Show me the part of the SPUSA principles or platform that calls for a “big state bureau.”
We’ve still got it, in many places. I.e., public ownership of public utilities. Though there’s been a lot of rollback. (Dennis Kucinich, as mayor of Cleveland, ran into a lot of trouble resisting the proposed privatization of the Municipal Light company.)
Third parties in America have been described as “like the bee that stings and, in stinging, dies.” The Socialist Party of America is no exception. Many of its policies and ideas were selectively adopted by municipal reformers, or by FDR and the Democrats during the New Deal.
What, you want something more passionate? . . . Let’s see . . . Ermm, slow horrible death to the fascist insects who suck the blood of the people! Revolution is come! [OFF THE PIGS!] Time to take up the gun! [OFF THE PIGS!] Venceremos!
When a political party is so marginalized for so long, if it were to come into power, penis would ensue, simply because the party does not have the experience to know what is practicable.
I am a lefty Canadian, who usually votes for the NDP http://www.ndp.ca/page/4049 , which is a member of the Socialist International, but when I read through the economic platform of the SP USA Socialist Party USA - Hotel Mosca , I cringe. I think that Sam Stone is being very restrained in his predictions. As a person who runs my own business (I’m a lawyer), I have to say that I would emigrate if such a regime came into power in my country, for I would not want to hang around for the inevitable economic crash.
The Canadian NDP has had significant experience in federal Parliament as an opposition party, and has had some experience as the party in power in some provincial Parliaments. Out of this background, they have put together a platform that attempts to advance their core issues without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where they have held power provincially, things have gone well (in my opinion as a lefty), and in any event, have not run is unto ruin.
In comparison, the SP USA has not had any significant political experience as a party routinely elected and occasionally holding majority power. Its economic platform sounds like something made up by university kids at a coffee house, who have very limited knowledge of how the world works.
Take for example, “our goal of creating a socialist society totally separate from the global capitalist economy.” That’s just plain dumb. Withdrawing from trade from other nations will not lead to anything good.
Or consider, “worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic[stet].” Again, just plain dumb. The formation and movement of large amounts of capital is necessary for much of our economy. Worker and community control is nice for farmers’ markets, but when it comes to raising capital for major projects, co-ops with limits on share number simply do not work most of the time. Also keep in mind that there is very little difference between having control tremendously diluted and having no control at all (e.g. how much control does a citizen really have over a PUC?).
Quite simply, “call[ing] for compensation to communities-- and compensation, re-training, and other support service for workers-- affected by plant . . . closings . . . until we reach our goal of creating a socialist society totally separate from the global capitalist economy” begs the question as to why one would want such closings in the first place. Where will the “compensation” come from when the businesses are closed and the people unemployed?
A sound social safety net requires an equally sound economy, which in turn will be strengthened by the sound social safety net (healthier, better educated, richer workforce etc.). Take the sound economy out of the equation, as the SP USA does, and there can be no sound social safety net. The baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.
It’s a pity that socialism in the USA has been so marginalized for so many years, for if it had not, I expect that we would not see such utter silliness as the SP USA’s economic platform, and instead might see something more practicable.
More importatly, until something more practicable is promoted, socialists in the USA will continue to be marginalized as political-intellectual social diseases rather than respected as effective social activists.
“penis would ensue”? 
I’m trying to imagine what that’s a typo for but I can’t figure it out. The word “chaos” seems likely but I can’t imagine how you could mistype that as “penis”. 
New to this Board, are you?
Not at all. Although I haven’t been frequenting it as much as I used to.
Posts # 2 and 3: Wow! A kind warning to Olestra-phobes! - Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share - Straight Dope Message Board
Tommy Douglas http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nominee/douglas-tommy.html
Very far from the SP USA.
Yeah, we do. But they complain a lot.
I’m with you on the middle one. As for the first one, I don’t know enough about the state of American streets to say, and as for the third one, you don’t actually believe that Sweden has lower taxes than the US, right?
Do GlaxoSmithKline (or whatever they are called this week) and BayerSchering (ditto) not exist in your world?
I don’t know about Europe, but Cuba does.
Right. Remember how just yesterday I predicted capital flight, a drop in the dollar, and other horrible things?
This just in…
Chavez’s Nationalization Plans Rock Venezuela Markets
There’s your capital flight. Oh, I also mentioned increasing authoritarianism:
How would you like to be one of the people whose farm the state decides is ‘under-utilized’?
You’ve said nice things about Chavez in the past. Are you willing to concede that he’s trying socialism in a way in which you approve? Too many times in the past I’ve given examples of the failures of socialism, only to be told that those countries weren’t ‘really’ socialist. So would you agree beforehand that Chavez is implementing ‘real’ socialism? That this particular experiment in governing will give us a good measure of what socialism can do for a country?
Too soon to tell. I like his “sow the oil” policy, generally, and his efforts to foster some autonomous grass-roots economic associations instead of one big state bureaucracy, and his public works (how come we’re not building new railroads in the U.S.?!). There’s too much corruption in the government, but that’s to be expected in any country after the longstanding (“longstanding” on a scale of centuries, in this case) Outs are suddenly In (because, having always before been on the outside looking in, they never had a chance to build up a resistance to the temptations of power); and it’s a problem his party clearly recognizes and has pledged to work on following the latest election. Chavez is really too authoritarian for my taste but I guess you have to make allowances for the circumstances there – if he weren’t like that the entrenched elite might have blocked him from accomplishing anything at all; or ousted him successfully. (OTOH, his cultural antipathy to things like American music and Halloween is just plain silly.) Bear in mind Chavez has only recently started to apply the word “socialism” to his “Bolivarian Revolution.” From “Chavez Consolidates Power,” by Steve Ellner, In These Times, 12/28/06:
(I shall be watching for news of that “ideological congress.”)
Whatever you call all of this, it’s plain and clear by now most of the people of Venezuela really, really want it. And if you’re right about the fundamental nonviability of socialism . . . well, then they’ll change their minds eventually. But I doubt they will.
In the same article you can read about Chavez’ efforts to put together an EU-modelled Latin American trade bloc which “should exclude the United States until Latin America is able to meet it on equal terms.” That’s all about protectionism (a venerable American economic policy), not socialism; but from a Latin American perspective it seems to make clear and obvious sense.
Stock market down 19% in one day. Please explain how this will be good for the average Venezuelan.
I like Tony Snow’s comment, from the article.
his ‘sow the oil’ project is essentially plundering an industry for short-term gain. He’s going to find it impossible to attract investment to fund upgrading and maintaining his oil infrastructure. He’s going to wind up like other countries that have done this - with a rickety infrastructure over the years, declining production, and cuts to his social programs.
My guess - because there’s no demand for them.
‘Public Works’ projects are an awful way to spend the government’s money. You wind up with drab concrete buildings and second-rate infrastructure. But most importantly, the government is not as good at determining where the real need for infrastructure is than is the market. You’ll build stuff you don’t need, and not build stuff you do.
Imagine if our communications networks were built as ‘public works’ projects? Had the internet not evolved out of the forces of the market, but been driven by the state computer communications bureau. Just where do you think we’d be today? Would we have even 1/100 of the quality, performance, and innovation that we’ve undergone in the past 15 years? Would we have anywhere near the choice and variety of communications services we have today?
Would Fed Ex have been created by a government bureau?
[/quote]
Would you accept a casual dismissal like that from me regarding business? If I just casually tossed off, “there’s too much corruption in America’s large corporations, but that’s to be expected”, and then continued on like it wasn’t a problem?
That’s not the way it works. It’s the guys on the outside who are supposed to be the idealists, and the ones already in power who have been corrupted by it. I think you’re just making excuses. Frankly, I think his government is corrupt because that kind of power tends to attract corrupt people. And people who think they are smarter and more capable of running a country than anyone else tend to be people who don’t mind throwing that power around.
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, huh? I think I’ve heard that before.
No, they’ll be told that their problems are everyone else’s fault - especially Americas. And the brainwashing has already started - Chavez has pulled the license on an unfriendly radio station, and wants the schools to start indoctrinating the kids in the correctness of socialism - shades of the old Soviet Union. And he’s gradually consolidating power, so by the time the people start to get stirred up about it, there’s nothing they’ll be able to do.
And Venezuela will become yet another shabbly little authoritarian country with a crappy standard of living but big damned parades. There will be a brain drain, and that will give Chavez ammo to complain that the evil U.S. is stealing its best and brightest. He’ll build up his military and start meddling all over the place. That will get sanctions slapped on him, which he can also blame for his economic woes. And after that state fails, those will also be the ready excuses socialists around the world will use to claim that Venezuela doesn’t count as a failure of socialism - it was just the mean capitalist states that kept it down.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Intentionally cutting your country off from the biggest source of products and capital in the world is simply idiotic. It’ll make a bad situation worse.
Bloomberg.com Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg
Looks like we should scratch out the “Democratic” part of Democratic Socialism in Venezuela.
The will not have the opportunity if Chavez makes himself dictator for life.
Would you accept a casual dismissal like that from me regarding business? If I just casually tossed off, “there’s too much corruption in America’s large corporations, but that’s to be expected”, and then continued on like it wasn’t a problem?
That’s not the way it works. It’s the guys on the outside who are supposed to be the idealists, and the ones already in power who have been corrupted by it. I think you’re just making excuses. Frankly, I think his government is corrupt because that kind of power tends to attract corrupt people. And people who think they are smarter and more capable of running a country than anyone else tend to be people who don’t mind throwing that power around.
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, huh? I think I’ve heard that before.
No, they’ll be told that their problems are everyone else’s fault - especially Americas. And the brainwashing has already started - Chavez has pulled the license on an unfriendly radio station, and wants the schools to start indoctrinating the kids in the correctness of socialism - shades of the old Soviet Union. And he’s gradually consolidating power, so by the time the people start to get stirred up about it, there’s nothing they’ll be able to do.
And Venezuela will become yet another shabbly little authoritarian country with a crappy standard of living but big damned parades. There will be a brain drain, and that will give Chavez ammo to complain that the evil U.S. is stealing its best and brightest. He’ll build up his military and start meddling all over the place. That will get sanctions slapped on him, which he can also blame for his economic woes. And after that state fails, those will also be the ready excuses socialists around the world will use to claim that Venezuela doesn’t count as a failure of socialism - it was just the mean capitalist states that kept it down.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Intentionally cutting your country off from the biggest source of products and capital in the world is simply idiotic. It’ll make a bad situation worse.
[/QUOTE]
‘Public Works’ projects are an awful way to spend the government’s money. You wind up with drab concrete buildings and second-rate infrastructure. But most importantly, the government is not as good at determining where the real need for infrastructure is than is the market. You’ll build stuff you don’t need, and not build stuff you do.
Imagine if our communications networks were built as ‘public works’ projects? Had the internet not evolved out of the forces of the market, but been driven by the state computer communications bureau. Just where do you think we’d be today? Would we have even 1/100 of the quality, performance, and innovation that we’ve undergone in the past 15 years? Would we have anywhere near the choice and variety of communications services we have today?
C’mon-didn’t Al GORE say that HE invented the Internet?
You are right-if the government ran the economy, you would have scores of “Big Digs”-its the perfect government project! -it provides jobs for hacks and government supporters, involves a huge waste of money, and is shoddily-built-thus GUARANTEEING massive future programs (to repair the original screwups!)
And now the mask comes off. This is what they said about Stalin, this is what they said about Mao, this is what they said about Castro. And yeah, others said it about certain right-wing dictators too, but that’s just a tu quoque.
And then he wonders why the American people despise socialists. Because socialists are invariably willing to sacrifice their bourgeois attachment to democracy and human rights in order to achieve the more important goal of building socialism. You have to make allowances. Yeah, once we achieve socialism the dictators and butchers who worked so selflessly towards this goal will surely retire to quiet houses in the country.
Socialism is an inherently authoritarian economic system, and no amount of smearing lipstick on the pig will change things.
To be fair, I don’t really know that that’s true. It certainly can be true, of course, and I can’t speak for Brainglutton or what he believes, but there are socialists and socialist parties commited to democracy. As mentioned in this thread, Canada’s NDP is one of them. So, of course, is Britain’s Labour Party, Germany’s SPD, the PS in France, and so on. All of these are democratic parties that run members for election, are honest about what they want to achieve, and voluntarily give up power if their candidates are defeated.