Socialism?

[Some Guy]

Obama's not a socialist. I've been corresponding with the head of the American Socialist Party ever since I read his article where he addresses that canard point by point. And as time has gone on, it's only become more true. Unless you're a conspiracy nut and think "he's lying to you to advance the Socialist agenda" go read the article which is easily googleable.

One of the things I've noticed on this board is that people don't understand that a belief system or political system can touch in part on an idea, but not fully equate with said idea. Socialism is a perfect example. Just because you want a measure of equality for all citizens doesnt mean you are a socialist.

Yes, according to Marx, socialism is a stage of development on the way from capitalism to full communism, but it can be a political system in and of itself. In fact to be a distinct stage it would have to be able to be isolated. It's also worth noting that socialism has an element of incentivism that's essential to it - one of the myths going round of course is the idea that a socialist system takes all the incentive out of achieving.

The idea of employee ownership has actually come up during the last 30 years as a great way of incentivizing the work force. When the workers own and get the profits from the company they're toiling at they have a sense of pride and personal investment. (Libertarian Marxism anyone?)

But this sounds like more apologetics for socialism. They system we have...and will always have...will be a hybrid between capitalism and socialism. Why? Because the essential role of government is to band together for the collective good.

That's it. Not much brain surgery required to understand it. And because banding together for the collective good is similar to socialism, one element of the public will always push the government towards that extreme.

Personally, I favor a capitalist economy, but I'm not so naive as to think that huge corporations always have my best interests at heart and wont use their power and leverage to make a buck at my expense. I'm also not naive enough to think that government always has my best interest at heart and wont try to gain more power at my expense. I know that there are lazy bums who wont work and who will live on the hard work of others...but I also know that the poverty of some effects the bottom line of all of us..and that private charity isn't enough.

So there I sit...in the middle. With socialism not being so bad when taken in small doses, if by socialism you mean some amount of charity for those who truly need it and some amount of contribution for the collective good.

Good post, but there's a bit of a catch 22 in there. It is in societies' best interest that everyone (or as many as are physically and mentally capable) be as productive as possible. While capitalism pushes the monetary power up to the hands of a few, it also keeps the populous motivated to be productive. Add some socialist elements in there that allows people to make a living off the backs of others makes the society as a whole less productive, thus bringing everyone down a bit.

That's the problem i have with the whole "we should all be equal" thought. You can't take the incentive to succeed out of the equation and not expect the result to change. If the rewards are great, then someone is going to be a lot more likely to work very hard for it. If the rewards aren't worth it, then why bother? Obviously that'll vary by personal beliefs, but the more you forcefully take from the top to give to the bottom, the more you discourage the top from providing anything to be taken.

 

[Murf76]

Charity is voluntary. Government is force.

......And in a democracy, run by the same people.

Which means that if government is inefficient, then what about charity??

Suggestion--give to the individuals you wish to help. Else they may not recieve the full enumeration as gifted by you!!

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"
Isn't it a good thing that we have a Republic, based upon the framework of Constitutional Law, instead?

 

[Vanquish]

Thanks guys. You've responded with some things that make me really think as well.

Good post. It made me back up and think through some of my own personal conclusions a bit. I like that.

Taking your last point first, a concept of 'socialism not being so bad when taken in small doses', do you not agree that there is a danger to a capitalist, market driven system when we embrace socialism 'in small doses'? Isn't there a danger of capitalism and a market driven system being eventually swallowed up in that. All socialism, however benevolent and well intended or even practical, requires the more productive to contribute disproportionately to the non productive and, when taken to greater extremes, has always had a dibilitating and suppressing effect on the more productive. And as Maggie Thatcher once said, "(the problem with that) is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples' money.

I agree with this to a certain degree. Not only would a clearer, more efficient political policy/approach be better than having a hybrid of styles, but incrementalism does threaten for one approach to totally take over another. I get that and am scared of it as well. I believe though, that the reality of what works in the real world and the reality of what people (we can argue about majority vs minority roles in nation-wide decision-making) want requires flexibility. And something flexible isn't always easily distilled down...nor does it require the same approach at all times. Surely on a grand scale there are guiding principles that we all espouse, but making the country work for all people is going to require a more sophisticated approach, which I think you'll agree with.

As for your description of socialism as "the more productive to contribute disproportionately to the non productive" I don't believe that has to be the case, nor has it been the case in all historical circumstances. Surely there are versions of socialism that require complete nationalisation (i.e. the government stealing (and I do mean stealing) of private industry), but that's not the only flavor of socialism out there. There's another flavor that is more about social intervention into a market-based economy.

To get religious for a moment, Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you." (I'm not Christian, but most conservatives are). The guy makes a good point. You're never going to achieve utopia...nor will you ever eradicate poverty. You can make goals towards fixing problems, but the world will always have them.

So that brings us to a situation where...if government is to help achieve the collective good .. how much good do we need? The term compassionate conservatism has been thrown around in the past. Wouldn't that hint that some sort of taking care of others is a good end? We dont guarantee success here in America...but we try to make sure there's a level playing field, right? And hell not even totally level, just a bare minimum of fair. You can't come here and expect to compete with Wal-Mart if you havent worked hard to be on their level.

So it's really a national debate about how much help do we give our fellow man...and how much of the entrenched power given to those with money and power are we going to TAKE BACK from those who have been using their influence against us ("we the people")?

I'll say it again...I think business is the engine that fuels our prosperity as a people...not some Kumbaya. But the point of business is to amass money and power, some of which is used against those without money and power to hurt the public. When that's the case, insurance reforms and consumer protections are necessary to right that inequity.

And as for Obama not being a socialist, what do you call it when a leader takes government control of banks and large industries and assumes the right to determine if they will or will not continue to exist, what they will pay their executives and employees, what they will charge for their products, and whether or not they will embrace a business-unfriendly union? What do you call it when a leader presumes to take over control of a health industry comprising 1/7th of the U.S. economy and dictate what the product will be, what the cost of the product will be, and require all citizens to utilize it?

If the American Socialist Party does not call that socialism, they have a very different definition of socialism than most educated Americans have.

Leaving to the side the slightly comment about "educated Americans" (which I'll assume wasn't meant to be snarky)... I'll link you the articles for you to read what the actual Socialists say:
Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. - washingtonpost.com

Is Obama A Socialist? Not if You Ask One - HUMAN EVENTS

By all means, I know that part of critiquing the articles is to question the sources. Bias of course plays a part, but I think you'll find several decent ideas on the point that you can accept, even if grudgingly.

I'll say this, mandating that people buy a product, like health insurance for instance, is pretty capitalist. He's force-feeding the insurance industry clients. Now, what I am AFRAID of...is that it will be a funnel into some government plan where after 10 or 20 years everyone is on one plan and there's no competition. That would totally suck. I'm not for it. And if he's trying to sneak that in (I seem to remember that maybe there was some section that said if there's any change to your plan you revert to the state's plan), Im 100% against it.

Addressing the take over of the auto industry, that scared the hell out of me. To his credit he's given it back...but I dont think he ever should have taken it over to begin with. You're right...when the government owns the means to production, that's socialism. I think the BO party line was that it was some sort of investment-styled ownership. And for the record, I think there IS a method for the government to make private investments and not be socialist. But there has to be a max level of ownership or influence on that investment.

Then the question becomes...should there be an exception for such a momentous disaster. How much are we willing to trade government takeover for a merely possible rescue of the economy? There's obviously got to be some governmental restraints on the market, but how much? Like I said, I think there can be limits placed on government that still allow them to act and not keep their new powers indefinitely.

Good post, but there's a bit of a catch 22 in there. It is in societies' best interest that everyone (or as many as are physically and mentally capable) be as productive as possible. While capitalism pushes the monetary power up to the hands of a few, it also keeps the populous motivated to be productive. Add some socialist elements in there that allows people to make a living off the backs of others makes the society as a whole less productive, thus bringing everyone down a bit.

That's the problem i have with the whole "we should all be equal" thought. You can't take the incentive to succeed out of the equation and not expect the result to change. If the rewards are great, then someone is going to be a lot more likely to work very hard for it. If the rewards aren't worth it, then why bother? Obviously that'll vary by personal beliefs, but the more you forcefully take from the top to give to the bottom, the more you discourage the top from providing anything to be taken.

But certain styles of socialism, the ones that are more about social intervention into a market economy, DONT take out the incentives. In fact, there's a brand of socialism that rewards people based on their personal contribution. But we're jumping the gun a bit.

Of course, if you've worked hard for your money (as most of us do) you dont want one, red cent taken that you don't have to have taken. But to what degree are you willing to contribute to the collective good? Just for roads? Just for public schools?

So that's why the numbers and figures really really matter in stuff like this. If someone tells me that emergency room costs are 2x or 5x or 10x what preventative costs would be that makes me start to think. I start thinking...ok, but preventative costs for the entire nation compared to the emergency room costs for the few that need it would bankrupt us....then that leads me to start judging that proposition.

Personally, I think that "equality for all" on a monetary scale is only the goal of a very few leftists. While I'm sure there are extremist politicians who promise the world for votes, I most of the lefties I know simply want those who, by reason of fate (not laziness) or by reason of outrageous influence of monied parties (insurance industry for example), are trying hard to get affordable healtcare but can't get it...merely want that base level of care.

I totally agree that it's got to make financial sense to do it...but there does have to be some level of sacrifice to achieve it. So it's a balancing game...can we find a solution where everyone (everyone not cheating the system or not being lazy) gets access to fair healthcare...without killing our economy and shooting ourselves in the foot. If part of the justification for insurance reform is based on charity and some is based on actually lowering costs for all....why defend the rights of big biz/big insurance/big pharma out of some slavish devotion to profit over people?


Sorry this was a bit of a ramble, but I think that once you take out some of the more extreme views the center-right and center-left aren't so far apart as all the partisan rhetoric makes it seem. You can help people via government AND be fiscally responsible. It has to be possible.

EDIT: I just thought of another way to look at things. How bad does the country have to be crashing down before we say to ourselves "helping these other people out is going to help me personally"? Are we going to wait until the entire country is filled with shanty towns and 1 in 10 people are beggars?

People keep saying we're in the worst situation we've been in since the Great Depression...but I think people are forgetting just HOW terrible the GD was. During the GD we had massive amounts of people begging on the street and a million other instances of desperation that you don't see these days. I'm not saying things aren't bad...but is it going to take the utter devastation of the entire country for people to recognize that just because they personally have healthcare, that those who don't arent just evil, lazy, cheating people?

 

[Foxfyre]

Vanquish, again you make very good points. But liberty is rarely lost by coup, armed or otherwise. It is lost in increments, in little bits and pieces. Let's consider the following parable as an illustration:

The Dinner Roll

Once upon a time I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President.

I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics.

There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a FREE country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was EARNED honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room.

We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked the dinner roll off my plate and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen..

"Sorry 'bout that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."

"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass.

Before I could taste a sip, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp. "And his brother, Eric, is very thirsty," said the President.

I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I withheld my comments and decided to play along. I don't want to seem unkind..

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

"Eric's children are also quite hungry."

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me.

I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

And their grandmother can't stand for long."

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken.

I turned back to the President.

"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout, "that was my coat!" But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled.

Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table.

I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home.

Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

“Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor.

The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak, and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.

"By the way," he added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories.

I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind.

There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars...we need to spread YOUR wealth around..."

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his crème Brule.

He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair.

He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss.

I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle.

Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.

What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

 

[Vanquish]

Great story. A testament to boiling frogs ever so slightly. I agree that power can be stolen silently and without shame. The problem is there's private stealing and public stealing. While the worst of public socialism can be a great thief....an unchecked insurance/pharma industry can be just as bad.

I really think this country needs to have a dialog about how much help they're willing to give the poorest in this country...as well as a good, old-fashioned whipping for some to get off the dole.

I really wish we'd pull back our international aid by 50% for just 5 years. Sure, it'd be unpopular..but if we could make sure it wasn't wasted...it'd help us out a TON.

 

[Foxfyre]

Great story. A testament to boiling frogs ever so slightly. I agree that power can be stolen silently and without shame. The problem is there's private stealing and public stealing. While the worst of public socialism can be a great thief....an unchecked insurance/pharma industry can be just as bad.

I really think this country needs to have a dialog about how much help they're willing to give the poorest in this country...as well as a good, old-fashioned whipping for some to get off the dole.

I really wish we'd pull back our international aid by 50% for just 5 years. Sure, it'd be unpopular..but if we could make sure it wasn't wasted...it'd help us out a TON.

Not only international aid but ALL aid to anybody that comes from the people's treasury. Once the federal government is prevented from distributing any money from the public treasury that benefits any individual, group, entity, or whatever, we will see most graft and corruption ended both in government and among its beneficiaries including those corporations you mention. End the graft and corruption in government, there will be less incentive to overlook the graft and corruption in industry and commerce and much more incentive to enforce existing laws that prevent that.

I would have no problem at all with the government setting up domestic and/or international relief funds to which people could voluntarily donate. Or help private charities solicit donations for disaster relief or whatever. The American people are the most generous people on Earth, and among Americans, study after study has shown those evil, greedy conservatives to be the most generous of Americans.

But as illustrated in the parable, once you allow government to take even a tiny piece of our unalienable rights, our liberty, our property, we give the government encouragement license and encouragement to take more and more until it can take it all.

 

[Vanquish]

Awwwwww

come on now...dont start backtracking into partisan crap...after we had just made so much progress.

 

[Foxfyre]

Awwwwww

come on now...dont start backtracking into partisan crap...after we had just made so much progress.

That isn't partisan crap. That is Founding Fathers wisdom. I only threw in the comment about conservatives because they are the ones most often accused of not giving a damn about the poor or anybody but themselves. When I say that the federal government shouldn't be giving help or aid to ANY individual, group, entity, whatever, it almost invariably follows that somebody will accuse me of being selfish, uncaring, hard of heart. Well I'm not uncaring or hard of heart. I am really hard nosed about continuing ineffective and/or destructive policies, no matter how well intended they are, just because they sound noble or generous or compassionate or whatever.

 

[Christopher]

I think the clearest evidence we are becoming a more "socialist" country is by considering government spending as a % of GDP. The US has become very close to matching European countries on this percentage.

We Are All Socialists Now - Newsweek.com

Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

People see things differently regarding how "socialist" we have become based upon their experience, but it seems very clear from this where we are and where we are headed. It does not look good for trying to convince anyone that we are not becoming more "socialist" as a nation.

 

[Vanquish]

So let me get this straight...

If the majority republican theory were carried out...

we'd have no welfare, no social security, no post office, no executive agencies that protect the common good (EPA, FDA)

 

[boedicca]

What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Excellent story.

Liberty dies the death of a thousand small cuts. It is rarely obliterated in a Big Bang.

 

[Foxfyre]

So let me get this straight...

If the majority republican theory were carried out...

we'd have no welfare, no social security, no post office, no executive agencies that protect the common good (EPA, FDA)

No you're wrong. There can be much allowance for shared services that benefit all equally, rich and poor alike. So it makes sense to pool resources to provide shared streets, roads, water and sewer systems, public parks, etc. at the state and local levels or an interstate highway system at the federal level. And it makes sense to pool resources to pay for necessary government agencies that regulate trade and processes across state lines. Again, there is no distinction of class or socioeconomic circumstances as to who uses or benefits from such.

The Federal government, for instance, should have zero interest in a polluted lake in Arkansas--that should be Arkansas's concern and duty to deal with. But polluting a stream or river or ground water or air that intrudes on a neighboring state becomes a Federal concern lest we have states making war one against the other. For the same reason it is important to have Federal regulations against shipping contaminated food or other dangerous products from one state to another or other practices that affect one's neighbors.

Thus there are valid roles for an EPA and FDA to play. The post office is mandated in the Constitution as necessary for unrestricted communications between the states.

Such is not socialism, but initiatives to secure the rights of the people so that they will not need to make war upon each other in order to defend their rights.

The problem comes when the government presumes to confiscate property from one citizen in order to benefit another. Such may have the most noble of motives, but ultimately the leaders will not be able to resist using such powers to buy votes, buy favor, enhance their own power, prestige, influence, personal wealth, and increase longegivity in government. And it will invariably have a corrupting influence on those receiving the benevolence as they will come to expect it and have interest in electing only those who will keep it coming to them. Add to that Congress's inability to restrain themselves from expanding and increasing such programs into bigger and more invasion entitlements until they become unsustainable and a burden on all of society. At the very least you wind up with the stagnated economies of Europe along with a much higher sustained unemployment rate and resulting pressures on social services.

The federal government should be in the business of no form of charity or benevolence to anybody. Such should be left to the states. And if the federal government restrained itself to only its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, the states would have infinitely more resources to order the society they want to have.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So let me get this straight...

If the majority republican theory were carried out...

we'd have no welfare, no social security, no post office, no executive agencies that protect the common good (EPA, FDA)

The USPS is written into the Constitution. The rest of it? Not without actually amending the Constitution, no. Is it SUCH an unthinkable concept to leftists to actually follow the law and the procedures as written, instead of pulling it out of your ass as you go along because "it seems like a good idea"?

 

[Oddball]

So let me get this straight...

If the majority republican theory were carried out...

we'd have no welfare, no social security, no post office, no executive agencies that protect the common good (EPA, FDA)

We should be so lucky.

 

[Foxfyre]

Vanquish, if you have not the time or patience to read my long and tedious screed, then at least read Cecile's and Dude. They said it as well. And with a whole lot less words.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Vanquish, if you have not the time or patience to read my long and tedious screed, then at least read Cecile's and Dude. They said it as well. And with a whole lot less words.

Aw, shucks. 'Twarn't nothin'.