There have been viewers of this blog who proclaim socialism as a cure for what ails the USA, while denouncing free market capitalism. The largest body of comments has come from one who is a member of the "Democratic Socialists of America". This viewer has commented that others who post here should "do their research" beforehand. I have decided to take that to heart. This post will begin my taking a closer examination at what lies behind the term "Democratic Socialists of America" (DSA). I encourage you to take a few minutes of your time and research these things for yourself as well. After all, we dont want to be accused of being simpletons or being narrow minded, so let's all take a close look at what this political party has to offer us.
My initial research has been Wikipedia. We all know that is not a be-all-end-all of information, but it provides a launching point. The most useful part of a good wiki page IMO is the links it gives to other sites on the subject, especially official sites for organizations and such. I have taken the time to click these official links for the DSA and its affiliates.
So far I have not been impressed.
According to the official DSA website, they are the official US affiliate of a much larger political organization called the "Socialist International". They pride themselves as being the largest political organization on earth. Turns out the Socialist International is a modern incarnation of one of several strains of socialist/communist thought which have decended from the Second International, from the First International and right back to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.
Here is a name you can research: Max Schachtman. He was originally from Poland and was a Leninist right hand man for Trotsky. He emigrated to NYC in 1905. He later became the right hand man of the president of the AFL-CIO in the US. That is the big labor union conglomerate here. He became active in the American Socialist movement. He is regarded as having critically shaped thinking in the DSA. The DSA leader, Michael Harrington believes in working within the US Democratic Party to shape policy rather than running independent candidates, an idea that he says comes from Schachtman.
While there is so much I could post here about what I have been reading, I will simply point out two items I have found very interesting that illustrate the failure in the real world of the Socialist International ideology.
1. Greece - The Socialist International affiliate there is called the "Panhellenic Socialist Movement". They have been in power of the government there since 1981, except from 2004-2009. In 2006 their party president was elected president of the Socialist International. Do I need to elaborate on why this is relevant?
2. Mexico - The Socialist International affiliate there is called the "Industrial Revolutionary Party". They have not been in power since 2000, though they were in sole control politcially in Mexico for the previous 70 years, when Vicente Fox won, putting them out of power for the first time in decades.
We see many problems in Mexico, though things have become much better there in the last decade then they were for a long time. They just have a very long way to go still. The corruptions that held its people down for the better part of a century were done by the Socialist International affiliate party in power there for the majority of a century prior however.
There is much more that could be discussed here but that is all I have time for right now....
Good research Pahoran. I'm glad to see research and factual information presented here, even if there is just a touch of bias.
ReplyDeleteI would say you are right to be unimpressed. Unfortunately DSA with its small membership and budget and lack of political influence is hardly likely to be a factor in US politics.
Your conclusions however are again a bit simplistic. Yes, socialist-affiliated parties were in power recently in Greece and Mexico, two countries that are in deep economic trouble. Of course the Republican party has been in power for much of the last decade during which the US took an economic nosedive, so I am justified in blaming that collapse on the Republicans using your logic. (Gee, perhaps your logic is good after all!)
You are also right that the PRI in Mexico and PASOK in Greece are deeply corrupt, but then so are the Republican and Democratic parties in the US. There's something about access to power and large amounts of money that tends to corrupt people regardless of ideology.
I look forward to your continuing research into socialism.
All research will have bias with it. Especially when dealing with the issue of politics. What I fail to see here is, Charles, is that both the democrats and republicans lately have been embracing and ushering in a brand of socialism to America. With socialism failing in Mexico and Greece, and with an increase in socialism playing into the recent economic problems, how can you continue to defend what you recognize as a political system with problems causing world-wide economic problems?
ReplyDeleteIf socialism is to be the answer, then we are asking the wrong question.
I would say that if DSA is unlikely to be a factor in US Politics that is a good thing. Unfortunately I do feel that many socialist tenets are being adopted into our political system right now and to our detriment.
ReplyDeleteAs far as our problems here domestically go, yes you would be correct in blaming both major parties, to the extent that they have both strayed from the principles in the Constitution and from free markets.
You said "There's something about access to power and large amounts of money that tends to corrupt people regardless of ideology".
Well put. Bravo. You have just reiterated a core reason why the framers of our republic wanted the national government restricted to only enumerated powers and reserved all others to State governments and to the People, via Amendments 9 & 10 in the Bill of Rights.
They knew that power tends to want to centralize so checks needed to be in place to prevent that. This outweighed any efficiencies in government that would result from more centralized power.
Protecting individual and local community freedom from the abuses that inevitably result from too much centralized power trumped giving government an easier time in getting things done.
Glad you see it now for what is,
Welcome to the team....
James, I fail to see any truly socialist policies being pushed by either party. Certainly the bailouts are an unjustifiable infusion of taxpayer dollars into private hands, but in none of the cases would a socialist support them. There is a difference between government intervention in the economy to bailout speculators and criminals and government intervention to help ordinary people. Socialists would support a bailout of working people, but we haven't had that. After the trillions wasted by the Treasury and the Fed, we still have 20% unemployment, millions without health care, a deteriorating infrastructure, a lousy education system, and no social safety net to speak of. Socialists are diametrically opposed to the policies being pursued by Obama as they were opposed to the same policies when pursued by Bush.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we are in a depression/recession and private credit markets are not lending to small businesses and creditworthy individuals as they were before. The only way to restart the system is through massive government spending, but it can't be giveaways to those who already control most of the wealth. Government funds should be used to create jobs and paychecks for unemployed Americans, and foster new industrial jobs in sectors that have a future. Spending cutbacks now will only make matters worse.
Charles, what is the reason for your infatuation with a system which has not and cannot work? Socialism is death. If you're truly interested in a society which focuses attention on the wellbeing of their neighbor, I encourage you to study the Law of Concecration or United Order as outlined by Joseph Smith. It accomplishes the same touted ideals of socialism, with one MAJOR difference, it uses agency and freedom of choice to accomplish the objective rather than compulsion. And for all us conservatives out there, if we're not in support of the principles of the United Order then we are in the wrong. We can accomplish social wellbeing, but it rests unequivocally on the principles of freedom.
ReplyDeleteI notice, GWH, that the United Order like almost all other utopian socialist communities died out. Perhaps its founding principles were not so great after all.
ReplyDeleteIn democratic socialism, there is no forcible consent beyond that which is the norm in all governments. All governments tax their citizens to gather revenue (barring huge oil deposits) and then make decisions about how to spend that money, allegedly for the benefit of the nation. The more democratic the government, the more likely that the government expenditures actually are used to benefit the nation. That's why in so many democratic countries, the government's primary concern is the welfare of the people. That's typical in the most socialist nations of Western Europe for example and as a result their living standards, health and happiness far exceed those of nations who practice neoliberal capitalism.
Charles, I believe that part of the problem with the United Order was not the system itself, but rather that the people were unable to live it. Wanting and choosing to be a good, charitable person is hard.
ReplyDeleteWe have spoken many times on this blog about the principle of agency, or choice. The idea that people can chose to be charitable, chose to do what is best for society is a marvelous and high ideal.
Socialism, whether it be masked as "democratic" or not is based on massive taxation and therefore by nature, anti-choice. Socialism doesn't do away with greed, it doesn't do away with bad moral behavior, it doesn't do away with any of the negatives that many socialists view as the downfall to a largely capitalistic society. Socialism simply shifts these problems to the public operation.
The reality is, that no matter what form of government, society in its highest and best form can only come to be when the people chose to be live the highest laws and embrace personal freedom and accountability. Not forced to be that way through legislation or the heavy hand of government under the threat of legal punishment and taxation.
Is this not how you felt Charles in your feelings about the prison and judicial system from a previous post? You did say that in your opinion, punishing criminals with jail time, etc., does nothing but appease the public need for justice and revenge. In one manner of speaking, you feel that compelling people through taking away their liberties and freedoms till they learn their lessons is unproductive and part of a broken system.
How then is compulsion to behave a certain way for criminals wrong, but compulsion for law abiding citizens somehow okay?
For example, you say that we should rehabilitate and counsel those who commit crimes against society rather than simply punishing them. Usher them and encourage them in proper citizenship. Fine. Yet, when it comes to business, you are all for compelling banks, hospitals, and those in the financial markets, who have not necessarily committed any crimes, to be legislated and therefore compelled to behave a certain way. I am not sure any argument could be used to reconcile this double standard.