Socialist United States

[kowalskil]

M. Soltysik, one of the leaders of SPUSA (Socialist Party of the USA), was recently interviewed by M. Bonanno, as reported in an OpEdNews article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/LA-Socialist-Party-Local-H-by-Michael-Bonanno-101220-602.html

After briefly commenting on that interview, I wrote my own PoEdNews article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Socialist-United-States-by-Ludwik-Kowalski-101222-350.html

What follows is a summary of my article.

1) M.S. wants us to discuss socialism without linking it with the USSR, the first socialist country in the world. I objected to this. I think Stalinism must be studied in order to avoid Soviet mistakes and Soviet crimes.

2) Referring to capitalists, M.S. said “fat cats have had fun at the expense of the working class for way too long.” What should be done with them? Are all fat cats parasitic? Was Henry Ford parasitic? Is Bill Gates parasitic? What fraction of “his” billions is invested in “our” economy, rather than consumed? What fraction is used in scientific research? I suspect that private consumption is below 1%, including luxury homes, private jets, etc.

Why was the Soviet agricultural system, based on collective farms, much much less productive than our own system? What should be done with American agricultural capitalists? Should they be treated as kulaks were in the Soviet Union? Who will run our airline companies, our TV stations, our restaurants and our barber shops? Why is the SPUSA program silent on this? Do you agree that the Soviet experience should not be ignored in answering such questions?

3) The program of SPUSA, at www.socialistparty-usa.org , displays the party emblem. It calls for unity of proletarians of the world. I know this slogan very well; it was always displayed on the first page of the main Stalinist newspaper, Prawda, till 1942. What is wrong in my suspecting that the SPUSA is a Marxist-Leninist party in disguise?

4) The party program contains this statement: “The Socialist Party is committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system." How can anyone dislike such proclamations? The question is how to proceed without creating something that is much worse than what we already have in America. Similar promises were made by Lenin, in 1917, and we know what happened. How to avoid similar disasters?

5) The program also states that “socialists struggle for the full freedom of women and men to control their own bodies and reproductive systems and to determine their own sexual orientation." That is good. Will this struggle be easier under socialism? Those who oppose abortions will still exist. Yes, I am thinking about “freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion” mentioned in point 4 above.
6) What do the SPUSA leaders mean by “democratic revolution”? Speculating about the future, and trying to turn dreams into reality, are attractive but sooner or later, as before, idealists will be pushed aside, by revolutionary leaders, due to “practical necessity.” Soldiers do not win wars by discussing orders; they win by obeying orders. In my opinion evolutionary social reforms are more desirable than revolutions. Do you agree? I do not wish anyone to experience another proletarian dictatorship.
7) Socialism as a vision of paradise on earth? Yes indeed. But not via proletarian dictatorship! My father was a communist. But he died in Kolyma, the worst corner of GULAG, at the age of 36, about two years after being arrested in Moscow. His two letters from Kolyma, to my mother and me, are in this free ON-LINE autobiography:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

This short book is based on diaries I kept between 1946 and 2004 (In the USSR, Poland, France, and the USA).

[Palin Rider]

In your opinion, is socialism an "either/or" state of nationhood, or can it be a question of degree? (In other words, can one country be more socialist or less socialist than another?)

[BoogyMan]

In your opinion, is socialism an "either/or" state of nationhood, or can it be a question of degree? (In other words, can one country be more socialist or less socialist than another?)

Of course there can be incrementalism involved in the introduction of socialist ideologies to a country.

[Palin Rider]

Of course there can be incrementalism involved in the introduction of socialist ideologies to a country.

Interesting how you worded that. So tell me, are there any countries with no laws at all that have roots in socialist ideas?

[kowalskil]

In your opinion, is socialism an "either/or" state of nationhood, or can it be a question of degree? (In other words, can one country be more socialist or less socialist than another?)

Questions like this are hard to answer, unless one knows what the word "socialism" means to the other person.

[Palin Rider]

Questions like this are hard to answer, unless one knows what the word "socialism" means to the other person.

I take it to mean government control over a nation's means of production. Boogy takes it to mean anything having to do with the Democratic Party.

What do you take it to mean?

[BoogyMan]

Interesting how you worded that. So tell me, are there any countries with no laws at all that have roots in socialist ideas?

It is worded exactly as I meant it to be. :)

[Psychoblues]

The USA has always had "socialist" policies since it's very beginning. To the most degree, however, the corporations have been the beneficiaries of socialized risk against private profit. The government occasionally passes legislation like child labor laws, workplace safety and environmental legislation, etc, only to quell a disatisfied population and workforce from open revolution or uncontrollable masses expressing their recognition of such unfairness.

The purposes of the government are to protect the best interests of the people. Some view that as socialism. Some US corporations spend billions reinforcing that type thinking while enjoying the very socialism they decry for the people. What a paradox.

Psychoblues

[kowalskil]

What fraction of american factory workers are proletarians today? Why are they better than agricultural workers, those who work in stores, schools, banks, restaurants, or theaters? I am a retired teacher and my savings are in stocks; does this make me a capitalist? Would thay call me a "fat cat"?

[Psychoblues]

What fraction of american factory workers are proletarians today? Why are they better than agricultural workers, those who work in stores, schools, banks, restaurants, or theaters? I am a retired teacher and my savings are in stocks; does this make me a capitalist? Would thay call me a "fat cat"?

Are you desiring a discussion or is this going to be a question and answer session and if so what is your purpose and what are you hoping to discover and what qualifications do you have to discern anything from whatever anyone may reply here and what is your experience and opinions on the things you are so far asking such as proletarians, investor fat cats, etc. and do you have any ulterior motive that we need to be aware of before we continue this discussion? I have lots more questions, too, but can you share this far?

Psychoblues

[logroller]

The USA has always had "socialist" policies since it's very beginning. To the most degree, however, the corporations have been the beneficiaries of socialized risk against private profit. The government occasionally passes legislation like child labor laws, workplace safety and environmental legislation, etc, only to quell a disatisfied population and workforce from open revolution or uncontrollable masses expressing their recognition of such unfairness.

The purposes of the government are to protect the best interests of the people. Some view that as socialism. Some US corporations spend billions reinforcing that type thinking while enjoying the very socialism they decry for the people. What a paradox.

Psychoblues
I think you described the role of all government. Socialism is a form of government; just an inefficient one.

I think utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number", is more inline with what SHOULD be considered our governments role, not the equal good for all people; I would argue fascism provides equal good for all, the amount of good just isn't so great. As for socialism, it discourages the pursuit of individualism, to which our freedoms, the foundation of our Constitution, serve to protect.:salute:

[avatar4321]

Of course there can be incrementalism involved in the introduction of socialist ideologies to a country.

Corruption always occurs by degree.

[logroller]

I take it to mean government control over a nation's means of production. Boogy takes it to mean anything having to do with the Democratic Party.

What do you take it to mean?

I think you described governmental application of socialism, but in theory, socialism doesn't need government. Socialism is the theory that when you eliminate all individual benefits, the society will act to maximize the public benefit, and thus, the means of production and resources will be best utilized when given to the public as a whole.

[Psychoblues]

I think you described the role of all government. Socialism is a form of government; just an inefficient one.

I think utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number", is more inline with what SHOULD be considered our governments role, not the equal good for all people; I would argue fascism provides equal good for all, the amount of good just isn't so great. As for socialism, it discourages the pursuit of individualism, to which our freedoms, the foundation of our Constitution, serve to protect.:salute:

Whether I agree or not, and I don't, your comments are fair. Thanks for your honesty.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Whether I agree or not, and I don't, your comments are fair. Thanks for your honesty.

Psychoblues

Ok, what is your vision?

[Little-Acorn]

The purposes of the government are to protect the best interests of the people.

Some governments might think that that's their purpose. They are mistaken.

The purpose of government - at least, the government of the United States - is to protect the people's rights. It goes no further than that. In this, I agree with the people who wrote and ratified the Declaration of Independence - a document whose statements remain in effect as LAW in this country today.

The people who wrote and ratified the DOI knew that, if the government were given the authority to protect the people's best interests, that government would quickly take that as authority to control nearly every aspect of every part of people's lives. The ones who wrote and ratified the DOI were determined to prevent that from happening.

And their concerns are becoming grimly true today, as government warps its purpose away from the one stated in the DOI, to the one you articulated in my quote above.

[Psychoblues]

Some governments might think that that's their purpose. They are mistaken.

The purpose of government - at least, the government of the United States - is to protect the people's rights. It goes no further than that. In this, I agree with the people who wrote and ratified the Declaration of Independence - a document whose statements remain in effect as LAW in this country today.

The people who wrote and ratified the DOI knew that, if the government were given the authority to protect the people's best interests, that government would quickly take that as authority to control nearly every aspect of every part of people's lives. The ones who wrote and ratified the DOI were determined to prevent that from happening.

And their concerns are becoming grimly true today, as government warps its purpose away from the one stated in the DOI, to the one you articulated in my quote above.

I could not disagree more, la. Practically every law and ideal as accepted by most Americans including the founders was to protect as best as possible the people and their interests. What was that old saying, a Government by, for and of the people or something to that effect? I'm suffering early onset Alzheimers so I don't always remember exactly.

I spent 21 years in elective politics, la, many more in community organization and my entire life loving this wonderful country and all of it's inhabitants. Some more than others but all nonetheless.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

Some governments might think that that's their purpose. They are mistaken.

The purpose of government - at least, the government of the United States - is to protect the people's rights. It goes no further than that. In this, I agree with the people who wrote and ratified the Declaration of Independence - a document whose statements remain in effect as LAW in this country today.

The people who wrote and ratified the DOI knew that, if the government were given the authority to protect the people's best interests, that government would quickly take that as authority to control nearly every aspect of every part of people's lives. The ones who wrote and ratified the DOI were determined to prevent that from happening.

And their concerns are becoming grimly true today, as government warps its purpose away from the one stated in the DOI, to the one you articulated in my quote above.

I could not disagree more, la.
Disagree with what?

Disgree with the idea that our government's original purpose was to protect our rights, NOT our well-being? But it is true. The Federalist papers are full of warnings that a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have, and other such. Plus descriptions of our Constitution as a document whose primary purpose is to LIMIT and restrict the Federal government from doing things and taking powers?

Disagree with the statement that the DOI says the purpose for forming government, is to protect our rights? But it does so state. Need a copy for reference?

Are you "disagreeing" with my statements because you can refute them? Or because you can't refute them but simply don't like them?

[Little-Acorn]

The main reason why govenment should not take the authority to "protect the people's interests" (as opposed to protecting only their rights), is that nearly every part of people's lives is involved with "their interests". And so a government that can implement restrictions and punishments based on people's "interests", is a government that can intrude upon and interfere with virtually every part of their lives.

And as I mentioned earlier, history is replete with examples of government doing exactly that. Governments that have access to the virtually unlimited power needed to "protect people's interests", nearly always expand to become overbearing tyrannies - for the people's own good, of course.

Government must never become the steward of "people's interests" - that's the people's job. Enabling government to do that, means giving them enough power to control every aspect of people's lives. And governments with that much power, will invariable try to do more and more, until they expand to take up and control all available resources - and more.

[Palin Rider]

Disagree with what?

Disgree with the idea that our government's original purpose was to protect our rights, NOT our well-being? But it is true. The Federalist papers are full of warnings that a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have, and other such. Plus descriptions of our Constitution as a document whose primary purpose is to LIMIT and restrict the Federal government from doing things and taking powers?

Disagree with the statement that the DOI says the purpose for forming government, is to protect our rights? But it does so state. Need a copy for reference?

Are you "disagreeing" with my statements because you can refute them? Or because you can't refute them but simply don't like them?

Why not respond to the rest of the post now? Or is your skill limited to straw men?

[Psychoblues]

Why not respond to the rest of the post now? Or is your skill limited to straw men?

He can't respond to the rest of that post, PR. If he does it disproves his entire premise and yes, he is one for the straw men. And he ain't alone in that regard on this board.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

The purpose of government, and the restrictions on govt enacted by the Constitution, are "straw man" arguments. Got it.

Apparently one honest post by PB, was too much for him to stand. He's back to the usual fibs and diversions.

Back to the subject:
PB's statement, however erronious, that govt's purpose was to promote people's interests, nails the most fundamental difference between modern libeals (leftists) and conservatives. In fact, govt's role is only to protect their rights... and that only because it's something that private people and groups cannot do dispassionately or with fairness to all. History has shown that govt is not very good at it, but it's one of the very few areas where private people and groups are even poorer at it than govt. That is the only reason why govt must be given this responsibility.

The reason why govt must not be given the power to take care of people's interests, has been stated earlier: Because that will give them enough power to control virtually every aspect of people's lives. And history shows, again, that government will nearly always expand to do everything it's given power to do, however inadvertently... and it will do it as poorly as it does most everything.

V.I. Lenin probably didn't intend to set up a government in Russia in 1917 for the purpose of deliberately depriving and starving a large percentage of its population to death. Yet in only 20 year, the people who came after him used that government to do exactly that. Lenin merely provided the mechanisms for the later horrendous abuse, with no restrictions on how they would later be used.

Modern liberals (leftists) are engaged in the same task, of setting up mechanisms for the government to take care of us. And they are also knocking down, however inadvertently or innocently, the checks and balances that would prevent later abuse of these mechanisms. What assurances can these liberals give us, that people who come after them will absolutely not abuse the powers they are giving government today?

Conservatives know that the only such assurance, is not to give government those powers in the first place. Imperfect thoght they are, private people and groups are far better than government at taking care of themselves, and improving our standards of living and comfort, than government is. Only the things that private people or groups flatly cannot do, should be entrusted to government... and then only with the heaviest restrictions, checks, and balances to prevent government abuse.

[OldMercsRule]

I take it to mean government control over a nation's means of production.


Hmmmmmmm........... ya mean like buildin' autos??????? :laugh2:



Boogy takes it to mean anything having to do with the Democratic Party.

What do you take it to mean?

[Psychoblues]

The purpose of government, and the restrictions on govt enacted by the Constitution, are "straw man" arguments. Got it.

Apparently one honest post by PB, was too much for him to stand. He's back to the usual fibs and diversions.



Fibs and diversions? Straw men? All that fits you well, la.

First I refer you back to post #17. It may be too comprehensive for you but it is as elementary as I could possibly write to convey the idea. In addition, I can tell you that I was heavily involved in the wording and passage of the Environmentral Protection Act and The Occupational Safety and Health Act. That might give you some idea as to where I come from on the issues of the government protecting the rights and interests of the people. It is you throwing in these ideas of a clearly tyranical and murderous government if you can call it that but we have no such thing and no possibility of any such thing. Fibs, diversions and strawmen fit you well, la.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Fibs and diversions? Straw men? All that fits you well, la.

First I refer you back to post #17. It may be too comprehensive for you but it is as elementary as I could possibly write to convey the idea. In addition, I can tell you that I was heavily involved in the wording and passage of the Environmentral Protection Act and The Occupational Safety and Health Act. That might give you some idea as to where I come from on the issues of the government protecting the rights and interests of the people. It is you throwing in these ideas of a clearly tyranical and murderous government if you can call it that but we have no such thing and no possibility of any such thing. Fibs, diversions and strawmen fit you well, la.

Psychoblues

I respect where you are coming from, many others for other important reasons are coming from different directions. There are reasons that direct democracy was not the outcome of the Constitutional Convention and that on the other hand, the system was federated. There are reasons that two presidents were nixed and that lifetime term was also.

To attribute hatefulness or callousness on the part of those who disagree with you is not only illogical, but prevents any meaningful dialogue.

Of course the same can be said from those on the right that attribute all liberals as being unthinking and only generous with others' money via taxes. Once stereotypes are the parameters, discussion ends.

[Palin Rider]

Hmmmmmmm........... ya mean like buildin' autos??????? :laugh2:

Exactly. I was totally opposed to the bailouts at the time. Still am.


Of course the same can be said from those on the right that attribute all liberals as being unthinking and only generous with others' money via taxes. Once stereotypes are the parameters, discussion ends.

Seeing your signature below that quote immediately vaporizes any sincerity you might have. It might be funny if it weren't so sad.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by Palin Rider
I take it to mean government control over a nation's means of production.


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Hmmmmmmm........... ya mean like buildin' autos???????


Exactly. I was totally opposed to the bailouts at the time. Still am.


Good fer you ^^^^^^; I thought you were mincin' werds with Boogy about what "Socialism" meant.......silly me........

[Indy]

The purpose of government, and the restrictions on govt enacted by the Constitution, are "straw man" arguments. Got it.

Apparently one honest post by PB, was too much for him to stand. He's back to the usual fibs and diversions.

Back to the subject:
PB's statement, however erronious, that govt's purpose was to promote people's interests, nails the most fundamental difference between modern libeals (leftists) and conservatives. In fact, govt's role is only to protect their rights... and that only because it's something that private people and groups cannot do dispassionately or with fairness to all. History has shown that govt is not very good at it, but it's one of the very few areas where private people and groups are even poorer at it than govt. That is the only reason why govt must be given this responsibility.

The reason why govt must not be given the power to take care of people's interests, has been stated earlier: Because that will give them enough power to control virtually every aspect of people's lives. And history shows, again, that government will nearly always expand to do everything it's given power to do, however inadvertently... and it will do it as poorly as it does most everything.

V.I. Lenin probably didn't intend to set up a government in Russia in 1917 for the purpose of deliberately depriving and starving a large percentage of its population to death. Yet in only 20 year, the people who came after him used that government to do exactly that. Lenin merely provided the mechanisms for the later horrendous abuse, with no restrictions on how they would later be used.

Modern liberals (leftists) are engaged in the same task, of setting up mechanisms for the government to take care of us. And they are also knocking down, however inadvertently or innocently, the checks and balances that would prevent later abuse of these mechanisms. What assurances can these liberals give us, that people who come after them will absolutely not abuse the powers they are giving government today?

Conservatives know that the only such assurance, is not to give government those powers in the first place. Imperfect thoght they are, private people and groups are far better than government at taking care of themselves, and improving our standards of living and comfort, than government is. Only the things that private people or groups flatly cannot do, should be entrusted to government... and then only with the heaviest restrictions, checks, and balances to prevent government abuse.

Bravo, I couldn't agree more. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. I'm sure Stalin didn't start out intending to murder some of his dearest friends.

[Psychoblues]

I respect where you are coming from, many others for other important reasons are coming from different directions. There are reasons that direct democracy was not the outcome of the Constitutional Convention and that on the other hand, the system was federated. There are reasons that two presidents were nixed and that lifetime term was also.

To attribute hatefulness or callousness on the part of those who disagree with you is not only illogical, but prevents any meaningful dialogue.

Of course the same can be said from those on the right that attribute all liberals as being unthinking and only generous with others' money via taxes. Once stereotypes are the parameters, discussion ends.

All I can ask you to do, Kath, is take a look at post #22 while thinking of the context of my post # 24. I didn't say anything that hadn't already been thrown at me like a monkey throws shit on the wall and licks his fingers afterward. I think you haven't been keeping up in this thread. My conversation with la now is that the primary purpose of the government is to protect the interests of the people. He says it's to protect the rights of the people. Then I agree and say OK, it's to protect the rights and the interests of the people. Oh my, it feels so unnatural to have to go back to a,b,c and 2 plus 2 when speaking with those you consider to be adults.

I only asked you to be fair, Kath. I get pushed around here more than most. Even jimnyc knows that very well and has expressed his regret for that. He didn't intend that but the board has a life of it's own. I don't think he expects his moderators to join in that harassment but I don't think he needs to get involved in every disagreement on or off the board either.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

My conversation with la now is that the primary purpose of the government is to protect the interests of the people. He says it's to protect the rights of the people.
Which is a carefully altered and reduced version of what I actually said... as is clear to anyone who reads my post and compares it to little psycho's.


Then I agree and say OK, it's to protect the rights and the interests of the people.
Which is actually a complete disagreement with what I clearly said. But who would know that from listening to little psycho?

I'm sorry that little psycho feels it's other people who are treating him unfairly.... while he tries time and again to avoid discussing he subject he claims to be addressing.

This subject deserves a thread of its own, and I will soon put it in one.

[Psychoblues]

Which is a carefully altered and reduced version of what I actually said... as is clear to anyone who reads my post and compares it to little psycho's.


Which is actually a complete disagreement with what I clearly said. But who would know that from listening to little psycho?

I'm sorry that little psycho feels it's other people who are treating him unfairly.... while he tries time and again to avoid discussing he subject he claims to be addressing.

This subject deserves a thread of its own, and I will soon put it in one.

Arguing that the government has no business in any regard to the interests of the people but only relegated to the rights of the people is your entire argument, la.You can put it in 5 words or 50,000, and I have seen it both ways and everything in between, but it's all the same. The government of the USofA has many rights in the interests of the people but I agree they are limited and limited for good reasons.

Subject at hand: All I said was that the purposes of the Government was to protect the best interests of the people. You argue against that. I remind you of the centuries of legislation, policies and practises that prove my observations correct and you ignore that. I even share with you 2 major pieces of legislation in which I was directly involved with a Republican President and a generally reasonable congress. That legislation was designed for protecting the best interests of the population or should I have to even say that in order for you to understand it?

What is your interpretation of that most famous phrase, "a Government of, by, and for the people." or something to that effect?

If I'm offending your pissy ass then maybe you need to stick with little boy boards and stay away from these that desire conversations that are real. Our differences are real so I think we need to keep our conversation the same way.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

All I can ask you to do, Kath, is take a look at post #22 while thinking of the context of my post # 24. I didn't say anything that hadn't already been thrown at me like a monkey throws shit on the wall and licks his fingers afterward. I think you haven't been keeping up in this thread. My conversation with la now is that the primary purpose of the government is to protect the interests of the people. He says it's to protect the rights of the people. Then I agree and say OK, it's to protect the rights and the interests of the people. Oh my, it feels so unnatural to have to go back to a,b,c and 2 plus 2 when speaking with those you consider to be adults.

I only asked you to be fair, Kath. I get pushed around here more than most. Even jimnyc knows that very well and has expressed his regret for that. He didn't intend that but the board has a life of it's own. I don't think he expects his moderators to join in that harassment but I don't think he needs to get involved in every disagreement on or off the board either.

Psychoblues

PB, as you say there is little any can do to control how posters post. Rather than complaining on that, I'd suggest everyone stick with the topic, argue their points. Might find it more interesting to read and contribute to?

[kowalskil]

Are you desiring a discussion or is this going to be a question and answer session and if so what is your purpose and what are you hoping to discover and what qualifications do you have to discern anything from whatever anyone may reply here and what is your experience and opinions on the things you are so far asking such as proletarians, investor fat cats, etc. and do you have any ulterior motive that we need to be aware of before we continue this discussion? I have lots more questions, too, but can you share this far?

Psychoblues

I suspect that the leader who was interviewed was not honest. My questions were addressed to him, and to other leaders of SPUSA. Yes the most important question was about proletarian dictatorship. I hope Americans will never experience it.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.
.