Socialists in the news (in the U.S.)

[theprestige]

Nationalizing production, curtailing private enterprise, and redistributing wealth*.

*Not skimming some of the profits of private enterprise to fund infrastructure and social safety nets. Literally taking people's money because they're too rich and other people deserve it more.

---

In practice, it's more about what's your starting point for public policy. An International Socialist in a western nation may believe that private property and capitalist enterprise should be abolished, but settle for raising taxes on the rich and expanding the social safety net. Especially if they're trying to get elected to public office. Similarly, a laissez-faire capitalist may recognize that abolishing environmental regulations outright is a non-starter.

Most of us are somewhere in between the two extremes. I can understand how people who want to expand the social safety net, and accept raising taxes on the rich(er) is the way to do it, resent being tarred as "socialists".

On the other hand, it does often seem like there is an undercurrent of hating the rich and wanting to redistribute their wealth simply because they don't deserve it. So there's a bit of "if the shoe fits" going on there I think.

If you say, "this is a social problem that needs to be solved, and the resources to solve it are privately held, so we need to seize those resources if we're going to solve the problem", okay. Understandable. How much do we need to seize? Is there a way to incentivize voluntary participation instead of state coercion? Can we measure the degree of success and stop the seizures if we see it's not solving anything? Etc.

But when the justifications for the seizure start to sound more and more like "they don't deserve it anyway"... Well, you're a socialist. Sorry. But you are. Own it. Preach it. Be proud of it.

 

[Trebuchet]

OK, got it. Medical care for old people is NOT socialism, but medical care for younger people is.
Also, anything any Democrat wants to do is Socialism.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Nationalizing production, curtailing private enterprise, and redistributing wealth*.

*Not skimming some of the profits of private enterprise to fund infrastructure and social safety nets. Literally taking people's money because they're too rich and other people deserve it more.

---

In practice, it's more about what's your starting point for public policy. An International Socialist in a western nation may believe that private property and capitalist enterprise should be abolished, but settle for raising taxes on the rich and expanding the social safety net. Especially if they're trying to get elected to public office. Similarly, a laissez-faire capitalist may recognize that abolishing environmental regulations outright is a non-starter.

Most of us are somewhere in between the two extremes. I can understand how people who want to expand the social safety net, and accept raising taxes on the rich(er) is the way to do it, resent being tarred as "socialists".

On the other hand, it does often seem like there is an undercurrent of hating the rich and wanting to redistribute their wealth simply because they don't deserve it. So there's a bit of "if the shoe fits" going on there I think.

If you say, "this is a social problem that needs to be solved, and the resources to solve it are privately held, so we need to seize those resources if we're going to solve the problem", okay. Understandable. How much do we need to seize? Is there a way to incentivize voluntary participation instead of state coercion? Can we measure the degree of success and stop the seizures if we see it's not solving anything? Etc.

But when the justifications for the seizure start to sound more and more like "they don't deserve it anyway"... Well, you're a socialist. Sorry. But you are. Own it. Preach it. Be proud of it.

Hi from the United Soviet Socialist Republic of Australia!

As for the highlighted part, the problem is not so much taxing the rich because they deserve it. It is taxing the rich because they don't pay any ******* tax now at all, yet they get all the benefits and more of those who do pay their share. The intention is generally to remove any exceptions, any tax breaks, any loopholes, that allow the rich to avoid paying any tax at all. Instead, everyone gets to pay their fair share. Equality, yeah?

 

[RolandRat]

They would be more socialist-adjacent or socialist-associated rather than socialism in the strict sense. Universal health care can wander into socialism depending on the degree of control a country's government maintains over its healthcare industry.

Be careful not to confuse social programs with Socialism


The defining characteristic of Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Eg the NHS in the UK is run directly by the government itself, so in that aspect at least, there is an element of Socialism, but one off example hardly makes the UK a Socialist country.

Conversely Canada's healthcare system uses private companies to actually deliver healthcare. While it's sill a government funded social service the means of production are not owned or run by government so are not necessarily Socialized.

Thanks for the answers. According to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_Kingdom

The UK has a fair number of companies owned by the state. Is there a cut off?

Even the US seems to have some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States

 

[theprestige]

Hi from the United Soviet Socialist Republic of Australia!

As for the highlighted part, the problem is not so much taxing the rich because they deserve it. It is taxing the rich because they don't pay any ******* tax now at all, yet they get all the benefits and more of those who do pay their share. The intention is generally to remove any exceptions, any tax breaks, any loopholes, that allow the rich to avoid paying any tax at all. Instead, everyone gets to pay their fair share. Equality, yeah?

I means, if that's how it is in Australia, compulsory voting doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I means, if that's how it is in Australia, compulsory voting doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

It isn't. We have the same problem as you. We have loopholes as big as the Meteorite Crater in AZ.

Also, I chuckled about the compulsory voting comment. That was a "price of tea in China" joke, wasn't it!

 

[psionl0]

Some Socialism is actually very popular in the USA!

It didn't take long to muddy the waters!

If you are going to define "socialism" as anything that is not "laissez-faire capitalism" then you might as well define "capitalism" as any system where the government doesn't own and control 100% of everything.

 

[Boudicca90]

DSA types sometimes get coverage, but most of these people probably qualify as progressive liberals, in contrast to the more common conservative strain that make up the Democratic party, rather than true demsocs. AOC comes to mind.

While there are small pockets of true left political activity in this country, it rarely registers in mainstream media.

I'm a DSA member and we are a coalition of socialists, communists, and anarchists who realize we need to actually take action in our political system. I'm a left communist myself. We are definitely NOT liberals, and we make very clear we are a Marxist and anti-capitalist organization to any one who thinks we are.

Bernie and AOC's popularity I think was a double-edged sword in a way. Even though Bernie was not a DSA member, his views brought a lot of new members in, especially after he lost the primary. But Bernie and AOC's views are very much reformist (publicly anyway) and don't really represent what we are about. Yes, we want to make things more equitable in our currently capitalist system, but our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production.

 

[StillSleepy]

Thanks for the answers. According to this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_Kingdom



The UK has a fair number of companies owned by the state. Is there a cut off?



Even the US seems to have some:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States

There is not a hard value cutoff that I am aware of. The theoretical notion is that a democratically elected government serves as a proxy for the collective of the people, thus the more direct ownership said government has in an industry, the more socialized that industry can be said to be.

On the smaller, non-national scale for socialism like you seem to have been looking for, the best example I can think of would be cooperatives, such as the utility or agricultural supply cooperatives one can find just about anywhere in the USA, urban or rural.

 

[psionl0]

I'm a DSA member and we are a coalition of socialists, communists, and anarchists who realize we need to actually take action in our political system. I'm a left communist myself. We are definitely NOT liberals, and we make very clear we are a Marxist and anti-capitalist organization to any one who thinks we are.

Bernie and AOC's popularity I think was a double-edged sword in a way. Even though Bernie was not a DSA member, his views brought a lot of new members in, especially after he lost the primary. But Bernie and AOC's views are very much reformist (publicly anyway) and don't really represent what we are about. Yes, we want to make things more equitable in our currently capitalist system, but our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production.

What size Jack Boots do you wear?

 

[lomiller]

Thanks for the answers. According to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_Kingdom

The UK has a fair number of companies owned by the state. Is there a cut off?

Even the US seems to have some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States

It’s more of a spectrum than a sharp cut-off. It’s also important to keep in mind that government owned isn’t the only form of social ownership. Employee owned and customer owned are both forms of social ownership. Eg the Gas station I use is a customer owned cooperative, until recently so was the store where I buy my cycling and camping equipment. Both of these would be Socialist even though they compete directly in the marketplace just like any privately owned business.

Another example would be hospitals in Canada. While the medical providers and doctors themselves are work for or own independent businesses , most hospitals are not. There are a few privately owned hospitals but most are actually charitable foundations and while they receive substantial government funding they are not government owned but could still be called socially owned.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, we want to make things more equitable in our currently capitalist system, but our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production.

And there's your answer. Socialism is such a dirty word because we know there are people with this goal and this strategy.

We know that for some people, it isn't just about progressive taxation and expanding the social safety net. It isn't just about having government do some of the jobs that private enterprise isn't good at. For some people, it's about incremental gains and ratcheting the Overton window closer to the ultimate goal of common ownership and control of private property and the means of production.

If all you want is to make things more equitable in our currently capitalist system, that's a goal you share with the Democratic Socialists of America. But that's not all they want. So maybe calling what you want "socialism" and making fun of people who have a problem with "socialism" isn't really a good strategy. Unless you really do want socialism.

 

[Leftus]

I'm happy to be schooled about this Social care systems such as universal health care, social security don't fall under a socialist umbrella?

Universal health care would be closer to socialism than Medicare is. Especially if the private market is prohibited. Socialism is the government control of the means of production. Under Medicare, you are free to visit any doctor that accepts Medicare as a payment option.

Social Security is also not socialism. There is no public ownership over the means of production.

 

[catsmate]

OK, got it. Medical care for old people is NOT socialism, but medical care for younger people is.
Also, anything any Democrat wants to do is Socialism.

An excellent translation of US Republican doublethink.

 

[theprestige]

An excellent translation of US Republican doublethink.

This is what progressives really believe.

 

[Brainster]

This isn't an econ thread it's a politics thread.

 

[lomiller]

And there's your answer. Socialism is such a dirty word because we know there are people with this goal and this strategy.

This is more conspiracy theory than reality. The number of people that actively promoting full on socialism is dwarfed by the number promoting crazy Laissez Faire ideas that are at least as far outside the realm of mainstream economic theory. Even outside the US where there is are more real Socialist and fewer Laissez Faire Capitalist the latter tend to be greater in number in the developed world.

 

[Leftus]

This isn't an econ thread it's a politics thread.

Socialism is, at it's core, both.

 

[theprestige]

Socialism is a socio-economic policy implemented as a totalitarian political system. As Boudicca says, "our ultimate goal is common ownership and control of private property and the means of production."

 

[lomiller]

Socialism is, at it's core, both.

Anything and everything is political for those who want it to make it so. Politics may get layered over top in order to promote or supress Socialism or Laissez Faire capitalism. Support/opposition is frequently political in nature, but IMOt he concepts themselves are not political it's only the advocacy that gets political.