Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Are We Headed for Socialism

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 8:08 a.m. EST by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has been saying much the same things that OWS is saying, but hollering from Capitol Hill not Zuccotti Park. Sanders, whom Vermonters first sent to the House in 1990 and elected to the Senate in 2006, has been talking about corporate greed and the need for national healthcare since he first went to Washington. With his professorial glasses and doughy face and two white tufts of hair, and vaguely working-stiff accent — part Brooklyn mouthful of marbles, part New England –- Sanders has always operated out of a trench on no-man’s land somewhere between ignored gadfly and Fox News punch line.

102 Comments

102 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

Hopefully, we are headed for a time when "Socialism" is not a dirty word. We already have socialism. Our libraries, police, schools, fire departments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... Some things work great under a socialist model. Other things work better under a capitalist model. The danger comes in trying to apply an economic model across the board. I would not want a capitalist police system where profit motivates decisions and money buys you protection.

We have a very real human need to try to define things. This helps us understand the world around us. But the labels don't matter. Incentive, motivations, checks and balances, these things matter.

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

Very true great points! So we have a reformed outlook on Capitalism in essence. I just feel like we need to change what we pay sports players, actors and other social media entertainers as well as Wall Street players. Warren Buffet even quoted as saying they should taxed at a much higher level than any of us.

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

Please elaborate on your ideas about compensation for athletes and entertainers.

I agree with Warren Buffet, at least on that point. We must also close the loopholes that allow large multinational corporations to go without paying their share.

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

What I propose is the more an athlete/entertainer gets paid a higher percentage goes to organizations they directly fund. For example if Derek Jeter pay after all required taxes comes out to $35 million then he would also be required to dispose 20% of that to a funding source of his choice. That funding would be managed by us the people to see to it we take care of small business and struggling families. So the more famous and rich they get the better for us. In hindsight they become our own stock market because they are making money for us.

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

I understand. IMO, that is a great principle, giving back to the community.

I would like to see Jeter do this without it being required. I want to see a paradigm shift where those that have, recognize that they could not be where they are if not for the have-nots and because it is moral, fair, and just, voluntarily help the less fortunate.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

I'm against the bailouts. For everybody.

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

I'm not sure about bailouts, I haven't researched enough on their results in different situations. But I did find it strange that the people touting "Free Market" would not let the large banks fail, how is that free market?

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

the people touting free markets are the Tea Party - and we are against all bailouts.

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

I don't believe there is any discernible difference between the parties in power. When I said "the people touting" I meant the government as a whole.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

so it sounds like you want to run for congress

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

I try to think of concepts that can be implemented today because personally I believe we should all get the same pay but that's just not going to happen anytime soon. I feel we are all one and when we die we all go back to the one. But that's my vision and I don't enforce that on anyone. I just want CHANGE something that I can put in my pocket tomorrow. Not banks telling me that they are revoking my credit and hurting my small business.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

so if we all get the same pay what is the incentive to become an engineer as opposed to bagging groceries?

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

The incentive to become an engineer is the desire to create/design. The incentive to becoming a grocery bagger is the desire to help/serve in a personal setting.

Money is not an incentive.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

well - it seems to be the incentive to me LOL ! What planet are you on anyway?

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

Your incentive is the desire to survive. Money is the tool you use to eat, house, and clothe yourself. The career you choose is based on what you like to do.

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

oh come on is that going to be the argument every time? Sure let's kick the dog instead of petting it because its an animal it doesn't know the difference.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

huh? so you think people will make the same effort regardless of insentive? really?

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

In your own logic. Congress has the most incentive to work ($$$), so why do they make no effort?

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

they make plenty of effort. The house has stopped the bleeding since the Tea Party swept in the freshmen class of conservatives. we'll do more next year too when we take the senate and the WH so we can unwind this nonsense.

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

The Tea Party, as you know it, is ineffectual. Plus this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

Ofcourse! I make shit at my job and I haven't got a raise in 2 years but I love my co workers, I love selling to clients, and yes I love getting a paycheck. But I always give my best I never expect gratification. If you happen to be a genius in developing a cure for cancer does that mean you want to be paid billions for it? What about the satisfaction of all the lives you save? There is an incentive its called living LIFE to the fullest and seeing all our loved ones follow that same path. And yes call me a Buddhist but thats what I believe.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

ok - so all expenses training to get higher skills are paid for by the govt then everyone gets the same pay. I'll take the job bagging groceries thank you lol!

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

so why hasn't that worked out ? why do engineers & doctors get paid more than burger flippers? Dont you think hospitals and engineering firms would offer jobs for lower pay if they could still attract the same talent?

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

Ok first off you can't analyze the system we have in effect right now that's not fair. Reason why doctors and engineers need more pay is because they spent their life savings going to school to be what they needed to be. But they either paid, parents paid, government paid, had good family and good support. Now let's look at the burger flipper hes from Mexico not even legal, has no family, no rights. So what seems fair? In order to make things fair free schools for everyone be a doctor, be a chemist, be a garbage truck driver, be a plumber, be whatever your good at being even a burger flipper whose basically a chef I mean he;s in the kitchen right?

[-] 2 points by robert16797 (17) 13 years ago

better than a third world police state

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 13 years ago

Bernie for President!

[-] 2 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

Nice I'd vote for him! But he should run a 3rd party candidate. Maybe call it Progressive Liberation. Something in that nature.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 13 years ago

And give the election to the Republicans? Who knows maybe enough people will sh*t-can the two parties.

[-] 1 points by SandyEnglish (60) 13 years ago

Sanders is allied with Wall Street's Democratic Party. When he first came into Congress, the Democrats allowed him to attend their caucuses. For the capitalist system, he is safe. His political tendency, only nominally socialist, in my opinion, has had a lot to answer for since 1914, and bears not a little responsibility for the tragedies of the last century.

The central question of politics in the US for the working class, as I see it, revolves around the relationship with the Democratic Party. As I see it, we must aim for the political independence from the 1% before we can dispossess the 1% of the wealth that it has stolen from us.

Many of those on the left who call themselves 'socialists" operate on the fringes of this capitalist party. In fact, the are the social layer that gives legitimacy to this party. The Nation, Mother Jones, the ISO, etc, etc. could be included in this camp.

We must go a bit deeper, I feel, than terms such as "socialist" and "left" and explore the actual positions of these publications, tendencies and figures, their history, their origins.

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 13 years ago

You are out to destroy OWS.

[-] 1 points by SandyEnglish (60) 13 years ago

I think the Democratic Party and its agents are far more of threat to OWS than anything I have said.

OWS is the just the beginning of a mass movement against social inequality by the working class. What policies, what politics do those millions need to to defeat the super-rich and and put the world economy under their control?

A start -- and only a start -- is a break with the political parties of the rich and all those that accommodate them. This is basic.

[-] 2 points by radical22 (113) 13 years ago

Wall Street is already socialist, when they lose! When they win, they become greedy capitalists

[-] 1 points by TPCO (32) 13 years ago

I would suggest, NBFA, No Bailouts for Anyone! In doing so all are treated economically equal.

[-] 1 points by radical22 (113) 13 years ago

Bailouts of the Banks were all designed to protect the status quo. No Bailouts would have changed the status quo and put everyone back to the same starting line, which is why this will never happen. Those that have it too good spend their $$ influencing the powers that be to KEEP the status quo instead of using their $$ to hire people.

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

so true! Radical 22 you should be the spokesperson!

[-] 1 points by Uriah (218) 13 years ago

Are we headed for socialism? I think we're pretty much there. Not that it's really worked anywhere else, but hey, it'll be different this time.

[-] 1 points by gordie (1) 13 years ago

some things should be for the common good of society. healthcare for instance. We have the ability to provide everyone in the country with basic and emergency healthcare. Just check with the GAO of the United States government. Switching to single payer healthcare and reducing the role of insurance companies would save 400 billion dollars over ten years. More then enough to provide 350 million us citizens with quality healthcare

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 13 years ago

Headed for Socialism? like libraries,. and public pools, in public parks,. oh gosh gee,. I do hope so.

[-] 1 points by owstag (508) 13 years ago

[Pssst... They're not 'Vermonters'; they are properly called 'Vermontians']

[-] 1 points by Virtuallybored (7) 13 years ago

America needs to get over itself and actually understand what socialism is. For example, going onto a site like groupon is a form of socialism. You want to use your mass purchasing power yet when it comes to using this very same "purchasing power" for something like health care, you run for cover and scream socialism. There are some functions which should only be under the control of an elected government because private corporations will exploit these critical necessities for profit. A life is a life and no matter who you are, you deserve the very best health care. But there are other critical services such as water, electricity, gas, infastructure such as schools, roads and yes a proper education. In France for example Public Universities are free. In Ireland they cost approx $2,000 p.a registration fee and simularly throughout most of Europe. Coming out of University owing $120,000 plus is outragious and subjects the graduate to a life of debt and slavery. The 1% have created a fear in the average American's which is inexplicable to the rest of the world and Europe is far from being Communist. You're being ripped off over there. We all want free and open markets and we all want to enjoy the fruits of our labour without being subjected to massive debt and bail outs for private banks which are "too big to fail". This in itself, is contrary to free market rules and an unnecessary burden on tax payers. Socialism is nothing more than insisting on an adequate standard for everyone whether it is healthcare, education or welfare in a civilized world. It's not about crucifying the rich or high taxes.

[-] 1 points by Banjarama (242) from Little Elm, TX 13 years ago

Good points.

[-] 1 points by SandyEnglish (60) 13 years ago

The Program of the Socialist Equality Party, "The Breakdown of Capitalism and the Fight for Socialism in the United States" can be found here:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/prog-s06.shtml

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 13 years ago

I hate to break this to ya but Fox is the most watched cable news co and ridiculously immune to moros thinking.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 13 years ago

socialim is the best think could happen to this country., look to scandniva countries and learn fromthem and please stop barking

[-] 1 points by iiiears (1) 13 years ago

WE ARE HEADED for inflation. Possibly hyper inflation in a race to the bottom. 160 Trillion dollars in CDOs are held by four banks. They have no protection against failure unless they shift the "Triple A rated " debts to taxpayers. Governments can ONLY escape by printing more Debt Notes.

See: http://spiritofjubilee.com/debt/recipe-for-armageddon-fdic-to-back-75-trillion-of-bank-of-as-derivatives-trades

[-] 1 points by PhilArthur (54) 13 years ago

These one word catch phrases are so passe and the pejorative intent behind their use renders them meaningless.

Why do we call it an all-volunteer military instead of a socialist military? Pffft, labels labels labels.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 13 years ago

Headed? Look around, we are there.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 13 years ago

............

    Americans are more afraid of the word 'socialism' 
      than they are of cancer, hiv or world war III.
        and they will fight it to their graves …

    Calm down people, you are only fighting a 'word' …    
      Neither socialism or capitalism exist in nature 
                  without the other…
           Alone they are mere philosophies… 

   Socialism without capitalistic freedom & incentives 
            will fail just as miserably as 
            Capitalism without regulation 
              has just demonstrated... 

  We can build a "true democracy" founded on the dreams 
           of all mankind & all ideologies...
                   We are the 99%

..............

[-] 1 points by paplanner (58) from Mt Union, PA 13 years ago

We have socialism now, we just do it in reverse. We've legalized the few taking from the many, our government tells us everyday when they spend more on war, corporate tax breaks, corporate welfare and "homeland security" than they spend on human needs. Government exists to protect the property and lives of the powerful from the powerless, it's just that the powerless are resenting it now and making that resentment known. Perhaps a return to real capitalism, based up producing real things from material resources and labor will re establish what value is, rather than ephemeral intellectual constructs such as derivatives.

[-] 1 points by noraasamej (1) 13 years ago

I don't think socialism is necessarily the answer. I don't think that the protests are going to be enough to get the changes needed either. What it's going to take for the top 1 percent to change their behavior are massive general work strikes and consumer boycotts of businesses. That would be a wake up call for those at the top to show them that the 99 percent are supporting their pyramid structure.

[-] 1 points by marvfriedenn (5) 13 years ago

WE ARE THE NEW BARBARIANS

We declare our intention to fund our private lives by serving short terms in a totally automated, computerized, global production and distribution company which we mutually own.

Since under the new barbarian system consumers, workers and owners are no longer divided into opposed classes, everyone wears three hats. As consumers we want to pay the lowest possible prices for the goods we buy. As workers we want to receive the highest possible salaries. And as owners we want to make the largest possible profits. If as consumers, however, we pay the lowest possible prices, wages and profits become minimal instead of maximal. How do we solve this dilemma?

We do so by determining what we need to produce so that 1) we work as little as we have to; 2) we produce what we feel we require; 3) we create as much revenue as is necessary to fund our leisure and to accommodate changing conditions which occur daily around the world.

Deciding the kind, quality and quantity of mass produced goods constitutes the domain of political debate which is to be conducted democratically by means of world wide, two-way communication systems.

Performing the services required to feed, clothe, shelter and recreate the human population constitutes the domain of public duties.

The enjoyment of leisure activities constitutes the domain of freedom. The promotion and extension of the domain of freedom is the purpose of our barbarian endeavor. We participate in public life in order to enhance our private lives--that is to say, public life is the means whose end is the enrichment and deepening of the private lives of each and every person.

Private lives belong to individuals. Public life belongs to everyone. Because the duties of public life necessarily require repeating the same activities--whether of a judge generating legal decisions or a machinist turning out interchangeable parts--public life is boring. Since boredom dehumanizes us by damping our enthusiasm for life, the more we automate public service, the more we transform ourselves from creatures of habit into habitually free people. As much as possible then machines perform the dirty work--whether physical or mental--of keeping the human enterprise afloat. And where it's not possible to automate the dirty work, everyone pitches in.

WE ARE THE NEW BARBARIANS. We arise from within the borders of the regions we invade. In keeping with our barbarian traditions we hold in the highest esteem the private life of each person. Public life, like public restrooms, we deem necessary for our convenience.

NEW BARBARIANS! THE WORLD IS REVERSIBLE! TURN IT INSIDE OUT!

[-] 1 points by marvfriedenn (5) 13 years ago

Hi Derek, Yes, WHO OWNS THE PLANET? is a kind of source book for postmodern communism. My earlier SERMON ON THE FLATS develops the theory of egalitarian in contrast to meritocratic society. I wrote the books when I realized that the conflict between socalled capitalism and communism is not a modern development but is as old as history, as old, that is, as the tension between creditors and debtors. Yes, the concept of ownership is fascinating indeed.

Anyhow, here are a few items from Planet that might amuse you:

If I were a pig who knew every pig in the stockyard by name

If I were a pig who knew every pig in the stockyard by name, I’d as soon eat pork as eat Uncle Anthony. For every pig with a name would be part of a story whose theme is don’t eat me unless you’re prepared to explain yourself to the pig who named me!

“explain”

According to its etymology, I define the word “explain,” as in, “Let me explain myself,” as follows: let me clear the landscape of every obstruction until its a level plain so that you can see me silhouetted against the sky as clearly as if I were a tree in Kansas.

Change the name of Wall Street

Change the name of Wall Street to Berlin Wall Street, to Great Wall Street of China, to Wailing Wall Street, To Walla Walla Wall Street! Change the name of Wall Street to Deadend Boulevard!

The rich are toxic waste.

We don’t need them. The question is where shall we dump them.

Thanks for the links. And thanks for forming the sociopolitical spearhead of what will I hope be a long and productive shaft. (That sounds gay. I don't mean it that way.) Marv

[-] 1 points by derek (302) 13 years ago

Great explanation of the tension between workers, owners, and consumers.

Is there a book related to it? I see this: http://books.google.com/books?id=cvxGp_IbNiYC&pg=PA444

These issues about "ownership" are really interesting. Consider how questionable the ownership of the land under Liberty Plaza Park in Manhattan is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan "According to the document by Pieter Janszoon Schagen our people (ons Volck)—Peter Minuit is not mentioned explicitly there—acquired Manhattan in 1626 from Native American Lenape people in exchange for trade goods worth 60 guilders, often said to be worth 24 US$, though (by comparing the price of bread and other goods) actually amounts to around $1000 in modern currency (calculation by the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam). The price was actually paid to the Canarsees, living in Brooklyn, while the true local people, the Weckquaesgeeks, were not party of the transaction."

The bedrock of capitalism -- fraudulently obtained by any reasonable definition of fraud.

But ultimately, is either "finders-keepers" or "might makes right" (the most common reasons to start a paper trail of land ownership) a sound moral basis for deciding ownership in a high tech advanced civilization? A "basic income" might be a step in the right direction to compensate people for the enclosure of the land.

You'd probably like these links:

"Human Resources 3/9" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-4Hv9pDicA

"The Abolition of Work" by Bob Black, 1985 http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html

"Buddhist Economics" by E. F. Schumacher http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/buddhist_economics/english.html

"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY

http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/

[-] 1 points by Armyoutsider (17) 13 years ago

Throw OWS we are headed to Hell !

[-] 1 points by TalkingHead (101) 13 years ago

We've been a socialist country since FDR.

[-] 1 points by TPCO (32) 13 years ago

I would suggest Woodrow Wilson.

[-] 1 points by Tiberio (4) 13 years ago

Nah, we're structured differently. We may now introduce elements of responsible socialism, but it will be different, and we shouldn't put a label on it. It's the people's time

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 13 years ago

Agreed!

[-] 1 points by gmoneygross (205) from Brooklyn, NY 13 years ago

You are wrong

[-] 1 points by Tiberio (4) 13 years ago

And why is that?

[-] 1 points by gmoneygross (205) from Brooklyn, NY 13 years ago

I don't need to explain why I am wrong. You made an idiotic statement with no substance, like most liberals do on a day to day basis. I'm the one tasked to explain why you are wrong?

Why don't you try explaining how it is you think you are right?

[-] 1 points by sliptac (4) 13 years ago

do you have any idea on how much money has been handed over to wall st/banks the past few yrs? their gambling has won them trillions but all their loses has been piled onto the future earnings of the people.

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 13 years ago

The losses $680 trillion are off balance sheet. They never deny that fact.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 13 years ago

Be creative... use the language, add definition, change the word.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

how is socialism working out in Zuccotti Park. Reduced to Rice & Beans after the redistributionists didnt think feeding the homless was "fair" LOL!

[-] -2 points by paplanner (58) from Mt Union, PA 13 years ago

figgy, have you always been a jerk or is it a new phenomena?

[-] 1 points by figero (661) 13 years ago

thats it out of ammo start calling names. the whole movement is a childish temper tantrum

[-] 1 points by JeffCallahan (216) 13 years ago

I am not poor, kind of lazy but lucky for me that's ok. Here are some documentaries on finance, and politics, I think you would both enjoy, and find interesting. Your obviously a smart guy so you may have seen them, if so, let me know I have a few more that might interest you. Finance: Born Rich, Breaking the Bank, College Inc, I want your Money, Inside The meltdown, IOUSA, Maxed Out, Mind Over Money, Money Masters, Speaking Freely, Ten Trillion and Counting, The American Ruling Class, The Best Government Money Can Buy, The Big One, The Card Game, The Corporation, The Madoff Affair, The Warning, Trading on Thin Air,

Politics: After Innocence, An Inconvenient tax , An Unreasonable Man, Burzynski, Business of Being Born, Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington anymore, Casino Jack, Electile Dysfunction, Flow, Freedom Fries, Homo Toxicus, Ken Burns America the Congress, The American drug War, XXI Century,

[-] 0 points by OkFineIWin (46) 13 years ago

"Pot, is that you?"

Did you just accuse someone of calling names, then qualify the whole movement with your own name calling?

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 13 years ago

lol keep feeding the trolls we love it