Mediaboss Marketing

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democraticallyto meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as welleverywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US.

Join DSA to further the cause of democratic socialism in your town and across the nation.

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them socialist did not make it so; they also called their regimes democratic. Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the improvement of peoples lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle throughout the world.

Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as Communist. That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines Americas ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.

In the short term we cant eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable.

We dont agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canadas national health care system, Frances nationwide childcare program, and Nicaraguas literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.

Many northern European countries enjoy tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizenshigh wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making. But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers organizing efforts must reach across borders.

Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work towards reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.

No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the partys left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win nowraising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislationcan bring us closer to socialism. Many democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organizations, anti-racist groups, and the labor movement.

It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As socialists we bring a sense of the interdependence of all struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly challenge the capitalist system or adequately secure its particular demands. In fact, unless we are all collectively working to win a world without oppression, each fight for reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the USs options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in todays struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations.

Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists. We have to work hard to change peoples misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and to overcome many students lack of interest in engaging in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of the virtue of free markets.

Join our student section, Young Democratic Socialists!

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as socialized medicine and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the S word, politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

See original here:
What is Democratic Socialism? Democratic Socialists of ...

Minimal government doesnt remove power from our lives

There are two articles currently on the Times home page an opinion piece by Corey Robin, and a news analysis by Neil Irwin that I think should be read together. Taken as a pair, they get at a lot of whats wrong with the neoliberal ideology (and yes, I do think thats the right term here) that has dominated so much public discourse since the 1970s.

What, after all, were and are the selling points for low taxes and minimal regulation? Partly, of course, the claim that small government is the key to great economic performance, a rising tide that raises all boats. This claim persists because there are powerful interests that want it to persist even though the era of neoliberal dominance has in fact been marked by so-so economic growth that hasnt been shared with ordinary workers:

The other claim, however, has been that free markets translate into personal freedom: that an unregulated market economy liberates ordinary people from the tyranny of bureaucracies. In a free market, the story goes, you dont need to flatter your boss or the company selling you stuff, because they know you can always go to someone else.

What Robin points out is that the reality of a market economy is nothing like that. In fact, the daily experience of tens of millions of Americans especially but not only those who dont make a lot of money is one of constant dependence on the good will of employers and other more powerful economic players.

Its true that, as Brad DeLong says, many of Robins examples would actually apply in any complex economic system: Ive wasted time dealing with both Verizon and the Social Security Administration, and in both cases my socioeconomic status surely made it a lot easier than it would have been for a minimum-wage worker. (I have, on the other hand, had consistently good experiences at the much-maligned DMV.) But the idea that free markets remove power relations from the equation is just nave.

And its even more nave now than it was a few decades ago, because, as Irwin points out, large economic players are dominating more and more of the economy. Its increasingly clear, for example, that monopsony power is depressing wages; but thats not all it does. Concentration of hiring among a few firms, plus things like noncompete clauses and tacit collusion that reinforce their market power, dont just reduce your wage if youre hired. They also reduce or eliminate your options if youre mistreated: quit because you have an abusive boss or have problems with company policy, and you may have real trouble getting a new job.

But what can be done about it? Corey Robin says socialism but as far as I can tell he really means social democracy: Denmark, not Venezuela. Government-mandated employee protections may restrict the ability of corporations to hire and fire, but they also shield workers from some very real forms of abuse. Unions do somewhat limit workers options, but they also offer an important counterweight against corporate monopsony power.

Oh, and social safety net programs can do more than limit misery: they can be liberating. Ive known many people who stuck with jobs they disliked for fear of losing health coverage; Obamacare, flawed as it is, has noticeably reduced that kind of lock in, and a full guarantee of health coverage would make our society visibly freer.

The other day I had some fun with the Cato Institute index of economic freedom across states, which finds Florida the freest and New York the least free. (Is it OK for me to write this, comrade commissar?) As I pointed out, freedom Cato-style seems to be associated with, among other things, high infant mortality. Live free and die! (New Hampshire is just behind Florida.)

But seriously, do the real differences between New York and Florida make New Yorkers less free? New York is a highly unionized state 25.3 percent of the work force while only 6.6 percent of Florida workers are represented by unions. Does this make NY workers less free, or does it empower them in the face of corporate power?

Also, New York has expanded Medicaid and tried to make the ACA exchanges work, so that only 8 percent of nonelderly adults are uninsured, compared with 18 percent in Florida. Are New Yorkers chafing under the heavy hand of health law, or do they feel freer knowing that theyre at much less risk of being ruined by medical emergency or cast into the abyss if they lose their job?

If youre a highly paid professional, it probably doesnt make much difference. But my guess is that most workers feel at least somewhat freer in New York than they do in FL.

Now, there are no perfect answers to the inevitable sacrifice of some freedom that comes with living in a complex society; utopia is not on the menu. But the advocates of unrestricted corporate power and minimal worker protection have been getting away for far too long with pretending that theyre the defenders of freedom which is not, in fact, just another word for nothing left to lose.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

See the article here:
Opinion | Capitalism, Socialism, and Unfreedom

Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the USs options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in todays struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations.

Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists. We have to work hard to change peoples misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and to overcome many students lack of interest in engaging in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of the virtue of free markets.

Join our student section, Youth Democratic Socialists!

Read more from the original source:
What is Democratic Socialism? Q & A - Democratic Socialists ...

Stalins gulag, impoverished North Korea, collapsing Cuba...its hard to name a dogma that has failed as spectacularly as socialism. And yet leaders around the world continue to subject millions of people to this dysfunctional, violence-prone ideology.

In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Kevin Williamson reveals the fatal flaw of socialismthat efficient, complex economies simply cant be centrally planned. But even in America, that hasnt stopped politicians and bureaucrats from planning, to various extents, the most vital sectors of our economy: public education, energy, and the most arrogant centralplanning effort of them all, Obamas healthcare plan.

In this provocative book, Williamson unfolds the grim history of socialism, showing how the ideology has spawned crushing poverty, devastating famines, and horrific wars. Lumbering from one crisis to the next, leaving a trail of economic devastation and environmental catastrophe, socialism has wreaked more havoc, caused more deaths, and impoverished more people than any other ideology in historyespecially when you include the victims of fascism, which Williamson notes is simply a variant of socialism.

Williamson further demonstrates:

Why, contrary to popular belief, socialism in theory is no better than socialism in practiceWhy socialism cant exist without capitalismHow the energy powerhouse of Venezuela, under socialism, has become an economic basket case subject to rationing and blackoutsHow socialism, not British colonialism, plunged the bountiful economy of India into stagnation and dysfunctionand how capitalism is rescuing itWhy socialism is inextricably linked to communism

If you thought socialism went into the dustbin of history with the collapse of the Soviet Union, think again. Socialism is alive and kicking, and its already spread further than you know.

Read this article:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism (The ...

The birth of the first modern socialist thought brought not only the changes in our modern politics but also new forms of art that promoted the views of the utopian socialism movement. Although any modern socialist movement can technically be called utopian, this term is today most often applied to the earliest socialists who lived during the early 19th century, where the name "utopian" negatively described their unrealistic ideas. Examples of that can be found in the initial works of socialist founders such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels whose visions of the future were mostly focused on the expansion of the principles of French revolution which did not always aligned with a modern depiction of peaceful utopia. Their views of utopian society were not always peaceful and consisted from rigidly conforming to the scientific method of creation of balanced society.

The root of modern utopian socialism can be found in Ancient Greece and the works of the famous philosophers Plato and Aristotle who both described in their works perfect societies. Those old ideas were forged into utopian socialism movement by philosophers who started opposing the appalling consequences of industrial revolution. Tremendous increase in the manufacturing capabilities and the creation of new class of oppressed workforce pushed some of the best minds of the 19th century into open opposition to capitalism. The works of the utopiansocialism authors reflect their wishes for more just humanitarian world, where inhumanities of their age would be eliminated, and the future in which modern society will finally found balance between men, work, education, progress, and nature, with open opposition to the indifference of the rulers, rigid laws, selfishness and acquisitive individualism. Utopian socialist also very muchpromoted their futuristic views of the world with strong morals, hope, happiness and faith, which caused strong reactions of both inspiration and ridicule in the population who came in contact with their works. Almost all socialists authors adopted these ideals, but where utopian socialism movement differed from general socialism was in the means of how mankind could reach this better state (the ways in which current power would be taken from a government for example). Influential Marxs socialism movement was based on the grounds of strict scientific approach, while utopian socialism ideas were much looser and based on looser ideas, rhetoric and pure belief that modern societies can organize themselves better using consensus and peaceful public discussion.

The first utopian socialist was without the doubt the English philosopherand author Thomas Moore (1478-1535). His 1516 novel "Utopia" (which popularized word "utopia" in modern times) described the need for the creation of a state that practiced religious toleration, freedom of marriage, simpler communal life, free education and health care. He wrote this highly influential book guided by his frustration with the current political state in late 15th and early 16th century England, where he directly served English King Henry VIII as councilor, and for three years as Lord High Chancellor of England. The book Utopia (whose title was a pun on two Greek words ou-topos (no place) and eu-topos (good place)) followed the fictional narrator who compared the struggles of modern life in the city of Antwerp to the situation in the imaginary Greek island where life was made simpler by the much simple laws, promotion of public social gatherings, communal ownership, equal education for everyone and almost complete religious tolerance.

After the release of Utopia, many authors across England and Europe took its ideas and used them to create the new literary genre that managed to survive all up to modern time. This genre was not closely connected to socialist movement but was instead used to explore various thoughts. Francis Bacons utopian novel New Atlantis from 1624 explored future society where discovery, knowledge, and generosity were highly praised. This book served as the direct inspiration for the creation of the British Royal Society in 1660, which promoted education, exploration of new modern sciences, sharing of knowledge, and fueled the creation of first modern universities.

Moore's utopian vision gained additional popularity in the 19th century with the publication of several highly influential socialist works. Although they did not call themselves "utopian", ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels talked about visions and goals for the creation of utopian societies where people lived like equals. The distinction between utopian socialists and other modern movements were made in the Friedrich Engels' 1892 book called "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", in which he described them as ones who want to transform France into country with rational society, economy and their willingness to make those changes without struggle between classes or political revolutions. To him, utopian socialists claimed that they could achieve their goals with the help of like-minded people within existing society.

The popularity of utopian socialism gave birth to one of the biggest waves in utopian literature. During the 19th century, many utopian philosophers and writers tried to describe their ideas either in written form or by trying to realize their dreams in reality. Successful Welsh businessman Robert Owen (1771-1858) with help from philosopher Jeremy Bentham managed to reform the way of life for the workers that were employed by them. They created the lifestyle for them that included fewer work hours, distributed work, schools for children and renovated housing. Own was also responsible for creating few of the first utopian settlements in the United States. His new found commune called "New Harmony" collapsed after Own lost substantial wealth in a robbery, but this village greatly contributed the rise of future socialist movement by showing the entire world that human social behavior is not fixed and that it can be organized into any kind of society.

In addition to Robert Owen and Jeremy Bentham, some of the other notable utopian socialist philosophers and authors were: Erewhon (1872) by Samuel Butler (utopian satire of 19th century Victorian society), Candide by Voltaire, Charles Fourier (1772-1837, who influenced many other authors), Etienne Cabet (1788-1856, who created Icarian movement of utopiancommunities), Edward Bellamy(1850-1898, whose Christian socialist book " Looking Backward" became worldwide bestseller), William Morris(1834-1896, who disagreed with Bellamy's views in book " News from Nowhere"), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), Augustin Souchy (1892-1984), B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) and Ursula K. Le Guin (1929-present).

Read the original post:
Utopian Socialism - The Utopian Socialism Movement