Hmmm...not my idea of socialism... (4.00 / 5)

My first post but I'm a daily reader since more than a year ago!

As a socialist (of the libertarian variety...that is...I'm an anarchist), I have a bone to pick with your definition of socialism.

To put it simply one can't just throw the economy into two piles of public and private.  One has to actually look at the quality of the power and control relationships within those piles.  

If 50% of our economy is supposedly public but our political system really doesn't offer a lot of democratic control over that 50%, then how public is it, really?  Thus, how socialist is it, as opposed to what some folks call "state capitalist."

On the other side, if 50% percent is supposedly private, but in reality concentrated into corporate holdings and earnings, then how private is it, really?  How capitalist is it, for that matter?  I'd say it's really more corporatist.

Of course, I know you're just making a funny little point, and I appreciate it.  But as someone who believes that real, democratic socialism (ie a democratically controlled and democratically planned economy) should be on the table as a legitimate political perspective, I want to defend the term from simplistic usage.  We have enough bad usage of the term on the right side of the aisle.  

---

by: jeremy_louzao @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 21:17:42 PM CST

Corporatism (4.00 / 6)

You know, I'm old enough to remember when the kind of "socialism" Chris is talking about would've been called "corporatism" or "fascism".

Socialism involves state control over the means of production.  That's not what we have here.  We have private control with public backing.

---

by: Drew J Jones @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 22:35:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not indistinct (0.00 / 0)

Facism is not an economic system. It is, instead, an authoritarian system of government based on racism and, often, militarism.

The Nazi's where socialists, too: they tended to just be socialist for "ethnic Germans." Sure, they killed Communists, but socialism and communism aren't exactly the same thing, either.

Also, it is possible to have both corporatism and socialism. Just because you have a large public sector doesn't mean you can't just distribute the public sector into private hands. It is a pretty crappy system, and one we seem to be employing, but they are not necessarily incompatible with each other.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 00:07:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Food For Thought (4.00 / 1)

From "Economic Fascism" by Thomas DiLorenzo, written in 2004.

"Despite the fascist rhetoric about "national collaboration" and working for the national, rather than private, interests, the truth is that mercantilist and Protectionist practices riddled the system. Italian social critic Gaetano Salvemini wrote in 1936 that under corporatism, "it is the state, i.e., the taxpayer, who has become responsible to private enterprise. In Fascist Italy the state pays for the blunders of private enterprise."[25] As long as business was good, Salvemini wrote, "profit remained to private initiative."[26] But when the depression came, "the government added the loss to the taxpayer's burden. Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[27]

The Italian corporative state, The Economist editorialized on July 27, 1935, "only amounts to the establishment of a new and costly bureaucracy from which those industrialists who can spend the necessary amount, can obtain almost anything they want, and put into practice the worst kind of monopolistic practices at the expense of the little fellow who is squeezed out in the process." Corporatism, in other words, was a massive system of corporate welfare. "Three-quarters of the Italian economic system," Mussolini boasted in 1934, "had been subsidized by government.""

Sound familiar?

The full-text is available at http://www.lewrockwell.com/dil...

---

by: ChibiOne @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 17:02:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Combining Federal, State and Local Spending (4.00 / 1)

It seems like the term "socialism" ought to be a worthy candidate for retirement, but I suppose, we should only show it the door AFTER everyone is forced to read your diary so they can see understand how elastic and substantially useless the term is. The term "socialism," it seems, is principally used these days by wingnuts to whip themselves up into frenzied paroxysms.

Police and fire protection...parks and schools...roads and bridges...medical care...is this "socialism?" Very few people think so.  And have Republicans invariably increased federal spending? You bet. Does that make them socialist? Maybe.

It is interesting to note that the federal component of the GDP is in the neighborhood of 10-20%. Also, I would guess that this year, state and local government receipts will go down substantially.  Will the federal component compensate to make up for this decrease? Perhaps. Will the overall GDP contract?  I think so.  Thus, I would not be so sure what the final aggregate percentage will be in this very unusual year.

---

by: Demo37 @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 21:30:26 PM CST

Nanny-State Capitalism (4.00 / 1)

That's what we have. In addition to the state privatizing gains and socializing losses for big business, many of the state sector's innovations are privatized for corporations. The internet, of course, being exhibit A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

And the principle of really existing free market theory is: free markets are fine for you, but not for me. That's, again, near a universal. So you -- whoever you may be -- you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it's good for your character, it's tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out.

It's only gotten worse since the fall of Bretton Woods and rapid financial liberalization in the '70s. Letting capital and speculators run wild ensures economic crises on a regular basis, but that is of course no matter to those who are playing with house money.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewA...

The financial market "underprices risk" and is "systematically inefficient", as economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalisation and reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and proposing solutions, which have been ignored. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. Ignoring systemic risk leads to more risk-taking than would take place in an efficient economy, even by the narrowest measures.

The task of financial institutions is to take risks and, if well-managed, to ensure that potential losses to themselves will be covered. The emphasis is on "to themselves". Under state capitalist rules, it is not their business to consider the cost to others - the "externalities" of decent survival - if their practices lead to financial crisis, as they regularly do.

Financial liberalization has effects well beyond the economy. It has long been understood that it is a powerful weapon against democracy. Free capital movement creates what some have called a "virtual parliament" of investors and lenders, who closely monitor government programs and "vote" against them if they are considered irrational: for the benefit of people, rather than concentrated private power.

Investors and lenders can "vote" by capital flight, attacks on currencies and other devices offered by financial liberalization. That is one reason why the Bretton Woods system established by the United States and Britain after the second World War instituted capital controls and regulated currencies.

---

by: vosh @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 21:55:45 PM CST

i wouldn't want a nanny like this (0.00 / 0)

it's moree like military keynesianism.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 04:47:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your point is taken but.... (4.00 / 4)

Some of us fringe lunatics still believe that a free society can only be achieved through the democratic management and control of the means of production and distribution by workers and other affected community members.

For those of us that actually believe in that crazy shit, jeremy_louzao's point is crucial.

---

by: Adrian @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 22:09:15 PM CST

Agreed (4.00 / 1)

Here here.  

Socialism is the democratic and common control of the means of production by the people themselves, who use them to fulfill their actual needs.  Capitalism is the control of the means of production by rival capitals, who use them to compete for profit -- making actual human need a secondary 'side-effect' of the working of the system.  

Indeed, under capitalism (as far as I have ever seen), it becomes far more the case that humans exist to serve 'the market', than pursue their own actual needs/desires/happiness.

My hat goes in the ring of the 'common' human.  The 'elites' certainly haven't been able to do what they say they can/will...no reason to believe that will change significantly in the foreseeable future.

---

by: ChibiOne @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 17:13:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is weird - it sounds to me like you're buying into (4.00 / 3)

the McPain/Failin' definition of socialism. Look, by your definition, Pinochet's Chile could have been socialist simply by raising spending on defense and police etc. to 50% of a relatively anemic economy. (I don't know where tax rates would have to be in order to make that scenario work. But I will point out that your U.S. figures are what they are while Americans are paying a lot less taxes than most Europeans.) The problem is, you can raise the government's share of the GDP to extremely significant levels without the government actually having significant control over the means of production. And as long as that's not the case, it's not socialism. Unless you're an RW propagandist.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

---

by: brainwave @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 22:32:57 PM CST

Define "control" (4.00 / 1)

Define "control" in this instance.

Could the defense contractors in Chile have refused Pinochet? Not likely. The government did control the defense contractors and their means of production, for all intents and purposes.

My point is this: just because the public sector is used to enrich a few cronies and / or corporatists doesn't mean it isn't socialist anymore. At least not how I understand it.

The public sector is, functionally, a form of direct government control over the means of production. The money it uses didn't come from thin air, and it isn't collected on a request.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 00:13:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd say complete control of a company by the government (4.00 / 1)

involves government agencies setting production and revenue targets, wages, prices, and - well, you get the general idea. In reality, nationalization is itself a continuum. The question is, which continuum is more important for the definition of socialism - the control continuum or the government-share-of-GDP continuum. But my point is, I think yours is a somewhat dangerous argument, because it seems to play into the hands of RW ideologues trying to blur the distinction between Keynesian economics and socialism.    

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

---

by: brainwave @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 00:57:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a crude measure (4.00 / 1)

I admit it is a crude measure, but it can be much more easily quantified than the one you put forth. As such, it can be turned into a quikc rule of thumb, whereas your method would require much more detailed sutdy.

I admit it should be taken with a grain of salt, and that it isn't perfect. It is, however, quick and easy.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:27:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Great description (0.00 / 0)

every economy in the world is a mix of both capitalism (private sector) and socialist (public sector)

You've made this point before, and I love it.  I think it really defuses the word "socialism" and clarifies how badly some throw these terms around.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:04:33 AM CST

Wow, thanks for pointing out those websites (0.00 / 0)

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue...

and

http://www.usgovernmentspendin...

I've never seen them before -- they're quite informative!  

It's still amazing to me that the US government doesn't send out some brochures -- along with the IRS forms, say -- explaining exactly where our dollars go to work, as in usgovernmentspending.com.  I think people would be much more agreeable to taxes (as they apparently are to the infrastructure spending plans) had they been getting these detailed breakdowns in the mail every year for decades.

---

by: Lester @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:24:15 AM CST

Bush = World War II (0.00 / 0)

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP peaked in Fiscal 1944 according to the Historical Abstract at 44.6% ($91.304 billion in a GDP of $209.2 billion).  If state and local spending was maintained at the 1940 level of $11.2 billion (optimistic, I would think), total government spending would be 49.9% of GDP.  This is a dead on equivalence to the current situation.

Federal budget numbers in the Historical Abstract show state, local and educational expenditures during WW II at around $5.0 billion, pretty much identical tot totals for 1940 of $4.8 billion.  The numbers from the linked chart (which includes 1940 and 1950 but no years in between)certainly contain other spending.

The comparison is telling.  Crony capitalists did not rake in billions of TARP dollars.  The Fedreal Reserve wasn't doling out trillions to dead and dying insurance companies, brokerages and banks.  The military was buying tens of thousands of planes per year instead of hundreds (that's right).

I have absolutely no statistics to back this up, but I would guess that the most "socialistic" economy in US history was that of the Confederate States of America in its failing time with the military eating up as much as possible.  Imagine that.  The CSA had no universal health insurance.  It had no insurance at all.  It had a piddling public health program consisting of military hospitals and army doctors.  It had no pensions.  The infrastructure was literally being torn down (by invading northern armies).  It was unable to protect its citizenry and looting by rogue "soldiers", bandits, and Federals was a serious problem (see Sherman in GA, SC, and NC).  And it had slavery.  "socialist" doesn't mean progressive even in the United States.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 05:23:32 AM CST

NSPD-51 paves the way for the best of both ideolgies, and to serve the people (0.00 / 0)

     We've come to a point in which we can progress into the future or cling to the failed and outmoded 19th century model we are struggling under today and is dragging us down..

    There is nothing wrong with amalgamating the best of both systems both those deemed capitalist and also that which is socialist..

    What is most important is what works best..!

    I am no socialist with a capital S or capitalist with a capital C either, but one who is convinced the most brilliant economist of all time is who we should now turn to, that being John Stuart Mill...

   The crisis we face now can be an opportunity to create this balance and balance in all things is the secret of success and longevity..

    To be locked into an ideology is to shut off ones mind which many find convenient and or see as a tool so as to manipulate others, as we have experienced in spades these last 8 years or even since 1980, when our nation turned it's back on "the angels of it's better nature" and elected Ronald Reagan..

    As much as we hear of these stimulus plans and have already seen with the first half of the TARP they fall far short of what is really needed to address this emergency...

    We must Nationalize the major banks to free up credit and give low interest government guaranteed loans for consumer spending on big ticket items to qualified borrowers but more importantly small businesses for expansion and also other businesses for payroll...

    Why stop there we can enter a new age and Nationalize all Major Energy and create a national power grid and provide cheap energy to our citizens which will greatly stimulate commerce and create an economic boom..this would also finance the change over to alternative and renewable energies from solar and wind to also Industrial Hemp which we should lift the ban on growing asap..for bio fuels both diesel and cellulose..

    Also Nationalize our Health Care System and lift that burden from our industries backs and make America competitive again this will also greatly aid our Auto and steel industries which if need be we can also nationalize especially the steel industry and these have national security ramifications as well as economic..

    But how can we do this the Congress would never vote for such sweeping change and reform and courageous vision...

    I'm glad you asked here's how America can lead into the future..become an economic power house it is meant to be..and lead the world...

    All President Obama need do is declare an "emergency" and invoke or even merely threaten to invoke NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 and he can unilaterally Nationalize any industry or essential asset he sees fit to...

    Now I among many others were more than concerned when G.W. Bush signed this Directive..and raised great worries of it's existence but as I really pretty well studied it more than others I now also realize we can turn this pig into a silk purse so to speak...

    Imagine no other president than G.W. Bush has ever done more to enable the Nationalization of major American infrastructural assets none even FDR never dreamed he could have such sweeping unilateral powers as G.W. Bush has beget to President Barack Obama under NSPD-51 and HSPD-20...

   Ironic isn't it that the grandson of Prescott Bush could have made possible a real New New Deal one FDR could have only dreamed of...

   I know this may be beyond what some of you are prepared for or have to yet realize just how bad things really are and will very soon get worse than many can yet imagine and it may take for it to get really bad and many millions of Americans to suffer needlessly, for this to sink in to President Obama but that day is not far off..not far off at all..

    Remember J.S. Mill showed us an outline for moral capitalism and democratic socialism the best of both worlds make yourselvs familiar with this most important writings he was one of the world's true and greatest geniuses even smarter than Phil Gramm that crafty swindler or George Will..it's a shame almost none of these pundits ever dare mention J.S. Mill but he is still out there and his writings best address the crisis and "emergency" we face today...

    NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 provide the ways and means for this far reaching reform..and it can be applied in sections according to our needs as our president sees fit..

    Ok that's all for now but I have been pushing this concept elsewhere as well and please don't be afraid of names or handles socialism or capitalism what matters is that the purpose of our government is to Serve The People and nationalizing certain essential assets is what will best serve our people and also preserve our Republic and democracy...!

     http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs...

   

     "Ours is not a system based upon trust but one of suspicion.."  Thomas Jefferson

---

by: TJColatrella @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:05:51 PM CST

Its not really that complicated (0.00 / 0)

Its not really that complicated, think of it like as positions on a scale, at one end is free unfettered capitalism with no common owned things except polis, miltary, courts etc, no social security at all. And on the other side full socialism everything is common owned, state owned and all the proceeds goes to the state, privatly funded - privately owned to publicly funded - publicly owned.

Two different examples of this in the space of the scale is publicly funded - privately owned and privatly funded - publicly owned.
Ex. "we" in europe have privatised many of our commonly owned companies and services, this pratice has most commonly broke through in the in the G.B and scandinavia.
This means in some instences that for example that we still has publicly funded but privately owned and profits.
Ex of this is school vouchers, free choice of hospital, private/public. The common named reason for all this privailaization is competion drives the prices down for consumers and state. but the problem is that all the surplus goes to the private sector/owners and should we as taxpayers pay for that and the reality have shown that this is not often the case and that insted prices often goes up and the quality deteriorates. The latest turn in US politics is in a way a variation on this, publicly funded - privately owned, the public stands for the funding but the gain is mosltly among the privately owned.

the other part of this is privatly funded - publicly owned for example at some places in europe, like power producing company, gambling, sale of alkohol etc. The strange ting is that we sell out things that are owned by the state that are publicly funded and by that give all the revenue to the privately owned and not the state owned that are privately funded that in the long run in the future is going to be hard to defend. We privatize the part that are publicly funded that we in our society have determined to be very important for the for all of us in common and give the surplus of the society to the privatly owned hands or a variation of this that has happened in the latest couple of months in the US. This is by my estimation still pretty far on the capitalistic side of the scale and not on the socialistic side like privatly funded - publicly owned that gives the surpluss to the common, collective.

Just remember its not a case of either capitalism or socialism its always a mix between them on a scale.

---

by: olof @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 17:14:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry wrong section (0.00 / 0)

poster under reply, a misstake.. sorry

---

by: olof @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 17:20:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Its not really that complicated (0.00 / 0)

Its not really that complicated, think of it like as positions on a scale, at one end is free unfettered capitalism with no common owned things except polis, miltary, courts etc, no social security at all. And on the other side full socialism everything is common owned, state owned and all the proceeds goes to the state, privatly funded - privately owned to publicly funded - publicly owned.
Two different examples of this in the space of the scale is publicly funded - privately owned and privatly funded - publicly owned.
Ex. "we" in europe have privatised many of our commonly owned companies and services, this pratice has most commonly broke through in the in the G.B and scandinavia.
This means in some instences that for example that we still has publicly funded but privately owned and profits.
Ex of this is school vouchers, free choice of hospital, private/public. The common named reason for all this privailaization is competion drives the prices down for consumers and state. but the problem is that all the surplus goes to the private sector/owners and should we as taxpayers pay for that and the reality have shown that this is not often the case and that insted prices often goes up and the quality deteriorates. The latest turn in US politics is in a way a variation on this, publicly funded - privately owned, the public stands for the funding but the gain is mosltly among the privately owned.

the other part of this is privatly funded - publicly owned for example at some places in europe, like power producing company, gambling, sale of alkohol etc. The strange ting is that we sell out things that are owned by the state that are publicly funded and by that give all the revenue to the privately owned and not the state owned that are privately funded that in the long run in the future is going to be hard to defend. We privatize the part that are publicly funded that we in our society have determined to be very important for the for all of us in common and give the surplus of the society to the privatly owned hands or a variation of this that has happened in the latest couple of months in the US. This is by my estimation still pretty far on the capitalistic side of the scale and not on the socialistic side like privatly funded - publicly owned that gives the surpluss to the common, collective.

Just remember its not a case of either capitalism or socialism its always a mix between them on a scale.

---

by: olof @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 17:18:45 PM CST