Posted on 12/13/2001 7:37:16 AM PST by John SBM
Socialism is still a dirty word in American politics. But, like an obese person who looks in the mirror and see a thin reflection denying they are fat, America is in a state of denial. If we look the evidence is there, but rather than admit it we refuse to acknowledge the word. Does evasion of the fact change the reality?
Every major historic period can be categorized by the dominant philosophy of the time. We know them. The Dark Ages, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment. And we know what each label represented as the dominant, generally accepted ideas of the time. These labels are attached however, not during the period, but after, when we can see them in the context of history. Whether we label our current period as Post-Modern or whatever, in historic context it could be labeled as The Altruist Evasion.
Altruism is the dominant, generally accepted idea underlying all of our political and cultural discourse, and it permeates both political parties. The ideas that economic rights are the basic rights of all Americans, that the government exists to promote the welfare of some at the expense of others, that we owe “service” and must “give back” to society – these are the basic premises of every issue. And Pragmatism rules every action – action for the sake of the emotional benefit of action rather than the result. Altruism demands pragmatic approaches, because it is based on emotional arguments and collapses when faced with principled challenges. Altruism is the underlying support for socialism, where group rights are primary, individual rights are disposable.
Take a look. The tax code exists to transfer wealth; the total tax burden exceeds 50% and is the single biggest expense for most working Americans. Politicians gain power through the give and take of economic rights and benefits – look at the economic stimulus debate. We talk of the right to housing, to health care, to prescription drugs, to guaranteed retirement, without ever asking “at whose expense?”
Ayn Rand summarized this very simply – when you abandon one set of principles you adopt another. We have abandoned the principles of individual rights and accepted those of economic rights – the degree of socialization doesn’t change that fact. We can evade the word “Socialism”, but that doesn’t change the reality.
Amendment I
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
You can mush the meaning of words all you want, but in America, the means of production, i.e., businesses, are privately owned. And goods are distributed in the marketplace. Just having a "safety net" supported by taxation doesn't change that.
Maybe you could get together the latest libertarian bump list and do an "Is America a Fascist Country" thread. That would be fun, too.
Socialism is at its heart a philosophy of larceny, and its adherents are thieves at heart. Under it, innocent Pat Smith is not given the ability to veto the coerced confiscation of his/her property.
I always tell my kids, "Kids", I say, "Never, EVER, steal from your friends, unless for a good cause agreed to my a plurality of your friends."
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
This, of course, is a very nice definition of "socialist" political theory. That is, a theory which says "the government should own and administer all the means of production and distribution of goods" is deserving of the monker "socialist".
But this cannot serve as the definition of a socialist country. It is easy to see why. After all, if the government must own/administer all the means of production and distribution of goods in order to be "socialist", then there have never been any socialist countries in human history. Even in the USSR, the government "only" controlled perhaps 98 percent of the wealth. I guess they weren't socialist either!
I think there is a common misperception here, or, perhaps, an inconsistency in the way that the term "socialism" is applied. Many people - yourself included - seem to be under the impression that, unless a country is 100%, completely-and-totally in line with socialist theory, then it is somehow Not Socialist. Why is this a misguided view of things?
Let's look at a competing theory, "capitalism". The political/economic theory of "capitalism" says that goods and property should be owned privately and all decisions involving distribution of goods should be private decisions. So suppose I asked you, "Is the US 'capitalist'?" You'd say, "of course it is!" Then what if I said, "A-ha! Not, it is not! Look at the definition! Under capitalism, all property and distribution must be private! But the US has Social Security, defense contractors, unemployment insurance, welfare, etc etc etc.... This means it doesn't live up to Capitalist Theory. Therefore it's not capitalist!"
Wouldn't you see through that argument? In fact you'd get frustrated. You'd say: "Give me a break. Okay, so it's not purely capitalist. Big deal. You know what I meant."
Well: Okay. So the US is not purely socialist. That goes without saying. However, any country which confiscates around 50 percent of wealth through taxation, and controls much of the remaining wealth by a web of regulation (who you can hire, how you may use your property) is at least partially socialist. Half socialist? Semi-socialist? 60% socialist? This is open to debate.
But don't try to tell us that because we're not 100% socialist, we're ZERO percent socialist. That's just silly.
It is not an on-off switch we are discussing. Any discussion of whether we are "socialist" is a discussion of the extent to which the government owns and/or administers our property, rather than allowing individuals to do so. In the US our government takes a 30-50% cut of our property right off the top. As for the remainder: it tells companies we invest in whom they may hire. It tells us what we can do on land that we "own" (and charges us rent - "property taxes" - to boot). It tells people whether they may cut down trees on their own land. It tells producers of certain items (guns, drugs..) how and under what circumstances they may sell the fruit of their labor.
To a very large extent, with respect to how it treats property rights, this country is socialist in practice.
100% socialist? In complete and total alignment with socialist theory? Of course not: that would be impossible, for any group of humans. But that was never the issue in the first place. Socialism is a theory which holds that the individual ought to have no property rights whatsoever. Here in the US that theory has been put into practice to a frighteningly large extent.
Just to be consistent, going back to Webster's, they say capitalism is:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market[emphasis mine]
They qualify it. But hey, I am not saying the dictionary is the be-all, end-all. It's just that people throw words around. We ought to agree on what the dern things mean.
But the US has Social Security, defense contractors, unemployment insurance, welfare, etc etc etc.... This means it doesn't live up to Capitalist Theory. Therefore it's not capitalist!"
You may be right. I am not that smart. But it seems to me a society can be capitalist and be taxed. And it also seems to me that it doesn't matter what the taxes go for, particularly in a representative system such as ours. We have a capitalist economic system, and a representative political system which collects and spends taxes as we the People determine. I don't see where that makes us socialist.
However, any country which confiscates around 50 percent of wealth through taxation, and controls much of the remaining wealth by a web of regulation (who you can hire, how you may use your property) is at least partially socialist. Half socialist? Semi-socialist? 60% socialist? This is open to debate.
I think it is open to debate whether that is or is not socialist. For example, is it socialistic to prohibit by law the exclusion of blacks from a service, or from employment, or is it a protection of rights? Is it socialistic to require certain safety standards and conditions? I don't think so. To make regulation and socialism synonyms is to completely muddy the value of language, it seems to me.
But don't try to tell us that because we're not 100% socialist, we're ZERO percent socialist. That's just silly.
I don't even think we have come to an agreement on what the word means. THAT'S silly.
Any discussion of whether we are "socialist" is a discussion of the extent to which the government owns and/or administers our property, rather than allowing individuals to do so.
OK. Sounds right to me. But the government doesn't own any of my property. Are we highly regulated? Yes. Is that socialism? I don't think so. But like I said. I'm not that smart. That's why I looked it up in the dictionary.
Indeed. It looks as if what you have discovered is that even the dictionary is asymmetric when it defines the two concepts. According to the dictionary, Socialist theory = everything owned by the government (apparently, with no exceptions!). Capitalist theory = everything mainly owned privately (apparently all of a sudden exceptions are allowed).
I think you can see that something is messed up here. Likewise, I think what I'm starting to realize is that the confusion people have over the term "socialist" is quite deep-seated indeed, as even the dictionary doesn't really define it consistently.
Seriously: by the dictionary's definition there have never ever been any socialist countries.
You may be right. I am not that smart. But it seems to me a society can be capitalist and be taxed.
Similarly, it seems to me a society can be socialist and still allow nominal "ownership" of private property (subject to taxes, regulations, etc.). See what I'm saying?
We have a [...] representative political system which collects and spends taxes as we the People determine. I don't see where that makes us socialist.
Actually you have just paraphrased socialist economic theory. The socialist economic theory says that property ought to be "collectively" owned and distributed. You have used different words ("representative political system which collects and spends taxes as we the People determine") which mean basically the same thing. When "we the People" (rather than individual persons, i.e. the property owners themselves) determine how property ought to be used, that is "collective" ownership/distribution of property. That's what "collective" means (although using the phrase "we the People" does make it sound nicer, anyway...).
For example, is it socialistic to prohibit by law the exclusion of blacks from a service, or from employment, or is it a protection of rights?
I would say that it is both. It is slightly socialist to tell, say, a restaurant owner that he cannot refuse to seat black people. Why? Because in doing so the government is telling the restaurant owner what he may do with his property. This is "the collective" intruding upon that restaurant owner's right to use his property (the restaurant) as he sees fit. And anytime "the collective" intrudes upon the individual's ownership/disposal of his property, we are rubbing up against socialism, to some extent.
On the other hand, it is also in a sense a defense of the "right" of those black people to be served by restaurant owners (if such a "right" can be said to exist).
Is it socialistic to require certain safety standards and conditions?
Depends on what those "certain safety standards" are. I don't have the right to defraud you by claiming a gadget won't hurt you in order to sell it to you, if that gadget ends up hurting you after all. In doing so I have committed fraud and the government is perfectly within its function to crack down on me. That is part of what government is for.
But there is a line that can be crossed. We now have government telling a bar owner that he cannot allow people to smoke cigarettes in his bar, even if they all want to. We have government telling business they must buy certain kinds of chairs for their employees, for "ergonomic" reasons, even though no one forced those employees to work for that employer if they don't want to. We have government telling motorcycle riders they must wear helmets. We have government telling the manufacture of automobiles that they must put airbags and seatbelts into their cars. Suppose I wanted to buy a car with no seatbelts and no airbag? I can't.
All of these "safety standards" have nothing to do with the simple government function of preventing fraud, coercion, assault. Instead it is government telling all sorts of people what they can and can not do with or on their own property, what they may sell and what they may not, what sort of workplace they must provide for their (free to quit at any time!) employees. Once again "the collective", therefore, is intruding upon the rights of private citizens to use/dispose of their own property as they see fit. This is socialist.
To make regulation and socialism synonyms is to completely muddy the value of language, it seems to me.
I think you are right. Luckily, as you can see, I did no such thing. As I explained above, regulation is well within the government's right whenever it is pointed towards protecting peoples' rights - in particular, the right not to be defrauded, swindled. Another type of regulation I have absolutely no problem with (if done reasonably): environmental regulations, like telling a factory they cannot emit such-and-such amount of noxious chemicals into the neighborhood. That form of regulation is also perfectly okay, because it is protecting the right of nearby people not to be poisoned.
But some regulations don't qualify for this description. After all, the regulation which says a bar owner cannot allow people to smoke in his bar is not protecting any "right" of any person that I know of. There is no universal human right for people to know that every single bar in their state forbids smoking, you see. It may be a desire of many people, but it's not a right. In the case of someone who lives next to a factory belching poisons, they have no choice of whether to inhale those poisons. But anyone who doesn't like or want to be exposed to the smell of cigarette smoke is perfectly free not to enter a bar where people are smoking.
Thus there is an essential difference between the two types of regulations: in particular, one is socialist ("all bars must be non-smoking"), while the other is not ("factory can't pollute the neighborhood with poison"). The latter bans an aggressive, violent assault on the surrounding population. The former tells a private property owner what type of establishment he must maintain, on property that is (supposedly) owned by him, even though no one is forced to patronize his establishment in the first place.
I don't even think we have come to an agreement on what the word means. THAT'S silly.
True, good point. :)
Let me explain more fully then so you know where I'm coming from. As you pointed out, "socialism" is a political theory which advocates collective ownership and distribution of property. (I'm paraphrasing for brevity.)
Here is the principle upon which I operate, then: the more a country collectively owns and/or distributes (decides what can/will be done with) the property of individuals, the more socialist it is. No country in the world is or ever has been "purely socialist". Some countries come very close (USSR). Some countries are very socialist (Sweden being the usual example, for some reason). And some countries are perhaps only 50-60% socialist (USA). Further, some are even less than that (Hong Kong, at least before 1997...don't know about today).
That's my take, for what it's worth. But, to understand this depends on understanding that "socialist" (like other adjectives such as "tall" or "heavy") is a descriptive term which admits a continuum of possibilities. It is not an on-off switch. Instead, it is the answer to the question, "How much and how often does a government violate individual property rights?" The more a government does this, the more socialist that government is.
And yes, by that standard the USA is quite socialist. Not as much as USSR or even Sweden. But getting there.
But the government doesn't own any of my property.
Think a little harder. I assume you have a job. For that job you are paid a salary. And the government takes a percentage (I don't know how much but probably it is at least 27%.) Therefore, right off the top, the government owns (at least) 27% of your property (because it took it away from you). I know, I know, you're going to say "but that's just taxes!" Right, that's taxes. But what are taxes? Taxes are: property which the government takes away from you. And look how slick they are. They take this property away from you so stealthily that you don't even think it was yours to begin with.
But it was. And now it's the government's.
I can add to this list, of course. Property taxes if you own a house. Sales taxes on anything you buy. The government lets you have a car which you think you own, but let its smog check or "licensing" lapse and they'll take that "property" away from you too.
The government owns and operates quite a bit of your property for you. That's just a fact.
Some of this property of yours which the government administers for you is quite visible. The government uses some of your property to run a gigantic mail-delivery business. It also uses some of your property to run a train business (Amtrak). Some of your property is used to fund research institutions and universities which do the government's bidding (for example: "give us some more research which proves global warming!"). Your property is used to send space shuttles up into space and to pay "Performance Artists" to smear chocolate all over their naked bodies and too many other things to mention. This is (well, was) your property, and the government (not you) decides how and in what fashion it will be used. That's socialist.
The funny part is that you don't even notice it. You're like a guy who just got mugged and doesn't realize it. How is this possible? You had 1000 dollars in your wallet, and four quarters. A mugger came along and took the 1000 dollars from you. I walk up and say "you just got mugged!" Then you look in your wallet, see the four quarters, and say "No I didn't....all my money is right here - the mugger didn't take any of it. I still have all four quarters!"
Uh, but you've forgotten something..... right? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.