Frequently Asked Questions
About Socialism
- What is Socialism - in a nutshell?
- What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
- Didn't Socialism die with the end of the Cold War? And if it failed in the Soviet Union, what makes you think it will work in the US?
- How are Socialists different from Democrats?
- What is the point of being a Socialist? Isn't the current two party system sufficient?
- Why is anti-Socialism so prevalent in America?
- Why are Socialists often called radicals?
- America has gone through a phase of de-industrialization having turned more toward a service-based economy. Doesn't Socialism require an industrial economy?
- Isn't Socialism anti-American?
- Do you want to replace the American flag?
- Do Socialists support the military?
- Wouldn't Socialism take away freedom of religion?
- Why do Socialists hate Jesus?
- Would there be police in a Socialist society?
- How would criminals be punished in a Socialist society?
- Why isn't gun control mentioned in your platform?
- Would drugs be legal in a Socialist society?
- Wouldn't Socialists restrict the free travel of citizens?
- Wouldn't Socialism take away our freedom of choice in the products we buy? In other words, will there be only one brand of toothpaste, underwear, etc.?
- How would a Socialist economy affect the media? Will there only be one news outlet? Would the government regulate our film and television industries?
- Would Socialism abolish money?
- In a Socialist economy, can I still make money? How could I make money?
- Does Socialism really want to take all my possessions and redistribute them to everyone else?
- Are small businesses allowed in a Socialist economy?
- Doesn't Socialism deny individual achievement?
- Who are some famous Socialists?
About the Socialist Party
- Why does the Socialist Party USA require members to pay dues?
- Why do you offer merchandise through CafePress?
What is Socialism - in a nutshell?
Answer: In a nutshell, Socialism is a political system with these primary goals:
- Work environments are owned and controlled by the workers (i.e., not privately owned)
- Democracy
- Equality
Return to topWhat is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
Answer: Communism depicts, in a sense, a democratic utopian society with no distinct socio-economic classes, no money, and one in which there is essentially no need for a government. Needless to say, true Communism is something very different from what we saw in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.
Socialism envisions an attainable democratic society in which there may be distinct socio-economic classes, workers have direct control of their wages and work environment, and the government plays an active role in society.
Return to topDidn't Socialism die with the end of the Cold War? And if it failed in the Soviet Union, what makes you think it will work in the US?
Answer: The Soviet Union was not a Socialist state - either politically or economically.
First of all, Socialism requires democracy and the rule of law. This did not exist in the various "Communist" nations like the USSR, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, etc. Secondly, the state (and by proxy the government officials) owned the means of production - not the society as a whole. Therefore, the profits of labor enriched a never ending network of bureaucrats and party officials, while the workers were exploited in ways the capitalists of other countries could only dream.
The Cold War was a political conflict between two military-industrial complexes; it was not a clash of economic systems (i.e., Capitalism vs. Marxism). While this perception was pervasive in both the West and the East, the Soviet Union was Socialist in name only. Within a short time after coming to power, Joseph Stalin had turned the Soviet Union into an authoritarian regime with a centrally managed, bureaucratic form of state capitalism for its economy. The core purpose of that economy was to produce armaments to perpetuate the state's struggle against the West. This "Socialism in name only" dictatorship provided a very convenient foil for western capitalists who could easily point to the Soviet Union's failures as an argument for capitalism. It is also worth noting that - to the extent that these nations attempted Socialist development - they did so in material conditions that were not conducive to it's growth (i.e., a lack of established industry, lack of a skilled workforce, and economic sanctions from the world's major powers).
Socialism, by contrast, requires an economic model that extends democracy into the workplace. That model is based on the production of goods and services that meet the needs and wants of the society as a whole - it is not one that merely enriches an elite sect (be they capitalists or commissars).
A more appropriate depiction of Socialist societies might be found in those nations of post-war northern Europe - Denmark, Sweden, etc. Though even these nations are not entirely Socialist in nature, they do at least approach some of the characteristics of Socialism properly defined:
- Democratic representation
- Public ownership of utilities and large institutions
- The right of workers to unite for collective bargaining
- Universal access to health care, education, and transportation, etc.
The Socialist Party of Kansas rejects the assertion that Socialist solutions are not attainable in the United States. It is obvious that nations with fewer resources than the United States are able to provide Socialist solutions for their citizens.
Return to topHow are Socialists different from Democrats?
Answer: Democrats support capitalism, but they believe that the government may play a role in ensuring that the capitalists give the working class a "bigger piece of the pie." Democrats generally favor big government programs to give aid to those who find themselves on the losing side of capitalism. Socialists don't want people to have a bigger slice of the pie, they want the people to own the pie. For example, Socialists don't want to give a single mother a vision card and a Section 8 apartment - they want to empower her by ensuring she can find employment with sufficient wages, guaranteed daycare and health care, access to a college education, safe schools, and sufficient free-time.
Return to topWhat is the point of being a Socialist? Isn't the current two party system sufficient?
Answer: The current two-party system is entirely inadequate. In reality, any "two-party" system is a de facto one-party system, as shown by Anthony Down's An Economic Theory of Democracy. In such a system, both parties seek to attract the "middle-ground" voter and, in the process, become more like one another. This accounts for the tremendous similarity between the policies of the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republican party has been particularly effective in recent years at manipulating the electorate by using "hot button" issues and "swift-boating" tactics -- the net result of which has been a very polarized electorate following each election cycle. Such polarization makes for a very unstable democracy in a two-party system.
Ever notice how the same issues seem to come up every election cycle? Ever notice how the same proposals are made every year? Notice how the politicians forget their promises to take on big businesses, the lobbyists, and special interests after they get elected. We need more than "Change" or "Change we can believe in." We need a change in the way we produce, consume, and relate.
To thrive, a democracy needs the input of a diversity of perspectives to continually challenge the status quo. The Socialist Party offers a left-perspective currently absent from the political dialogue in Kansas. Our participation in the political process is vitally needed to provide a progressive voice coupled with deliberate grassroots action.
Return to topWhy is anti-Socialism so prevalent in America?
Answer: When Socialists and militant labor activists appeared on the scene shortly after the Civil War, they faced extreme repression. Since many of these activists were recent immigrants from Europe, Socialism was branded as something foreign, anti-American, and dangerous. And things got worse in the period immediately before World War I. When the USSR came fully into existence and the horrors of Stalinism reached the outside world, the natural enemies of Socialism labeled Stalin's tactics "Socialist." Because America had never had a very powerful Socialist movement, very few Americans understood what Socialism really stood for and accepted this distortion carte blanche. The tactic was very effective.
Return to topWhy are Socialists often called radicals?
Answer: Some call Socialists radicals with the intent of producing a negative reaction. They point out that Socialists don't agree with the present social order and seek to turn the system upside down. This, for them, is outside the realm of acceptable options for solving society's problems. Most Socialists embrace the term proudly. We sincerely plead guilty on the above charges.
Return to topAmerica has gone through a phase of de-industrialization having turned more toward a service-based economy. Doesn't Socialism require an industrial economy?
Answer: Despite the fact that more people are working in the service sector, that does not mean we have moved away from an industrial economy. Fewer people work in industries today because the forces of production allow us to produce more with a smaller workforce.
Regardless, the aim of Socialism is to build an economy in which the fruits of people's labor enrich humanity as a whole, not just the owners of the means of production. Under the current economic model, employees receive wages or salaries for their work, but the owner keeps all the profits from the labor of the employees. Despite the advances in technology and production techniques, the familiar owner-worker dynamic (and all that that entails) still exists today. Therefore, the Socialist argument against capitalism still remains valid.
Return to topIsn't Socialism anti-American?
Answer: The term "anti-American" is in many ways anti-American. As Americans we are all entitled to our opinions, and disagreement with the prevailing economic philosophy or government practice does not make one a traitor. American Socialism has had an important but overlooked impact in the history of our country. Socialism represents the very best of American ideals. The Socialist Party consistently fights for the interests of the vast majority of Americans who currently have very little voice.
Return to topDo you want to replace the American flag?
Answer: No. The American flag actually stands for all of the same ideas of the Socialist movement: freedom, democracy, and equality.
Return to topDo Socialists support the military?
Answer: Socialists support the soldiers but not always the campaigns they are forced to execute. The Socialist Party supports a reduction in the military budget and closing all oversees US military bases. However, this does not make the party anti-military; it means we favor a sane foreign policy. We would prefer a smaller, well-equipped active-duty military, with a sufficient reserve force. One day we hope to see an end to standing armies altogether. In the event that day comes, only a well-trained reserve force and an armed citizenry would be required.
Return to topWouldn't Socialism take away freedom of religion?
Answer: No. Socialism requires democratic rights, and religion is one of those rights. There are many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of other faiths who are active in the Socialist movement. This has also been true historically. Some Christian Socialists would even argue that Jesus is the first and most famous Socialist.
Return to topWhy do Socialists hate Jesus?
Answer: We don't. In fact, the author of this response is a Christian. It is the apostle Paul who asserts that "the love of money is the root of all evil" - a verse the capitalists seem always to ignore. It is also interesting to note that history's first glimpse of a Socialist society is recorded by Luke in the book of Acts:
Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35, NRSV)
Those Christians who would seek to cast Socialism in a bad light would do well to read David Chandler's brief essay, "Biblical Basis for Liberal Politics"
Return to topWould there be police in a Socialist society?
Answer: Yes. Though crime would be greatly reduced in a Socialist society, there would be a need for some sort of law enforcement. However, police would be answerable directly to the community and operate in a transparent manner. Additionally, police departments would be run in a manner similar to the rest of the economy (i.e., democratically).
Return to topHow would criminals be punished in a Socialist society?
Answer: Ultimately, that would be up to the community to decide, not the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party favors an end to the death penalty and a criminal justice system that focuses on rehabilitation, treatment, and job training over punishment.
Return to topWhy isn't gun control mentioned in your platform?
Answer: We don't address it in our platform because we don't believe gun control is the solution for violent crimes. Rather, we see crime as an economic issue for the most part; solve the economic disparity that exists and you avoid 95% of the crimes.
Return to topWould drugs be legal in a Socialist society?
Answer: That ultimately would be left up to the people, not the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party does call for a shift in funding from the so-called "war on drugs" to more productive rehabilitation programs. Additonally the Socialist Party favors the decriminalization of drug use and the regulation of narcotics by doctors through the use of prescriptions rather than by the criminal justice system. The fact is, crime would be dramatically reduced if even the most benign street drugs were legalized and regulated.
Return to topWouldn't Socialists restrict the free travel of citizens?
Answer: No. And since transportations costs would operate on a not-for-profit basis, travel costs would be greatly reduced. Put this together with fewer financial obligations and fewer work hours and you'll see a general population with the same opportunities for travel as today's elite.
Return to topWouldn't Socialism take away our freedom of choice in the products we buy? In other words, will there be only one brand of toothpaste, underwear, etc.?
Answer: No. Socialism requires freedom of thought and worker control of the economy. Therefore, creative individuals would be free to do what they do best. The engineers could design their idea of the best car, the chef could create and convince people to buy his or her newest dish, the clothing designer could put his or her newest creation on the runway for consumers to see.
Return to topHow would a Socialist economy affect the media? Will there only be one news outlet? Would the government regulate our film and television industries?
Answer: No. If anything there will be more press freedom. Today, the majority of media outlets are owned and controlled by a tiny handful of huge corporations. The Socialist Party calls for breaking up those corporations. Cable and Internet service providers would be publicly owned utilities answerable to the people of the communities they serve. In a Socialist economy, individuals won't be required to have large sums of money to publish their views on television or newspapers.
Return to topWould Socialism abolish money?
Answer: The answer to this question is complicated, and there is disagreement on this question among the various perspectives within the Socialist movement. One thing is for certain, a Socialist economy would drastically change the social value of money. The basic necessities would be either very affordable or free altogether. Luxury items would be priced based on the cost of production, which means even these items would be very inexpensive since productive technology and techniques would continue to advance. So (in the author's opinion) yes - money could theoretically be abolished, but only in the very long term. Human society existed for many centuries before the advent of currency, and it would eventually be rendered redundant in a developed Socialist economy.
Return to topIn a Socialist economy, can I still make money? How could I make money?
Answer: Yes, in a Socialist economy, you will make your money the same way you make it now (i.e., by going to work). The difference is that the tools of production (the workplace, equipment, machinery, etc.) will no longer be privately owned by an individual, they will be owned collectively by the workers, themselves.
The possibilities are endless in a Socialist economy. For instance, you could opt to work in a factory, be a teacher, a doctor, a cashier, a pilot, become an independent contractor, work from home, partner up with a friend or your spouse and open up your own restaurant.
Return to topDoes Socialism really want to take all my possessions and redistribute them to everyone else?
Answer: No. It is a myth that Socialism seeks to do away with all personal property. Socialists have no intention of taking away your house, your car, your material possessions, etc. What Socialists do desire, however, is public ownership of utilities, communication, and transportation entities, etc. We also believe that workers must be in control of their wages and work environment (i.e., the means of production).
Return to topAre small businesses allowed in a Socialist economy?
Answer: Yes - there is no contradiction between small businesses and a socialist economy. Today, many small businesses operate in a manner similar to what Socialists envision for all enterprises. That is, the "owner" works side-by-side with the "employees," and the whole staff has a say in how the enterprise operates.
It's also worth noting that the owners of small business would greatly benefit from a Socialist economy. The socialization of commercial property would greatly reduce or eliminate their ground rents, the socialization of utilities would reduce or eliminate their bills, the centralization of credit would reduce their operating costs (e.g., no fees for debit card services) and make it easier for them to acquire loans to finance repairs, upgrades, or expansions. Furthermore, most of their workers' benefits (e.g., health and disability insurance, daycare, etc.) would be provided by the government.
Return to topDoesn't Socialism deny individual achievement?
Answer: No. Indeed, it is the current system of capitalism that stifles creativity and individual achievment. In captialist societies, most people stay only within the confines of their given socio-economic "station" in life; they are effectively kept down by a system that values them only as a cheap source of labor. The occassional entrepreneur who rises from rags to riches almost always does so at the expense of the working class.
In a Socialist society, the individual's creativity, desires, and talents are at the heart of a Socialist economy. Socialism essentially levels the playing field by clearing the economic and educational hurdles that prevent individuals from fulfilling their dreams and their potential. In short, Socialism seeks to ensure that everyone reaches their full potential.
Return to topWho are some famous Socialists?
Answer: Several figures, both past and present, have identified with Socialism:
- Ed Asner - actor (a Kansas native)
- Francis Bellamy - pastor and author of the "Pledge of Alligance"
- Hugo Chavez - president of Venezuela
- Noam Chomsky - linquist and activist
- Eugene V. Debs - activist, labor organizer, and presidential candidate
- Albert Einstein - physicist
- Helen Keller - activist, author, and educator
- The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - civil rights leader
- Karl Marx - economist, philosopher, and writer
- John Stuart Mill - philospher
- Evo Morales - president of Bolivia
- George Orwell - writer
- Jean-Paul Sarte - philosopher and writer
- Upton Sinclair - writer and social reformer
Return to topWhy does the Socialist Party USA require members to pay dues?
Answer: A political party - no less than any other institution - is answerable to those who pay their bills.
Consider the experience of a typical delegate to the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. At one point, he walked in to a city hall and freely registered as a Democrat. It cost him nothing to do so. When he traveled to Denver for his party's convention in the Pepsi Center, he received a bag filled with all kinds of goodies. Printed on every bag were the corporate "sponsors" for the convention - IBM, AT&T, and Coca-Cola. He paid nothing for that. Each evening he could attend any one of hundreds of convention parties hosted by big pharmaceutical companies, insurance corporations, banks, and military contractors. He paid nothing for that.
It should be obvious that the Democrats (as well as the Republicans, of course) reward those who pay their bills. The Socialist Party USA does not enjoy that kind of corporate backing. Our costs are borne by our members.
Dues are collected by the national party on the basis of one's net income. Of course, if one can not afford to pay dues because of financial hardship, their dues may be reduced or waived. It should be noted that the state party does not collect dues from its members - only the national party collects dues.
Return to topWhy do you offer merchandise through CafePress?
Answer: To the best of our knowledge, the buttons and stickers made available through the CafePress website are printed in the USA. The clothing items are also printed in the USA. Some will reason, however, that because many of these clothing items originate from outside the USA, sweat shop labor is likely being used to produce the items. While such allegations have not been proven, it is a reasonable conclusion. It should be noted that a "Made in the USA" label is also no guarantee against the use of sweat shop labor - only the presence of a "union-made" label is proof that an item was not made in a sweat shop. Accordingly, we will continue to offer items through CafePress until such a time that we can secure similar items from a union shop.
Return to top