Is Capitalism Without a Socialist Backbone Impossible?

[HoverBoarder]

Socialism has long been the boogeyman of the Right. However, many have argued that all of the "Capitalist" Countries throughout history have all required a considerable amount of Socialist systems to be functional. Including very notably regulations, roads, schools, and police.

The question is:
1) How "Socialist" are the government programs that are set up to allow businesses to function? Specifically as it relates to Socialism, how critical are these services and programs in controlling the "means of production?"
2) Is a Capitalist society without these types of Government social services impossible (In other words, is pure Libertarianism a myth)?
3) If you agree that the social structures set up by all Governments are at least partially Socialist, than are pretty much all Societies just different levels of Socialism?


One of the main reasons why I think this issue is important is because the term "Socialist" is often used to shut down consideration or debate of serious issues. I think that generally it is a massively misunderstood concept. At the very least it is understood very differently from people across the world.

While I definitely understand the lethal consequences of some traditionally Socialist countries like Venezuela, I think the massive overuse of "Socialism" as a derogatory claim prevents a lot of meaningful debate on very real and important issues. I believe that there likely would be a lot more agreement on many issues where the term Socialist is brought up if there was more honest and open dialogue.

To start the Debate:
Here are 55 programs in the US defined as Socialist by the Friends of Bernie
And here is the rebuttal to it: Isn’t America Already Kind of Socialist?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I think, broadly speaking, that economics does take into account that there needs to always be a socialist input.

A government needs to repair economic market failure, whether it is due to natural, war or economic disasters or other externalities.

Then we have public good things like the army, courts and police to protect rights that allow for a laissez-faire economy.

and finally, a democracy (and its infrastructure cost) allows large groups of households to choose different alternative unified economic activities, such as welfare benefits, as though they were one big demand curve still making a free market choice.

Adam Smith, the "father of economics" understood all this in the 18th century.

"(Adam) Smith also recognized that there are circumstances where markets fail to coordinate economic activity. When markets fail, there may, indeed, be justification for some market regulation by government"
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-wave...vernment,some market regulation by government.

 

[theprestige]

Capitalism is fully compatible with (representative) democracy, taxation, and a social safety net. As a capitalist who believes that some amount of government regulation is necessary, I have no problem with any of this.

Diverting some of the wealth generated in a capitalist free market* to help those who can't help themselves, and to provide opportunities where they might not otherwise exist, is both pragmatic and humane.

But this is very different, in principle and in desired end goals, from redistributing wealth because you believe capitalism is immoral, and private wealth isn't real.

Basically it's a question of starting principles. I start from libertarian principles, and make exceptions for government as necessary to get to a viable society. Actual socialists start from totalitarian-collective principles, and make exceptions as needed to accommodate prevailing capitalist values. It's also a question of testability: A capitalist tells me, we need to have a vote on raising taxes to care for the poor in our community, great. Let's figure out a plan, figure out how to tell if it's working or not, figure out the cost, and give it a try. If it works, great. If not, repeal it and try something else. The socialist position is that if we keep raising taxes, sooner or later we'll get socialism, which is known to work and be utopic. No need to test it or repeal it, just immanentize it through tax policy.

 

[xjx388]

I think it's important to distinguish benefit/welfare programs from Socialism. I think the most Socialist thing in America is probably public education. The government basically owns the schools. Sure, there are private schools but, by and large, education is a government run entity in the k-12 space.

The police and the roads -infrastructure in general- almost has to be run by the government; I consider police and infrastructure to be essential government functions.

So I would start by not conflating Socialism with welfare/benefits and essential government functions. Let's define something that would be Socialist: The government buying up all the oil production/refineries and taking over the industry. Government owned gas stations, etc. Pemex is a good example of this.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's important to distinguish benefit/welfare programs from Socialism.

I do too. However, I no longer think it's necessary to hash out these differences every single time the subject comes up for discussion. We all know the topic. We all know the meanings and what we're talking about. I for one am sick and tired of what amounts to a fringe reset every. Single. Time.

If someone's still bogged down in semantic quibbles over basic concepts that have already been repeatedly established... I'm not sure we have much to say to each other. Just once I'd like them to join me further along in a conversation already in progress.

 

[xjx388]

I do too. However, I no longer think it's necessary to hash out these differences every single time the subject comes up for discussion. We all know the topic. We all know the meanings and what we're talking about. I for one am sick and tired of what amounts to a fringe reset every. Single. Time.

If someone's still bogged down in semantic quibbles over basic concepts that have already been repeatedly established... I'm not sure we have much to say to each other. Just once I'd like them to join me further along in a conversation already in progress.

I get you. I liked your bit about starting principles.

I wish we could just discuss proposals without having to decide if it’s Socialist or not. I’m not afraid to admit that not all that long ago, I got bogged down in that kind of thinking. Now, I’d like to get away from the labels we put on things and more into the nuts and bolts of a particular proposal and how it’s supposed to solve a problem.

Like dann’s “Capitalism spreads coronavirus” thread. His arguments are hyper-concerned with labeling things and not at all concerned with solving things.

 

[theprestige]

I get you. I liked your bit about starting principles.

I wish we could just discuss proposals without having to decide if it’s Socialist or not.

It often seems like around here, most of the complaints about socialism come from the progressives. Like, it's never you or me or one of the other usual suspects saying, "that's socialism!" It's always one or more of the progressives poisoning the well with sarcastic "socialism!" commentary. You and I could probably discuss the proposals, sure. But I get the impression some folks would rather we didn't.

 

[Brainster]

I don't know of a lot of capitalists who oppose socializing costs where it makes sense, for example in defense or road maintenance. There are a lot of things that government does well, and that really only the government can or should handle.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know of a lot of capitalists who oppose socializing costs where it makes sense, for example in defense or road maintenance. There are a lot of things that government does well, and that really only the government can or should handle.

Exactly. Not only that, but having a democratic government as arbiter and sole user of force is good for capitalism. It helps to secure private property, guarantee contract fulfillment, and hedge against the tragedy of the commons. But recognizing that commerce comes with trade-offs, and curbing the excesses of naked greed in order to promote collective prosperity, is a very different beast from anti-capitalist socialism.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think it's important to distinguish benefit/welfare programs from Socialism. I think the most Socialist thing in America is probably public education. The government basically owns the schools. Sure, there are private schools but, by and large, education is a government run entity in the k-12 space.

The police and the roads -infrastructure in general- almost has to be run by the government; I consider police and infrastructure to be essential government functions.

So I would start by not conflating Socialism with welfare/benefits and essential government functions. Let's define something that would be Socialist: The government buying up all the oil production/refineries and taking over the industry. Government owned gas stations, etc. Pemex is a good example of this.

Nope, it's the military. By far the biggest chunk of consolidated US tax revenue (i.e. socialistic community contribution) goes to paying for all things military (i.e. for the benefit of the society as a whole). And I rather doubt any patriotic Americans would prefer to pay for their own privately-owned and run armies to protect themselves. Who can afford a nuke carrier themselves these days besides, perhaps, Jeff Bezos.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Nope, it's the military. By far the biggest chunk of consolidated US tax revenue (i.e. socialistic community contribution) goes to paying for all things military (i.e. for the benefit of the society as a whole). And I rather doubt any patriotic Americans would prefer to pay for their own privately-owned and run armies to protect themselves. Who can afford a nuke carrier themselves these days besides, perhaps, Jeff Bezos.

Plus all of those private militaries (more specifically private Corporate militaries) would probably spend all of their time attacking each other.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Capitalism is fully compatible with (representative) democracy, taxation, and a social safety net. As a capitalist who believes that some amount of government regulation is necessary, I have no problem with any of this.

Diverting some of the wealth generated in a capitalist free market* to help those who can't help themselves, and to provide opportunities where they might not otherwise exist, is both pragmatic and humane.

But this is very different, in principle and in desired end goals, from redistributing wealth because you believe capitalism is immoral, and private wealth isn't real.

Basically it's a question of starting principles. I start from libertarian principles, and make exceptions for government as necessary to get to a viable society. Actual socialists start from totalitarian-collective principles, and make exceptions as needed to accommodate prevailing capitalist values. It's also a question of testability: A capitalist tells me, we need to have a vote on raising taxes to care for the poor in our community, great. Let's figure out a plan, figure out how to tell if it's working or not, figure out the cost, and give it a try. If it works, great. If not, repeal it and try something else. The socialist position is that if we keep raising taxes, sooner or later we'll get socialism, which is known to work and be utopic. No need to test it or repeal it, just immanentize it through tax policy.

I would definitely agree with that. Just because there is a social safety net does not automatically make it good. Case in point is the Seattle public funding of free heroin pipes and booty bumping kits for better highs without track marks for addicts.

My point in this thread is that sometimes Socialism is used to shut down on debate on issues that may not even have anything to do with Socialism, and sometimes people freak out on anything that is correctly Socialist even when it would be beneficial for Society and them personally.

Often times people are not having honest debates, and Socialism is often used as a scare tactics to prevent debate at all. There is a big narrative to keep the evils of Socialism out of America, but Socialism is already here. It is already everywhere, and a government may not even be feasible without it.

The debate I think we need to be having is not whether we will allow any Socialism, but how much is best for each society.

 

[theprestige]

Nope, it's the military. By far the biggest chunk of consolidated US tax revenue (i.e. socialistic community contribution) goes to paying for all things military

Nope. It's actually Social Security at ~$ 1trillion. Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with other mandatory spending on social safety net programs, comes to ~$2.7 trillion. Military spending only accounts for ~$676 billion. (All numbers circa 2019.)

Source.

 

[theprestige]

I would definitely agree with that. Just because there is a social safety net does not automatically make it good. Case in point is the Seattle public funding of free heroin pipes and booty bumping kits for better highs without track marks for addicts.

My point in this thread is that sometimes Socialism is used to shut down on debate on issues that may not even have anything to do with Socialism, and sometimes people freak out on anything that is correctly Socialist even when it would be beneficial for Society and them personally.

Often times people are not having honest debates, and Socialism is often used as a scare tactics to prevent debate at all. There is a big narrative to keep the evils of Socialism out of America, but Socialism is already here. It is already everywhere, and a government may not even be feasible without it.

The debate I think we need to be having is not whether we will allow any Socialism, but how much is best for each society.

Point taken. Counterpoint: The only person using scare tactics so far here is Norman Alexander, who is ostensibly pro-socialism.

 

[psionl0]

I prefer the term "government intervention". "Socialism" has too many emotional overtones and is too vague a term to accurately describe the role of government.

Governments provide a legal framework and infrastructure without which it would be very difficult for businesses to function. If there were no government then one would soon get set up - probably crime lord style.

 

[xjx388]

Nope, it's the military. By far the biggest chunk of consolidated US tax revenue (i.e. socialistic community contribution) goes to paying for all things military (i.e. for the benefit of the society as a whole). And I rather doubt any patriotic Americans would prefer to pay for their own privately-owned and run armies to protect themselves. Who can afford a nuke carrier themselves these days besides, perhaps, Jeff Bezos.

Military is the domain of the Government. Protecting the country is one of its core functions. That’s not Socialism.

Education may very well be in the public interest, but it doesn’t have to be owned and carried out by the government.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Point taken. Counterpoint: The only person using scare tactics so far here is Norman Alexander, who is ostensibly pro-socialism.

Fair point. I was definitely speaking more broadly though. In my city for example, we have been discussing new bike lanes. The bike lanes to some are definitely an example of Socialism, while the roads for cars are not.

Biden has been declared a massive Socialist. While it is true that he does support more socialist programs, and he resumed some food assistance that was ended by Trump, it certainly is not at the scare tactics levels being used to describe him.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Military is the domain of the Government. Protecting the country is one of its core functions. That’s not Socialism.

Military is in the public interest. They are not there to protect only those who paid tax. So that IS socialism.

Education may very well be in the public interest, but it doesn’t have to be owned and carried out by the government.

Same can be said of the military - it could conceivably be a private enterprise effort.

Most other countries see public education as a core function of government in advancing their societies, far more so than military spending. Even the US military spends big on education.

Devolving public education to capitalist enterprise gives you results like Betsy De Vos. The way they see it, the poor get less educated which makes them poorer, while the rich get more educated which makes them richer. That's good for her as a heartless capitalist. But as that skews upwards, there are fewer rich folks and more poor folks. Which leads to lords and serfdom...something the USA sort of abandoned some time ago.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I prefer the term "government intervention". "Socialism" has too many emotional overtones and is too vague a term to accurately describe the role of government.

Governments provide a legal framework and infrastructure without which it would be very difficult for businesses to function. If there were no government then one would soon get set up - probably crime lord style.

I still think that would just be another phrase for Socialism though. Governments provide far more than just laws and infrastructure, and there are enough similar social services provided across different societies to be a likely net benefit for businesses and the citizens of that Country.

As you noted, if there was no government, than one would be set up, even if it is just a warlord to start. Pure Libertarianism or Anarcism just leads to a warlord society. The key is not whether government intervention is necessary, but how much, and in what capacity.

 

[Darat]

I think it's important to distinguish benefit/welfare programs from Socialism. I think the most Socialist thing in America is probably public education. The government basically owns the schools. Sure, there are private schools but, by and large, education is a government run entity in the k-12 space.

The police and the roads -infrastructure in general- almost has to be run by the government; I consider police and infrastructure to be essential government functions.

So I would start by not conflating Socialism with welfare/benefits and essential government functions. Let's define something that would be Socialist: The government buying up all the oil production/refineries and taking over the industry. Government owned gas stations, etc. Pemex is a good example of this.

I would say it is your military.