.

[heppcatt]

28. Is the description in the OP really considered socialism?

I know it is by the right wing.
I think a mixed economy is best and social programs like universal health care.
Maybe the term is social democracy?

[SleeplessInAlabama]

49. Yes, the term is social democracy.

I was gonna bring it up in my rather terse reply but oh well. It's "European socialism", "Nordic-style" etc. A capitalist/mixed economy with strong emphasis on social welfare.

Democratic socialism is the "next step up" - an actual socialistic economic policy with democratic voting. Then you have the Marx-ish sort of revolutionary socialism, and full-blood Comm'nism.

As the OP said "for the sake of this thread", I said yes, but I'm a social democrat more than a democratic socialist.

[trayfoot]

29. I believe that government exists to help people - not just control them.

If that makes me a social democrat, so be it! I do not believe in PURE capitalism! That is as bad as communist socialism. And, I have studied this for a very long time!

[European Socialist]

30. definitely.

[femmocrat]

31. Yes, a Bernie Sanders-style "socialist" here.

I pretty much agree with your definition. (I'm not so liberal on drug laws, however.)

[Imalittleteapot]

32. Same here.

[Luminous Animal]

46. You might want to reconsider your views on drug laws...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."


... snip...

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The study found lower rates of illegal drug use among teens, lower rates of new HIV infections and more people seeking treatment. It is a well know fact that for every dollar spend on treatment saves three dollars in law enforcement and incarceration.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[inthebrain]

67. You didn't aswer the question

Who knew that the grovelbot was a waffler?

[safeinOhio]

34. At this point in history

I'm damn near being a Marxist. That is just to counter act the destruction of the last 30 years.
Democracy is not very conducive to either pure or near pure capitalism or socialism. Under capitalism wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer people. At some point the masses will vote against the interest of the capitalist. Under strict socialism, too much power becomes concentrated in the ruling elite and the masses, if they have democracy, will vote in their own interest, rather than the states. We end up with the swing one way and then back the other. Both sides scream they have the answer, but neither do in the long run.
The best, I think, we can do is to promote democracy to protect us from both. Our goal to accomplice this would to be to equalize power by taking the power of money out of our system of politics. Campaign reform.

[Locut0s]

57. I actually agree wish this. Sadly I think anyone in a true position of power.....

Trying to really push such sweeping reform would be assassinated.

[aquart]

35. Oh, yeah. Definitely.

[gaspee]

36. Socialist here

And not in the closet about it at all.

[freddie mertz]

37. Yes.

Democratic socialist.

[Hatchling]

96. Me too.

In fact if they had a hope in hell of actually winning an election that's the party I would belong to. Ideologically they fir me to a T.

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[and-justice-for-all]

38. Yes I am...nt

[pnorman]

39. Here's my Political Compass score frfom several years ago:

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.92

I'm of the belief that the first test strongly 'skews' any subsequent tests, rendering them of questionable significance. So I've refrained from taking it again.

So those numbers would work out to "Left-Libertarian", or "libertarian-socialist. That would also be considered a "Chomsky-type" Anarchist". So call me a "lapsed-anarchist", who is more impressed by a "pragmatic-centrist" than by any other President in my entire experience!

pnorman

[obliviously]

42. Classic liberal.

[Cleita]

43. I'm not hard core but consider myself a social democrat.

There are times that I think pure commerce is fine too.

[mitchum]

44. Yes

[starroute]

45. I'm more of an anarcho-syndicalist by temperament

But I'm enough of a realist to understand that as long as there are people who never learned the basic Kindergarten rules of civil behavior, you're going to need some sort of playground monitors to keep them in line.

At this point, any system that emphasizes collectivity and mutual responsibility more than the current walking disaster we've got would be an improvement.

[bigjohn16]

48. Yes.

I'd love to live in a world where profit is a dirty word.

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. Democratic socialist here. The open market thing would need to be more regulated for my tastes.

[titoresque]

51. Hello my name is.......

Tree hugging,liberal,hippy,socialist. :hippie: Oh and uh......Titoresque.

[Flabbergasted]

52. yep. nt

[The Magistrate]

54. Definitely A Social-Democrat In Outlook, Sir

Much more of a Socialist than the definition you have provided, certainly. Concentrations of capital are social assets, and should not be viewed as 'private property'. Their effects on society as a whole is too great for what is done with them to be regarded as a purely private matter, decided by a few individuals in accord with what will most greatly aggrandize themselves.

[NoSheep]

55. Yes. I think society works better when we share.

[Gabi Hayes]

56. anarcho syndicalist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

come and see the violence inherent in the system!

[leftstreet]

61. +1

"I'm your Czar."

"Well I didn't vote for you."

:rofl:

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. LOTS of people here consider themselves socialists. Silly question.

However, I don't count myself among them.

[armyowalgreens]

84. GET OUT!!!!

There is NO room for dissent.:7

[ncliberal]

59. Yes. nt

[byronius]

60. Yes.

[JeffR]

62. hell yes

[Libertas1776]

63. Absolutely

A Democratic Socialist, to be exact, following in the tradition of great American socialists like Eugene V. Debs and Sen. "Fightin' Bob" La Follette who hailed from two of the "socialist capitals" of the USA, Terre Haute, Indiana and Madison, Wisconsin.

[Oeditpus Rex]

64. Yup

[Jennicut]

65. Leaning very left these days....I think DU made me change from moderate

to very liberal. :) I like Democratic Socialism very much these days.

[Selatius]

68. Market socialism comes closest to describing what I want in an economic system.

The government should strive to set up a public bank or investment mechanism like the SBA to start up and fund enterprises that are owned by the workers, labor co-ops. It should also have the power to buy up failed or failing firms and reorganize them into labor co-ops. (Think of GM reorganized by the government and leaving bankruptcy owned and operated by workers)

These enterprises should largely be free to compete in the market, to bring their products and services to market, and to sell their products and services at prices largely determined by supply and demand.

A capital assets tax is placed on all businesses. It'll be a flat tax and will replace all other business taxes levied by the government, except those levied by state and local authorities. The more assets one uses, the more one pays in tax. The revenue will be used to run the public bank. In effect, firms "rent" their assets from society. This is in line with the belief that resources should be owned by everyone, not just a few individuals.

The goal of such a program is ultimately to give choice to workers to either work for themselves collectively, to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, or to sell their labor to others in return for compensation for time and labor invested. The choice would be between the co-op sector of the economy and the private sector of the economy.

I suspect the co-op sector would become the bigger of the two in the long-run.

[SOS]

69. Yes

[LibertyorDeath]

70. Socialist & Proud of it!

My Father was a Union organizer in the textile industry
in Scotland and England I learned so many valuable life
lessons from him.

[Kitty Herder]

72. Absolutely!

I'm proud to be a socialist, though most of my family and friends think the very word is an epithet.

[LeftishBrit]

73. Yes - of the Europaean democratic mixed-economy variety

The Socialist-in-name-only current British government is too RW for me. I think that the Scandinavian countries get a lot of things right.

[Th1onein]

75. me

[mudplanet]

76. I considered my self a socialist until

I had a discussion with a Norwegian in which I said, "I support some sort of free market system. Free markets work well for a lot of things. And I believe you should be able to get rich if you really want to bad enough. There will always be people that want to be rich, and that's not necessarily bad. But unregulated capitalism is a prescription for all sorts of failure and excess. Regulations need to be in place that put people first and profits second, that protect people from the evils of capitalism, and that ensure that there is a true democracy."

And the Norwegian, with a really puzzled look on his face, replied, "You're not a socialist. You're a classic European liberal."

The problem in this country is that, since the 1960s, there has been a deliberate policy of keeping Americans illiterate about politics and economics (and the fact that the distinction between the two is false). It isn't taught in high schools, and it isn't taught in many colleges, and in the colleges where it is taught, it's not required, so there might be 12 undergraduate students at a college with 20K students that could have an intelligent discussion with you about Marxism (which is really sad as Marx basically invented capitalism as a science. No one really understood it until he wrote Das Kapital.). So no one can have a discussion about the distinctions between scientific socialism and utopian socialism, much less about the internal contradictions of capitalism. We're not meant to be able to. We're supposed to assume that America, and the way things are done in America, is "the natural state of things," and that anything that deviates from that is somehow substandard, mistaken, perverted. That extends to language, the most fundamental part of any culture. We don't teach foreign languages or promote international travel. We're frightened and offended if people speak a foreign language in our presence. Spanish is described a "monkey talk."

[OffWithTheirHeads]

77. Just call me comrad, my wife does.

[lib_wit_it]

78. Socialist in terms of providing for the common good and protection--

Nationalize Defense and Health Care! Tax the uber rich/redistribute the wealth to pay.

[Vidar]

79. Yes.

[eridani]

80. Supporting the very notion of public goods gets called socialism these days

So I guess I am, even though I don't think that every single kind of economic activity belongs in the public sphere.

[armyowalgreens]

82. I am currently a socialist. But my opinion is maturing.

[Mixopterus]

83. More or less

Yes.

[Fla_Democrat]

86. Guy walks into a....

Guy walks into a church/synagogue/mosque/temple.. and says... Anyone here consider themselves religious? :shrug:

[WVRICK13]

87. I AM A SOCIALIST

and proud of it. Like my mother I vote Democrat because there is no viable Socialist party.

[endarkenment]

89. proudly

[Echo In Light]

90. Checking in

[Bosso 63]

92. Marxist

" Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others"
groucho marx

[lunatica]

93. I am

I think governments should all be measured by how they take care of all their citizens.

[lewismo]

94. socialist or not

Depends on your definition of socialism if I am a socialist or not :P In the US it's almost as if the word socialist is a curse word :P While I do support a public health care system, with the option of a private enterprise one, just as we have it right now, for those who can afford it, im not a fan of public schools/education. But that doesn't really matter since the private sector is huge in that respect. All in all I have some fairly liberal views, if you want to tag me as a socialist then so be it.

[FiveGoodMen]

97. In the European sense, yes. Count me in.

[HamdenRice]

98. Yes, I've worked with socialist Third World countries to build socialism. Many DUers don't know...

what it actually is, or have very unrealistic notions of how it works. Just yesterday, someone accused me of using "capitalist accounting," as though socialists don't use accounting.

Most people who call themselves socialists in these forums, sadly, are clueless about real life socialist economies, and how technocratic they are.

For example, just because a country is socialist, doesn't mean that it can sustain recurring deficits, nor that it will cut itself off from foreign investment, nor abolish markets or private property, eliminate capital (stock) markets or banking and debt, provide unlimited social welfare to the poor, eliminate either exports or imports, or do away with cost accounting, budgeting and cost/benefit analysis. All of those remain in socialist economies.

Socialism has a specific meaning -- ownership of means of production by the state or cooperatives. What distinguishes socialism from communism is that in socialist countries, the state and cooperatives own some of the means of production, but by no means anywhere near all of it, and each country draws the line at how much differently.

Socialism is a highly efficient system that avoids many pitfalls of free market capitalism -- mainly what economists call "rent seeking" behavior by entrenched capitalist interests -- and the goal of most socialist countries is to out compete purely capitalist countries in the economic field.

[mike_c]

99. me....

:thumbsup:

[cbdo2007]

101. Nope, I love money too much.

Sure, there should be some (maybe even a lot) of "socialism" mixed in but I think capitalism as a whole works better.

[Liquorice]

115. That's my position on it as well. nt

[Prophet0621]

102. No I don't n/t

[Kid Dynamite]

104. That is the Hamden Rice definition of "socialism" you got right there

by the definition you are using the question in the OP should be "Anyone here consider themselves Free Market Capitalists"?

A strong emphasis on public social programs such as welfare, universal health care, education, etc... This may or may not include free education for citizens up to or including university. High taxes to pay for said services. Redistribution of wealth from the top few percentage to the bottom 10 percent or so. A fairly liberal view of social values like gay marriage, drug laws, environmental protectionism, affirmative action and the like, but by no means necessarily all of these. All the above but still including a fully democratic legislature and other branches of government and a mostly open Market.

[HamdenRice]

106. None of which is incompatible with my definition

My definition is about how you achieve those things and how you pay for them. I saw many countries try to achieve these goals without paying for them in the 60s and 70s -- only to end up in the clutches of the IMF -- and there is hardly a socialist country on earth that will make that mistake again.

[readmoreoften]

117. Except that there are no "socialist countries." A single country can't be socialist

under global capitalism. It's not allowed. You can meet the needs of workers without executive leeches syphoning off their labor. But you can't do it when their armies are organized to take you down and/or starve you.

And for that reason socialism can only exist if the working class militaries stand down and refuse to fight for the executive and officer class. Which is why Lenin saw the writing on the wall when the imperialist armies went ahead and attacked. That's why urban guerilla tactics are so ludicrous (and, for the fascists, militias)--there's already a working class army that should be on your side to win.

[AntiFascist]

105. You can also differentiate it from National Socialism and Naziism...

a thorough description of which is given here:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=33325

"Hitler minimized the socialist features of the program. National Socialism made its appeal not to an economic class but rather to the insecure and power-hungry elements of society."

Who does this better describe, the typical Obama supporter or the average Fox News viewer?

[LaPera]

108. Fuck YES!

[Iterate]

109. Yes, absolutely a socialist

and probably even on the left side of that definition. I live in Germany and don't see anything in any way radical about it. It's simply a matter of people seeing a common interest, a social common need, and using their democratically elected government to help accomplish it.

Two incidents can illustrate my point: one from a discussion of free, or nearly free university education, when the person I was talking to responded, "Of course it should be free. If all Germans have as much education as they can achieve it is better for all of us.", and another discussion of laws that (then) prohibited telemarketing calls, especially in the evenings, "We simply would not permit it. That would be rude."

I don't think though that this necessarily implies high taxes and limited liberties, but simply that it's difficult to maintain such a huge military at the same time, and the flavor of predatory capitalism practiced in the US (and as once was practiced in the UK) is a bit more challenged.

[burrowowl]

110. YES! I'm a Socialist!

and proud of it!

[argyl]

111. If I were European I'd be a Socialist or Green. Here in the US I'm a Democrat.

[Union Yes]

112. Marxist to the bone here.

[DefenseLawyer]

113. I see it like this

When I was a freshman in college most of my friends and I didn't have much extra money but we did like to eat. The nearby pizza place sold pizza by the slice for a buck, but with a coupon you could buy a whole pie with say 10 slices for $5 bucks. We never bought pizza by the slice. When we pooled our money and bought a pie, we all got our slice for much less and even had a piece or two for any friend that was a little short that day. We were socialists.

[readmoreoften]

116. I'm an international socialist. I don't consider Cuba socialist (nor Nordic countries)

I don't believe that the United States will be permitted by the capitalist class to ever achieve the benefits that the Nordic countries enjoy. I am actively engaged in transforming society. While "anarcho-communism" is a nice idea, its a belief system and not something anyone can really work towards.

Seriously, if there were a mass strike leading to a revolutionary transformation of society based on democratic principles and material distribution, we could not simply say "Well that's over! Let's create a power vacuum so that fascists and capitalists can regroup and take us over because "authority is evil"!

Or wait... that's what happened during the Paris Commune, in Greece, in Iran, and most of all, in Spain. Beyond its idealism, "anarcho-communism" erodes organization after revolution and ends up playing into the hands of fascists every time.

Whereas in the Russian Revolution, the destruction of the working class (50% during the first world war and the remainder during the civil war) led to the rise of Stalin who lead a state capitalist war economy that had nothing to do with democratic self-government by the producers of society for themselves. Stalin killed all the original Bolsheviks AND the anarchists (who helped undermine what remained of the Bolsheviks after war.)

People generally "identify" as anarcho-communist (far left libertarian) but when you start actively practicing mass politics in the street you want to protect your gains for working class from opportunists and capitalist thugs. You absolutely need a representative ELECTED government of the people to keep order after a revolution.

And Nordic "socialism" isn't socialism. It's keynesianism. And we also have keynesianism here--military keynesianism. There is no mechanism for transforming military keynesianism into "happy social-program keynesianism". The plutocracy controls the material goods. The only reason they ever created social programs was that it was profitable. It's no longer profitable and the only thing keeping Nordic countries from the brutality we endure is their democratic "tradition." There is no mechanism for "adopting" their traditions and, frankly, they have little control over whether or not their future generations don't decline into the perversity of our situation.

In a word, fighting for Nordic socialism is not much more than fighting for our plutocracy to have a change of heart--to be more benevolent. Good luck with that.

[maxpower]

118. Yes I do

recommended

[skygazer]

119. Pretty much always have

Never had a problem saying it.

[Joe the Liberal]

120. To the core....

It makes sense, it's sustainable and I believe it works.

[diane in sf]

121. Call me a Nordic socialist who lives in the US and also believes in being entreprenurial,

[Kber]

122. My great grandfather was a communist

My grandmother is a registered Socialist.

My mother usually votes Green.

I'm a moderate (by family reunion standards) Democrat.

My mother and grandmother are concerned for my kids, but they are both pretty solid progressives so far.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Yes, a Democratic Socialist of the European sort

It really frosts me when right-wingers call Obama a Socialist, because they have NO idea what that means. None at all. They just heard Rush and Bill use it as an insult, and if they graduated from high school, they know that Nazi is an abbreviation for "National Socialism." (Right, the Nazis were "socialists" like the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is a democracy.)

[drmeow]

124. Philosophically

I think I would call myself a Marxist/Communist - in the sense that I agree with his analysis that the capitalistic system is fundamentally exploitative of the worker and that worker ownership of the means of production is the least exploitative system.

Practically I don't believe that Marxist can work outside of a small and self-contained system, I have issues with the violent overthrow of the power elite, and Marx was far to idealistic about the whole short-term dictator thing. Although it is far more than an economic theory (I studied it in sociology), like most (if not all) economic theories it only really works on paper.

Therefore I consider myself largely a socialist. I was a member of the American Socialist Party for a short period of time but remember taking issue with some position they took (I think it may have been an election boycott situation - I don't remember) so let my membership lapse. I'm not sure how my views jive with the "mostly Open Market" cause I'm not entirely clear on what that means. I do have a side of me that is protectionist in that I do not think that allowing tariff-free imports from countries which do not take care of their people (which makes those products much cheaper than American made products) is necessarily a good thing. Allowing such imports can very easily erode the structure that supports the socialist policies. By the same token, I'm totally in favor of competition from other countries to force improvements in American made products (Japanese cars being a perfect example). I also support fair-trade and sustainable imports from developing countries. So I'm very mixed vis a vis the market.

[slampoet]

125. To live in America after 1912 is to be a Socialist.

If you don't believe it then you support Turpentine in candy and children getting shredded by knitting machines while their fathers work 16 hour days.

[nealmhughes]

126. Debs Tendency here, and proud member of the DP.

Now had we a viable Democratic Socialist Party . . .

[reincarnating ruby]

127. I have blown away a couple of people. Some old lady at Panera Bread

started yelling about "Obama's Socialism!" and I went up to her and said I hope we become a Socialist country. I pointed out the economic prosperity of Scandanavian countries which enjoy a great standard of living.

[mrs_p]

128. according to the definition

absolutely - and proud of it.

[TBF]

129. I'd like to know the source of that "definition" of Socialism -

Yes I am a socialist, but not the kind of socialist that supports a free market. This must be backwards day.

[Orsino]

130. Well, sorta.

Any pure -ism may be destined to fail. I'm all for a strong social safety net. A capitalistic soxiety sure as hell won't survive without it.

[conturnedpro09]

131. Nope. Fair-minded, pro-regulation, democratic capitalist here.

I'm a Democrat for the very reason that I reject the platforms of the Greens and Socialists. Otherwise I'd be posting on a far more radical forum. And most of the time when certain Americans actually call themselves Communists (*cringe!*) they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Frankly, I'm happy the way the Cold War ended. Viva liberal democracy!

I generally tell my friends to consider me a "JFK-Clintonian liberal Democrat."

[southernyankeebelle]

133. I consider myself a social democrat - I happen to believe

that government should help its citizens with social programs such as health care, social security retirement. I think the government should see the corporations don't take advantage of its citizens as it is doing now.

[ArnoldLayne]

134. Yes I have been for over 20 years

I use to be a Trotskyist in 1981-82 but they were too extreme so I moved more to the middle since then.

[XemaSab]

136. I'll call myself a European-style socialist

:)