I am a feminist, liberal, SOCIALIST , pro-choice, anti-drug war, Democratic, Anti-Racist American

[Taverner]

and I fucking vote

[leftstreet]

1. What's a 'neo-socialist?'

What was wrong with the old ones?

:-)

[Swede]

2. Whoa!

[Taverner]

5. Neo-Socialist is probably a term that can mean different things to different people

But I've always felt Neo-Socialist looks not to Marx and Engels, but European Labor Theory. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky could be considered this (although one could argue they're Anarcho-Syndicalist)

I've heard some folks consider Neo-Socialism to be Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Ozymanithrax]

14. Neo-socialism was a right wing mostly French political movement of the 1930's.

with a strong admiration of Fascism. You should change that to Anarcho-Syndicalims since Chomsky seems to be a strong influence.

[Taverner]

15. true, but it's been a long time since them

Anarcho Syndicalism usually brings a blank stare from most people

Hell, I might as well just say 'SOCIALIST' because that is what I am.

[Ken Burch]

21. Actually, I'd agree with that

That also has connections with Owenite Socialism(named for Robert Owen, who started democratically-managed mills in Britain in the 1840's and who Emma Goldman saw as a model).

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Pretty close to that myself although..........

I consider myself a radical socialist rather than a neosocialist. Even libertarian on personal issues. And I'm DAMN proud of it.

[Taverner]

7. How would you define Radical Socialism?

Other than, Socialism is totally rad man! (:))


Seriously - does the radical part refer to the speed in which Socialism is applied, or the extent to which Socialism is applied?

[socialist_n_TN]

9. Both.....

nm

[Taverner]

11. Cool

Although I'm not sure how well complete nationalization of all industry will go over...

Thats why I like David Ricardo's method of using Capitalism to move to Socialism. Basically, the government starts buying industries, one at a time.

[socialist_n_TN]

17. It's really hard to get into my vision of socialism .......

in an internet post, but just in general terms, to me it means the dog (government) wagging the tail (business) rather than vice versa. And it needs to happen QUICKLY.

I'd base mine off of a market economy with small businesses and owner/operators left pretty much alone and being the backbone of the economy. The bigger the business, the more the government runs and controls it for the general welfare. If you want to avoid government takeover, let the workers run it on a profit sharing co-operative basis. I'd leave those co-ops pretty much alone. Of course, most of the general welfare industries I WOULD nationalize and run through the government. Health care, education, police, fire, military, most banking, etc. Taxation would be VERY progressive and heavily on the top earners.

There would still be inequality, but nobody starves, nobody's homeless and the inequality is controlled with taxation. Wealth MUST be redistributed. Taxation is the easiest and more peaceful way to redistribute. I saw a Huey Long quote the other day that was apropos to this. "Money is like manure. Spread it around and everything grows. Pile it up and it just stinks." Pretty good view IMO.

[Curmudgeoness]

19. Love the Huey Long quote. And I am impressed

with your vision of socialism. You forgot to list two of my favorites for nationalizing: utilities and oil companies.

This country is so screwed up with their opinions about socialism. They have no problem allowing the government to have responsibility for the roads and they bitch constantly about how they are not doing a good job on them. But a corporation can poison a medicine or food and sicken or kill countless people, and no one is wanting their heads.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. Yeah, I just slammed through things off the top of my..........

head and included the stuff I forgot under "etc." :) And yes Energy, including both utilities and energy companies, would be nationalized. To me, those are DEFINITELY "general welfare" sectors.

Education and agitation are the stage that socialists are at now. It's working. It's slow, but it IS working. And with every step that the capitalists take to usurp power over the people, they are enabling socialists and socialism all the more.

I saw a poll (probably Pew) about a year ago that stated that only 52% of the population had a POSITIVE view of capitalism. And that's with CENTURIES of government propaganda in FAVOR of the system. That poll also showed that about a third had a positive impression of socialism. I wouldn't be a BIT surprised if those numbers have changed by now. LESS positive for capitalism and MORE positive for socialism.

[Curmudgeoness]

26. I'd put money on a poll, where you did not use the term

socialism/capitalism, but asked people for their positive/negative views on the principles instead. Socialism would blow the poll numbers out of the water. What need to happen is an education about what socialism really is about. Capitalists have made it a dirty word. I do not want to see socialists start to call themselves something else just to get away from the stereotype (like they have done to liberals, oops, I mean progressives). I love the word socialist. It makes sense.

[socialist_n_TN]

27. Yeah, I agree. I don't even think it would be close...

System 1) The greatest good for the greatest number.

System 2) Everybody make as much as they can.

What impressed me about the poll I saw a year ago was actually how WELL the term "socialism" did even with 100+ years of negative propaganda. To me a third of respondents saying they had a FAVORABLE view of the word, is INCREDIBLE. And "capitalism" barely making a majority with all the positive propaganda? And yes I DO, think that it would be even MORE negative if the poll was taken today.

[Ken Burch]

4. OK. Good for you

But we're not going to get non-voters back the polls by attacking them. They need to be persuaded that it's worth it.

We should be positive and work hard on GETTING them back...not doing endless "you suck if you didn't vote" threads.

No one is won over by abuse.

[bobbolink]

6. "No one is won over by abuse." That ought to be the motto of DU.

"Its the fault of poor people.. they don't vote or don't vote in their own best interest." Well, then, do an LBJ and GIVE poor people something to vote *for*!

[Lucian]

10. Why work hard to "win over" those who don't care?

[Taverner]

12. Yep

there are folks who only care about what things mean for them and only them

I'd rather not have to placate them

[Ken Burch]

18. It's not fair to say they "don't care".

Mainly, they feel abandoned. You can't expect them to start voting first BEFORE the politicians start reaching out to them.

[Ken Burch]

22. Oh, I don't know...because if we GOT them, we'd win?

We're never going to get the finicky centrists again anyway.

Only a mobilization strategy and a program based on inspiring such mobilization can truly win.

Deals in back rooms can't.

Basically, we need a candidate who actually IS like Obama pretended he'd be.

[Lucian]

8. Same here.

And I want to add that I'm heavily pro-union.

[Taverner]

13. Yep - the Union makes us strong

Solidarity forever!

[snacker]

16. Plus one! n/t

[readmoreoften]

20. +1

Enthusiastic K&R!

[Xenotime]

23. Good for you.

[woofless]

24. Hey!

I resemble that remark!