There is no 'going Socialist', the US is already partially Socialist. The question is how much.

[stevenleser]

National Defense is Socialized, we have a partially Socialist Postal service, we have an inadequate Socialist retirement benefit and the elderly have Socialized medicine, etc.

The question is, what percentage of our economy should be Socialist and what parts should comprise that percentage if you dont think the percentage should be either 0% or 100%.

That is what should be the national discussion in my not so humble opinion. There is no one who thinks we should be zero percent Socialist. Freepers and Libertarians will claim that they do until you explain that the military is Socialist and what it would take to make it non-Socialist.

[Taverner]

1. 75-90%

Nationalize Corporations - turn them over to the workers and syndicates

[stevenleser]

3. I should have added some additional figures, by the way...

For instance, in 2010, the visible portion of the military budget was $663 billion. With a 2010 GDP of $14.7 trillion, that means that the visible portion of the military budget is 4.5% of total US GDP, thus we start off with 4.5% being Socialized.

Medicare is projected to have cost around $450 Billion in 2010, that is another 3%. So just with the visible portion of the military budget and Medicare, we are at %7.5. Add the US Postal service whose budget is around $70 Billion which is half a percent of GDP and you are already at 8% of US GDP being classifyable as 'Socialist'

[hack89]

7. Has that ever been attempted on a large scale?

I can certainly see big problems with a collective decision making process - what real world examples are you using as a model?

[stevenleser]

13. I disagree with that commenter on percentage, but Cuba nationalized all economic activity

down to the street vendor level at one point. About as close to 100% as you can get.

[hack89]

14. But Cuba also centralized economic decision making

they didn't turn businesses over to the workers.

[stevenleser]

15. Ah, interesting point, OK. nt

[joshcryer]

40. No socialism has ever turned businesses over to the workers as far as I am aware.

It's always been a crony whatever. Crony socialism, crony capitalism, same thing. Mob states.

[Taverner]

22. No - Never - and what better time than now?

Central Planning failed, Capitalism failed...

Why not leave the production to the workers?

[hack89]

35. Has capitalism failed in countries like Sweden? Norway? Finland?

All those social democracies that seem to have figured out how to make capitalism work?

[joshcryer]

29. It would be impossible without a constitutional ammendment denying the right to private property.

It's taken Venezuela, for example, years to erode their private property concepts enough to affordably expropriate corporations. It would take a very long time to do this, we're talking about trillions of dollars of capital that needs to be justly compensated.

[hack89]

36. Fortunately I don't see that ever happening. nt

[Taverner]

45. Not so - Socialism doesn't mean the end of private property

It means shared control of the means of production

[joshcryer]

48. Nah. Expropriate without just compensation requires an amendment to private property.

It's not the end of private property, but if you wanted to expropriate, ie, nationalize all of the big companies, you cannot do it justly, as in, the actual value of those companies is more money than the federal budget has times 10. We're talking about the federal budget exploding to buy out those businesses.

I am a socialist, I understand what socialism is.

[Taverner]

51. In some cases, the companies have forfeited their right to fair compensation

Banks come to mind

[hack89]

49. And what do you think is the fair market value of all those companies

the government has to buy?

[Taverner]

50. Well some of them have violated so many laws, they don't deserve fair market value

I'm thinking about the banks

[hack89]

53. What about us shareholders?

I have some of my retirement fund in bank stocks - as a 99 percenter, do I get compensated?

[Taverner]

59. Fair compensation for stockholders

Two ways you could go about it: cash out upon government takeover, or do like Sweden and just make the state the majority stockholder

[hack89]

60. Cash out at fair market value? nt

[Vincardog]

2. Socialize medicine; Socialize POLITICS (Public financing of elections); Socialize the public common

Minimum; income, education, housing and food. Socialize the courts. After that let the capitalists fight each other for the scraps.

[redqueen]

4. Agree with all those, and also utilities IMO. (nt)

[Vincardog]

5. I include utilities under housing: Heat cooling water and sewerage

[stevenleser]

6. I wonder if you would add banking to that. nt

[Vincardog]

8. YES state banks should pay for the rest

[jwirr]

16. Of those I think we would have the most trouble socializing housing

and food production. I cannot see farmers handing over their farms any time soon and as to housing many in this nation still own their own homes. However, housing is already partially socialized through HUD. At first at least a combination of private public might work. Also I think it would depend on the situation at the time. If we really end up in a total collapse that made it impossible for private ownership then socialization would be preferable.

I agree that we do not have to change everything as much of it was developed along the lines of socialism.

[Vincardog]

18. I am talking about providing everybody minimum standards of each. We could leave the farmers

and take over the Food Processing parasites. There is $.01 worth of produce in your morning cereal.

[jwirr]

21. That would work.

[white_wolf]

24. How do we socialize the courts?

I mean those are technically public entities. I agree with you, but I'm just curious what changes you'd like to make.

[Vincardog]

58. Public elections of ALL judges

[joshcryer]

41. No, public financing has free speech implications, just fix reapportianment. We have too few reps.

We need 10,000 reps as opposed to the 435 we have now.

Check this out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x767436

We are not represented by our politicians because our politicians created effectively a lobby-centric autocracy.

Public funding would not change that.

[Enthusiast]

9. We missed a great chance to nationalize the banks.

And that is a damn shame.

[Fool Count]

33. There will be many more chances in the future.

Until the banks are nationalized those chances will just keep coming until even the US government wouldn't be able to turn next one down.

[Ghost Dog]

10. Do be wary of confusing and/or conflating

national (nationalist) socialism with international (internationalist) socialism.

And be aware of the distinctions to be made between means and ends.

[stevenleser]

12. Perhaps, but I prefer a simplification. Is an industry publicly or privately owned in whole or in

part. I think that works best for this discussion.

[mike_c]

11. answer: more....

Garrett Hardin was right.

[hack89]

17. Private ownership of corporations should be the norm

I would turn to Sweden as my model. Strong cooperation between government, business and workers with appropriate regulation and relatively high taxes but little public ownership of corporations.

[former9thward]

19. Your defition of 'socialism' is bizarre to say the least.

None of the things you mention are socialist. If they are then every government in Europe for the last two hundred years has been socialist including the nazis.

[Major Nikon]

43. It's a mixed economy

Which is the model which fits both the US and European countries to varying degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

[stevenleser]

55. It's amazing how many people don't understand this and as a result, we flail around with econ labels

that are meaningless. There is no such thing as a 100% capitalistic economic system and in practice, a 100% public owned system is extremely difficult to manage. What you end up are mixed/blended systems. That is what 100% of the worlds countries have in practice.

That is why I say the discussion SHOULD be about what industries should the government own in whole or in part and what should be private.

Some people will say that some of the non-capitalist industries or companies could be in the form of worker owned entities and that is fine, but in practice, mandating such a system in a large scale would be nearly if not completely difficult to administer.

[newspeak]

66. yes, a mixed economy works

I'd be more concerned of the US losing that which is socialized. You got greedy corporations waiting in the wings for their puppets to privatize everything that was socialized. Of course, we'll still be paying-since the corporates need their profits, we'll be paying more.

[PETRUS]

20. Clearly the current framework allows business to externalize too many costs.

And those are borne by the public - environmental damage is an obvious example. So that's one problem. Then there's profit-taking based on human need - the US healthcare system is a textbook case of market failure. That's another problem.

[Telly Savalas]

23. I wholeheartedly agree with your not so humble opinion

The left side of the pundit-o-sphere would do well to have this discussion among itself and ignore the mouthbreathers altogether.

[Odin2005]

25. You are confusing Socialism with State Capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[joshcryer]

27. There is no such thing as stateless capitalism.

State Socialism and State Capitalism are fundamentally the same thing.

[Prophet 451]

26. I have a theory

My theory is that most of the economy should be capitalist but, in certain crucial sectors (utilities, healthcare, mail, telecoms, banking), the state should own and operate a not-for-profit alternative. I call this the "backstop theory". The idea is that the state-operated alternative provides a bottom floor of service for price and, to compete with that, a private company has to offer a significantly better service or price.

So, let's say the state telecoms company offers 2mb service for ten bucks a month. To attract your dollars, a private company then has to offer you either a faster connection, a cheaper price or both. This is roughly how we do healthcare here (the UK). Everyone is covered by the NHS but the NHS has waiting lists for some non-emergency procedures, uses mainly generic drugs and hospitals are functionally spartan. So if you want to skip the waiting lists or you want name-brand drugs, you either buy private insurance or pay out-of-pocket.

[AntiFascist]

30. Ummm, what about energy and water? n/t

[Prophet 451]

31. Included in utilities

So the state would provide a not-for-profit service for them too.

Unless I'm missing something?

[AntiFascist]

32. I guess it should also include oil/gasoline for autos...

until the time, hopefully, when most are electric. This is a large day to day expense for many people, especially commuters.

[Prophet 451]

37. Hadn't thought of that

I can see three problems with that: Firstly, there is no way a private company could compete, it's still the same gas. Secondly, as I understand it, all oil is traded on the international market so the state would have to buy the oil that way. Unless we set up a state-operated oil drilling system, which is an idea. Thirdly, letting gas prices rise hastens the adoption of electric vehicles.

[AntiFascist]

39. Well, look at it this way...

big oil companies receive subsidies and tax advantages, while regular people many times have to decide between fuel and shelter/food.

[Prophet 451]

47. OK, you convinced me

Thinking about it, if we establish a state-operated network of oil-drilling (and associated trades), that also has a stimulative effect, putting people to work.

But, playing at being supreme ruler, I'd also include some kind of tax credit for trading your gas-driven vehicle in for a hybrid or electric one.

[Major Nikon]

44. Anything below the ground shouldn't be privately owned

Oil, natural gas, water, or any other natural resource should be owned by the people. The concept that an individual can 'own' something 2-3 miles below their ground is ridiculous.

[joshcryer]

28. The US is contantly fighting against becoming more of a social democracy, we're not far from it.

All we need is socialized medicine (without banning private medicine as in other countries) and socialized housing (which is perfectly dooable), then pow, you've got a nice socialized state.

The roads, socialized.

The airports, socialized.

Public transport, socialized.

Fire, police, EMT, socialized.

It won't be long, the trend has always been towards progressivism, even if people are impatient and want it to happen tomorrow. I give it 20 years.

[TBF]

34. I agree with health care - also add banks and energy. nt

[joshcryer]

38. Banks don't need to be nationalized, credit unions already are public.

Banks just need to be highly regulated so that investments cannot be placed into sour spots.

Energy is another thing that is public, utilities and the like, it's not terribly bad as we have some of the cheapest most affordable energy on the planet, so we'd be remiss to nationalize it.

[TBF]

42. Disagree on both counts. We have affordable energy because we keep raiding

countries. That needs to stop as well.

[stevenleser]

63. I dont think that is true

I'd like it if you could point me to any evidence of the US taking ownership of any oil/natural gas resources or of transfers of any quantity of oil or gas to the US at a discounted price as a result of our military ventures

I almost wish that we had plundered some of this if we were going to be at war anyway.

[Romulox]

54. Banks' RISK is 100% "socialized". Hence trillions in bankster bailouts.

Ummm... :hi:

[stevenleser]

56. I'm not a big fan of nationalizing many industries at all but I think the banks and financial system

are good candidates. They have all but destroyed the entire economy three times in the last 30 years. If we arent going to nationalize them, they ought to be put on double secret probation with the next infraction causing a full nationalization.

In fact, in the face of what they have done over the last 30 years, I dont know what the argument is to let them continue to be private.

[limpyhobbler]

46. +1 vote for public health insurance

Private health insurance companies serve no purpose.

They only drive up costs while denying people needed health care.

[kemah]

52. Wal Mart employees are socialized

Most Wal Mart employees work part time and for minimum wage. With their low wages, they qualify for food stamps and medicaid. So our tax dollars are subsidizing the employees of the the richest family in the America. Wal Mart should be required to pay a living wage and not stick it to the tax payers.

[Mosaic]

57. Who cares if some white boy

With blond hair, blue eyes, and a rotten attitude hates socialism. Who cares? No one died and made them ruler. Fuck them. Embrace who we already are. FDR gave us the New Deal and made this country great. The New Deal is hated by these asshole purists, ideologue morons. Again Fuck them.

[kctim]

61. Depends solely on

how many more individual rights and freedoms Americans are willing to give up.
Rewrite the Constitution? Throw it all away and start over? Salvage what's left?

[stevenleser]

64. The Constitution specifically calls for some Socialism, to Wit, Article 1 Section 8

These following parts of Article 1 Secion 8 specifically call for the government to raise money and pay and administer various functions. That makes those functions nationalized functions:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
.
.
.

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

.
.
.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

.
.
.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

.
.
.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[kctim]

65. True

but other than high taxes, which parts affect individual rights?

Our Constitution would have to be re-written in order to change to socialism, which is why I said it depends solely on the people.

[stevenleser]

69. I'm not sure you understand what I am saying. There is no 'change'. We are partially Socialist, as

is everyone else. The question is should we add certain industries.

We're not at the point where any sizeable group would consider stripping people of private property ownership and things like that, nor would I be in favor of that.

[kctim]

70. I understand

My point though, is that while some of our programs may be similar to socialist programs, they are for the most part not programs that strip away at individual rights and freedoms.

Another thing to remember about those programs is that the ones named specifically in the Constitution, armies and postal roads, are also the ones that people do not resist, while the ones not in the Constitution and take away freedoms, especially choice, are resisted.
This is why the Constitution will have to be rewritten in order for socialism to take hold in the US.

Our nation was founded on the principles of individualism and limited government. Its people have no problem paying for its government to run government, but they do have a problem with paying for its government to run individual lives through force.

[defendandprotect]

62. If we look at "general welfare" then ALL of the economy should be socially based --

in public services --

utilities -- post office -- schools --

And banks should be part of it -- we should only have banks which are

run by the community for benefit of the community.


Question is, how do we get rid of the evil privatizing of our government/military/

intelligence/Treasury?

[tjwash]

67. The biggest fucking whiners about socialism, are the ones who benefit the most from it.

I get reminded of that every damn Thanksgiving when my idjit family members get together around the thanksgiving table.

Brother--retired military, gets a nice taxpayer supplied pension from the Army (which he absolutely deserves; don't get me wrong), works at the VA hospital, uses his GI bill to take classes so he can get a raise...is a braindead knee jerk teabagging dip-wad that can't go 2 minutes without going off on an anti-democrat tirade (thinks Jimmy Carter caused everything from the national deficit to the housing crash in 2006).

Brother in law--worked for the county water district for 20 years, retired at 55, and courtesy of a strong union that fought for him before he even started working there, gets full pay and benefits for the rest of his natural life courtesy of our taxes(which he as well absolutely deserves; don't get me wrong either)...republican anti-UAW jagoff that can't go 5 minuted without complaining about paying taxes.


And on, and on, and on....

[newspeak]

68. that's just because they are the "we got ours, we don't give a shite about anyone else."

They listen to limpballs and his ilk that feeds their preconceived ideas and prejudices without really thinking exactly why they have it better, in some cases, better than others.