Like it or not, Mr. President, many Americans embrace democratic socialism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(or Bipartisan Fear Mongering)
Hmmm ... Congressional politicians didn't seem to fear socialism when they bailed out Wall Street.
It's true capitalism has been very, very good for political parties. Politics has become a shining example of smash-and-grab capitalism. The political parties certainly do not want to consider socialism. Where's the money in that?
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund (the $3 checkbox on tax forms) was set up as a campaign finance reform to limit the influence of money on elections. However, accepting those funds will limit fundraising and spending. And, apparently, that campaign finance reform is too socialist. Pure capitalism is far, far more lucrative for politicians.
As the seeded article explains, Democratic Socialism does work when it is applied properly. And every government response to some sort of financial or economic crisis has utilized the ideas of Democratic Socialism to justify saving the rich. Even trickle down economics is a type of Democratic Socialism intended to achieve shared prosperity; the only flaw is that the private sector does not regulate itself.
Tags
Who is online
141 visitors
Party politicians are pick 'n choose socialists. Keep in mind that all those politicians claiming socialism is evil are paid with government funds. That's socialism for themselves and smash-and-grab capitalism for the rest of us.
How do you, personally, define 'socialism' Nerm?
By the way, welcome to NT!
Reagan does a great job of explaining what socialism is.
I'm not sure socialism can be adequately defined under the American political system. It's a moving target. While the formal definition concerns ownership of the means of production, the means of production has become rather vague in the age of free trade. Free trade (imports) have become the means of obtaining and distributing benefit. Who owns free trade?
For me a fundamental characteristic of socialism is collective activity to achieve collective benefit. Collective activity to achieve individual benefit doesn't fit with any definition of socialism IMO. And the need for ownership seems to be an obstacle for engaging in collective activity.
As you know, I was active on G+. Now that G+ has gone belly up I'm trying some other venues. I can't say its good to be here, yet. It is good to see you, though. How've you been?
Dean, I asked Nerm because I wanted to understand what he meant by the term.
You know that socialism is highly overloaded - a term with many incompatible usages. Offering Reagan or anyone else's interpretation of the word does not help me understand Nerm's position.
Ronald Reagan was a big proponent of the United States military. Is the military capitalist or socialist?
I agree.
And the reason for that has been economic empowerment of the working class (as distinguished from the owner class aka proletariat vs. bourgeoisie).
I agree in the abstract.
Social democracy (if I understand the above correctly) is at odds with socialism (at its core).
The key reason I asked is because I do not see how any of our current politicians are promoting actual socialism. A few (oddly) self-label as 'socialist' but they put forth statist / liberal / social-democracy policies. A number of people view socialism as government redistributing wealth via social programs. That too has nothing to do with socialism (at its core). Redistribution of wealth can be (and is done) regardless of the underlying socio-economic/political system. It is not a defining characteristic of the economic system.
Been good.
I recommend you check out NT groups. You can create a group and as owner can administer it (with oversight from NT mods). You can optionally promote articles within your group to the front page to share with the entire community. This might be something that would appeal to you.
So are you saying you are a proponent of utopianism?
Yes. But social democracy is not the same as Democratic Socialism, either. More confusion.
The emergence of Democratic Socialism was the result of a rift within the European Socialist movement at the end of the 19th century. Democratic Socialists did not support the idea of revolution as a means to achieve socialist goals. The original Democratic Socialist faction pursued the idea that government regulation of private property would be less disruptive and eventually lead to a true socialist system (using the formal definition of socialism). However, modern Democratic Socialism has pretty much abandoned the idea of establishing a truly socialist state. History has shown that complete adherence to true socialism is not necessary to achieve the goal of empowering the working class (as you put it).
As long as an economy is providing adequate comfort, security, and well being for the population then the distinctions between capitalism and socialism are unimportant. Modern Democratic Socialism is more about quality of life measures than about accumulation/distribution of wealth.
I am a proponent of people working together toward a common goal without needing a whip to force them to do so.
Exactly! People are confused about that routinely. Cortez and Sanders, for example, have social democratic policies while claiming to be Democratic Socialists. They should cease with the labels.
Not sure what 'true' socialism would be, but I agree that there are many ways to create a socio-economic/political system to enable a higher degree of economic freedom for all.
I don't know enough about Ocasio-Cortez yet. But Sanders really is a Democratic Socialist, the label fits. The problem is that politics require being all things to all people.
Democratic Socialism isn't about equal outcomes, it's about everyone being allowed to have a good quality of life. Sanders attacks the wealthy because the wealthy are deliberately creating obstacles that prevent people from having a good quality of life. If everyone has adequate food, shelter, health care, etc., then the wealthy can be as rich as they want. But if people lack adequate food, shelter, health care, etc., just so the rich can become richer then its time to sharpen the guillotine.
Seems to fit fairly well with the definition of slavery. Where "socialism" or "Marxism" has been claimed to have been the basis for what became totalitarian societies in history, collective activity was most certainly used to achieve individual benefit. Certainly the collective efforts benefited the Soviet State and those favored by the State, but not so much those providing the collective activity.
Some might say it fits with the definition of what corporate America has become too, but let's be honest, corporations don't JUST benefit the individuals at the top, they also create good paying jobs and products/services that people want/need. Collective activity to create collective benefit is a more fitting definition for a corporate or capitalist model. Although one could argue that individual activity to achieve both individual and collective benefit is a more accurate definition of free and cooperative Capitalism. Certainly you've heard the phrase, "The individual pursuit of rational self interest". That is really the core definition of laissez faire Capitalism, where the rational self interest part benefits the collective.
Individual or collective activity to achieve purely collective benefit seems to me to be the core definition of Marxist Socialism. Sounds great on the surface, but in practice the State becomes oppressive in an effort to regulate individual and collective activity and render the mere appearance of collective benefit. It is every bit as corruptible as Capitalism and with (at least so far in human history) disastrous consequences. It all comes down to collectivism vs. individualism, and which is more suited to both the nature and well-being of the human animal and the societies they create.
Interesting side by side of collectivism vs. individualism HERE .
You know that socialism is highly overloaded - a term with many incompatible usages. Offering Reagan or anyone else's interpretation of the word does not help me understand Nerm's position.
Part of the confusion is that many people believe that a country must be either Socialist-- or Capitalist. What they don't realize is that there are degrees of each. Also, its possible to have a "mixed economy"-- one that has both forms,
For example in the U.S.: Social Security is a Socialist system. (Obviously its a mild form-- but it is Socialist). But in the U.S. a person can also save money and start their own business. That's Capitalist.
Some politicians use scare tactics that are effective with uniformed voters-- they try to instill fear in people by claiming opposing politicians will make tyhe U.S. a Socialist country. (And they also attempt to make people believe that Socialism is actually pretty much the same as Communism. Most people know Communism is a pretty nasty system...sometimes they're not even sure why...)
Is the military capitalist or socialist?
Neither.
Both Socialist as well as Capitalist countries have militaries. As do the few remaining Communist countries.
(During the Cold War, Capitalist countries such as the U.S. and our allies were opposing the Communist USSR and their allies. And guess what? Both sides had YUGE militaries! Including lots and lots of nukes...)
One could read Nerm's words in different ways. I read it the way you seem to have read it but decided not to go there - that is, I decided to not suggest that it was describing capitalism where the individual is the capitalist.
How ya been buddy?
A mixed economy is logically possible (one might argue that Spain is making headway towards that). But what people often call a mixed economy is the social democracies of the world. Thing is, they are all capitalist economies. A plethora of social programs, high taxation and a highly regulated capitalist economy is not a defining characteristic of socialism in any way. What defines socialism is genuine economic control at the individual level (all the people).
For example in the U.S.: Social Security is a Socialist system. (Obviously its a mild form-- but it is Socialist). But in the U.S. a person can also save money and start their own business. That's Capitalist.
I disagree. The SS system is a government program. The presence of a government program is not a defining characteristic of socialism. Being able to start and/or be part owner in a business is a defining characteristic of socialism as well as capitalism. The method for how that is accomplished is what differentiates the two paradigms.
Socialism has extremely negative connotations largely because of the USSR, Red China, etc. who all claim 'socialism' and 'communism'. These labels remain as pejoratives today. Most people have no idea what those words meant prior to Lenin or what those words mean to those who are forging contemporary systems based on the original objectives and principles.
Totally agree. The military is a government service. All nations have governments and all governments provide services for the nation. The military is not an economic system.
Hey, haven't seen you for a while. How ya' going?
Collective activity to achieve individual benefit is also a fair description of modern politics. In the political arena the idea of collective benefit has been called the common good. But politicians using their elected office to seek political donations and advance the special interests of a political party cannot be described as working toward a common good.
Trickle down politics, where the benefit accrued to a politician trickles down to their constituents, doesn't work any better than trickle down economics. The flaw is that neither the political system or economic system are self regulated to achieve collective benefit or common good. Any distributed benefit is quite accidental; politics and economics are not designed to be self regulating for collective benefit or common good. Rational self interest only provides motivation to pursue individual benefit; making any regulating influence subjective.
IMO that lack of self regulation is why socialism originally required revolution. Revolution creates an irrational self interest to abandon pursuit of individual benefit from collective activity. Self preservation obtains higher value than wealth; sort of like the water/diamond paradox.
I believe that confusion has been deliberately imposed onto the discussion.
Those that derive the most benefit from any system (economic, political, or even social) have a rational motivation to preserve that system to protect their benefit. Any diversion of self benefit toward a collective or common benefit has been deemed socialist.
To me, the collective benefit does not define socialism. Collective or common benefit can be obtained through a variety of means. Redistributing wealth, as an example, is not socialist. IMO what makes socialism unique is collective activity to obtain collective benefit. I think Social Security can be considered socialist because all workers collectively contribute to the system to obtain a benefit for all workers. That benefit does not need to be equal, either.
A totalitarian system can result from capitalism just as easily as from socialism. Totalitarianism is an expression of rational self interest using other means to obtain individual benefit.
IMO socialism must meet two criteria to be considered socialism: collective activity and collective benefit. The examples of Communism does suggest those criteria can be subverted. Democratic socialism adds quality of life measures to fundamental criteria for socialism.
So, to me, democratic socialism would be collective activity to obtain collective benefit that provides a good quality of life for everyone. Of course the fuzzy metric of 'good' introduces another point of contention into the discussion.
Demonstrably. Although I suggest that no bona fide system of socialism has ever come into existence - just the label.
To me, socialism is not in place unless the people have distributed control over the productive resources of the economy. Without that level of economic freedom, the criteria for socialism has not been satisfied.
But the military is a state sponsored economic activity that utilizes national resources for a collective purpose.
So the economic, political, and social activities within a country are more nuanced than a simple dichotomy between capitalism and socialism. Seems to me we should be focusing more attention on national goals rather than process.
Doesn't that kind of mean that politicians have been using process to prevent the country from pursuing national goals?
I believe religion can provide examples of socialism on a global scale. Of course religion also provides examples that cannot be considered socialist. But examples of one does not refute the examples of the other.
The need for control is how any system can be subverted by rational self interest. The regulating influence of rational self interest is to obtain self benefit. Consider that the original socialist objective to incite revolution was about removing control; allowing an economy to operate naturally while removing the regulating influence of rational self interest.
Socialism (as its name suggests) depends upon a society. But so does any collective activity; that is not an uniquely socialist quality. Maintaining a coherent society requires governance and also requires subsuming individuality with a need for conformity. That, too, is not an uniquely socialist quality.
One counter argument against socialism is loss of individual freedoms. But that argument applies equally well to any collective activity or society; that is not an uniquely socialist quality.
Keep in mind that the ability to go where one wants, say what one wants, or do what one wants is not freedom as it relates to a society. A society (particularly one that enjoys liberty) provides freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from crime, freedom from conflict (as examples) on a collective scale. Only a society can provide those collective freedoms. When individual freedoms to go, do, or say what one wants weaken society then the collective freedoms from fear, want, crime, or conflict will also be weakened.
So individualism has consequent loss of freedoms just as collectivism has consequent loss of freedoms. IMO the balance between those loss of freedoms depends upon how well rational self interest regulates itself.
Been very busy my friend. New year is starting off with a pretty good bang as business goes. And enjoying the fact that my individual effort benefits both my family and my community. (-:
Really missed our conversations so I am back poking my nose into other people's business and throwing in my two cents. That I think is a fair definition of blogging, yes? (-: And I love it!
How bout you? Hope you have been well.
Not sure if that is what Nerm meant, but it is certainly what those who rail against Capitalism mean in my experience. And of course that's the beauty of it. In societies that value the sovereignty and liberty of the individual, every individual has the potential to be a capitalist. But the individual needs to choose that path and the collective, or other individuals, need to refrain from suppressing it. That is tough to maintain/enforce (and I dislike the word "enforce" in this context) because there are so many variables. Some efforts to enforce it are actually quite counterproductive because the end result ramifications of such solutions are sometimes not thoroughly thought out.
In a collectivist society the individual and their concerns would take a back seat to those of certain groups, associations, or even the State, unless none of those groups, associations or the State existed. In fact, has a single hive, clan, tribe, pack, civilization, ever existed in the natural history of animals on this planet, including the human animal? The questions I'd ask are,
1. Does the collectivist structure sound like anything that remotely aligns with what we know about human beings, our evolution and nature?
2. Is the tendency toward hierarchy (even dominance hierarchy) anything that you think we or other animals on this planet will ever shed in the evolutionary process?
If we can answer yes to the above, then why wouldn't that same evolution that would make the concepts of collectivism and socialism work to the benefit of all, also allow Laissez Faire Capitalism to work as well? I probably muddled the shit out of that discussion, but I'd like to hear your input.
Could not have stated that any better myself!
I've been well. Good to see you as well my friend! Sorry to hear about the demise of G+. I really enjoyed our time there. Although, the various "cliques" there were pretty telling with respect to group-think and identity politics that will make any attempt at true societal collectivism for the benefit of all VERY difficult to say the least.
I disagree my friend, and here is why. In a Capitalist economy the first motivating factor in the creation of a business is to fill a collective need. Without that there is no market in which the Capitalist can compete. Now certainly a sharp Capitalist can create a market for his wares as long as the collective finds a desire or need for those wares going forward. In building a business the Capitalist employs the majority of the collective (at least in this country), who wish to sell their specific abilities/talents to the highest bidder. Hence creating quite the cooperative venture. Those with a rational self interest in this game understand that they need the free participation of the collective consumer and the chosen collective efforts of the employees for their common venture to remain successful, and the end result is a win-win for all involved (i.e. a truly collective benefit). Whether or not the Capitalist's primary motivation later becomes his own benefit (which by the way is the motivation for almost ANY human endeavor) the end result is better for the collective than any other socio-economic system with which human-kind has yet to experiment. History supports this conclusion, despite the many faults in the system.
That is not to say the whole economic experiment can't be corrupted. And it most certainly has been, but I submit that it has been corrupted by allowing special interests and the foxes guarding the hen house (politicians) to distort markets and play favorites for political gain. An unholy alliance between Government and the businesses or groups they favor in the economic realm, which is standard operating procedure now whether the politicians are red or blue. Perhaps some day seeing to a separation between the economy and the State, might be as important as maintaining the separation between the Church and the State.
Little thought experiment. Where do you think self-interest comes from and how would you suggest we repress it, if the pursuit of individual benefit in such a bane of society?
sorry. ... IS such a bane..., not ...IN such a bane...
Eyes going buggy...
A very good point indeed my friend. The success (i.e. benefits to ALL participants) of any political and/or economic systems based on the concepts of individualism or collectivism all come down to the same question, how well can innate human self interest regulate itself?
But isn't that also the underlying concept for laissez faire Capitalism? Sure it's not ALL of the people but it is certainly many millions of people with distributed control over such resources associated with their business (large or small). In many small businesses, particularly in the service sectors, the owners and the employees who agree to work with them ARE the "productive resources". Certainly that is the underlying concept for Libertarian Socialism as well.
Unless you mean that "the People" = "the State". And if that is what you mean, haven't we already seen that tried and failed? And how has that ever truly been "distributed control"?
Well, that's where I disagree. The collective need only provides the means to satisfy the motivation. If rational self interest were motivated to meet a collective need then more businesses would be non-profit. In fact profit motivation can become a barrier for meeting collective need. We see that in our health care system.
Isn't rational self interest to pursue self benefit a corrupting influence by its nature?
My position is that rational self interest regulates itself to obtain self benefit. That leads to a conclusion that a rational collective interest to obtain collective benefit would also need some sort of regulation.
To me it seems that the type benefit that is obtained depends upon how interests and motivations are regulated. That alone does not remove corruption so a mechanism to prevent the regulators from obtaining self benefit from their position as a regulating influence would also be required.
The idea of establishing a socialist state through revolution was to repress rational self interest by eliminating individual ownership. But as we have seen ownership isn't a necessity to pursue rational self interest. Free trade does not depend upon owning the means of production. Middle men, such as insurance companies, do not need to own the means of production. Some claim that capital or stored wealth represent the means of production but banks do not need to own the capital they lend; fractional lending creates the money that is loaned.
OK - but as long as the need is met, is it not a positive collective benefit? A benefit that might not have been met unless there was someone willing to work to meet it and to be rewarded for doing so?
I see. So how willing would you be to work for the collective benefit for free or for very little benefit to yourself or your family? Why do you go to work? Why did you go to school? My answer to those questions; because I want to do my part, I want to be responsible for my contribution to the collective, and because I'd like to support my family so that nobody else needs to toil for all those things in my stead. And maybe if I'm really good at it and most of the rest of society also looks at it that way, then more can have the resources to give back to those few in our communities who simply cannot for one reason or another put in that kind of effort.
THAT is what I mean by the "rational" in "rational self-interest". And no, I most certainly do not believe that is a "corrupting influence". I believe it is the only sort of influence that can render the results that are in the best interest of the diverse collective when it comes to human nature and social interaction. And it is the only temperament that will ever make a truly libertarian socialist society of human beings a viable option.
I was a Federal worker. I could have (and was offered) double my salary several times under rather embarrassing circumstances. Capitalist would call me a chump. Had a helluva time trying to find employment after Al Gore and Newt Gingrich teamed up to close the agency I worked for.
You see I have regulated my rational self interest to pursue a common good. My answer to your question is 'been there, done that'.
So as such, you worked for very little benefit for you and your family? Is that what you are saying? I'm not clear on why you were offered twice your salary before, but then after your agency was closed down, those sorts of offers disappeared. But that is really not my business and I applaud you for your "been there, done that" stance. We need more people like you who take such a stance.
But to think that nobody who calls themselves a Capitalist in the private sector can say that, or that the ultimate expression of looking out for the interests of the collective is to be a Government worker, is simply folly my friend. I have a great many friends and work with a great many people in many different agencies in the Government sector and I can tell you without a doubt, that looking out for the collective is not the primary motivation of many in Government employ. My friends in many of those agencies have some stories to tell. On the other hand, I also know many, like you my friend, who truly mean it.
Nice deflection. You still did not answer the question yes or no.
Theoretically. But you know as well as I that starting and then growing a business to viability is usually a tough gig. It does not happen without capital and most people do not have the means to secure the capital required to accomplish this.
I do not believe there is a single model for a collectivist society. Further, I do not think describing socialism as necessarily collectivist is correct. The objective of socialism is economic empowerment of everyone (not just those with access to capital). Collectivism focuses more on the society as a whole. The USA society can be easily argued to be collectivist and we are certainly not operating with a socialist economic model.
Not to my knowledge.
In some theories of socialism you will find a network of 'hives'. Basically, imagine a distant future wherein metropolitan areas operate as semi-autonomous societies which collectively (using the word) own and control their productive resources. The businesses within these areas compete for productive resources as well as compete in a free market (within the metropolitan area and outside). Each metro area would consist of highly engaged, active citizens who not only are all owners of their place of 'employment' but actively participate in business, economic and political decisions. A metro area, for example, will make choices on how to use their resources based on their collective views. If they do not want a dump they need to make the hard choices to address their trash problems some other way. The collective (if you will) makes these calls - not individual businesses.
In most workplace democracy approaches (a common feature in socialist theories) the structure is a hierarchic network of councils consisting of democratically elected members. Various methods exist, but imagine each council as the management team for a functional area of the business. Councils have sub-councils too. Under such an arrangement the hierarchic structure still has a presence, but the CEO (if you will) would be elected (directly or indirectly by the workers). A very different dynamic - if a manager (or management team) is not doing its job they can be replaced by the workers (who are all owners). In short, the top-down management dynamic still exists in effect but not in structure.
What blows the mind of most who do not study this stuff is that most socialist theories are based on a free market. Competition is a critical element of the decision making process - the distributed control of economic resources. The biggest difference between socialism (disregarding all the things mislabeled as socialism) and capitalism is the realistic ability for everyone to have owner influence over their economy - for everyone to engage in running their own business.
Laissez faire Capitalism does not address the problem of only those with access to capital have economic control.
Nothing stops a business from operating as a workplace democracy under existing capitalistic systems. Indeed many of the socialists promote this because it starts the process of societal evolution to prepare people to be able to take on a much more expansive role in society — without which socialism could never happen.
No, absolutely not. The state is equivalent to minority control. This is typically what we see in the past where nations claim to be 'socialist'. They are really state-capitalist. The state expropriates private property (productive resources) from the capitalists and then operates as its own capitalist. In the end, the productive resources of the society are controlled by a minority rather than being controlled by the people. Unless the people have distributed economic control, you do not really have socialism (regardless of the labels people use).
To wit, socialism has never existed. If societies ever evolve to the point where socialism could actually emerge, it will be at a time that is well beyond our life times. It is possible IMO but you and I will never see it.
Yes, but collective benefit alone doesn't make the activity socialist. Redistributing wealth by taxing the rich would also provide a collective benefit. Does that make wealth redistribution capitalist or socialist?
According to a rigorous use of definitions, a corporation that employs labor for wages would be capitalist. However, if that same corporation also distributed stock shares to the workforce (as with an ESOP company) then it would be socialist. Why that confusion?
Capitalism or socialism are macroeconomic systems for regulating a national (or international) economy. The internal workings of corporations and businesses are microeconomic entities. So microeconomic entities whose operation conforms to the definition of capitalism can operate within a socialist economy. But that does not mean those businesses are capitalist or that the macroeconomic system is capitalist.
Most businesses, by their nature, are collectives comprised of a workforce acting to produce something that will generate revenue. On a macroeconomic scale, rational self interest describes the motivations for business entities, each being a collective workforce. In a capitalist system the rational self interest of businesses (within a collective economy) is to obtain capital in excess of what the business expends. The internal microeconomic operation of businesses are regulated to ensure obtaining capital in excess of expenditures. The amount of excess capital generated is how a capitalist economy measures its health on a macroeconomic scale and is used to direct government policy and regulation of the economy to enhance generation of capital in excess of expenditures.
In a socialist system the rational self self interest of businesses (within a collective economy) is to distribute generated excess capital to the workforce. The economic health of a socialist system utilizes quality of life measures for the population and those measures also direct government policy and regulation of the economy to enhance quality of life. Socialism does not preclude the microeconomic operation of businesses being exactly the same as with capitalism. However, the macroeconomic self interest of businesses (within the collective economy) are regulated to fulfill a different economic objective.
The United States is a hybrid or mixed economy that utilizes both capitalist economic measures and socialist economic measures to direct government policy and regulation. So the macroeconomic self interest of businesses are regulated to balance both capitalist and socialist objectives.
Certainly a good point, although in most models there is clearly more emphasis on socio-economic benefits to the collective as opposed to the individual. Some models, particularly those of Libertarian Socialism will preserve the importance of the individual to achieve what is best for the collective. Recognizing as you and I have that for such a society (any sort of society in my mind) to work long term individuals must be willing to take on the responsibility and be accountable for their part in it, be willing to cooperate and coordinate at a much higher level than we have seen humans capable of thus far, and actually want to be an active Owner in the process rather than leaving it to someone else. Pardon me for saying so but based on the current state of social/political animus, it seems to me there is a shitload of social evolution that needs to take place for this to work.
Indeed, and as you say, the difference is in how participation in those markets takes place. Individuals must be willing to accept much more responsibility and an active role in the ownership/control of the businesses that compete for the necessary resources.
In talking about the difficulty of making it in a Capitalist's world you said:
And that's the big elephant in the room that most don't touch on in these discussions ain't it? Capital will be needed in ANY case, so the first order of business will have to be what to get this Socialist society started? It will need to be a complete overthrow of the current banking and monetary structures so that we can start all over again with individual ownership of resources and production, including financial and capital resources. Revolution! My question is, who will be left to enjoy the spoils of victory and what sort of energy will they have left over to take on their individual responsibilities of ownership for the greater glory of the collective?
The idea is typically that what is good for society is good for the individuals within the society. The focus is not nationalistic or fascist where the goal truly is the betterment of the nation state (even if that comes at the expense of the people). Quite the opposite.
Modern theories of socialism are quite concerned about how capital is made available for the growth of the economy.
That is very unlikely. The times for revolution are largely past. And even if we were still in a stage where revolution was possible, that is not the way to go. If socialism is to work it will come about as a product of evolution - not revolution.
If it were voluntary, I'd say capitalist, or perhaps simply philanthropic. If forced by the State, I'd say it is what many incorrectly think is socialist, or simply Robin-Hoodery. Although it sure sounds like, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", in any case. (-:
That is an interesting observation. Do you think that what appears to be a rising wave of ESOPs is the first step in cultivating a more work-force owned economy? Certainly I have seen the numbers that indicate employee ownership positively impacts employee engagement and employee productivity, and helps achieve long term growth. I have seen some ESOPs succeed and a some others fail miserably. To my knowledge though, in most ESOP models there is still a primary business Owner (or Owners) who take(s) all of the financial risks and makes most of the primary decisions. When such a business fails, just like any other business that employs people, the Owner loses everything while the employees merely lose their jobs. That is one thing that individuals in a truly socialist collective labor-owned economy better think about if truly distributed ownership is the goal. If that business fails they all lose everything.
Sounds great, especially if one truly believes that the workforce gets none of the profits in the current system. Solves the problem of ALL the excess capital simply being distributed to the CEO and other officers, right? You realize that excess capital is taxed at 35% (well 21% flat rate, no loop-holes now under 2018 Code) and is also the mechanism by which business growth and more employment is achieved. Does that mechanism then come into question in the socialist model?
Despite my skepticism about how the socialist, more equitably distributed system might work, I do appreciate your thoughts on the current measure of what constitutes a strong/healthy economy, and then how policy is directed according to those measures, especially for those of us who hold little or limited investments in the stock market. When major stock market corrections have a much more disastrous effect on those who hold no stock at all, and barely impact the lives of those who own large swaths of such stock or those who caused the "correction", something ain't right. It is a game being played by those in political power and their friends with monetary power and it has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism, but rather with forces that will cause both to fail and keep them in power.
Hope you are right brother! We might just evolve X-men-like physical superpowers before we evolve socially. Seems like we have been de-evolving socially (or at least politically) in the last decade or so.
Unfortunately I believe you are correct.
Well, we shall find out exactly how many Americans embrace socialism. You better hope that all those grads living with mom & dad get out and vote.
Redistribution of wealth by obtaining political power is not socialism. Achieving that objective only requires obtaining sufficient political power to allow autocratic control over society. Basically whoever controls the biggest mob wins; the biggest mob gets to decide who is rich and who would lose. Twisting the definitions of capitalism and socialism to distract the mob won't be effective either. Eventually the mob cannot be controlled by any means and they will sharpen the guillotine. And the guillotine will not limit its appetite to the rich; intellectuals, institutional leaders, celebrities, journalists, judges and attorneys will become victims as well. Of course today's society is more civilized so it is doubtful that any would actually lose their head. However, they will no longer have the ability to exert any control over the mob.
Guaranteed employment at a living wage (however that is measured) would be consistent with democratic socialism. The degree of actual socialism would depend upon the obstacles to achieving the goal. As an example, the power grid could be nationalized and converted to alternative energy. That would create jobs, allow greater control over wages, and provide a sustainable revenue stream. Electricity would be a government provided service just as water and sewers are government provided services. That government owned national utility could either be managed directly by the government or managed by private sector contractors. If the definition of socialism depends upon ownership, then that approach would be socialist. However, if achieving the stated goal by nationalizing the power grid involves a hybrid of both government and private sector ownership then it would not be socialist or capitalist.
like it or not, Mr. Socialist, many more americans will make you burn this country down first.
our position is unmovable.
cheers
I suspect the super, super majority of Americans do not understand what Democratic Socialism is.
It is called control...
Democratic socialism is a form of socialism. It is a category containing specific variants (specific proposals).
Sounds like Venezuela. They were sold 'socialism' and got authoritarian redistribution of wealth, expropriation, command-economy and -in effect- an incompetent uber lord. The people of Venezuela became even more dependent upon the government - far less economic freedom than they had. That is the opposite of socialism.
And in the process, the incompetent government bankrupted a nation that by all rights should be extremely well off.
Sounds like all the societies in history where the "socialist experiment" (for lack of a better phrase) has been tried. Pure Marxist socialism has never really existed, or lasted, and there has to be a reason for that. It looks good on paper, but does not appear to be a practical fit for human interaction. Humans appear to be innately individualistic, craving freedom and liberty from the force of others, while at the same time prone to dominance hierarchy. It's an odd mix of innate tendencies. Pure collectivism appears to run counter to human nature and must be forced like a square peg into a round hole. And that appears to be evidenced by the history of what happens when societies like Venezuela have tried "socialism".
Pure Marxist socialism has never really existed, or lasted, and there has to be a reason for that. It looks good on paper, but does not appear to be a practical fit for human interaction.
Of course the same is true for Pure Capitalism (AKA "Laissez Faire Capitalism). It's never lasted.
(Pure capitalism-- "Laissez Faire Capitalism" AKA "Crony Capitalism" means absolutely no government regulation-- zero! When that happens a very few unscrupulous people seize power and form monopolies that no longer allow competition.
A few corrupt corporations control the economy and stamp out all competition. Ironically, there is no free enterprise, and "Natural Market Forces" no longer control the economy. There is no competition....no one else can start a business and compete-- they won't allow it.
Marx lived in a time where revolution was both commonplace and effective. So in that regard, people like Lenin (where Marx was long dead before his rise to power) might be oddly justified in their thinking of making 'socialism' work through force. But one key thing that Lenin disregarded is the need for a mature industrial nation where the workers were all competent, the infrastructure for meeting the needs of society was in place and the balance in economic power between the bourgeois and the proletariat was at the point of revolution.
None of that was in place in Russia. The revolution was against the monarch, not the capitalists. There were no capitalists (per se) and Russia was nowhere near being considered an industrial nation. Thus Lenin quickly moved to authoritarian rule and tried to force build 'socialism'. I see no way he could have ever succeeded, but given his life soon ended and monster Stalin gained control the Lenin initiative was killed. The USSR under Stalin entirely ignored any attempts to empower the workforce and instead engaged in campaigns of brutally murdering political opponents and exploiting the crap out of the people.
But because they continued to call themselves 'socialist' and 'communist' people think that the USSR is the exemplar for these concepts.
I don't think that is an accurate analysis. The people of Venezuela were sold autocratic totalitarianism using misinformation about socialism. The people of Venezuela were influenced by political arguments concerning process (or method) rather than arguments about national goals.
Redistribution of wealth is an appeal to individual rational self interest for the purpose of obtaining self benefit. That does not align with any non-political definition of socialism.
That is the analysis I stated.
I fully agree.
You lost me at ... "Laissez Faire Capitalism" AKA "Crony Capitalism". Those are most definitely not the same. First, Laissez Faire does not mean, " absolutely no government regulation-- zero! " The origin of the term is actually quite easy to follow.
Crony Capitalism clearly results from too much Government interference and/or collusion (the "seizing power", to use your term) and the inevitable favoritism and market distortions that follow. And you're right, Laissez-faire may not last, but not for the reasons that you think. But so far the attempts to keep it alive have raised billions of people around the globe out of abject poverty, even in the wake of failed attempts at what some would label "socialism". Why this is not clear to most who study history is beyond me.
It is not a perfect system, I will agree. But it, combined with a Republican form of democracy, is one experiment that has worked better any other in history in terms of a better life for all who participate. If we can keep our political systems from interfering and influencing our pursuits Laissez Faire Capitalism is not all that different from Marxist Socialism in terms of the freedom of individuals to cooperate voluntarily and collectively for the benefit of themselves and their community.
Agreed. But then what historically IS an exemplar for the concepts of "socialism" or "communism"? Certainly one could say that the USSR was an exemplar for what happens when humans try to force such concepts into action, clearly not understanding the underlying concepts.
Kinda reminds me of the scene in The Matrix where Agent Smith explains to a captured Morpheus that thousands of their previous iterations of the Matrix failed because they were too perfect. The human brain could not accept the concept of a life without suffering. Perhaps we just aren't built for Utopia, so we need to cope with the best balance we can achieve between individual and collective interests.
There is no exemplar. No nation on the planet has evolved an economic system were economic control was distributed among the people.
Sure was. The USSR, for example, was the initial examplar for a command-economy. A command-economy bars the people from economic decisions.
Personally, I think our species has some more societal evolving to do before socialism (the concept) has even a chance of evolving at the national level. If the people are not oriented to the level of responsibility it requires, on board with the cooperation that is required and (importantly) desire this level of control, then socialism will never emerge. IMO.
Agreed. I've taken the liberty of marking up your comment ever so slightly as I believe that once all individuals can accept the responsibility and cooperation required and actually desire the level of self-control (not societal control) to maintain it, then it might work. But then again, under those conditions, so could Capitalism. The question is, can we ALL evolve the necessary individual temperaments required to truly benefit the full collective and yet still maintain individual liberty? At this point, hate to be a pessimist, but I don't see how.
If you have a system wherein everyone could, in effect, be a capitalist (have economic control) then you would find your capitalistic system meeting the fundamental defining characteristic of socialism.
This really is a question of minority control over the productive resources or shared, distributed control over same. Who gets to influence the economy? Who gets to decide how to use societal resources?
So are we assuming then in this Socialist society that everyone is equally qualified to exercise their ownership privileges and make macroeconomic decisions, or decisions on how to best utilize finite resources? Will everyone be an expert in every field? I am assuming there will still be elected representatives and committees of those most qualified to make the best decisions. So there will still be those who disagree with such decisions, perhaps even as many as 49% chanting things like NMP. So how is that any different than what we have today, including a smaller group with the control and power they claim they derived from the mandate of the people?
Specialists are always needed to do the deep analysis and put forth summary issues for debate. The people in general would be directly involved in matters that are similar to those of a referendum. There would be quite a few 'referendums' (by any name) compared to our current system. For example, are we in favor of creating a wind farm at location X?
The assumption of representative democracy is good. Some models advocate direct democracy which, of course, is insane.
Distribution. Take my example above of a wind farm. Rather than have elected officials making the big decisions for the people, the big decisions (within the community of course) would be made by the people. Instead of crony-capitalist forces deciding and making legal the development of a wind farm at location X, the people would weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves. That logically does not extend to national matters such as military decisions but the people would be far more invested, engaged and informed. That is the key reason why I routinely observe that no nation is really ready for socialism and likely will not be during our lifetimes (if ever). We have much societal learning to do and our culture needs to evolve to one of cooperative responsibility rather than (apathetic) trust in leaders.
Sounds like a synopsis of all the reading I've done on the history of our country and the concerns of our founders as they considered history and pondered the various aspects of the Constitution.
Thanks for the discussion my friend!
Likewise freewill. Thanks for helping demonstrate thoughtful discourse.
Once the deplorables learn that fire stations and public libraries are forms of socialism, they’ll start railing against them too. Well, they’re probably already railing at public libraries, because the have books and stuff.
No, they are not. Every collective action is not "socialism" unless you define every government in history as socialist.
How about paying farmers to not grow crops?
No, they are not.
So who pays for the public libraries? Are they a private business?
Or are people forced to pay taxes which support them?
This is the bottom line. And this is what any sane discussion about socialism, capitalism or any other ism's one could ponder.
First big TEA Party Rally in Washington D.C.: Elderly lady with tea bags swinging from her broad brimmed straw hat. Her comment---"I want the government out of my Medicare."
Well. There it is. There you have it.
Could America support the military like the Girl Scouts by selling cookies and taking donations?
Maybe socialism is simply getting more bang for your tax buck. Then again, as always, it depends on who divvies out the money, right?