What's the deal with socialism?

[VanillaCone]

There seems to be a common belief among many Americans that capitalism is the American way, and socialism is the enemy of the American way. But in reality, America's economic system always has been based on a combination of capitalism and socialism. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says we should be aiming for pure capitalism, and few rational Americans actually want that. Without taxation and the redistribution of wealth for roads, bridges, schools, ports, hospitals, the Navy, the Army – in other words, socialism – America never would have become America.

So this whole debate over capitalism or socialism seems to me like a phony debate. The real debate is about whether rich people should have to pay more or less in taxes to help feed, shelter, heal and educate poor people. It's a valid debate, but I feel it has been ludicrously miscast as the apocalyptic battle of capitalism vs. socialism. It makes sense that many rich people would not want to pay more, either out of self-interest or a sincere belief that too many handouts keep poor people from going out into the world and making their own way.

What does not make sense is that poor and middle-class Americans rarely argue the merits of socialism. It would be just as valid as arguing the merits of capitalism, since our economic system is a hybrid of the two. Why is no one championing socialism in our heavily socialistic society? Our best friends in the world over in Europe are proudly socialistic, and we don't hold it against them. But we Americans don't like to see ourselves that way. Why?

It seems that the word “socialism” began to take on seriously negative connotations in the U.S. around the end of World War II. We did not stop practicing socialism; we just stopped calling it what it is. Was it because of the Nazis? The Russians? Why didn't our allies in Europe develop the same aversion to the word? Can someone please explain this to me?

 

[sackett]

"Socialism" is a vague term, somewhat benign in connotation in the old world, malign in the new. Time was when almost every European political party had "socialist" or "social" in its title. Time also was when "socialism equals communism!" was accepted without argument by many -- hell, most -- Americans.

"Socialism for the capitalists, capitalism for the consumers" is another formula I've heard. Kinda believe it has more merit than most political apothegms.

 

[VanillaCone]

"Socialism" is a vague term, somewhat benign in connotation in the old world, malign in the new. Time was when almost every European political party had "socialist" or "social" in its title. Time also was when "socialism equals communism!" was accepted without argument by many -- hell, most -- Americans.

"Socialism for the capitalists, capitalism for the consumers" is another formula I've heard. Kinda believe it has more merit than most political apothegms.

That is a pretty accurate reflection of what capitalists want, I think. I'm just wondering when and why socialism became an especially dirty word in the United States. Maybe it's like you said, we made some connection between socialism and communism that has stuck with us all these years?

 

[Armitage72]

Part of the problem may be a (possibly willful) misunderstanding of the origin of the word "Socialist" in the National Socialist German Workers' Party, combined with an ignorance of the actual definition of Socialism.

I remember a scene in the documentary about Republican reactions to the 2008 election, "Right America: Feeling Wronged".
A young man was wearing a hand-made tee shirt condemning Obama as a Socialist (misspelled) and the filmmaker asked him to define Socialism. He initially tried to look it up on his phone but was pressed to just explain it in his own words.
With considerable hesitation and "umm"s, he described it a "basically the policies of Hitler" and "midway between Communism and something else that I can't remember".

The scene is here.

 

[Rat]

"Socialism" is a vague term

This is, I think, the whole problem. Most dictionaries define it as the state controlling the means of production, which is not how most people think of it, at least over here.

 

[sackett]

Here's my barber-shop-quality analysis

This is, I think, the whole problem. Most dictionaries define it as the state controlling the means of production, which is not how most people think of it, at least over here.

Socialism is a continuum, from

1) complete state ownership of at least some industries, presumably large ones vital to the national economy, through

2) state majority ownership (i.e., state control but not outright possession), to

3) various degrees of regulation, to

4) finger-wagging, perhaps with some sort of sanctions, when the bosses get too frisky for anybody's good but their own.

Anything feebler than that, and you have plain old capitalism.

And I'm confident that any poly sci major could take all those propositions to pieces like so many cheap toys.

 

[MG1962]

That is a pretty accurate reflection of what capitalists want, I think. I'm just wondering when and why socialism became an especially dirty word in the United States. Maybe it's like you said, we made some connection between socialism and communism that has stuck with us all these years?

But remember the myth of individualism is very strong in American history. The concept of community driven co-operation is the antithesis of this attitude.

 

[casebro]

........Without taxation and the redistribution of wealth for roads, bridges, schools, ports, hospitals, ......

Minor problem- "Taxation" is what pays for your examples of things for the common good- infrastructure, defense, the rest of your examples.

"Redistribution of Wealth" is the socialistic practice of taking from the successful and giving that money to the poor.

I think most capitalists expect to pay reasonable taxes. It's redistribution that sticks in our craw.

 

[Beerina]

Minor problem- "Taxation" is what pays for your examples of things for the common good- infrastructure, defense, the rest of your examples.

"Redistribution of Wealth" is the socialistic practice of taking from the successful and giving that money to the poor.

I think most capitalists expect to pay reasonable taxes. It's redistribution that sticks in our craw.

And for the redistribution part, it's one thing to have a safety net to ameliorate the rough edges of capitalism, such as sudden job loss, and another thing to have an ever-increasing, if well-meaning, burden placed on the engine of capitalism, leading to an ever-downward spiral of weakening economy, until you end up with places like Greece (or Detroit proper) where an enormous chunk of the population is employed by the government, who must tax more to pay for it, leading to more business leaving, or just outright failing without going anywhere, as medium and smaller businesses must do.

We can see these proportionate burdens as a hundred different experiments across Europe and the rest of the world, and the lightening of said burdens in Asia, with commensurate explosions in wealth.


For this reason, I think it's intellectually dishonest to butter up socialism and talk of its successes, when you really mean the success of freedom-based capitalism to generate sufficient wealth to provide for its own safety net, and also to provide a powerful economy that rapidly moves technology and invention forward.

If you burden it too much, back down the other side of the progress hill you slide, towards the same pit as dictatorships and failed states and states with corruption where people go into government so they can be officials who get in the way of business to get paid to get back out of the way. Business doesn't care why its money is being seized, or it's activities blocked.

 

[RedPillNeo]

snip/// Time also was when "socialism equals communism!" was accepted without argument by many -- hell, most -- Americans.\\\.

^^This. Many who lived through the McCarthy era consider the words synonymous, and having a VERY negative, anti-American connotation, without necessarily knowing the first thing about economic and political systems. Later generations tend to share this understanding of the words without the McCarthy memories, leaving the contemporary meaning something like a vague pejorative or insult with no descriptive component.

 

[GlennB]

"Redistribution of Wealth" is the socialistic practice of taking from the successful and giving that money to the poor.

I think most capitalists expect to pay reasonable taxes. It's redistribution that sticks in our craw.

Is there any country where that doesn't happen in one sense or other?

In the UK, for example, there are income tax thresholds and the lowest allows you to earn £9k or so tax free. If you're in that bracket then you get 'free' roads, schools, armed forces and so on. Those earning above that level are paying for those things in proportion to their earnings above the threshold and, thus, subsidising the poorer.

Would you count that as "redistribution of wealth"? If so, then I'd bet the USA also "redistributes" wealth in similar ways. A thread of Foolmewunz's me alerted me to the phrase "dog-whistle word", and it seems to me that socialism is very much a dog-whistle word in the USA.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I get annoyed by lefties who, to counter righties, accept the redefinition of the term to mean anything not 100% free-market anarcho-capitalist, but append that we live in a mixed market so these "bits of socialism" are okay.

State action counter to the Free Market does not necessarily entail socialism. It could be fascism, state capitalism, social democracy, etc. This wordplay buys into rightie attempts to confuse these issues, as lefties are wont to do. Clinton advocated the Third Way in the 90s, so this has gone on for some time. It is an attempt to play into the golden mean fallacy, but is really just pointless word games to counter pointless word games.

 

[VanillaCone]

For this reason, I think it's intellectually dishonest to butter up socialism and talk of its successes, when you really mean the success of freedom-based capitalism to generate sufficient wealth to provide for its own safety net, and also to provide a powerful economy that rapidly moves technology and invention forward.

So are you saying that you are willing and able to amass your own private security force to protect America's interests (or at least your own) against thieves and invaders? Like, without government use of anyone else's redistributed wealth? Because the way we do it currently, isn't that a socialism success story?

ETA: That sounded overly troll-ish. I'm really just trying to understand what people think of and don't think of as socialism.

 

[VanillaCone]

I get annoyed by lefties who, to counter righties, accept the redefinition of the term to mean anything not 100% free-market anarcho-capitalist, but append that we live in a mixed market so these "bits of socialism" are okay.

State action counter to the Free Market does not necessarily entail socialism. It could be fascism, state capitalism, social democracy, etc. This wordplay buys into rightie attempts to confuse these issues, as lefties are wont to do. Clinton advocated the Third Way in the 90s, so this has gone on for some time. It is an attempt to play into the golden mean fallacy, but is really just pointless word games to counter pointless word games.

One example of socialism I've often heard brought up in this context is socialized emergency medicine. Personally I'm glad that I can call 9-1-1 and somebody will come rescue me and take me to a hospital. This actually happened to me once when I had a kidney stone. Isn't that also a socialism success story? My tax dollars helped pay the salaries of the people who came and saved me from that misery.

 

[casebro]

Then by your definition ALL governments are socialism since they all supply things of common benefit. The problem level is when the gov makes hand outs to individuals.

When I look at the Big Picture, I see that we have become so efficient at what we do, we just don't need full employment. So what to do with those we don't need to employ?

Will we become unemployed Eloi, and employed Morlocks? ( I miss the Future Fiction aspect of Science Fiction. Now it's all magic and dragons, no more looking at possible societies.)

 

[VanillaCone]

Then by your definition ALL governments are socialism since they all supply things of common benefit. The problem level is when the gov makes hand outs to individuals.

When I look at the Big Picture, I see that we have become so efficient at what we do, we just don't need full employment. So what to do with those we don't need to employ?

Will we become unemployed Eloi, and employed Morlocks? ( I miss the Future Fiction aspect of Science Fiction. Now it's all magic and dragons, no more looking at possible societies.)

I think you are right on both points. All governments are at least somewhat socialistic, and modern sci-fi isn't nearly as insightful about the human condition as the classic stuff.

 

[Loss Leader]

It seems that the word “socialism” began to take on seriously negative connotations in the U.S. around the end of World War II. We did not stop practicing socialism; we just stopped calling it what it is. Was it because of the Nazis? The Russians? Why didn't our allies in Europe develop the same aversion to the word? Can someone please explain this to me?

Beginning of the 1900's actually. Anarchist/Socialists had carried out strikes and bombings before the turn of the century. They weren't helped by Leon Czolgosz killing President McKinley in the name of anarchism. Sacco and Vanzetti were railroaded for murder in 1927 because they were Italian anarchists/socialists. By 1920, the US had already endured a pretty serious Red Scare.

I personally tend to believe that the youth of the country and diversity of our citizens was a contributing factor. We had no racial/national myths, so we created our own. The myth of the capitalist and his enemy the socialist seems to have worked to bring people together.

 

[VanillaCone]

I think it's interesting that some people think socialized emergency healthcare, which has been around in the U.S. for decades, is just dandy, while socialized non-emergency healthcare, which is new, will destroy the fabric of our nation.

 

[VanillaCone]

Loss Leader, thanks for the insightful response. That helps me understand why we Americans have such an aversion to the word.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think it's interesting that some people think socialized emergency healthcare, which has been around in the U.S. for decades, is just dandy, while socialized non-emergency healthcare, which is new, will destroy the fabric of our nation.

Better that nobody ever have any cake at all, than a single undeserving person get a slice! Because knowing that one person didn't deserve their piece of cake would ruin the flavor of everybody else's pieces!!

People are so weird about collective action. The whole point of acting collectively is that the strengths of the strong compensate for the weaknesses of the weak, and as long as the whole totals out on the plus side it's a positive gain for everyone. But, since mathematically not everybody would be seeing a gain individually, such notions are unfair and hateful and evil and must be stamped out with actual violence.