"Don't you remember? I told you we're going to a social this evening. It ought to be fun."
"Mr. Smith, you've been a model prisoner during your incarceration. The board sees a man before it who's paid his debt to society and is now ready resume his place as a productive part of that society."
"Why are you sitting here in the corner all by yourself?Why don't you mingle and be more sociable?"
"Do you know him through your job or do you know him socially as well?"
We many times see definitions in articles published at this site. Writers will use them to strengthen a point or to remind people that the meaning of a certain word isn't in and of itself positive or negative. Writers want to remind people at times that words can be manipulated so that they imply positivity or negativity.
There is nothing negative in the examples given above in how the word "social" or any variation of that word might be used in a sentence.
The definition obtained from Dictionary.com implies that "social" is not only not negative, but also helpful in human relationships.
Yet, if the dreaded suffix "ism" is used, social becomes synonymous with tyrannical. In fact, when many Americans think of "socialism", they think of a condition that flies in the face of some of the meanings for the word social.
For example, if the "social club" is the entire society, government surveillance replaces companionship.
"Suited to polite or fashionable society" becomes forced to be politically correct under penalty of law.
Alleviating "certain unfavorable conditions of life" becomes stealing portions of workers' income and giving that money to people who refuse to seek employment.
Michael Bonanno is a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of his poetry can be found at The Poetry Corner at OpEdNews.He is an associate editor for OpEdNews.
Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's government's job to help the needy and that leaving the people's well being to the so called "private sector" is social suicide.His CDs may be purchased at CD Baby.
A socialist democracy is as good as it can get, since, alas, the United States of American equals a Dictatorship of the Rich with a "Democratic Party" reduced to a mob of fascist enablers (with, of course a handful of exceptions which merely prove the rule).
In fact a SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY may be our county's ultamate respose to the Bush 4th Reich, but it should be seen as only the 2nd political party since the so called Democratic Party is has totally ceased to exist.
I thank you for putting the words Socialist Democracy together. What a healing unity is there.
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (231 articles, 44 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 7:06:08 PM
The most part of Europe was from the 60ties until the year 2000 a social democracy. Nowadays we're more and more complaining about 'american situations.' And of course most of south-america once was a socialistic democracy, until the US killed it to make sure they got a little more money.
The USA as a beakon of freedom? Yes the unlimited freedom for corporations to make your life a living hell for a few dimes.
A socialist democracy exists for the people, not for the superrich. Yes things go a bit slower in a socialist democracy, and that's how things should be. It's the best way of living and working and taking care of this planet.
by
Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 196 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 7:33:00 PM
You deserve some credit here for taking a step in the right
direction. Some of your points are very solid, such as your blasting the insanity of a CEO who gets a $1.1 billion "compensation package;" & you're also alert to the cultural stupidity whereby nearly every truly progressive reform suggested in the US has been strangled in its crib by claims that it would lead to "communist dictatorship," etc.
On the other hand, you're not representing what Marx, Engels or Trotsky said at all accurately, and you're trying to prove them "wrong" with overly simplistic arguments. In fact, if you study them more, you'll see that they're not wrong, in most important respects. For instance, you write that communism "will never gain a foot hold in any nation state because of humanity's basic desire to have more than some predetermined base line." All the great Marxist thinkers were very well aware of what Marx termed "the productive forces," & of the necessity that these forces be developed well beyond a subsistence level, in order to make possible transitions to more advanced forms of social organization. They viewed capitalism as an improvement over feudalism, & as a stage that had to be passed through to make possible the development of socialism.
When you're talking about "The Swedish Model," you are not talking about "socialism." You're talking about "social democracy," which is very different. That's a form of capitalism in which the cooperation of the working class is secured, not by the working class taking power, but by the capitalist class making very substantial concessions, to more or less "buy off" the cooperation of workers. It's certainly a lot humane than US capitalism -- but it's still capitalism, & thus capable of all the rotten things unfettered capitalism is capable of.
For instance, today's Denmark (also a "Swedish model" kind of society) sends troops to Iraq, even though Danes overwhelmingly oppose the occupation. A real socialist society would never do this. Also, I think you're misinterpreting the results of the 2006 Swedish election. This was an example of rightwing forces in Sweden gaining in influence, & rolling back some of the great achievements in Sweden's last 70 years. It's similar to Bush trashing the American social gains of the New Deal.
Anyone interested in socialism, & in the elaboration of the socialist perspective in both theory & as applied to daily world events, should read the World Socialist Web Site.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 7:41:58 PM
All I would add to his accurate corrections and his erudite framing of the topic is a smallish point.
There are somethings that lend themselves to non profit status. Social safety nets like health care and welfare assistance being two of them. We can plainly see that privatised health care is a fiasco and a giant cash cow for the HMO's and unaffordable for far too many of our citizenry, about 45 million are uninsured here in America. This places a huge financial burden on the communities and certainly can lead to epidemics and wasted lives. Germany has the best model for nationalised health care and in Canada the average family pays about 40 bucks a month per person for complete health insurance.
Here in the USA our privatised health coverage not only leaves out those millions mentioned above but costs us far too much for far to little coverage. But any argument for such as single payer nationalised care quickly finds those who call it "communism" or cite long lines and poor service, I guess they've never been to Kaiser Permanente!
I envision a society in which we combine socialism and capitalism into a system in which all benefit.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 8:56:07 PM
As much as I may not have represented Marx as accurately as possible, my intention isn’t to prove him wrong.As I’ve not read the entire Communist Manifesto, I’m representing what I have read and, of course, how I interpret the meaning of what I call the premise of communism.
Beyond that, I concede any further detail that I may have omitted to you.You seem to be well versed in the subject and I appreciate your comments and thank you for the link.
There are far too many Americans who could never in a million years imagine themselves being entirely fair with the peoples’ Commons.
It’s ironic that those who would oppose Socialism complain that anyone in need feels that they are wrongly “entitled” to government assistance.The word entitlement is used as if people accepting help from the government, which is actually you and me, becoming wealthy from the government assistance.
People who may have made some poor choices, have gone through personal setbacks such as illness or divorce or have lost their jobs because of the most unpatriotic of all Americans, CEOs of American based corporations who steal the right to maintain decent paying jobs from Americans and send them to third world countries are plain out of luck in today’s “global free market” environment.It’s very difficult to pull one’s self up by the bootstraps when one cannot afford shoes.
If anyone’s not entitled it would be those who play god with the lives of Americans, whether it’s sending them to fight and possibly die or it’s taking away their livelihoods.
Michael
by
Michael Bonanno (85 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 11:12:34 PM
Correcting Ardee ; Germany had the best model for nationalised health care until they started to dismantle it. What's now left of what we had under Helmut Schmidt is being chiseled away, bit for bit ; the Americanisation of Germany is the worst thing that could have happened. And now the people are forgetting where the streets are.
by
Tony Forest (6 articles, 15 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 1343 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 8:16:18 AM
I was in Germany more than a few years ago and witnessed first hand their excellent system. It just shows you the perfidious nature of profit seeking and how a nation sometimes benefits from a refusal to make everything about profit.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 10:52:03 AM
As a person who was born, lived and experienced socialism in its first hand ( also maybe I am the only one here, on- site who really read Marx and Lenin and even passed numerous tests) I would like sadly to say that socialism, even in its social- democratic form is nothing but a dream. of course, we all would love to admire Sweden if we do not live there, or Denmark, for instance. And we compare their 'systems' to ours with regrets on our side. But more deep studies by their own sources, particularly by the people of arts and literature reveal a deep crisis in those societies, the crisis, manifesting intself in alcoholism, violence and ( the primary) - a HORRIBLE BOREDOM. Yes, folks, socialist Europe is paralysed by boredom and that is also what killed the socialaism in Russia too. Boredom, the inability to have excitement, the overregulating of life strikes men most of all. Men need to feel the indivildual control overe their lives even if it is an illusion. But there, in the socialist paradise that feeling is lost forever. It is the feeling of King Lear who, when his daughter asked why he was lamenting while having all he needed, said,'A human needs extra.' Try reading the Swedish novels now. They are dull as Hell. Edward Grig is their last composer and he was Norwegian. There are no great artists, painters, musicians there anymore. Same for Finland, Norway and Denmark. PeppyLongStocking is dead. And the Mermaid had bought new shoes.
Socialism, the same as everything, is not a panacea and cannot be recommended to every nation. What has to be recommended is the freedom of choice to find the way without external pressure. That is the system which is a system of global non-interference. In fact, to study other systems I reccommend to hear and read those other people who have to live under those systems. Not the vehement ant-guys but the national writers, poets, philosophers. And then you will find that people everywhere are the same, form Iceland to Brazil- and they are afraid of the same things:death, hunger, oppression but the worst is BOREDOM, funny as it seems. And they all want to be happy but no one can define what happiness is.
Sorry for the wrench,
by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 9:10:17 AM
That guy seems to be quick on the keyboard......and pretty darn accurate as well..
I am surprised by this slip from Panurg but must wonder why a system, whether socialist, communist or capitalist would be responsible for ennui, lethargy or sapping creativity? In fact, our supposed democracy here in the good old USofA with its basic emphasis on profits and power for the wealthy but crumbs for the poor might seem to lend itself to massive doses of hopelessness......a true socialist system, wherein one is unburdened from fear of health care costs, unfair wages requiring multiple jobs to feed ones family or having to pay for expensive benefits and retirement costs seems a better climate for the arts ......
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:01:43 AM
I have to work in socialist europe to make a living since my own country has no interesting in funding the arts and would rather take my hard earned tax dollars and spend them on securing pertroleum resources so the power elite can grow richer and fatter
weird huh?
carry on comrades
by
anechoic (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 5:38:26 PM
What you experienced is Stalinism, not "socialism."
No one is claiming that "socialism is a magic panacea" that immediately makes life wonderful for everyone, that it solves all human problems of existence & leads to instant perfect happiness for all.
Rather, the idea is moving towards a better society, rationally organized, which is able to avoid some of the tragic & extremely dangerous pitfalls of the current system. For instance, capitalism generally leads to increasing concentrations of wealth. Eventually, you wind up with a tiny ruling class that has all the wealth & power; and everyone else can barely get by. This is the direction in which the US is very rapidly moving -- and at some point (which we have certainly reached), this kind of very unequal society is no longer compatible with meaningful democracy.
Second, capitalism is unable to solve problems like environmental destruction & global warming, because the obvious solutions conflict with the economic interests of giant private corporations. This will lead to death of the planet.
Third, capitalism tends to lead to warfare states. Even though it's never spoken of in the capitalist press (for obvious reasons), what really controls the US political system today is the "military industrial complex." Under capitalism, monsters like this develop, and it's impossible to even challenge them, let alone to defeat them. To such entities, little things like Congress and the White House are mere pawns that they can buy and sell at will.
The idea of socialism aims at reorganizing society so that problems like this might admit to a rational solution. It's not necessarily focused on providing instant perfect joy to every single person, but rather on the development of generally more sane & better conditions. (No doubt, some individuals would still be bored or unhappy, even under a very well-planned socialist system.)
Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into your monkey wrench, because you're usually a very thoughtful & perceptive poster (partly, I suspect, precisely because you did NOT grow up in the US, so you have a broader perspective). If you grew up in E. Europe or the USSR, you lived under Stalinism -- this is not really "socialism," any more than social democracy is!
Capitalism has led us to a crisis. The US is now in a state of phony war against a largely imaginary "enemy," and this war is intended to be more or less permanent. Social inequality is rapidly increasing; the health system is failing; and we are moving rapidly towards an unnecessary WWIII, & perhaps also to irreversible global climate change. Our so-called "free press" has turned into an American version of Pravda, & the US Constitution has been essentially abandoned, despite the widespread desire to pretend otherwise. // I'd be happy to trade all that in for another system which might avert those crises, even if it meant that some individuals would still be bored & personally unhappy!
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 10:50:12 AM
MICHAEL: Well said. In several articles I have called for a cap on compensation packages for executives for the benefit of the workers and investors both of which are being raped by the Robber Baron nature of the current system. There is a model I and others have designed closer to a mix of The Swedish Model and Teddy Roosevelt's ideals. There is a form of restrained Capitalism which follows a humane and benefiical model, it excludes profits and taxes on all necessities; fuel, water, utilities, medical supplies, food. It nationalizes medical care and oil turning them over the major universitites to run sans profit. It eliminates drug companies, and gives over R&D and distribution to universities which do most of the good research anyway.
it also includes a corporate Fair Practices Act, which taxes heavily companies which outsource, caps their Executive comp-pac at $500,000 and caps all executive comp pacs at the WW II model of about 25 times average employee Comp-pacs including contractor employees, out sourced or otherwise, which is an incentive to hire here and caps out even the 25 times employee comp-pacs for executives at $2.5 million.
It also removes profit in healthcare by eliminating insurance companies, turning their functions over to the also eliminated IRS, making the source of taxes a national Retail Tax and the tax on outsourcers, plus a heavy tax on arms dealers and toxic substance MFRs. each person recieves and income verification card which defines his cost for healthcare with those at or below a generous poverty level paying nothing.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1311 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:40:33 AM
A think a major point here is that it is all too common for Americans to allow themselves to be manipulated by words without understanding what they mean. Many Americans have been conditioined to think that Capitalism and Democracy is one and the same, for example. This of course is the sad legacy of a country that doesn't have enough respect for liberal education. (If it is not already illegal to use the word 'liberal.') Too many of us have been brainwashed into believing that the purpose of an education is to get a good job rather than to allow a person to experience the joy of intellectual freedom, creativity, and discovery (which may or may not lead immediately to a 'good' job even though it would lead to a more enlightened society.) Without intellectual integrity and personal responsibility on the part of individual citizens, I doubt that any system of government can elevate the human condition to any sustainable degree. In this country, we are doing our best of late to stiffle the kind of integrity it takes to make things work. This article that Michael wrote is well framed and adds a lot, I think, to the dialog that needs to take place about the misuse of words and our fear of discussing ideas that somewhere along the line have been made taboo. This is a good topic on which to get us started.
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:43:28 AM
but rather convey what I know and I am surely, thankful for the comments above about my thoughtfullness, but...
I am sorry to say, folks, again but 'isms' do not solve anything. People have a tendency to screw the best of the systems. If we take Southern Confederacy, for instance, you would not argue that the White population felt perfectly content and happy with the system which was very much inhumane by defininiton. That also did not mean that all the whites in the South were inhumane at all.
I would also argue that I did not live 'under the Stalinism'. I lived in the society which adopted a certain way of life, whose history, national character and sense of morals accepted as a given. They accepted that boredom not because Stalin made it for them but because it was understandable to them. Sometimes misery is comfortable if it much mor eunderstandablle than alternatives. And yes and no- the society is not responsible for making everyone happy but it has to provide as many opportunities as possible for the people to strive for the happiness and being able to achieve it INDIVIDUALLY. Turned out that there were as many ways to be happy as people and that means that 'liberal' paradise can be as deadly as the ' conservative one'. I get the first- handed information from the Russian sources and there are no more hated people in Russia than Gorbachev and Yeltzin. But people who hate them do not even noitce that that privilege of hating openly makes them more human as personalities than they were before when they hated covertly like jackals in the dark. So complex is the world, so multfaceted. Please, do not think that I love corporations or so. I certainly would love the universal heath system and unversal education in this country as well as many parties. But ' isms' play a very small part in it: people, their character, their traditions, their luck even do a lot. It all boils to a really funny question- which system is more suitable for the development of the personality- which is promoting that development? The question of ' what personality' has always been abused so far.
Socialists in my time were claiming that they had developed a 'new species'- the homo soveticus', that one who was more advanced, more spiritual, more compassionate, etc. The same is kind off said now by the Zionists in Israel- they claim to have developed a 'new Jew'. But nope. Turned out that in both cases as in the case of ' new Swedes', the old and powerful forces still apply and millions die for the dream which does not take one person for consideration. Saddam Hussein and his party were socialists, too, you know. I would say that experience teaches us that we should maybe abandon the language of ideal and calmly confirm that apparently people do not want the ideal systems; they want in many cases to just be left alone.
As HLS Menchken said,'The Problem with Communism is Communists as the problem with Chrisitianity is Christians'. Guess what, folks, only in the USA such phrase could be said freely and then quoted for decades. It means something, doesn't it?
by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 12:45:14 PM
got it right. A free market is okay, but you have to set limitations. A short glance at the distribution of wealth and the facts and figures on poverty related death rates (wordwide) should help put it in perspective.
A Social Democracy, the way we knew it here in Germany right about the time I decided to spend the rest of my life here, was a pretty good system....but it was the result of the "Wiederaufbau", the occupying forces and the monies that brought with it, black markets and what was left of the ideals from the Weimarer Republik. The roots of the German Social Democracy actually go back that far. The system, if we can call it such is a flexible, moving, ever changing system. As I mentioned, it was at its best some 25 years ago. Prior to that decade, Germany was struggling to get there. Once there, Germany closed her eyes and refused to accept the fact that that near ideal state could not be upheld. This state of denial is with us yet. Yet what has now become of it all is far from ideal. A universal health care system is something I personally do not want to live without. I've had the privilege of being a member of the system since 1982 and I certainly know that what it's worth. Chalk the universal health care system up as a must. Everybody pays in and nobody is exempt. Add the right to strike and to form workers unions to the list. Without a right to strike, your union is worthless. Laws here regulate these things. We've had to fight to retain our rights. The fight goes on as we speak (type). Freedom is another thing for the list. Freedom of speech and freedom to travel. Yet freedom can also be a bad thing when I think of the freedom money can buy and how certain CEOs can purchase freedom no matter how many laws they break.
Ah, I thought I could explain it all in one sitting but I guess I can't.
Germany may have been able to uphold the more perfect, or closer to perfect Social Democracy if it were not for competition. And this is where glabalism comes in. If Germany were able to continue without having to satisfy Corporations, Shareholders, etc. .....
You see, the whole goddamned capitolist system bites it all in the but. "Double Digit Growth" is the goal. This boils down to two things ;
1) double digit growth by means of productions and sales......and if that fails, and it will, again and again
2) mass firings, RIFs as some companies call them. Reduction In Forces (as if we were an Army)
Come on now, all we're asking for is that a country and a government be a bit more social with us all. The trouble is, they can't. A CEO that is a bit social is not much longer a CEO.
Limitations, as the Prof said. That's a good beginning. But let us not be mistaken ; there is no perfect system and even the best Social Democracy is a walk on the tightrope with strong winds from all sides.
by
Tony Forest (6 articles, 15 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 1343 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 2:31:01 PM
To panurg -- many of your points are good, & even where
I disagree with you, I see that you are a good guy, both honest & seriously interested in looking below the surface of things. I'd probably agree with you on a great deal, if I spoke to you at length.
But here are several points that I don't agree on. First, Saddam & his party were not really "socialist." The Ba'athists did opt for an economic structure that made the state the dominant force in the economy, but there was zero worker/democratic control of state policy. It's not "socialism" if there's no democratic control.
Also, the CIA helped the Ba'athists to come to power in the 1960's, in part precisely because this party was willing to kill off all the real Left elements of Iraqi society -- communists, labor leaders, left-leaning intellectuals, etc.
The other point -- you apparently grew up in the USSR, right? (That's what it sounds like.) Well, that is certainly "Stalinism," right? That's about as Stalinist as it gets!
You also say that "isms don't solve anything." But as I pointed out above, unfettered capitalism is capable of destroying the whole planet, either by war, ecocide, or the de facto crippling of democracy. If a different form of social organization (ie, a different "ism") could avert those perils -- not to mention creating a strong social safety net for all citizens -- I'd certainly consider that to be "solving something."
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 2:35:02 PM
the communication and that is what we do here- learn from each other. My site name is Mark Sashine; that is true I emigrated from the former USSR. I would say I agree with all the assessments of the rule of capitalism you have noted ( You can also see that through my writings). But I would caution about socialism not because it is an intrinsically bad system but because it actually has many vices of other systems. I would like to quote a simple example, maybe primitive. In the former country of mine ( it was not that very bad system, actually) they decided to recycle. Every household was givena new trash container to put the food remnants separately from trash. Well, for a house I have now here such condition is not a big deal but there I lived with 6 people in one room ( one room!) and to have two trash containers instead of one was a deadly thing. Thue we never recycled, we, bad guys. This simple example shows that whenever a simple individual need is trumpled upon the good thing becomes a bad thing. Surely, I did not run away from recycling comissars, there were other reasons, but l the devil is in details. Otherwise, i I agree, we have a pretty sad state of affairs here and on the Mother Earth.
by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 4:26:07 PM
in my shock of reading a post by an american lauding socialism I typed conrade
instead of comrade...
my mistake...sorry...
oh and to the guy who has an allergy to isms
even anti-ism is an -ism is it not?
this is such a standard american response to anything smacking of political discourse and has become tired and a sign of lazy thinking...
sorry but everything fits into a category and hence an -ism of some sort
by
anechoic (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments)
on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 5:34:03 PM
