Nuvem
8th June 2010, 11:44
As I peruse Revleft, I find that there are few Democratic Socialists to be found. All too often I find that Socialism is considered to be nothing more than a stage of Communism or equated with Social Democracy. I've also noticed a thread asking about the differences between Communism and Socialism, and I believe an introductory lesson on Socialism is the best way to answer the associated questions. As such, I feel it is necessary to explain the Socialist (specifically Democratic Socialist) standpoint in full for all newcomers and those not entirely familiar with the socioeconomic theory. The most efficient way, I believe, is to address various facets of social and economic questions systematically to provide a basic overview. I will also compare them to Communism as a point of reference and to fully illuminate the distinctions between the two (which is not to alienate our Communist comrades, who I usually support in full).
Socialism and the State
The majority of Socialists are in support of the state, which is in contrast to the Communist goal of state withering and the Anarchist goal of immediate dissolving of the state. Since the goal of this article is to educate and not to spark debate, I will only touch upon the reason why briefly; most Socialists do not believe that the state is a tool of the Bourgeois Capitalists put in place to oppress the laboring classes. Though most of us would agree that the police in many states are too powerful and need to be heavily re-envisioned and re-structured, we also contend that in a world full of such high population and with so much senseless crime and crimes of passion, some sort of policing force is necessary, as well as a standing military for national defense. Of course, we are typically anti-nationalist and consider patriotism to be as foolish as racism, homophobia, or any other discrimination based on pre-determined traits. We simply see the state as a necessary tool for survival in the modern world.
Socialism and Government
The Socialist conception of government can vary wildly from Socialist to Socialist, especially since no truly Socialist nation has ever existed (Communist-dominated nations moving towards Communism in the "Socialist stage" are here not considered valid). Some support Communist style, single-party bureaucracy, while others such as myself call for a total abolition of the party system and a direct democracy in which candidates for office run based on regional elections (I.E., chief executive candidates are proposed by voting districts, the winner of those elections moves up to larger regional primaries, eventually narrowing down to a national vote between 3-4 candidates). Especially for Democratic Socialists, direct and not representative democracy is key. There is much debate among Socialists about parliamentary structure, some calling for a republican elected representative system and others a directly democratic system in which bills are instead voted on by the broad mass of the population which, while certainly a more effective representation of the people's wants and needs, does require a high level of electoral interest on the part of citizens.
Socialists generally call for the nationalization of critical and major industries, including but not at all limited to the banking, insurance, health and schooling(post-secondary) markets as well as any industries which exceed a certain size or are extremely crucial for the nation's economic well-being, such as Salvador Allende's nationalization of the Chilean copper industry. This will be explored more in the upcoming economic section.
The branch of government universally least criticized by Socialists is the Judicial branch, for while it is certainly corrupt in many nations, it has far less serious consequences than corrupt Legislative and Executive elements, and most of its worst offenses are caused by Executive or Legislative tampering (for example, most extra-judiciary arrests, such as of Leonard P., are brought about by CIA/FBI muscling into the court system). Mostly Socialists call for reform of the Judicial system, increasing the role of the common man in the courts and making corruption and tampering less possible. Some also call for direct elections of Supreme Court judges (if the regional judges are elected, why not the supreme ones?).
Socialism and Economics/Labor
Economics are the field in which Socialism most closely resembles the Communist model in its early stages, though the two are not identical. As stated before, the government throws a lot of weight around in the economic sector, but that doesn't mean that every minor place of labor/production is under constant government control or scrutiny. Private ownership of businesses is a hot-button issue among Socialists, with some supporting an NEP-style policy of private businesses being legal provided that they employ less than 15-20 laborers and others arguing against private ownership of any place of labor entirely. On both sides of the argument, however, it is agreed that the best possible solution in any case is the formation of worker's cooperatives. For those unfamiliar with worker's cooperatives, Wikipedia has an excellent page for them. Unfortunately, I cannot yet link pages in my posts, so you'll have to fish for that independently. If someone could post the link to it, that would be great.
Worker's cooperatives, most Socialists contend, are preferable to government ownership of every minor industry or small place of work, and in theory could be operated in a manner similar to labor unions in the respect that they could work across multiple places of labor and not merely one single factory, place of work, etc. as they thus far generally have. They also do much to solve the problem of establishing income equality, while simultaneously limiting income based on production capacity and wealth distribution needs, preventing the formation of a Bourgeois upper class (after, of course, the existing one has had its wealth and property confiscated). Cooperatives combined with state ownership of larger/crucial industries create a strong labor system in which individuals retain a semblance of the profit motive (the more a worker produces, the more income there is in the cooperative's pool, the more he will be paid) and yet are prevented from exploiting their fellow workers or rising above them using non-democratic and exploitative means- or, really, at all. It is important to note that Socialists typically do not support perfectly even income for all professions (the old doctor versus janitor argument) but rather equal opportunity for all citizens within society; the same opportunity for education, the same opportunity to live a comfortable life and to make a difference.
Even given a situation in which those who call for small private business ownership have their way, the limitations on businesses would prevent their owners from becoming significantly powerful or wealthy, especially with government restrictions and tax policies on their shoulders.
People hate the word "taxes". Many despise the very mention of them. There's no point in sugar coating it: Socialist economics involve a higher tax rate- a considerably higher tax rate. However, what is lost in liquid wealth is more than made up for by the government-provided health care and insurance, free post-secondary education, work benefits and well-kept infrastructure that the tax income will bring. These funds are also necessary to pay those on government payroll, who will inevitably outnumber figures seen in Bourgeois capitalist nations with little to no nationalized industry.
It essentially goes without saying that Capitalist investment in domestic industry is absolutely unacceptable and would not be permitted, and of course that basic worker's rights laws would be upheld such as fair work hours, a minimum working age and stiff laws against child labor.
Socialism and Revolution/Warfare
Democratic Socialists are NOT social democrats. Though some Socialists choose to go the electoral route just as some moderate Communists do, we have our revolutionaries like everyone else. It should be noted that "Democratic Socialism" is a governmental type and not a policy of coming to power by peaceful and electoral means. A great many Socialists are revolutionaries and acknowledge that Leftist ideologies can only take power by violent revolution and social revolution. However, Socialists reject imperial wars like all Leftists do, and condemn hostile military action against any and all save for Fascists (and perhaps brutal nationalist/autocratic regimes, in which case revolutionary assistance would be more likely than overt invasion).
As far as revolutionary theory goes you'll find Socialists who follow Lenin's urban uprising model, Che Guevara's focal theory, Mao's revolutionary doctrine, and virtually any other you can think of. Since this is a matter of military theory and not social, governmental or economic, there is far less uniformity in these beliefs among Socialists.
Socialism and Other Leftists
Socialists can usually find the most common ground with Communists, though most of us do not believe in the withering of the state. Regardless of this, the two systems bear so much similarity in policy, culture, style and overall goals that the two can typically coexist very well. The most major and bitter argument to usually tear Socialists and Communists apart is the debate on state, but this can be put aside long enough for cooperation against Capitalism and even the paving of the road towards Communism's ultimate goals; it is not until the end of Communism's path of development that the two truly suffer a major split.
Anarchists and Socialists don't have so much to agree upon. As far as cooperatives go, we can agree wholeheartedly, as well as our anti-Capitalist sentiments, but we, too, have major ideological differences when it comes to the state, even more so than our differences with the Communists since Anarchists call for the immediate post-revolutionary dissolution of the state and most Socialists' insistence on the necessity of the state.
In Conclusion
This is, of course, an extremely limited and early introductory overview of Socialist ideology. Culturally and symbolically we are very similar to Communists, as well as our economic model in Communism's early stages. However, it should be recognized that we possess a legitimate and separate ideology that is not merely a phase on the way to Communism and is not identical nor even similar to social democracy. We are fellow revolutionaries and we strive for many of the same goals as our comrades, chiefly the downfall of Capitalism, the elimination of class conflict and the pursuit of morality, humanity, equality and social justice.
Socialism and the State
The majority of Socialists are in support of the state, which is in contrast to the Communist goal of state withering and the Anarchist goal of immediate dissolving of the state. Since the goal of this article is to educate and not to spark debate, I will only touch upon the reason why briefly; most Socialists do not believe that the state is a tool of the Bourgeois Capitalists put in place to oppress the laboring classes. Though most of us would agree that the police in many states are too powerful and need to be heavily re-envisioned and re-structured, we also contend that in a world full of such high population and with so much senseless crime and crimes of passion, some sort of policing force is necessary, as well as a standing military for national defense. Of course, we are typically anti-nationalist and consider patriotism to be as foolish as racism, homophobia, or any other discrimination based on pre-determined traits. We simply see the state as a necessary tool for survival in the modern world.
Socialism and Government
The Socialist conception of government can vary wildly from Socialist to Socialist, especially since no truly Socialist nation has ever existed (Communist-dominated nations moving towards Communism in the "Socialist stage" are here not considered valid). Some support Communist style, single-party bureaucracy, while others such as myself call for a total abolition of the party system and a direct democracy in which candidates for office run based on regional elections (I.E., chief executive candidates are proposed by voting districts, the winner of those elections moves up to larger regional primaries, eventually narrowing down to a national vote between 3-4 candidates). Especially for Democratic Socialists, direct and not representative democracy is key. There is much debate among Socialists about parliamentary structure, some calling for a republican elected representative system and others a directly democratic system in which bills are instead voted on by the broad mass of the population which, while certainly a more effective representation of the people's wants and needs, does require a high level of electoral interest on the part of citizens.
Socialists generally call for the nationalization of critical and major industries, including but not at all limited to the banking, insurance, health and schooling(post-secondary) markets as well as any industries which exceed a certain size or are extremely crucial for the nation's economic well-being, such as Salvador Allende's nationalization of the Chilean copper industry. This will be explored more in the upcoming economic section.
The branch of government universally least criticized by Socialists is the Judicial branch, for while it is certainly corrupt in many nations, it has far less serious consequences than corrupt Legislative and Executive elements, and most of its worst offenses are caused by Executive or Legislative tampering (for example, most extra-judiciary arrests, such as of Leonard P., are brought about by CIA/FBI muscling into the court system). Mostly Socialists call for reform of the Judicial system, increasing the role of the common man in the courts and making corruption and tampering less possible. Some also call for direct elections of Supreme Court judges (if the regional judges are elected, why not the supreme ones?).
Socialism and Economics/Labor
Economics are the field in which Socialism most closely resembles the Communist model in its early stages, though the two are not identical. As stated before, the government throws a lot of weight around in the economic sector, but that doesn't mean that every minor place of labor/production is under constant government control or scrutiny. Private ownership of businesses is a hot-button issue among Socialists, with some supporting an NEP-style policy of private businesses being legal provided that they employ less than 15-20 laborers and others arguing against private ownership of any place of labor entirely. On both sides of the argument, however, it is agreed that the best possible solution in any case is the formation of worker's cooperatives. For those unfamiliar with worker's cooperatives, Wikipedia has an excellent page for them. Unfortunately, I cannot yet link pages in my posts, so you'll have to fish for that independently. If someone could post the link to it, that would be great.
Worker's cooperatives, most Socialists contend, are preferable to government ownership of every minor industry or small place of work, and in theory could be operated in a manner similar to labor unions in the respect that they could work across multiple places of labor and not merely one single factory, place of work, etc. as they thus far generally have. They also do much to solve the problem of establishing income equality, while simultaneously limiting income based on production capacity and wealth distribution needs, preventing the formation of a Bourgeois upper class (after, of course, the existing one has had its wealth and property confiscated). Cooperatives combined with state ownership of larger/crucial industries create a strong labor system in which individuals retain a semblance of the profit motive (the more a worker produces, the more income there is in the cooperative's pool, the more he will be paid) and yet are prevented from exploiting their fellow workers or rising above them using non-democratic and exploitative means- or, really, at all. It is important to note that Socialists typically do not support perfectly even income for all professions (the old doctor versus janitor argument) but rather equal opportunity for all citizens within society; the same opportunity for education, the same opportunity to live a comfortable life and to make a difference.
Even given a situation in which those who call for small private business ownership have their way, the limitations on businesses would prevent their owners from becoming significantly powerful or wealthy, especially with government restrictions and tax policies on their shoulders.
People hate the word "taxes". Many despise the very mention of them. There's no point in sugar coating it: Socialist economics involve a higher tax rate- a considerably higher tax rate. However, what is lost in liquid wealth is more than made up for by the government-provided health care and insurance, free post-secondary education, work benefits and well-kept infrastructure that the tax income will bring. These funds are also necessary to pay those on government payroll, who will inevitably outnumber figures seen in Bourgeois capitalist nations with little to no nationalized industry.
It essentially goes without saying that Capitalist investment in domestic industry is absolutely unacceptable and would not be permitted, and of course that basic worker's rights laws would be upheld such as fair work hours, a minimum working age and stiff laws against child labor.
Socialism and Revolution/Warfare
Democratic Socialists are NOT social democrats. Though some Socialists choose to go the electoral route just as some moderate Communists do, we have our revolutionaries like everyone else. It should be noted that "Democratic Socialism" is a governmental type and not a policy of coming to power by peaceful and electoral means. A great many Socialists are revolutionaries and acknowledge that Leftist ideologies can only take power by violent revolution and social revolution. However, Socialists reject imperial wars like all Leftists do, and condemn hostile military action against any and all save for Fascists (and perhaps brutal nationalist/autocratic regimes, in which case revolutionary assistance would be more likely than overt invasion).
As far as revolutionary theory goes you'll find Socialists who follow Lenin's urban uprising model, Che Guevara's focal theory, Mao's revolutionary doctrine, and virtually any other you can think of. Since this is a matter of military theory and not social, governmental or economic, there is far less uniformity in these beliefs among Socialists.
Socialism and Other Leftists
Socialists can usually find the most common ground with Communists, though most of us do not believe in the withering of the state. Regardless of this, the two systems bear so much similarity in policy, culture, style and overall goals that the two can typically coexist very well. The most major and bitter argument to usually tear Socialists and Communists apart is the debate on state, but this can be put aside long enough for cooperation against Capitalism and even the paving of the road towards Communism's ultimate goals; it is not until the end of Communism's path of development that the two truly suffer a major split.
Anarchists and Socialists don't have so much to agree upon. As far as cooperatives go, we can agree wholeheartedly, as well as our anti-Capitalist sentiments, but we, too, have major ideological differences when it comes to the state, even more so than our differences with the Communists since Anarchists call for the immediate post-revolutionary dissolution of the state and most Socialists' insistence on the necessity of the state.
In Conclusion
This is, of course, an extremely limited and early introductory overview of Socialist ideology. Culturally and symbolically we are very similar to Communists, as well as our economic model in Communism's early stages. However, it should be recognized that we possess a legitimate and separate ideology that is not merely a phase on the way to Communism and is not identical nor even similar to social democracy. We are fellow revolutionaries and we strive for many of the same goals as our comrades, chiefly the downfall of Capitalism, the elimination of class conflict and the pursuit of morality, humanity, equality and social justice.