The Socialist Response

[minime]

Sure, but what are you going to do about it (the powers that be), really? Absolutely nothing. They after all are the powers that be--and you're not. You can't even vote them out. Might as well memorize the phone book if you're not going to do anything about it, which you can't. It's not about the who, if you can even know who they are, for tomorrow they may be different. It's about the how and the why, which will be nearly the same.

And surely they (human concerns) can be separated out--into social, private and political concerns. And they are every day. Though it is admirable for you personally to bear responsibility for them, in no way is Socialism attached to them, necessarily. Socialism is primarily about radical redistribution of wealth. And good luck with that.

And of course, the environment is everything. Which therefore means nothing.

[Elvis]

Sure, but what are you going to do about it (the powers that be), really? Absolutely nothing. They after all are the powers that be--and you're not. You can't even vote them out. Might as well memorize the phone book if you're not going to do anything about it, which you can't. It's not about the who, if you can even know who they are, for tomorrow they may be different. It's about the how and the why, which will be nearly the same.

I knew you'd quibble. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list.

So what's your Socialist Response idea?

(It's a trap!)

[minime]

Sure, but what are you going to do about it (the powers that be), really? Absolutely nothing. They after all are the powers that be--and you're not. You can't even vote them out. Might as well memorize the phone book if you're not going to do anything about it, which you can't. It's not about the who, if you can even know who they are, for tomorrow they may be different. It's about the how and the why, which will be nearly the same.

I knew you'd quibble. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list.

So what's your Socialist Response idea?

(It's a trap!)

I'm sure I'm not following you. There seems to be a disconnect between your quote and your reply, and between the first and second sentence.

Do you mean this list: "Recycle. Boycott banks. Use credit unions. Form cooperatives. Run better candidates for public office. Run for public office. Let your hair grow. Give a hobo five bucks. Sell your car. Get a bike. Kill your television."

I have no problem with your list. It's a fine list. How could any such list be exhaustive?

My reference to 'who', and 'what' and 'why' came from a previous thread.

My first Socialist Response is engaging in this thread to determine what the most creative and inspired Socialist Response is.

Regarding your list, am I to understand that you or your fellow candidates would be running for office as 'Socialist' candidates, or no? Is there a 'Socialist' party you have in mind.

[PufPuf93]

This may be trite but a guide to a socialist response is the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Humanity’s political, legal, economic, and moral systems caus e application to be far less than direct and often conflicting.

But the Golden Rule is a starting place in ones own mind.

[minime]

Here is a timely offering from an Internet space called qz.com...

https://qz.com/1269525/capitalism-is-unfolding-exactly-as-karl-marx-predicted/

Along with a superficial treatment of the state of Marxism in the world today, the article offers this bit of information...

“HUD [US department of housing and urban development] estimates there are roughly half a million homeless people in the United States on any given night, in a country that is estimated to have roughly 18 million empty homes in it,” says Wills.

I find that incongruous clash of facts disquieting. One possible practicable idea would be bringing the two groups together in whatever way possible. What can we, as individuals do to effect the scenario to maximum effect? endhomelessness.com anyone? First, we ask the question, then we answer it. Then we move on to the next scenario.

Of course, while we are doing it, the most important thing will be to question each other's motives and cast aspersions on the characters of all in a semi-public setting until effective action is improbable. Win/win/win.

For my part, presently, I am having my homeless sister live with me rent free while she saves her Social Security stipend to get her own apartment, an arrangement which is practicable, for various reasons (inadequate heat, etc), only until the onset of Winter. Fortunately she'll be ready for her own place by then. So, one down, 499,999 to go.

Next!

[minime]

This may be trite but a guide to a socialist response is the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Humanity’s political, legal, economic, and moral systems caus e application to be far less than direct and often conflicting.

But the Golden Rule is a starting place in ones own mind.

What if I want for myself (and therefore for others) a world without socialism?

[PufPuf93]

This may be trite but a guide to a socialist response is the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Humanity’s political, legal, economic, and moral systems caus e application to be far less than direct and often conflicting.

But the Golden Rule is a starting place in ones own mind.

What if I want for myself (and therefore for others) a world without socialism?

The Golden Rule is independent of any defined system. My suggestion is that the GR is a starting place within, to guide oneself and judge and grow, admittedly trite in face of complex reality.

I find homelessness and systematic debasement of humans and nature jarring, not the idealism irrespective of system in my heart since childhood about how existence should and perhaps could be.

You know this and live this in your treatment of your sister.

[Elvis]

My reference to 'who', and 'what' and 'why' came from a previous thread.

Yes, that's why "I almost brought that up" (and then did). I disagree that the "who" is unimportant.

Yes, I was referring to my "Recycle..." list.

Socialists can run for office or start new political parties however they like; "independent" has worked for Bernie Sanders.


But about this—

Socialism is primarily about radical redistribution of wealth.

Is that what socialism is primarily about? Anyone (else)? I have to think about that.

Would 'taking money out of politics' be a socialist platform? Seems so. But in the U.S. money in politics now seems constitutionally enshrined by the notably non-socialist SCOTUS. I think only a "liberal" Court could overturn it, and, well, good luck with that.

[Burnt Hill]

Unfortunately that thought form is invasive regardless.
We wont have Socialism in the USA , at least as long as it is called Socialism.
We need a new politic with new descriptors.

minime wrote:
Socialism is primarily about radical redistribution of wealth.

[Elvis]

We wont have Socialism in the USA , at least as long as it is called Socialism.

We do have a good bit of socialism in the U.S.—just not enough, imo.

[Burnt Hill]

Sure, there is.
Consider the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Try telling some Palinite redneck that they are really Socialist when they accept their dividends!
There is a giant disconnect when the word Socialist is spoken, I don't think there can be a reconnect with the term.
Yes this also shows that aspects of socialism can work - we just cant call it that!
Point that out to an R or a C and they cannot process it or how it is beneficial to society,
or they restructure the argument in a disingenuous way to support gross capitalism.

We do have a good bit of socialism in the U.S.—just not enough, imo.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

More broadly/widely-known, the U.S. has social security, any non-private police/fire depts/municipalities/water works; (dwindling) pensions, the parks departments, etc...

This stuff was likely already raised earlier, I presume.

To your point, many don't view the above as "socialist' amenities/programs --- semantics (optics) and lack of historical perspective go a long way towards perpetuating confusion and blocking progress.

[DrEvil]

Sure, but what are you going to do about it (the powers that be), really? Absolutely nothing. They after all are the powers that be--and you're not. You can't even vote them out. Might as well memorize the phone book if you're not going to do anything about it, which you can't. It's not about the who, if you can even know who they are, for tomorrow they may be different. It's about the how and the why, which will be nearly the same.

The obvious thing to do is start breaking up the power structures currently in place that allows the powers that be to be powers in the first place.

Some random ideas:

- Elect people and enact legislation: banking regulation, consumer protection, antitrust laws, carbon pricing etc.

- Wind down military spending and use it on less murderous pursuits like schools and science.

- Socialized medicine paid by taxes (even Adam Smith thought that was a good idea). Remove the profit motive from basic healthcare and enact strict price regulations on treatments.

- Nationalize critical infrastructure. Basics like energy and water should be done at cost.

- Break up various large entities like big banks, big pharma, big tech etc., and prosecute the shit out of them when they break the law. If it ever gets to the point of another bailout then bail out the people at the bottom of the pyramid and line the fuckers on the top up against a wall (metaphorically speaking. Mostly) and liquidate the companies. No more corporate welfare.

- After breaking them up, prevent this from happening:

And surely they (human concerns) can be separated out--into social, private and political concerns. And they are every day. Though it is admirable for you personally to bear responsibility for them, in no way is Socialism attached to them, necessarily. Socialism is primarily about radical redistribution of wealth. And good luck with that.

And of course, the environment is everything. Which therefore means nothing.

Paying taxes to fund basic things like healthcare and education, or having government own certain businesses isn't radical. I don't think anyone here is advocating full blown Soviet style collectivism. "Radical redistribution of wealth" is just a dog whistle for people with no sense of solidarity.

[minime]

LOL

[Iamwhomiam]

Socialism is primarily about radical redistribution of wealth. And good luck with that.

And of course, the environment is everything. Which therefore means nothing.

Nonsense.The health of our environment is of paramount concern and essentially determinate of the health of whichever society happens to inhabit it.

"Socialism is primarily about radical redistribution of wealth" should always be read as a blinking red herring. Capitalism is the most extreme redistributor of wealth and always has been. It is our wealth, for crissakes! Let us decide to spend it where we see it best spent.





https://worldbeyondwar.org/explained/