Democratic Socialism in America

There are two major changes which would help bring a form of democratic socialism to the US. The first is a change in the structure of authority within industry. The current model of the corporate elite, (Chariman, President, CEO, other shareholding board members) resembles the governing model of England under the magna carta, where the king, and the nobility held power. There must be a universal change among all major businesses that have "gone public," especially the banking industry who's majority stock is currently held by the state. The co-operative system resembles the model of a republic, where at least half of the governing body are elected by the working population and the other portion by the shareholders (workers are shareholders too). This is favorable over the traditional party and trade union approach taken by traditional socialists for several reasons. Most obvious is that political parties and trade unions are invariably prone to messainism and corruption (Bolsheviks, teamsters, etc.), but less talked about is the phenomena of the rich trade union workers taking political, and sometimes physical action against poor immigrant workers both in the US and democratic socialist countries in Europe. There can't be any such thing as proletarian internationalism if the proletarian are dividing themselves along national and ethnic lines. Trade unions are the major roadblock that need to be dealt-with. Under a co-operative, there is a combination of representation for the workers that is neglected under capitalism while retaining the spur for investment that is capitalism's claim to fame. Worker's are not required to pay dues in order to enter a union and hold a job, and are paid a roughly equal amount as the management, and have the power to impeach corrupt officials democratically.

The second major step to democratic socialism would be the abolition of the current private donor system for election campaigns, which has corrupted the representatives of both houses to the point where they spend more time organizing, and attending private fund raising parties held at high class clubs and restaurants, than they do reading, writing, and voting on legislation. It has also resulted in two major private organizations, the two rival parties in congress, gaining control over state money as a way of funding their electoral delegations. Even though they are not constitutionally necessary parts of the government, the parties cannot be defeated and removed so long as they have the sole access to both private and state capital. If the private donor system was abolished and replaced with a uniform state fund to any citizen who reaches the constitutional requirements for office and who can gain enough signatures of support, then it would give just about anyone the same voice as any incumbent party machine politician, and could break the duopoly currently held by the democrats and republicans on the government.

Both of these would probably have to be ratified into the constitution as new amendments. Other very helpful abolitions for democracy and the economy would include the CIA and the war on drugs.

While I would prefer a major democratic socialist party over Democrats or Republicans, I would prefer there be more Revolutionary Socialists.

If by "revolutionary" you mean a leninist vanguard, then I would disagree. An elite unit of red commandoes is just as likely to tear up the constitution as are the forces of reaction called against them. But I realize that a very strong push is needed if the ruling class is to have its fortress taken from it, because there's no way any of the current representatives would vote for these amendments, for that very reason. Perhaps a referendum would work. The only problem is that none of the major political forces in the US are interested in bettering the country. The Liberals think that it would have been better had the US not existed at all, the conservatives are frightened of anything remotely left leaning, and the so called left is openly sympathetic to islamic fascism.

I do not mean a Leninist vangurad as I am an Anarchist. I mean a rising up of the working class. We can not change the system from within. This system is geared towards serving a Capitalist elite and not the will of the people. I am opposed to people thinking we can reform into such a system.

Anarchist, that sounds better. I too would like a workers movement, as the elite will obviously not give their hold over the modes and relations of production without a fight. The big problem standing in they way of a real workers revolution is the above mentioned proletarian infighting between entrenched, sometimes racially nationalistic, trade unions in Europe and the US, who often utilize the state to bar immigrant proletarian fleeing from their impoverished homes. Those that manage to get in are often denied employment by the trade unions, and forced to turn to state welfare instead. The proletarian cannot unite under such conditions.

Then it sounds like radical reformism with the baking of trade unions would be pointless then huh. Since they are so prone to infighting.

The "Leninist Vanguard" was a workers movement. The workers did all the work. They formed the soviets, they initiated the general strike, The overthrew the czar. All the vanguard did was what it is suppose to do, explain to the workers how to get what they want and facilitate their action in getting it. The vanguard explained the need for insurrection, the tactical strategy they could use, and formed the government afterward. Say what you will about Leninism, but it is a workers movement. This is the only environs in which it could exist.

If you could radically reform the power structure under capitalism why not just remain in capitalism? If you could do all this with the ready made state machine why not just keep it? What would be the point of revolution if it was not necessary? It is neither quicker or easier than reformist. The point is revolution is the only way to bring this society into being. And even if you had a anarchist/trade unionist revolution, there is no way you could run a society on anarchist/trade unionist lines. Let alone progress to communism (i.e. classless society).

btpound

The vanguard was a split off from the workers movement that had been crushed in the revolution of 1905. They were a party factional minority within the already minority proletarian population, claiming to represent them and the rest of the Russian people. Russia was a feudalist system transitioning to a parliamentary democracy after the abdication of the Czar, and had not built a sophisticated capitalist infrastructure, and the only proven way of creating capital out of nothing in such conditions is forced accumulation with human labor. It's true that the Russian Parliament was content with the continued parasitical relationship on foreign capital, as well as continuing the Czar's war and it is true that the Bolsheviks did modernize Russia, and end it's role in WW1. It's solution to this however was the abolishing of democracy, and the dispossession and enslavement of the peasant majority, or "collectivization." After the party beat back the Whites they established a centralized bureaucracy where power was held by nine central committee members and the party election system was designed to exclude all opposing political ideologies and mark for arrest or assassination any dissenters from within or out of the party.

The United States has been at the forefront of both the development of capital and political revolution. Unlike Czarist Russia it has no need for any forced accumulation of capital out of nothing, and also unlike Czarist Russia, it has a history of democratic legal precedent. It was the US that successfully challenged the Divine Right of Kings, the hereditary principle that had ruled Europe for centuries. Karl Marx himself hailed president Lincoln's "Anti-slavery War," as the greatest social achievement of his era, while the jackal powers of Europe were predicting America's (and democracy's) imminent demise. Teddy Roosevelt's Square deal and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, greatly improved conditions for industrial and agricultural workers, and are today reviled by the right as socialist programs through and through. President Wilson's response to the Sykes Picot agreement, published by the Bolsheviks after the first world war, which was the creation of such infamous state as Iraq, was a declaration of his 14 points, including a call for national self-determination of the Kurds, and the Armenians. After nearly a century the Kurdish people are finally in control over an autonomous and prospering northern Iraq, and fighting the forces of Fascism for a federal unified Iraq, with the US military to thank for it. It is true that this history includes also imperialism and collusion with the worst elements of fascism in the world, like Sadaam Hussein, but unlike the degraded and negated revolutions in China and Russia, the United states revolution is still a working model that can serve for others.

Without election reform, there is no hope for lasting economic progress.

There are two major changes which would help bring a form of democratic socialism to the US. The first is a change in the structure of authority within industry. The current model of the corporate elite, (Chariman, President, CEO, other shareholding board members) resembles the governing model of England under the magna carta, where the king, and the nobility held power. There must be a universal change among all major businesses that have "gone public," especially the banking industry who's majority stock is currently held by the state. The co-operative system resembles the model of a republic, where at least half of the governing body are elected by the working population and the other portion by the shareholders (workers are shareholders too).

In the early Republic, corporate charters tended to provide for "one member=one vote." In even the most oligarchic structures, the accumulation of voting power was limited. In Hamilton's Bank of North America, the biggest shareholders had 20 votes and Hamilton asserted that anything beyond that would be "unrepublican." At least one charter was voided by a state court as "unrepublican."