THE DISREPUTE OF CAPITALISM

Unfettered capitalism has yielded an Oligarchy. Governmental regulation is good for capitalisms evolution. Health and safety and environmental horrors need to be regulated otherwise industries will not EVER do whats right for humanity.

The biggest threat to Capitalism is successful capitalists....

I had great respect for Michael Harrington and his Democratic Socialists of America. I worked with him on a number of his projects in California in the 1980s. Michael's book, The Other America: Poverty in the United States, inspired President Lyndon Baines Johnson's action for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." Michael died too young and I miss him. ---BBB

Democratic Socialists of America
Founded 1982
Headquarters 75 Maiden Lane Suite 505
New York, NY 10038
Ideology Democratic socialism,
Social democracy
Political position Fiscal: Left-wing, Center-left
Social: Left-wing, Center-left,
International affiliation Socialist International
Website
Democratic Socialists of America
Politics of the United States
Political parties
Elections

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a social-democratic organization in the United States and the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, an international federation of social-democratic,democratic socialist and labor political parties and organizations.

DSA was formed in 1982 by a merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM). Under the leadership of Michael Harrington, DSOC had become America's largest democratic socialist organization, despite having started, in Harrington's words, as "the remnant of a remnant"—with Harrington having been the leader of a minority caucus of the Socialist Party of America in 1972 when it changed its name to Social Democrats, USA.[1] NAM was a coalition of writers and intellectuals with roots in both the New Left movements of the 1960s and the former members of socialist and communist parties of the Old Left.

Initially the DSA consisted of approximately 5,000 ex-DSOC members and 1,000 ex-NAM members. Upon the DSA's founding, Michael Harrington and socialist-feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich were elected as co-chairs of the organization.

Organizational history
History of the socialist movement in the United States

The DSA was formed in 1982 after a merger between the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM).[2][3] At the time of the merger of these two organizations, the DSA was said to consist of approximately 5,000 former members of DSOC, along with 1,000 from NAM.[4]

At its start, DSOC had 840 members, of which 2 percent served on its national board; approximately 200 had previously had membership in Social Democrats, USA or its predecessors in 1973 when SDUSA stated its membership at 1,800, according to a 1973 profile of Harrington.[5]

In electoral politics, DSA, like DSOC before it, was very strongly associated with Michael Harrington's position that "the left wing of realism is found today in the Democratic Party." In its early years DSA opposed Republican presidential candidates by giving criticial support to Democratic Party nominees like Walter Mondale in 1984.[6] In 1988, DSA enthusiastically supported Jackson's second presidential campaign.[7] DSA's position on US electoral politics states that "democratic socialists reject an either–or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on [either] a new party or on realignment within the Democratic Party."[8]

During the 1990s, DSA gave the Clinton administration an overall rating of C-, "less than satisfactory."[9]

The DSA's leadership believes working within the Democratic Party is necessary because of the nature of the American political system, which rarely gives third parties a chance politically. That said, DSA is very critical of the corporate-funded Democratic Party leadership.[10] The organization believes that

"Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements... Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end..."[11]

Electoral positions

In 2000, DSA took no official position on the presidential election, with several prominent DSA members backing Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

In 2004, the organization backed John Kerry after he won the Democratic nomination. In its official magazine the DSA's Political Action Committee declared:

"While we have no illusions about how a Kerry administration would govern — absent mass pressure from below — and are not impressed with his delayed criticism of the war and his earlier commitments in favor of 'free trade,' we also realize that the Bush administration is as reactionary as Reagan’s. A Kerry defeat would be taken not as a defeat of the US political center, which Kerry represents, but of the mainstream Left. As a result, it would embolden the Right and demoralize the Left (as well as trade unionists and people of color) as much as Reagan’s 1984 defeat of Mondale did. On the other hand, a Kerry victory will let us press onward, with progressives aggressively pressuring an administration that owed its victory to democratic mobilization from below."[12]

The only resolution on upcoming elections at the DSA's 2005 convention focused on Bernie Sanders' independent campaign for the U.S. Senate.[13] The organization's 2007 convention in Atlanta, Georgia featured record-breaking attendance and more participation by the organization's youth wing. The convention was highlighted by a keynote address from Senator Sanders.[14]

In 2008, the DSA supported Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in his race against Republican candidate John McCain. Following Obama's election, many on the right,[15] began to allege that the policies of his administration may be "socialistic," a claim rejected by DSA and the Obama administration alike. The widespread use of the word "socialism" as a political epithet against the Obama government by its opponents caused National Director Frank Llewellyn to declare that "over the past 12 months, the Democratic Socialists of America has received more media attention than it has over the past 12 years."[16]

Membership size

Members march at the Occupy Wall Street protest on September 17, 2011

Membership in DSA is obtained through the payment of annual dues, which in 2010 range from a "low income and student" rate of $20 to a "sustainer" rate of $130, with a basic rate of $45.[17] Every member receives a paid subscription to the organization's quarterly newsletter, Democratic Left (commonly known as DL).[18] The organization also offers "family memberships" at the rate of $80, which include only one subscription to DL,[17] and sells subscriptions to the publication to non-members for $10 per year.[19]

When formed, the estimated membership was 5,000, after the merger with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC),[20] the membership had grown to an estimate 7,000 in 1987.[21] In 2002, Fox News claimed there were 8,000 members in the organization,[22] and three years later the DSA announced on its website that its membership had increased by some 13% since July 2003 as the result of a recent direct mail campaign.[23]

DSA does not release annual membership numbers, nor do officials of the organization state them with precision in the press. It does, however, publish annually its sworn declaration of "Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation" in its official magazine so as to qualify for subsidized postage rates from the United States Postal Service. In the 12 months previous to its 2009 declaration, the group indicates that Democratic Left had an average "Total Paid Distribution" of 5707 copies.

The "Total Paid Distribution" numbers of Democratic Left over recent years are as follows:

Year Average Total Paid Circulation Issue Where Statement Appears
2009 5,707 vol. 37, no. 3, pg. 3
2008 5,710 vol. 36, no. 3, pg. 3
2007 5,443 vol. 35, no. 3, pg. 3
2006 4,883 vol. 34, no. 3, pg. 3
2005 4,622 vol. 33, no. 3, pg. 15
2004 4,535 vol. 32, no. 3, pg. 2
2003 4,890 vol. 31, no. 3, pg. 2
2002 not published
2001 5,846 vol. 29, no. 3, pg. 15

Structure

DSA is organized at the local level, and works with labor unions, community organizations, and campus activists on issues of common interest. Nationwide campaigns are coordinated by the organization's national office in New York City. As of 2006 the DSA website lists 24 chartered locals.

Governance of the DSA is by the group's National Political Committee, which since 2001 has been a 16-person body.[24] The organization's constitution states that at least 8 of the NPC's members shall be women and at least 4 members of "racial or national" minority groups.[25] A 17th vote is cast by the representative of the DSA's youth affiliate, the Young Democratic Socialists, who elect 1 male and 1 female delegate who split the vote. The NPC meets four times a year.[26]

The NPC elects an inner committee of 6, including 5 of its own members and 1 representative of the youth section, called the "Steering Committee." At least two of these are constitutionally required to be women and at least 1 a "person of color," with the National Director and the Youth Section Organizer also participating as ex-officio members. This Steering Committee meets bimonthly, either in person or by conference call.[27] The DSA has a Religion and Socialism Commission, in which Cornel West has played a leading role. John Cort was a founding editor of the Commission's magazine, Religious Socialism.

DSA publishes Democratic Left, a quarterly newsletter of news and analysis. This publication continues in an uninterrupted run from the original Newsletter of the Democratic Left published by DSA forerunner the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee since its establishment in 1973. In 2008, DSA members active in the U.S. labor movement founded Talking Union, a blog that focuses on labor politics, working class struggles and strategies.[28]

Young Democratic Socialists (YDS) is the official youth section of Democratic Socialists of America. The YDS publishes a quarterly newsletter called The Red Letter and maintains an online blog called "The Activist".
[edit] National conventions

The highest decision-making authority of the organization is the organization's national conventions, which are held biannually. These gatherings of the organization are as follows:

Year Dates of Convention Location
2009 November 13–15 Evanston, IL
2007 November 9–11 Atlanta, GA
2005 November 11–13 Los Angeles, CA
2003 November 14–16 Detroit, MI
2001 November 9–11 Philadelphia, PA
1999 November 12–14 San Diego, CA

Ideology

The DSA's ideas are greatly influenced by those of writer Michael Harrington, the chairman of the League for Industrial Democracy in 1964 and a member of the national executive board of the Socialist Party of America from 1960 through 1968. Opposed to capitalism and communism alike as cruel and anti-libertarian social systems, Harrington advocated working for a realignment of the US Democratic Party away from an amorphous amalgam of often contradictory ideas towards making it a principled party of the left.

Throughout his life, Harrington simultaneously embraced the thinking of Karl Marx while at the same time rejecting the "actually existing" Communist systems of the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe. Harrington said:[3]

"Put it this way. Marx was a democrat with a small d. The Democratic Socialists envision a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning...and racial equality. I share an immediate program with liberals in this country because the best liberalism leads toward socialism.... I want to be on the left wing of the possible."

Harrington made it clear that even if the traditional Marxist vision of a marketless, stateless society was not possible, he did not understand why this needed to "result in the social consequence of some people eating while others starve."[29]

Before the collapse of the USSR, the DSA voiced opposition to that nation's bureaucratically managed economy and control exerted over its satellite states.[30] The DSA welcomed Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms in the Soviet Union. Sociologist Bogdan Denitch wrote in DSA's Democratic Left:[31]

"The aim of democrats and socialists should be...to help the chances of successful reform in the Soviet bloc... While supporting liberalization and economic reforms from above, socialists should be particularly active in contacting and encouraging the tender shoots of democracy from below".

Today the organization issues few statements about overriding principles while frequently commenting on matters of public policy. One primary leaflet detailing the group's official ideas, "What is Democratic Socialism? Questions and Answers from the Democratic Socialists of America," states that while "no country has fully instituted democratic socialism," nonetheless there are lessons to be learned from "the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs".[32] The "tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality" established by the Social Democratic Parties of the countries of Scandinavia and Western Europe is lauded.[32]

The irony is that most capitalist greed would lead to the destruction of their customer base. If everyone works for Walmart, soon no one will be able to spend enough money there to support the corporation. This can be seen in the latifundia run by the Patician order in the western portion of the Roman Empire. Small holders and small craftsmen could not compete with the slave-staffed latifundia, so they migrated to Rome where they found occasional casual labor in the building trade (no one with any sense uses slave labor to build the roof over his head)--but otherwise relied upon the public dole. Having rather quickly destroyed the customer base, the members of the Equestrian order who managed their enterprises for the Patricians began selling their production to the Empire itself, to feed the legions and to feed the people on the public dole. The imperial administration eventually began debasing the currency to meet the demand for specie, and credit institutions, such as they were--primitive and only sketchily imagined--collapsed as government began to hold all the debt and engross any loose capital which might otherwise have been used for investment. The debased currency, of course lead to inflation, and as each successive dynasty gave away the candy store to the legions on their assumption of the imperial dignity, the inflation became run-away inflation. This can be plainly seen from the reign of Septimius Severus onward (end of the second century, in just over a century, imperial administration in the west would collapse).

In the East, most of the lands had been surrendered to Roman armies, or had been left to the Empire by wise monarchs who wished to preserve the freedom and livelihood of their people. Small holders and small craftsmen prospered and a rudimentary consumer economy outlived the fall of the city of Rome by more than a thousand years.

Capitalists are the worst people for cutting off their own noses to spite their faces. In 2007, the CEO of General Motors got $23 million in perquisites and bonuses. That was the year that Toyota finally caught up to GM in total global sales. All of the top level management employees of Toyota that year split $22 million in bonuses between them. Sure, Toyota screws up, just like every other company--but an overweening greed is not among their faults. In 2007, GM had at least seven corporate jets for the use of their top management employees. Toyota had none.

I love it when the conservative whiners start sneering about wealth redistribution rather than just talking about tax hikes. Apparently, they don't consider the fleecing of the American public, and much of the rest of the world by American capitalists to be wealth redistribution. A convenient way to define the picking of the consumers' pockets.

Word

When one person finally gets all of the money, what will money be worth?

Maybe we should ask the French aristocracy.

I don't have a problem with capitalism--i have a problem with unregulated capitalism. You cannot legally drive a car in public unless and until you've been tested on your knowledge of driving laws, taken a driving test and had your vision tested. You cannot legally brew beer or distill corn liquor and sell them to the public unless and until you have met the liscensing requirements, met quality control regulation and paid your fees--including the excise.

Why should capitalism not be regulated? Why should they get tax breaks (other than the obvious answer that they own the legislators who write the tax code)? Why should government engage in union busting, as they've done since Reagan took on the air traffic controlers? Why should they skate under environment, health and safety and miniumum wage requirements? Why shouldn't they be penalized for shipping jobs overseas just to avoid those responsibilities?

Word.

I don't consider Russia to have been an example of socialism. I'm not terrribly impressed by Cuba, though, either.

I agree with this completely. Capitalism thrives when everyone understands the rules, plays by the rules and enforces the rules. If everyone has to spend all their time trying to circumvent the rules, understand the rules or fighting against those not following the rules, that is where trouble really begins. That's the problem with "deregulation". Removing rules doesn't help business be more competitive, it means that businesses must race to the bottom to counter new businesses that start there. It's like changing the rules to Monopoly half way through the game so that all the previous purchases are meaningless. That's not a benefit to capitalism despite what some would tell you.

Captialism would destroy us if we had no element of socialism to protect us, and it can only work at the moment because it can cook the books... If it could not take from the people directly through the government, which is then loaded onto the people as debt, and if it could not extend credit to both government and the people to make up for the fact that they do not earn enough to buy what they need, and produce, and if the weight of the old, the incarcerated, the infirm, and the unemployed were not loaded onto the entire people and added to the national debt, then capitalism would fail... And it has been on some form of life support for seventy odd years... It could beat communism because communism could not play the finances, create money as needed, or pump up the dream machine as capitalism can... When you ask people to live with reality, and to live within their means, and produce what they need to survive and still keep a brave face toward all enemies you are painting a grey world... Captialim has always told everyone you can eat your cake and have it too...

To give the example of the Vietnam War which was expensive enough, cost a lot of lives, and hurt America's image around the world; still, our defeat was only political... It cost us perhaps 1% of our gnp to fight, but it taxed the Communists most heavily, and pointed Soviet Communism toward bankruptcy... We are doing the same to ourselves with Iraq, and Afghanistan; finding the limits of our power rather than freely projecting our power... And, if we could not cook the books, and if a technically communist country were not bankrolling us, we would be dead in the water... And the Communists are on the hook with us... If we default on our debts we can live with what we got, and it is they who would go bankrupt... It may seem like they have us by the balls, but we have the better hand; unless they decide to nuke us, but then, they could probably pay a few of our Christian brothers to nuke us for them...

Capitalism is called free enterprise because they throw off and deny every restrain... It is economic anarchy, and because our government is tied so closely to capitalism it resembles anarchy more than it resembles government... A real government would govern the events and affairs that it can which are liekely to affect the welfare of the nation... This our government does not do because they prefer freedom for business and capital to freedom for the people which of necessity means freedom from want and fear...We have known too much of fear and not so much of want in my life time, and now we are beginning to suffer both.. Let's see if the people will accept such an condition without protest..

I thumbed up several replies here. I too support a well regulated capitalism.

Where we have reached in today's world is to have to fight for self-government and democracy all over again from the very beginning. Every country is in debt and to whom? Who are holding the purse strings and telling governments what to do? And how bad can it get? In 2008-9 we saw the medical indugstry, in my opinion prey on the world populations with the swine flu being named an epidemic that was going to wipe out millions and million, which in retrospect now appears to have been a greed driven exercise to siphen money out of government coffers all over the world. And it came when there was a financial crisis so people where already anxious about their livelihood and welbeing. Doctors know that in fear states the immune system is declined and thus people are more vulnerable to disease. This surely is the ugliest face of capitalism. And what about now? It seems the financiers are chocking the country that invented democracy.. Greece.

You're deluding yourself if you think Greece is the victim of financiers. Greece's wounds are self-inflicted. Evading taxes has become the most popular indoor sport in Greece, and successive governments have built a welfare state which their reveuues cannot support, even in good economic times, even if everyone did pay their taxes. Capitalism is guilty of a lot of evil in the world, but the situation in Greece isn't one of them.

The swine flu response was the correct one by government... In Africa to use one example, retroviruses in the animal population are being transfered all the time to the people who encroach upon them and live off of them... Add hogs and chickens to the mix, and one little virus could mutate into a pandemic... Try to understand, in a country as populous as China, Hogs outnumber people 5 to 1 and ducks from Russia suffering flu that we cannot get mix with hogs who can get the flu, and it combines in the hogs with a flu we can get... It is only a matter of time before we will get a pandemic, and only constant vigilance will help us to survive it... Pandemics are cheaper than war and free up more capital and resources... There is no reason the capitalist class should not be behind the creation of new super bugs, except that they might die as well, or some one they need...

Still debt is the only effective method of turning even producers into consumers, and ready credit allows lowering wages to the minimum without social distress, and in that way of gathering up all the excess capital... In our country finance accounts for 80% of the profits, and I trust it is profiting of the world in the same fashion, but the limit has been found... You cannot take too much too fast out of any economy or it will crumble, and that is where we stand today...

Certainly Greece, as with a lot of other European countries borrowed a lot of money, but it is not the Greek people's fault, who were not told what was owed and how much etc. It is not simple. You may have corrupt politicians on the one hand and corrupt financiers on the other pushing money their way. Then when the debt got large they decided to pushs the interest rates through the roof. I suspect there is more going on behind the scenes and it is hard for the ordinary person to understand or know. As for the Greeks not paying taxes, I don't think this is true any more for Greeks than for other countries. The wealthiest people in the wealthiest countries only pay pocket change in taxes. The Greeks were also depicted as lazy and that is also untrue. The problem in Greece and Europe is just the tip of the iceberg. All Western nations are in debt up to their eyeballs and things are only getting worse. Increasingly governments are held to ransom and Greece is just the most obvious one.

Think about what you have written! If hogs outnumber people in China 5:1, and I have heard of a similar figure from another source, AND if they have the viruses that affect humans don't you think there would have been a pandemic by now? The reality is we have immunity and that enables us to fight viruses as well as other microorganisms.
Let me bring to your attention the matter of South America and the conquistadors that supposedly brought new strains of bugs from Europe that the native were not immune to! It is hog wash. The Conquistadors were brutally cruel and all they wanted was the gold. The natives lived in fear of their lives on a daily basis. Under those conditions immunity is in decline, something that the doctors neglect to correct the historians about.. but why spoil a profitable story with the truth. It wasn't long before the population was wiped out. They saved their amo, yes a lot cheaper.
Let us look as a comparison to the Congo. There again brutally cruel colonizers had forced people to work to produce goods for export back to Europe such as rubber. They lost 20 million or so of the population nearly half the native inhabitants to diseases before they decided to let up on the public mutilations of anyone who wouldn't work for them and children were not exempt from this treatment. You see the difference here was the gold was made by selling the goods and they needed the natives as cheap -near no cost labour to produce the goods to sell to make the gold. Only after the brutality was seriously reduced did the diseases abate. Fear is a critical factor because in states of fear, where the danger is seen to be external, immunity is declined. It is how the body works. A panic about an epidemic in the middle of a serious economic crisis is, in my view opportunistic to say the least. I would go as far as saying it is criminal.