Socialism

[Tony]

Is Obama a socialist? Are his policies socialist? He doesn't seem to be. AFAIK, he hasn't advocated policies of nationalization or collectivization of industries. Of course I know there is more to socialism than collectivization. I think this demogougery needs to be addressed. I'd like to have a philosophical discussion about socialism, what it is, and why people think Obama is a socialist.

 

[mhaze]

Is Obama a socialist? Are his policies socialist? He doesn't seem to be. AFAIK, he hasn't advocated policies of nationalization or collectivization of industries. Of course I know there is more to socialism than collectivization. I think this demogougery needs to be addressed. I'd like to have a philosophical discussion about socialism, what it is, and why people think Obama is a socialist.

Define socialism, please.

 

[Puppycow]

No. I'm no expert on real socialism, but as I understand it, the main feature of socialism is indeed the nationalization of industries and central planning of the economy.

Progessive taxation and welfare (in the broad definition), have long been official policies in the US, and the US is not considered to be a socialist country.

Adam Smith is considered to be the intellectual father of capitalism and modern economics and market theory. Here is what he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

 

[Tony]

Define socialism, please.

Thats what the discussion is about. I already gave a partial definition; policies of nationalization and collectivization. Traditionally, collectivization/nationalization is the most fundamental aspect of socialism. What do you think?

 

[Puppycow]

Socialism^WP

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

 

[halfempty]

My guess is Republicans think Obama is socialist because he wants to tax the wealthy and "redistribute" that money to the middle class in the form of tax breaks. As an Obama supporter, that sounds fine by me. Republicans like to throw around the word "socialism" and "socialist" because they're slurs in this country; they smack of liberal elites and, god forbid, the Europeans. I mean, is there anything worse? It reminds me of what Republicans said of John Kerry in 04: "He looks French"...as if his face was indicative of socialist leanings and why we shouldn't entrust the country to his leadership.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My guess is Republicans think Obama is socialist because he wants to tax the wealthy and "redistribute" that money to the middle class in the form of tax breaks. As an Obama supporter, that sounds fine by me. Republicans like to throw around the word "socialism" and "socialist" because they're slurs in this country; they smack of liberal elites and, god forbid, the Europeans. I mean, is there anything worse? It reminds me of what Republicans said of John Kerry in 04: "He looks French"...as if his face was indicative of socialist leanings and why we shouldn't entrust the country to his leadership.

Except outright distribution of wealth is no substitute for wealth creation. The only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect using resources to produce a product which improves life, or for which someone else is willing to pay. Wealth redistribution is at the very least, another step in the direction of socialism regardless of who the president is that enacts it.

Where capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks to establish equity by levelinbg the playing field. Freedom increases as prosperity increases, in a socialist system there can be neither.

As to whether socialism could be "anything worse"... look no further than Venezuela to see the "ugly" side of socialism

 

[Tony]

Except outright distribution of wealth is no substitute for wealth creation. The only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect using resources to produce a product which improves life, or for which someone else is willing to pay. Wealth redistribution is at the very least, another step in the direction of socialism regardless of who the president is that enacts it.

Where capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks to establish equity by levelinbg the playing field. Freedom increases as prosperity increases, in a socialist system there can be neither.

As to whether socialism could be "anything worse"... look no further than Venezuela to see the "ugly" side of socialism

I think we need to define wealth redistribution (WR) before we go much further. Is it WR to tax the public and use the money to pay for military programs of little or no use? Is it WR to tax people and use the money to pay for education? Is it WR to use taxes to keep an aristocratic class from developing and undermining democracy?

I'd also like to point out that wealth creation doesn't necessarily lead to prosperity either.

 

[Ratiocination]

From a capitalist's viewpoint, almost anything that is even slightly leaning towards the left is socialism.

 

[Tony]

From a capitalist's viewpoint, almost anything that is even slightly leaning towards the left is socialism.

Why?

 

[Malerin]

Except outright distribution of wealth is no substitute for wealth creation. The only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect using resources to produce a product which improves life, or for which someone else is willing to pay. Wealth redistribution is at the very least, another step in the direction of socialism regardless of who the president is that enacts it.

Where capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks to establish equity by levelinbg the playing field. Freedom increases as prosperity increases, in a socialist system there can be neither.

As to whether socialism could be "anything worse"... look no further than Venezuela to see the "ugly" side of socialism

Except Obama's "spread the wealth" comment related directly to progressive income taxation, which has been in place for almost a century. If that is "socialism", it hasn't stood in the way of us becoming the strongest economic power in the world.

 

[halfempty]

My knowledge of economics is slim, so I don't want to get mired in a deep debate on it (because I'll lose) but it seems to me that any form of taxation on the wealthy is viewed as socialist by certain segments of society (mainly the wealthy). I personally don't have a problem with Exxon-Mobile having to pay a windfall tax on their ridiculous profits to fund alternative energies. If that qualifies as socialism, then call me comrade.

I also want to echo what Tony wrote, that while granting tax breaks to the wealthiest and most "productive" (that's debatable; I guess I can't think of "wealthiest citizens" without images of Paris Hilton floating through my head) citizens can generate prosperity for the rest of us, it usually doesn't. Case in point: the past eight years. All those tax breaks for the wealthy and the economy's in a recession.

 

[Cleon]

Socialism has an actual definition.

The people calling Obama a "socialist," though, are not interested in that definition. They're interested only in calling up a bogeyman.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think we need to define wealth redistribution (WR) before we go much further. Is it WR to tax the public and use the money to pay for military programs of little or no use? Is it WR to tax people and use the money to pay for education? Is it WR to use taxes to keep an aristocratic class from developing and undermining democracy?

I admit some taxes programs are socialized... look no further than libraries and public schools... those are two often used biggies for justifying universal health care arguments...

I thought we were talking about taking money from one tax bracket and shuffling it to another? That levels the playing field but it hardly produces additional wealth when you deal with the net effect.

I'd also like to point out that wealth creation doesn't necessarily lead to prosperity either.

No... as far as I am aware it doesn't guarantee it, but it doesn't exist at all in a pure socialist state... and I am not talking about European socialism...

 

[Tony]

I admit some taxes programs are socialized...

What do you mean by "socialized"?

I thought we were talking about taking money from one tax bracket and shuffling it to another?

I was asking for a definition of wealth redistribution.

That levels the playing field but it hardly produces additional wealth when you deal with the net effect.

I think the real concern is, does it destroy wealth?

No... as far as I am aware it doesn't guarantee it, but it doesn't exist at all in a pure socialist state...

I agree. But I'm not trying to have a socialism/capitalism debate, but to discuss weather the policies of Obama qualify as some kind of unprecedented American manifestation of socialism.

 

[Malerin]

What do you mean by "socialized"?



I was asking for a definition of wealth redistribution.



I think the real concern is, does it destroy wealth?



I agree. But I'm not trying to have a socialism/capitalism debate, but to discuss weather the policies of Obama qualify as some kind of unprecedented American manifestation of socialism.

Obama's health care plan would be unprecedented socialism. At least in the case of S.S. and Medicare, people only recieve benefits if they pay into it for so many years. Obama's plan would cover everyone.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What do you mean by "socialized"?

Socialism seeks equity. It's purpose is by definition to place essential industries and social services into publicly and cooperatively owned & democratically controlled with a view toward equal opportunities and access for the entire population. Think about universal healthcare for example and what proponents allude to with spreading healthcare universally, or public libraries and schools which are cooperatively paid for using tax dollars.

The doctrine is based originally on the working class and is generally opposed to elements of capitalism that are based on private ownership and a free market economy. In other words, socialist policies advocate the nationalization of resources, services, et al.

I was asking for a definition of wealth redistribution.

and I gave it to you... perhaps my definition:
"I thought we were talking about taking money from one tax bracket and shuffling it to another"
was too simplistic? Do we need to go to wikipedia?

I think the real concern is, does it destroy wealth?

If the net effect is a static, then your wealth stagnates.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No. I'm no expert on real socialism, but as I understand it, the main feature of socialism is indeed the nationalization of industries and central planning of the economy.

Oh, you mean like what the Bush Administration and the Fed have been up to these last few weeks

It seems to me that if these moves on their part start to have tangible positive effects on the economy, then there will be plenty of people who'd welcome that kind of "socialism" in the future.

Just an observation on my part.

 

[Puppycow]

The 'Socialist' Scare (Ruth Marcus)

 

[mhaze]

Oh, you mean like what the Bush Administration and the Fed have been up to these last few weeks

It seems to me that if these moves on their part start to have tangible positive effects on the economy, then there will be plenty of people who'd welcome that kind of "socialism" in the future.

Just an observation on my part.

For some years, beginning after the Great Depression and lumbering towards today, America has been a mixed economy, with aspects of socialism and aspects of capitalism. The primary political parties of today do have a bend toward more of one and less of the other, respectively. Example: A true capitalist could not be comfortable in the Democratic party, and a true dictionary definition socialist could not be comfortable in the Republican party.

We have seen in the last few years, some drift of the Bush administration toward socialist policies, and more recently in the blundering about the economy, more, apparently bi partisian, socialist moves.

Certain socialist moves, such as "free medical care for all", "Free or subsidized college for all", are likely Very Bad Ideas here, although some might argue they work reasonably well in small cohesive European nation states.

As far as I am concerned personally, the words "socialist" and "Marxist" have specific (dictionary) meanings and should not be used as smears or slurs, particularly since most people, as indicated by the question of the OP, do not even know what they mean...