My political view

[cocodtim]

Hi, it's me that high schooler from Romania. Here is my political view what i promised to present:

The basis is the social contract between the people and the state. The people give up some of their freedoms (and rights) so that state can administrate them. In case the state fails, people could sue it at the Supreme Court. This way no tyranny will be made. People will give up to some of their freedoms but not all (they will have free speech, free press, free reunion etc.)
This socialism will be instituted of course in an very well developed capitalist society. Then all rich people will have to pay very high taxes while poor will pay low taxes so to increase equality. All companies and owners of companies will not take advantage of the profit, but instead the profit will go to the state. So if you own a company but don’t work in it as a CEO or anything else, you won’t gain anything. Nationalization will not be superficial, but the companies will consist only of workers and representants of the state will have a word to say in every company. Even though the patron may try to sell its company to make a fortune, taxes will lower his rich status and he won’t be able to try and find a buyer except the state because no people will have the money to buy it.
All medical services will then be paid by the state so will be free for the citizens that work. The state will also give apartments and housing to those that work. Salaries will vary with some variables: the time he/she has worked, the effort on the work and the result of the work. These 3 will make up the salary and also there will be an extra funds added to the salary for the number of children, if you have/ look after a minor children. Advantages like state housing and medical services will not be applied to citizens that are not minors and do not work. After anyone has made 18 years old he must subscribe to a full job (if he/she isn’t a student) and to a part-time (if he/she is a student). That’s why the state funds entrepreneurship and will also construct new places for people to work. There will also be state agencies who will find jobs for people and a minor monthly sum of money for those who do not work.
Because people will not think on how to pay their houses and paying health and because equality will exist, they will start to think more towards the more important things of life – moral and human nature, politeness and other value rather than the fortune of a man/woman.
Immigration and emigration will be free, but for immigration people will need to prove they know the language of the state and will also take a national history/geography exam.
The state will strengthen the green values. It will invest very much in railroad and the state will finance a door-to-door recycling materials garbage collection.
A vacation for workers will be calculated by the time he has worked and the intensity. So those who work less per month will get a smaller vacation than those who work more per month.
The state will fund science and scientific development very much because if we progress, things will get easy and life will get better.
Work is important and for that, before leaving a man without his job the situation will be well analyzed and syndicates will be formed to negotiate with the state.
National military service is not mandatory but those who will engage in it before/after university will be promoted and will have a better reputation and will be able to find job easier. The state takes care of the ones who protect it.
Selling alcohol and tobacco to minors under 18 years old is strictly forbidden, but consuming won’t be if you are over 14 years old. Drugs are illegal.
The state will promote national companies and products over foreign and will still allow the foreign ones to be sold.
Farms will be funded by the state so that each peasant will have like a small company and get a salary. That company will own the lands of that peasant. The companies will be owned by the state and the father (the peasant with the most authority in the family will be the CEO)
Relations with other countries will be good and the state will not be isolationist.
If conflicts between the state and CEO will arrive the trial can cede the company to the state. So basically there will be no forced nationalization or ceding of properties but the state will buy every company from their CEO (ex-patrons) not all at once so that we avoid huge amount of money spent, but in a while. The CEO will get rich and will pay huge taxes so he will end equal with others.
Generous scholarships and school funding will be made so that the students can learn efficient, modern and easy. School busses will be assigned to all schools.
Police and justice will be very good trained and funded.

Basically, private companies would only exist in the first stage with absolutely no profit until persons will be forced by circumstances to give it to the state.
I think that’s all of what I can think now.

Questions: Is this democratic socialism? Or does it have another name for it? If not why? Oh and please tell me your opinion of this.

If doesn't have a special name can i name it? codrinism sounds good.
Hmm someone from Introductions said its capitalism. it cannot be as long as i have equality, nationalization, state housing, state medical service, the right for the state to benefit from the profit companies and other stuff i mentioned. And i also promote national companies (so that instead of buying Coca Cola or Pepsi, citizens would buy Brifcor - a soda made in Romania)

I think it is either democratic socialism or reformist socialism.

[Jack]

No, just reformism.

[teenagebricks]

Hmm someone from Introductions said its capitalism. it cannot be as long as i have equality, nationalization, state housing, state medical service, the right for the state to benefit from the profit companies and other stuff i mentioned. And i also promote national companies (so that instead of buying Coca Cola or Pepsi, citizens would buy Brifcor - a soda made in Romania)
It's still capitalism, equality does not necessarily bring socialism, neither does nationalisation, and state housing and health care exists all over the capitalist world. As for the national companies thing, well, only using Made In X Country products is probably more likely to be associated with nationalism. It's not really socialism, more like social capitalism, it's making the nasty things a little bit nicer for everyone, but it isn't true socialism.

[Manifesto]

True many more things have to be different in order to be "true socialist".

[cocodtim]

like what?

[teenagebricks]

I think you should read up on what socialism actually is first, from what I've read, you're not really a socialist, unless you consider New Labour to be socialist. For example, you didn't mention the working class, or common ownership, not once, these things pretty much define socialism. Socialism is, for the most part, a socioeconomic structure, don't view it as some extension of social democracy or neo capitalism.

[JohnnyC]

like what?
Things like socialist mode of production.... :)
You can't have socialism without this, really.

[scarletghoul]

In socialism, the workers own the means of production. This is what its all about. Without this it can never be socialism

[cocodtim]

Socialism

1. A belief that human society can and should be organised along social lines - that is, for the benefit of all, rather than for the profit of a few 2. A type of reformist politics advocating nationalised industries and workers rights 3. In Orthodox Marxist theory, the stage after capitalism but before Communism in which the dictatorship of the proletariat rules and individuals are paid according to how much they work.


This is from revleft dictionary. I think all these are to be found in my political view.

Basically all people are workers. So if all people are workers and not patrons or something else that means workers rule. And also there would be no classes - rich and poor will reach the same line - workers.
Maybe i described it wrong and you don't see the way i see it. Working class has been mentioned but not as exactly word "Working class".

And of course i know about socialism, i even presented a project about Marxism.

[Q]

First of all: don't crosspost. It is considered bad behaviour.




This is from revleft dictionary.

We have a dictionary? :confused:
If so, it needs revision.


I think all these are to be found in my political view.Like I explained in my answer to your views (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1460108&postcount=8), your political ideas do not represent socialism.


Basically all people are workers.Withing the framework of capitalism, this is certainly untrue.


So if all people are workers and not patrons or something else that means workers rule. And also there would be no classes - rich and poor will reach the same line - workers.You misunderstand what a class is, let me quote (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class):

Class
A group of people sharing common relations to labor (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/a.htm#labor) and the means of production (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm#means-production).

"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate – i.e., does production take place.
"These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.

Karl Marx
Wage Labour and Capital (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm)
Chpt. 5: The Nature and Growth of Capital (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm)

The notion of class, as it is used by Marxists, differs radically from the notion of class as used in bourgeois social theory. According to modern capitalist thinking, class is an abstract universal (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/b.htm#abstract) defined by the common attributes of its members (i.e., all who make less than $20,000 a year constitute a "lower" class); categories and conceptions that have an existence prior to and independent of the people who make up the class.

For dialectical materialism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism) however, the notion of class includes the development of collective consciousness in a class – arising from the material basis of having in common relations to the labour process and the means of production.

Class in other words has two main characteristics:
1. objective: the relations to the means of production, i.e. a worker (working for a wage to live) and a capitalist (extracting profits from wagelabour).
2. subjective: the sense of collective purpose and interests. Effective class struggle can only take place there where we act as a collective, conscious of our collective goals. In other words, it is the realisation that "to fight for my interests, we have to fight together".


Maybe i described it wrong and you don't see the way i see it. Working class has been mentioned but not as exactly word "Working class". You are quite clear in your ideas. You are the one that doesn't understand that this isn't socialism.


And of course i know about socialism, i even presented a project about Marxism.That doesn't say a whole lot really.