Socialism

[Suddenly]

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.

Wealth is created when an asset is moved from a low end user to a high end user. A person that uses a hammer only so that he can use the claw end to clean his ears is a lower end user than the person who is building a house with it. So the builder gives the ear cleaner money in exchange for the hammer, the ear cleaner then buys a box of Q-tips and keeps the balance, and the builder builds a house and sells it. Wealth is created by this transaction as assets are being used optimally.

From a basic theory perspective, a free market is the optimal vehicle for assets to get from low end users to high end users through transactions driven by personal self-interest. The builder needs a hammer, and the ear cleaner is better off with the Q-tips and a few bucks. This, expanded out, is the free-market wet dream. Everyone gets value and everyone wins from nothing but voluntary transactions.

However, reality is not basic theory. When you take one part human nature, one part human stupidity, and blend it in the blender of the imperfect thing that is reality, the free market both develops blind spots and other weird problems.

The result is that in some situations a government does a better job of moving an asset from a low end user to a high end user, or can prevent a transaction that in the short term benefits both parties at the expense of the society as a whole. (which is where I think you were going with your wealth/prosperity argument.) Things like the present, where businesses that are too big to be allowed to fail are allowed to profit from massively risky behavior. Same with profitable activites that poison the air or water of other people. (ETA: externalization of costs and so on).

While the free market generally does a better job, human failings add up in a way where a government is needed to step in for the greater good. This is obvious as to things like national security, and even to building infrastructure (rural electricification, etc.) that makes extra free market transactions possible.


Unfortunately, those that notice that the government is not the best tool somehow come to the conclusion that it is never the best tool and equate anyone that says it is in some circumstances with those that say it always is. This is where we get the intended slur that Obama is a commie.

 

[dudalb]

Define socialism, please.

Agreed.
When people talk about how the government paying for roads and bridges is "socialism" they are flying the face of how the word is generally used.
I define Socialism as a system in which the Government has control over all the economy, and private industry is either out and out nationalised, or regulated to the point where businesses cannot make any decison of any importance.
I have seen nothing from Obama that indicates he is anywhere near this.
I don't think a Euro style SOcial democracy would ever work in the US. Certain aspects (universal Health care), yes,but not the whole shmeer.
For one things, Americans will not tolerate the typical Euro level of taxation, where even people of moderate incomes pay near what the top bracket in the US pays.

 

[mhaze]

Agreed.
When people talk about how the government paying for roads and bridges is "socialism" they are flying the face of how the word is generally used.
I define Socialism as a system in which the Government has control over all the economy, and private industry is either out and out nationalised, or regulated to the point where businesses cannot make any decison of any importance.
I have seen nothing from Obama that indicates he is anywhere near this.
I don't think a Euro style SOcial democracy would ever work in the US. Certain aspects (universal Health care), yes,but not the whole shmeer.
For one things, Americans will not tolerate the typical Euro level of taxation, where even people of moderate incomes pay near what the top bracket in the US pays.

Three practical issues come to mind:
1. Public school system is socialism; advocacy of vouchers and choice is a move away from it toward free market education. Hey, University of Phoenix is doing great!
2. The recent craziness in which our government now owns stock in the banks is a socialist move. Period.
3. Medicare/medicad are socialist programs, the expansion of them incrementally or to a universal botchup is a socialist agenda. The shrinking of such programs is a capitalist agenda. Obama thinks "health care is a Right". This alone makes him a socialist.

 

[Puppycow]

1. Public school system is socialism

I guess a whole lot of us are socialists, then.

Couple things I ran across that seem relevant to this thread:

John McCain, Socialist

Spreading the Wealth Around

 

[mhaze]

I guess a whole lot of us are socialists, then.

Couple things I ran across that seem relevant to this thread:

John McCain, Socialist

Spreading the Wealth Around

To understand supply side economics, one does not reference an article in John Podesta's Center for American Progress. These articles distort both the facts, and the statistical measures, to make a polemical point - here something like "Bush Bad! Bush Bad! Clinton Gooder!"

Just an economics textbook is way better. By the way, did you read the comments under that piece of spin? They pretty much tear it up.

Aspects of policy promoted by McCain are socialism. Less so than those of Obama.

 

[pgwenthold]

Oh this is just the attempt to go after Obama because of his "share the wealth" comment.

OTOH, I don't see what's wrong with that statement. What are the alternatives? Concentrate the wealth? We've been doing that recently. It hasn't worked so well. Besides, even the trickle-down folks base their system on the idea that the wealth will flow to others, so they sell it as "sharing the wealth," too.

Other options are not having any wealth to share. Not sure that is something we want, either.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The World Socialist Web Site comments today: “Socialism” intrudes on the 2008 elections

[...] Obama's denial of any connection to socialism is the truest statement he has made in the course of the campaign. He is, like McCain, a defender of the profit system and, if anything, the preferred candidate of Wall Street and finance capital. According to a report Wednesday in the Washington Post, some three quarters of the record $600 million raised by the Obama campaign has come from the wealthy and corporate interests.

It is remarkable that a presidential candidate should stand so brazenly in favor of maintaining the vastly unequal distribution of wealth in America—a country characterized by growing poverty, enormous unmet social needs, declining wages, and rising unemployment. It is equally noteworthy that Obama has sought to dispute the charge that he favors any significant redistribution of the wealth, as though that were a political sin.

Since it has been given such a prominent place in political discourse over the past week, it is incumbent on the actual proponents of socialism, whose voice is the World Socialist Web Site, to address the question.

All the campaign talk and media chatter about "socialism" obscures the most fundamental issue: Socialism is not merely a set of technical measures involving state intervention into the economy. All capitalist nations engage in this to one degree or another, depending on circumstances. State ownership does not in any sense define a society as socialist, when the state itself is an organ of class rule controlled by the financial aristocracy.

Socialism means the reorganization of economic life under the democratic control of the actual producers, the working people whose labor creates all wealth. It can come about only through the independent political mobilization of the working class, led by a revolutionary party, which establishes a new and far more democratic form of state, a workers' state, which exercises ownership and control over the means of production. Socialism cannot be engineered through backroom deals between Wall Street bankers and Washington politicians, or through the policies of any Democratic or Republican politician.

Some 160 years ago, Karl Marx wrote, "A specter is haunting Europe, the specter of communism." He was describing the mood of fear and trepidation in the European ruling classes on the eve of the great revolutionary wave of 1848, even though the number of conscious revolutionary socialists was still a relative handful. If the specter of socialism today haunts the American ruling class, despite decades in which socialism has been subjected to an unrelenting campaign of slander and vilification, it is likewise because the profit system faces a new period of revolutionary upheaval.

 

[mhaze]

The World Socialist Web Site comments today: “Socialism” intrudes on the 2008 elections

Thank you for and others for coming out of the closet.

Obama's quite socialistic. No more so than the rest of the radical fringe of the Democratic party.

 

[MattusMaximus]

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...

Good post, Mhaze. I agree. It's kind of like how people have lost sight of the original meaning of "conservative" and "liberal".

 

[DavidJames]

Thank you for and others for coming out of the closet.

Obama's quite socialistic. No more so than the rest of the radical fringe of the Democratic party.

You really didn't read the quote did you?

Obama's denial of any connection to socialism is the truest statement he has made in the course of the campaign. He is, like McCain, a defender of the profit system and, if anything, the preferred candidate of Wall Street and finance capital. According to a report Wednesday in the Washington Post, some three quarters of the record $600 million raised by the Obama campaign has come from the wealthy and corporate interests.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Three practical issues come to mind:
1. Public school system is socialism; advocacy of vouchers and choice is a move away from it toward free market education. Hey, University of Phoenix is doing great!

So how is using public tax money to fund private schools not promoting a weird form of socialism, specifically a version of private-corporate-welfare?

2. The recent craziness in which our government now owns stock in the banks is a socialist move. Period.

I think this is a bit of a grey area. How specifically are you defining "socialism"? You seem to be avoiding your own advice in favor of pushing anti-Obama sound bites.

3. Medicare/medicad are socialist programs, the expansion of them incrementally or to a universal botchup is a socialist agenda. The shrinking of such programs is a capitalist agenda. Obama thinks "health care is a Right". This alone makes him a socialist.

Gee whiz, and here I thought that simply made him a decent human being. Silly me

 

[Praktik]

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.

Actually it wouldn't, there's no mandate in Obama's plan. The health insurance industry will continue to make out like bandits.

A truly socialized health care plan would be more akin to Hillary's plans of the 90s and the recent primaries, which involved a mandate.

But even those ones didn't completely nationalize the insurance part of the equation.

They'd still be "mixed".

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen ANY serious proposal by a major candidate for socialized medecine in the states.

Keep in mind I'm a Canukistani - so I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to socialized medecine. No plan has even come close to being comparable to what we have here in Canada. Some have come "closer", but thats about it.

There's too much influence exercised by the billions going through the Lobbying Industry from big insurance and big pharma to ever really let that happen.

Interestingly, you'll find that Big Pharma has actually been behind some recent proposals that were claimed to be "socialist" regarding prescription drugs.

I can guarantee you that any *truly* socialist plan would not garner that support.

 

[mhaze]

You really didn't read the quote did you?

Oh, I read it...

Would you mind terribly if I suggested "World Socialist" wasn't an authoritative or credible source?

 

[Tony]

Socialism seeks equity.

This might be a matter for debate, but does it seek absolute equality or increased equality? The latter is desirable and necessary for a healthy country, the former is not.

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.

This doesn't sound very dissimilar from a corporation. Why is it desirable to have some industries cooperatively owned but not others?

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.

But it doesn't follow that those entire industries will be monopolized by cooperatively owned and democratically controlled entities. In otherwords, the existence of public healthcare and schools doesn't negate the private manifestations of those institutions. I thought socialism was the total control over industry and the outright criminalization or atleast official discouragement of privatization. I would say such programs are only partially-socialized.

Furthermore, I submit that things like schools, since they serve a public interest, need to be publicly controlled, at least in terms of their curriculum. I can imagine a situation where a private school, unhindered by public oversight, will teach all sorts of absurdities while neglecting critical aspects of education to appeal to a niche market. It's a disservice to the long-term health of the country if sizable parts of the population are unable to read or write.

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.

Thats what I thought. And no where have I seen Obama advocate policies or ideas to that effect.

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?

Maybe it was. I'll read that when I get the chance later.

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

Thats a big if though isnt it?

 

[DavidJames]

Oh, I read it...

Would you mind terribly if I suggested "World Socialist" wasn't an authoritative or credible source?

I wouldn't mind at all, but I'm sure you'll understand when I think a socialist organization would understand more about what a socialist is then Republicans when attempting to tar someone with the label.

 

[Tony]

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...

But yet, you use them as slurs anyway.

 

[moon1969]

No he is not. Obama is nothing like Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Hugo CHAVEZ, Robert Mugabe or Daniel Ortega. Bush seems to be a socialist just like Vladimir Putin because Bush and Putin seems to be best friends with the leader of China Hu Jintao.

 

[moon1969]

Or maybe the republicans should ask if Obama should be a capitalist like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or just like the Al-Saudi family in Saudi Arabia. Or the Emir of Kuwait. Obama is nothing like Muammar al-Gaddafi is.

 

[SisterSmile]

McCain compared Obama to European socialists as if somehow that's an insult?
In fact all West-European countries run by socialist governments are free market capitalist countries, the only "socialist" about them is their large welfare state.

I always thought that the US was over McCarthy but obviously these ideas still longer on. Communist = socialist = anti-christ...

How about the fact that America's big buddy in the "coalition of the willing" the UK is run by a party with socialist ideas, the Labour Party ? UK = socialist = anti-christ ?
Bush in a coalition with the anti-christ ?

Oversimplification and hypocrisy - and not to forget psychological warfare and scare tactics - these are key elements of McCain's campaign.

And that's says alot about the senator's political and ethical integrity - perhaps even more efficient than a smear campaign...

 

[Oliver]

I wouldn't mind at all, but I'm sure you'll understand when I think a socialist organization would understand more about what a socialist is then Republicans when attempting to tar someone with the label.

Teehee