 |
 | 1 Like | Search this Thread |
| 11-10-2010, 09:54 AM | #1 |
| Democrat Socialists of America | |
| 11-10-2010, 10:13 AM | #2 |
| 11-10-2010, 12:33 PM | #3 |
|
current "boogyman" status aside, Socialism has always been a part of America, once being the "tea party" of sorts.......... Socialism in America  Quote: The Socialist Party in America was born and grew dramatically between 1900 and 1912. Under the charismatic leadership of Eugene V. Debs in 1912, 160 councilmen, 145 aldermen, one congressman, and 56 mayors, including Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Berkeley, California, and Schenectady, New York, were elected as Socialists. At the time, Socialists published 300 newspapers, including the Appeal of Reason, which was a Kansas-based publication with 700,000 subscribers. Membership in the Socialist Party totaled 125,000. Debs imprisoned Debs converted to socialism while serving jail time for his part in the Pullman Strike in 1897, and began to edit the Appeal to Reason publication. From 1900 to 1920, he ran for president on the Socialist ticket while increasing membership to the Socialist Party tenfold. Although Debs insisted he was a Marxist, he spoke more about poverty and injustice than typical socialist concerns about the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx). In 1912, Debs received 900,000 votes, which was six percent of the presidential votes cast that year, principally for his stand against America's involvement in World War I. Debs appealed to blue collar workers hungry for improved working conditions and higher wages, but also such intellectuals as authors Jack London and Upton Sinclair. Quote: In American society today, socialist groups range in political views from the extreme right to the extreme left. The extreme right wing groups comprise neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic and fascist groups such as the National Socialist Movement or NSM, whose purpose is to “purify” American society through violent and non-violent means. The NSM is said to wear the uniforms and paraphernalia of the Third Reich. According to their website, the NSM is an organization that is “dedicated to the preservation of our Proud Aryan Heritage, and the creation of a National Socialist Society in America and around the world.” Representing the far left wing are such groups as the Socialist Party U.S.A. That party believes in what is called “Democratic Socialism," defined as “a political and economic system with freedom and equality for all, so that people may develop to their fullest potential in harmony with others.” The party further states that it is “committed to full freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion, and to a multi-party system” and that the ownership and control of the production and distribution of goods “should be democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups.” Other socialist groups include the Democratic Socialists of America, National Alliance, Young Democrat Socialist, and the Democratic Progressive Party. There are also many “anti-socialist” groups, which include the Future of Freedom Foundation, Sons of Liberty, and the Cato Institute. They express various beliefs regarding socialism in America and the rights of the American public. Influences of socialism on American society today The effects of socialism in America can still be felt today. According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program. For example, publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government-funded universities would be considered socialist operations by that definition. The Social Security Act of 1935, one of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal creations, is seen by many as a socialist program because it is a government-organized and -regulated system. Social Security was designed to provide retirement benefits to citizens through mandatory donations to the program during one's employment years. During the Clinton administration, a plan was proposed to bring down the high costs of health insurance by creating national health insurance. Critics of the national health insurance concept labeled it “socialized medicine” and argued that the individual, not the federal government, had the wisdom and capability to manage his or her own affairs. They argued that deregulation of the health care industry and opening it up to the free market would bring the cost of health care down and increase the availability of care to the American public, which national health insurance would not do.  | |
| 11-10-2010, 12:37 PM | #4 |
Originally posted by Nesster  Hmm, Conyers looks to be a honorable liberal with bona fide civil rights background: John Conyers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia DSA does exist; Democratic Socialists of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I try but can't find an independent source for Conyers being a member or a socialist, I get a ton of right wing sites all saying the same thing using the same words: 70 Socialists in Congress! Spencer Bachus Makes List Of 17 Socialists In Congress It must be very difficult for a normal person in the US, who has a life outside of the Political sphere, to know exactly what the real differences are between your major parties. Even more so about what the real motivations of each party are - real meaning uncontaminated by political "spin". | |
| 11-15-2010, 08:56 AM | #6 |
| 11-15-2010, 09:35 AM | #7 |
| 11-15-2010, 09:41 AM | #8 |
| Originally posted by reeftool While conservatives have attempted for years to scare everyone about the Democrats and their "one world socialist" schemes, it's been the Republicans with their trade and treaty agreements that has done more to erode national sovereignty than anything the Dems have ever thought of, especially the Bush's (both of them). | |
| 11-15-2010, 10:14 AM | #9 |
|
OMG, OMG--the "S word"!  They're coming to say unkind things about the super-rich and maybe even make them pay taxes!
| |
| 11-30-2010, 03:09 PM - 1 Like | #10 |
| Originally posted by jolepp It seems "socialist" has quite sinister connotations in the US. Second, another part of the original "American dream" was that here in America (as opposed to where class barriers were imposed at the time, such as in European aristocracies, etc.), no matter what your status in society, you had a shot at getting rich. Getting rich went hand in hand with accepting capitalism, and capitalism involves hard-core competitiveness, not cooperation (as socialistic programs require). Third, as a result of the dream of wealth, America has accepted greed as a motivating factor in the market, and greed has perverted us and our laws (e.g., the recent Wall Street fiasco). Greed perverts the idea of wealth, which has come to mean NOT just comfortably secure plus a bit more, but so rich you can do anything (more freedom) and buy anything (more greed) you want. This aspect of the dream is at odds with the socialistic concept of redistributing wealth (even a modest redistribution, as most liberals in the US want). Socialistic thinking, therefore, goes against the very core of the "American dream." Of course, just try to criticize that as a politician and see where it gets you. The American dream is a sacred thing, yet someday we may just have to admit that we Americans don't quite have it right. But when you see all the angry Tea Party members, they are mad at the idea of being forced to cooperate with or care about humanity, and they are afraid of losing the right to pursue wealth unrestrained and of losing the right to keep all of it for themselves. What is sadly ironic is, as many intelligent people have tried to point out, the vast majority of citizens would be richer, more secure, and overall better off if we socialized those things which, at the very least, ensure our survival. That's because the poor drag on society both in increased costs (police, insurance, prisons, etc.) as well as in missed contributions from those so beaten down all they can think of is day-to-day survival. In other words, we pay more by not making sure basic needs are met. As an American, I am often embarrassed to witness what we do to maintain "American dream" beliefs since we have to ignore and deny what others have discovered in the rest of the world. This article "It's Better Over There," is rather enlightening: It's Better Over There | The Nation. I sent it to all my conservative and libertarian friends . . . not a peep was heard from any of them. We also have to ignore the utter common sense of thinkers like Robert Reich who points out that when a poor lower/middle class can't buy, the whole economy will suffer, as he does in this Colbert interview: Robert Reich - The Colbert Report - 10/11/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central Anyway Jouni, that is one American's opinion. | |
| 12-01-2010, 08:57 PM | #11 |
| 12-01-2010, 10:35 PM | #12 |
| Originally posted by jolepp It seems "socialist" has quite sinister connotations in the US. Maybe this is a carry-over from the cold war days? Another word I sometimes wonder about is "liberal" which seems to be somewhat synonymous, although those usually using it would seem to be quite the liberalists what comes to economics and limited government (which is should be close to the original meaning in politics?). Maybe originates from use in conjunction with morals and especially not imposing yours on others? From my "town"....... Here, Socialism meant honest, frugal government - JSOnline Quote: The view from Milwaukee is radically different. I'm not a socialist and never have been, but I can testify that Socialism - with a capital "S"- was one of the best things that ever happened to this city. Without realizing it, even the most red-blooded capitalists are enjoying the fruits of their efforts, from spacious parks to clean streets and from a working infrastructure to an expectation, however frequently disappointed, of honest government. Before the Socialists took charge, Milwaukee was just as corrupt as Chicago at its worst. Our mayor at the turn of the 20th century was David Rose, a political prince of darkness who allowed prostitution, gambling dens, all-night saloons and influence-peddling to flourish on his watch. Grand juries returned 276 indictments against public officials of the Rose era. "All the Time Rosy" escaped prosecution himself, but district attorney (and future governor) Francis McGovern called him "the self-elected, self-appointed attorney general of crime in this community." In 1910, fed-up voters handed Socialists the keys to the city. Emil Seidel, a patternmaker by trade, won the mayor's race in a landslide, and Socialists took a majority of seats on the Common Council. The election was not a fluke. Seidel served from 1910 to 1912, Daniel Hoan from 1916 to 1940 and Frank Zeidler from 1948 to 1960. No other big city in America entrusted its government to the Socialists, much less kept them in office for most of 50 years. That record makes Milwaukee unique in the nation. Quote: Contrary to popular belief, they did not try to socialize everything in sight. With the exception of the streetcar company, whose services they felt belonged in the public domain (and eventually got there), they accepted the American premise of private ownership. When one of Zeidler's 1948 opponents charged that he would socialize the corner grocery store if he were elected, Zeidler promptly went out and got the endorsement of the Independent Grocers Association. The key to understanding Milwaukee's Socialists is the idea of public enterprise. They didn't just manage, and they didn't just enforce laws and regulations. They pushed a program of public necessities that had a tangible impact on the average citizen's quality of life: public parks, public libraries, public schools, public health, public works (including sewers), public port facilities, public housing, public vocational education and even public natatoria. Underlying their notion of public enterprise was an abiding faith - curiously antique by today's standards - in the goodness of government, especially local government. The Socialists believed that government was the locus of our common wealth - the resources that belong to all of us and each of us - and they worked to build a community of interest around a deeply shared belief in the common good. The results were plain to see. After years in the political sewer, Milwaukee became, under "sewer Socialists" Seidel, Hoan and Zeidler, a model of civic virtue. Time Magazine called Milwaukee "perhaps the best-governed city in the U.S." in 1936, and the community won trophy after trophy for public health, traffic safety and fire prevention. The health prize came home so often that Milwaukee had to be retired from competition to give other municipalities a chance. The Socialists governed well, and they did so without breaking the bank. Contrary to another popular myth, these were not tax-and-spend radicals intent on emptying the public coffers. They were, in fact, every bit as frugal as the most penny-pinching German hausfrau. The Socialists managed civic affairs on a pay-as-you-go basis, and in 1943, Milwaukee became the only big city in America whose amortization fund exceeded its outstanding bond obligations. It was, in other words, debt-free. I'm aware that running a city is different from solving a global economic crisis. The scale of the problems confronting the Obama administration is worlds removed from the difficulties any Milwaukee mayor has faced. But let's not allow "socialist" to become a dirty word in the current debate. As it came to life in Milwaukee, the Socialist movement had a moral gravity and a passion for results that still resonate in our civic life. Honesty, efficiency, creativity, frugality? If that's Socialism, let's bring it back tomorrow. Quote: The Sewer Socialists fought to clean up what they saw as "the dirty and polluted legacy of the Industrial Revolution,"[3] cleaning up neighborhoods and factories with new sanitation systems, city-owned water and power systems, and improved education. Quote: He grew up in Union Grove – under the “shadows of socialism” and the nearby “totalitarianism schemes” of Milwaukee Mayor Zeidler, a description that evoked gales of laughter from the audience attending the not so coincidentally named annual Zeidler lecture, dedicated to the public service of the late mayor who brought clean, pragmatic service to the city. The timing and circumstances of this lecture added to the humor – and the point. Nichols was speaking on the day President Obama signed national health care into law -- amid cries and slurs from opponents that this was the country’s Armageddon takeover by Socialism, whose most famous practitioner in the US was Zeidler. And Nichols was speaking 50 years after Zeidler left office as the last major Socialist leader elected in the US. The talk also came 100 years after the bigger landmark, when Socialists swept to power at Milwaukee’s City Hall, resulting as Nichols pointed out, “ in the page one headline in the New York Times: Red Triumph in the Middle West.” Nichols’ main theme dated back a century to Victor Berger, a Socialist campaign manager, 5th District representative to the US Congress (elected twice by Milwaukeeans even after the House refused to seat him because of his anti-militarism during World War I) and pioneer journalist and editor of the Milwaukee Leader. The history lesson he offered will come as a shock to Tea Party rallyers and Fox bloggers but they owe their free speech and free press protection to oppose government policy because of spirited defense of the Bill of Rights from a Milwaukee Socialist. Berger won some defining opinions about free speech from the most famous justices on the US Supreme Court of the time, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis. Quote: “But in truth,” Nichols said, “Frank would have loved every part of this weekend” when health care finally passed in Congress. “He would have been amused that a little bit of health insurance would be described as socialism.” “But he would also have been pleased that a framework for national health care was finally put in place. It did what the Socialist Party said in 1900, 1904” and on and on “even in 1976 when Frank Zeidler was the party’s candidate for president -- that the government has a role in providing health care to Americans.” Nichols in his syndicated columns has also written extensively that a lot is still missing in the health legislation, so as he said at Centennial Hall, “This is probably not as good a plan as Frank would have proposed.” “But the bill realizes another of Frank Zeidler’s beliefs” – the importance of racial and gender diversity. That belief “was not just to be nice to black people or women,” Nichols explained, but because “their involvement would bring a better country.” And now he and the late Frank Zeidler have their proof. Nichols and a portion of the Centennial Hall crowd “As I heard all the talk the last few days about how presidents from Teddy Roosevelt on” – here Nichols rattled off the familiar litany through Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton – “proposed health care and all failed . . . SAD a crowd of 12........... sigh........ http://www.milwaukeelabor.org/in_the_news/article.cfm?n_id=0093 gimme water...... http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4544/sewer_socialism_down_the_drain/ Quote: “So we’ll keep educating people about why privatizing is harmful and build a broader base of support for our coalition,” she adds firmly. “Whether it’s South Africa or Bolivia or the inner city of Milwaukee, poor people can’t afford to pay what the privatizers want to charge. Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-01-2010 at 10:53 PM. | |
| 12-02-2010, 03:53 AM | #13 |
| 12-02-2010, 06:45 AM | #14 |
| 12-02-2010, 07:10 AM | #15 |
| Originally posted by jolepp: ...A common issue in this context is whether the state should (or should not) redistribute wealth with social goals in mind, that is, to help the less fortunate at the expense of those doing better. ... We are told the USA is in economic recovery, but the associated wealth generated is lining the nests of the already wealthy and not being re-invested in the nation. Millions of our once productive workforce are idle, losing both skills and motivation to work again. A decreasing number of educators with decreasing resources are faced with trying to prepare an increasing number of poor youth for an empty future. To compound the problem, it is clear that children of the poor are difficult to educate; a dangerous downward spiral. We are not only losing a substantial portion of this generation's productive workforce, we also risk losing an increasing fraction of the next generation's. In the long run this situation cannot possibly generate as much total shared wealth as an alternative where more people are involved in wealth production (wealth includes roads, museums, parks, homes, etc..) The current accumulation of wealth and power in a few hands is destroying our capacity for future wealth production. "Trickle Down" has failed. Injection of money at the high end of the wealth spectrum has not put sufficient numbers of people to work. Perhaps it is too slow a process to address the current crisis or perhaps it cannot work. In either case we cannot afford to wait and see. Simply giving money to the destitute to get them through the day and to increase demand, hence production, has failed to increase production enough to employ those people. At least some of the demand created by these payments is being satisfied by offshore production which does little to solve our immediate problems. Wealth must move from where it is accumulating and be more directly applied to engaging people in productive activities. Since this redirection has not occurred on its own we must take from the wealthy to employ people in building infrastructure and education. Subtle, indirect schemes to encourage this strategic redistribution of wealth have failed. All that's left are more socialistic approaches. Tax the wealthy. Using those tax incomes to encourage or even control production will be preferable to no production at all. The over-arching goal here is to promote the general welfare; increasing total aggregate wealth should be our goal. Dave PS I'm not sure I believe all the above, but it sounds logical. Last edited by newarts; 12-02-2010 at 07:16 AM. | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| socialists |
Post #10 by les3547 
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Libertarian Democrat | jeffkrol | General Talk | 15 | 09-24-2010 09:05 AM |
| Would my being either a democrat or republican make you not talk to a person? | troglodyte | General Talk | 14 | 09-23-2010 12:30 PM |
| Democrat states rate worst for businesses. | GingeM | General Talk | 60 | 05-20-2010 04:51 AM |
| The New Democrat Party | graphicgr8s | General Talk | 24 | 05-10-2010 12:39 PM |
| Landscape America is Beautiful | charliezap | Post Your Photos! | 14 | 03-16-2010 06:36 PM |
