Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Demonizing Socialism is how they prevent us from seeing its powerful benefits. Control over our livelihood is a very big contributor towards health and happiness. Two things we seem to have forfeited in our present scheme.

The Democratic Socialist arrangement is so good they had to make it taboo. It's a miracle of marketing that they could actually get people to buy something that's not in their best interest.

Fear is keeping people from seeing how good the benefits can be. Instead of asking and hoping for days off, or maternity leave, or more pay, or a shorter work week, or any number of things we have to fight for now, workers would no longer be just employees, but members of the board of the company they now work for, and own.

Most people are realizing that our present situation doesn't work for them. It works for the owners, but it leaves the employees floundering.

If people could clearly see the major benefits to them and society from this economic arrangement , they would leap at the opportunity to abandon the nightmare we're currently experiencing.

Thanks for the great post. We need more discussion of this very much misunderstood topic. There's much to be optimistic about.

edited for spelling.

Do you mean "arraignment" or "arrangement"??? (And if you mean "arraignment," how so?). I always thought "arraignment" had something to do with the initial charges against a defendant in criminal court.

Now that you mention it, I like the term "relationship". It's being used as a means of describing how we relate to each other with respect to the economic arrangement. What we never hear in Capitalism is this relationship,because it's a shitty one. The idea of someone owning part of you for a portion of the day, taking the profit from the labor one does. Being an owner and member of the board of the place where one works is a massive improvement.

I pretty much agree.

We shouldn't look for a blueprint of what socialism looks like or how to construct it.

We want democratic control of capital but that can take a variety of different forms like public control or direct workers control, consumers councils, etc.

I envision the "survival" industries (the workers themselves would designate which ones were survival ones) run by elected boards of both workers AND the public that must survive off of these industries. The public members would propose what they thought was needed and the workers would figure out how, and if, it could be done. All non-profit of course. Admin charges only, and small ones at that.

I would also open up the capitalist enterprises that were left to competition to government run and supported co-ops. That would put a check on the profit margin and keep most of those from gouging. Eventually, you attempt to get rid of any big markets all-together of course.

It's not about the ideas, it's about how we have to go about getting to this point. The owners won't give it up easily.

As is public ownership of utilities. Hydro-Quebec and the other hydros(public utilities) in the other provinces are excellent examples of public ownership of utilities.

Worker cooperatives have a great deal of promise.

This is a larger issue going back to our Communist founders - can you flip state by state or does it have to be a worldwide effort? From the article below: "Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky long ago argued that socialism in one country is impossible because a socialist revolution that does not spread will either be crushed from the outside or survive by being transformed from within. Socialism in one workplace is even more of a non-starter, because the economic, political, and military power of the existing ruling class remains in place."

We saw it happen within months with the Paris Commune: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/a.htm

The article gives the example of Mondragón (in Spain since the 1950s so it gives us some perspective): http://isreview.org/issue/93/are-workers-cooperatives-alternative-capitalism

the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

I think that it's a matter of timing. How long does it take for the revolution to spread? The USSR might have been doomed from the failure of the German revolution in 1918-1920. IF it had spread to Germany, a highly industrialized western European country, the workers in those two countries could have had a chance for it to spread world-wide.

I think that one thing that influenced Marx and Engels was the clusters of uprisings that happened in 1848. I think that was their model for how a revolution spreads across national boundaries.

In today's world, IF revolutions happened within a few months of each other in several different countries, even if they weren't powers themselves, there would be the possibility of some sort of mutual support bloc developing for those countries giving them a little breathing room for it to spread to more places, including the bigger and militarily stronger countries. It would be the job of the vanguard proletariat in those stronger countries to attempt a check on the bourgeoisie RE: that bloc.

That's my opinion anyway.

I've been doing most of my on-line Propagandizing and Pontificating (note the caps? on FB now days. Interesting because I'm doing so under my real name. Not that I've ever been THAT concerned about it. My family all knew about my political leanings and how red I am, but I might have surprised some extended family and friends

I'm trying to go here for the primary coverage and discussion.

The history of capitalism, even over the past 300 years is a cluster fuck of errors, stops-and-starts, blunders, and interminable growing pains. Socialism, which is being birthed in the midst of capitalism (albeit in unexpected ways) will have to navigate the ebbs and flows, eddies and currents, and backwaters of history in order to get to something that really could be called a socialist society.

It is necessary for socialists to be both impatient and patient at the same time. Political movements only succeed due to great determination coupled with great endurance. Socialism needs to spread -- no doubt -- but the seeds have to be replanted, field by field.