What's Wrong with Socialism?

[iNow]

Since it didn't seem to go over very well in the Poor Joe thread, I've decided to add this here:

 

 

Conservative commentator and right winger George Will on This Week this past Sunday said that:

 

95% of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point, we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American peoples billions of dollars, but they don't notice it, it's in such small increments, but the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now,

we have socialism

for the stong. That is, the well represented and the organized in Washington, like sugar growers, but

it's socialism nonetheless, and it's not new

.

 

Clip below:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6114125

[Pangloss]

He was making the same point that I've been making in drawing a distinction between income redistribution for the purpose of wealth-sharing and income redistribution for the purpose of investment, he just came at it from a different angle.

 

George Will does not think we have socialism in this country, nor does he think socialism is a good idea.

[iNow]

George Will does not think we have socialism in this country

 

How do you support this assertion considering it stands in stark contrast with the direct quote from him above?

[Pangloss]

I support it by pointing out that you yourself called him a "right winger", so it seems unlikely to me that you believe he actually supports socialism, and wasn't just expressing an obvious sort of intellectual sarcasm, as he commonly does.

[iNow]

I support it by pointing out that you yourself called him a "right winger", so it seems unlikely to me that you believe he actually supports socialism, and wasn't just expressing an obvious sort of intellectual sarcasm, as he commonly does.

 

I am going to ask you to avoid further speculations on what I personally do or do not think, and support your assertion.

 

 

George Will: "Now, we have socialism for the stong. That is, the well represented and the organized in Washington, like sugar growers, but it's socialism nonetheless, and it's not new."

 

...and, in response...

 

Pangloss: "George Will does not think we have socialism in this country."

 

 

How in the world do you not see the problem here?

 

I encourage you to watch the clip to which I provided a link above. Here it is again in case you missed it: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6114125

 

See comments at the time point where there is approximately 5:45 left in the video.

 

 

There was no "obvious intellectual sarcasm" to be found in his comment. The sincerity and passion with which he said it was striking, and if you continue to argue that he does not believe what he himself said, or if you try to spin it like this with additional lies and falsehoods, then you are pitifully mistaken, out of line, and lacking in integrity.

[bascule]

Saying that it's just about Republicans beating up Democrats over it is a dodge. There is very real substance behind the American antipathy towards socialism.

 

Like what? Equivocation with communism, particularly the Russian brand of communism? Which the New Yorker article also mentioned was silly... case in point being someone like George Orwell who liked socialism but hated totalitarianism and wrote Animal Farm as an allegory about the failure of Russian communism and how it lead to totalitarian regime taking over the country which was little better than the Czars.

 

Or did you have something else in mind? With the number of angry McCain supporters I see calling Obama a communist, I can't help but feel this is the main argument. Socialism = communism = USSR/China = evil.

[Pangloss]

There was no "obvious intellectual sarcasm" to be found in his comment. The sincerity and passion with which he said it was striking, and if you continue to argue that he does not believe what he himself said, or if you try to spin it like this with additional lies and falsehoods, then you are pitifully mistaken, out of line, and lacking in integrity.

 

Gee.

 

Well, as you know, what George Will says on Stephanopoulos every Sunday is generally a reflection of his column for the week in the Washington Post. Not surprisingly, this week's column touches on the same subject. He makes the same kind of statement, saying that this is basically socialism, and then goes on to make it clear that he doesn't like it at all.

 

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/23/ST2008092301500.html

 

---

line[/hr]

Saying that it's just about Republicans beating up Democrats over it is a dodge. There is very real substance behind the American antipathy towards socialism.

 

Like what? Equivocation with communism, particularly the Russian brand of communism? Which the New Yorker article also mentioned was silly... case in point being someone like George Orwell who liked socialism but hated totalitarianism and wrote Animal Farm as an allegory about the failure of Russian communism and how it lead to totalitarian regime taking over the country which was little better than the Czars.

 

Or did you have something else in mind? With the number of angry McCain supporters I see calling Obama a communist, I can't help but feel this is the main argument. Socialism = communism = USSR/China = evil.

 

Oh there's no question that the far right is making THAT argument. But Obama is winning because he's brought in the moderates, and they don't buy that line any more than you do.

 

But just because they're on board with Obama doesn't mean they favor socially-motivated income redistribution. They believe in highway infrastructure, education, health care, and retirement. Not Robin Hood.

 

And Obama speaks the same way, bascule. He talks about personal responsibility. He talks about motivation. He talks about getting ahead. He talks about working your way to the top. These things fly directly in the face of socialism, and they speak directly to American motivations and mainstream mentalities.

 

The truth of the matter is that the only extent to which Americans care about "the gap between the haves and the have-nots" is the extent to which everyone is playing on the same, level field. Tilt it one direction or another and we start to get really wary, and maybe even take some of our pieces off the board. That's why things like progressive taxation (or, for example, affirmative action) have always been uneasy, make-shift fits in this country. That's also why health care is starting to skew left. It's not because they want everyone covered for humanitarian reasons. It's because they want everyone to have the same opportunities.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Gee.

 

Well, as you know, what George Will says on Stephanopoulos every Sunday is generally a reflection of his column for the week in the Washington Post. Not surprisingly, this week's column touches on the same subject. He makes the same kind of statement, saying that this is basically socialism, and then goes on to make it clear that he doesn't like it at all.

 

Nobody here was talking about how he felt about it. The issue was your comment:

 

George Will does not think we have socialism in this country.

 

 

You were wrong, and in blatant opposition to the facts presented in the post immediately prior to the one where you made your comment. I've demonstrated this more than adequately, and I'm done now.

[bascule]

But just because they're on board with Obama doesn't mean they favor socially-motivated income redistribution.

 

And there's equivocation of that to socialism, which isn't any more valid than equivocating socialism to communism, but we have people vicariously equivocating "spreading the wealth" to communism too...

 

What Obama is actually doing is using taxes from the wealthy to help lower taxes for the middle class and poor. How is that socialism?

[Pangloss]

It isn't. Regardless of his personal motivations, the case can be made that lower taxes for the middle and lower economic classes will help the economy (and it's a strong case -- in fact it's just trickle-down in another set of clothes; is it any wonder Obama frequently identifies and empathizes with Ronald Reagan? You didn't think that was just show for the moderates, did you?).

 

When it would become socialism would be if it became directed that everyone makes the same amount of money. And while people obviously draw the line between what they like and don't like at some point in between, the point here is that the majority of Americans have a general aversion to socialism, but are okay with a certain degree of "income redistribution" that's done for the purpose of investment in something that helps everyone and keeps the opportunity playing field equal.

[waitforufo]

How is socialism for the strong" not better described as fascism?

[iNow]

Probably because they are different.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

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.

 

<...>

 

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

 

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist ideology that is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence. It seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

 

<...>

 

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism (including collectivism and populism based on the nationalist values); Third Position (including class collaboration, corporatism, economic planning, mixed economy, national socialism, national syndicalism, protectionism,); totalitarianism (including dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism); and militarism. Fascism opposes communism, liberalism, conservatism and international socialism.

 

 

It is a total non-sequitur to discuss things like sugar subsidies and suggest (or, equivocate) an equivalence with fascism.

 

 

Further, I'd like to reiterate that nobody here is advocating 100% socialism, and the intention of my thread is to discuss where it helps and where it hurts. I also plainly stated in the OP that this should not become about any specific candidates, only an academic exercise about the approaches, their relative worth, and the most appropriate contributions of socialism and capitalism in a blended economy such as ours.

Edited October 29, 2008 by iNow

[bascule]

How is socialism for the strong" not better described as fascism?

 

What's "socialism for the strong"?

 

Communism at least in the colloquial sense can be described as a totalitarian form of socialism. I don't see anyone around here defending communism.

 

However, would you call countries like Sweden and France "fascist"? I'd certainly say America is far more "fascist" than either of them.

[dichotomy]

Pouring money into failed financial institutions and subsidizing farmers is welfare for the rich (the STRONG). So the current administration must believe that welfare for the rich, at least, is a real good thing.

 

socialism, facisim, capitalism... Lables are pretty useless, when really we should look at what works for societies and what doesn't. Look at societies that do work, per capita, and the ones that don't.

 

"Finland, Japan and Korea were the top finishers in an OECD (http://www.oecd.org) study that measured 265,000 15-year-olds' literacy in reading, mathematics and science", why? here's a couple of reasons for Finland's success - they have Higher education places for 65% young people, they have the second-highest public spending on higher education. (Source: OECD)

[waitforufo]

What's "socialism for the strong"?

 

I was quoting iNow's post 51. iNow was quoting G. Will.

 

For their domestic economies, fascist in the 30's did all the things you and iNow claim as socialistic. They subsidized farmers, they supported public education, they had public works projects and so on. In fact, much of what the fascists did, like they continue to do today, is support those with wealth through government policy. It is through that path that they stay in power.

 

I would argue that the why it is done, is more important than the how it's done.

[john5746]

I would argue that the why it is done, is more important than the how it's done.

 

While Agri-business and some large scale farmers today may be considered wealthy, I don't think this has been so historically, especially in the 30's?

 

Government is in the business of promoting general welfare, which includes insuring fair trade(subsidy, tariffs) access to resources(foreign policy, treaty, war). We all benefit from strong business, of course the wealthy benefit more. This is why a progressive tax is reasonable. We currently have one and still the rich are garnering a larger and larger share of the pie.

[waitforufo]

While Agri-business and some large scale farmers today may be considered wealthy, I don't think this has been so historically, especially in the 30's?

 

Government is in the business of promoting general welfare, which includes insuring fair trade(subsidy, tariffs) access to resources(foreign policy, treaty, war). We all benefit from strong business, of course the wealthy benefit more. This is why a progressive tax is reasonable. We currently have one and still the rich are garnering a larger and larger share of the pie.

 

I agree with you completely. My argument is that by doing these things the government is not necessarily socialistic, or to some degree socialistic. Such arguments are simply lazy or deceptive.

[bombus]

So the purpose of government is to pay people not to rob us?

 

Well, it's one of them. 100% employment is possible if society wants it. If it chooses not to have 100% employment it must deal with the consequences one way or another and so paying people not to rob us is probably preferrable to the other options.

 

 

What's wrong with Socialism? In this topic several opinions have been given.

 

1) I produces dependence, not independence

2) It produces mistrust and animosity between members of society.

3) Perhaps it fosters depression in individuals as well.

 

The last two are more applicable to capitalism.

Edited October 29, 2008 by bombus
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

100% employment is possible if society wants it.

 

Not really. Some people may choose not to work, and there would likely be some time between switching jobs. However, it would be possible to offer everyone who wants employment some minimum level of employment.

[foodchain]

 

What's wrong with socialism?

What's right with socialism?

 

 

Discuss.

 

What I never liked is that lack of clear boundaries on what is and what is not socialist.

 

I mean by myself I cant do everything can I? I cant build a refrigerator, make roads and or buildings, nor build my own computer. Actually I think I would be pretty screwed, and I don't want to know what language would come to look like if we were 100% solitary creatures in all things.

 

If I had to say one thing that makes socialism truly damned is simply the reality of how at some stage it concentrates so much authority or power, it simply spells disaster if you get the wrong person in charge. I mean it would be hard for some totally ruthless dictator to move into power in the U.S, at least no where to the standard of a Stalin. Which brings up a point. Most people look at political ideologies I think of them being the same. With communism for instance there is no one single school of political thought or communist doctrine, so again to close just exactly what type of socialism is bad, or is it simply a play on a percentage of “lawfully” organized sharing or “forced” sharing that is occurring in some society? I think its a fair question or questions.

[bombus]

Not really. Some people may choose not to work, and there would likely be some time between switching jobs. However, it would be possible to offer everyone who wants employment some minimum level of employment.

 

Agreed. I should have said Full Employment, which is usually takes that into account.

[iNow]

So, earlier in the thread most posters seemed to agree that we have a mixed economy, and IINM, that this is a good thing. I interpreted the conversation as "some things are truly better handled in a free market, and other things are truly better handled centralized by the government."

 

Now, here we are at the beginning of 2009, and it looks like a big part of our economic stimulus plan will be to work on infrastructure... roads, mass transit, high speed interenet, etc. I'm excited about this.

 

How do you all feel about these "socialistic" approaches now that the reality of our situation has slightly changed since this thread began? Are these things that government really should be spending money on, or should we let the free market decide instead?

 

 

(You know, free market chooses porn every time, so watch what you say. )

[Pangloss]

It's not socialism. This is no different from what we've always done regarding infrastructure, it's just on a larger scale and with a different motivation behind the timing.

 

When Bureau of Labor orders me to go build computers for Dell, then it's socialism.

[ParanoiA]

Free market, baby...slow and dirty.

[iNow]

It's not socialism. This is no different from what we've always done regarding infrastructure, it's just on a larger scale and with a different motivation behind the timing.

 

When Bureau of Labor orders me to go build computers for Dell, then it's socialism.

 

I am extremely pleased to report that you and I are 100% aligned here. Couldn't agree more, really.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Free market, baby...slow and dirty.

 

Let the record show, ParanoiA has raised his pen in favor of porn.