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.
We maintain the allusion of private ownership, (But the government doesn't own any of my property. Oh Really? Stop paying the taxes on it and we will find out who truly OWNS it!) of property but use tax policy and regulation to control virtually all aspects of it's use!
Are we highly regulated? Yes.
Agreed! But NOT, for the most part, out of a quest for "common good" but because it LIMITS COMPETITION to only those who can afford to comply and it is VERY healthy for the LAWYER trade!
Is that socialism? I don't think so.
Again I agree but it CERTIANLY isn't, even remotely, Capitalism!
Well, if there is no objective definition of the term, then the discussion is pointless. We might as well debate whether or not the USA is ghfdsiel country.
Even though the definition of socialism has some wiggle room and it's tricky to define the point at which "socialist" may be applied, these terms aren't meaningless and the discussion isn't pointless.
We are socialist to the same degree that Clinton had sex with Monica. We can debate the definition of socialism until we're blue in the face, but the undeniable fact is that we are no longer faithful to our founding principles.
Are you trying to say that socialism is better than liberty (what you are calling "survival of the fittest")?
True. But, I have explained to you in some detail how I use the term, and I think you'd be forced to agree that under my definition the US is fairly socialist.
Alternatively, we could use the definition you put forth (from the dictionary). The problem there is that that definition is so narrow that it appears that there have never been any socialist countries. Which makes it a rather useless definition for this discussion.
Every definition of socialism says it entails not mere gov. regulation but gov. ownership. The one I posted and the one you posted
Not true. The definition Yardstick cited also has the words "...or control". Go look at it again if you don't believe me.
Dr Frank thinks taxation=ownership
I think that taxation = ownership of the taxes which have been collected. If the government takes 30 thousand dollars away from you in the form of income tax, the government owns, manages, and controls that 30 thousand dollars. Can you really dispute this?
So, people aren't really even debating anything. They are projecting onto some murky words whatever they want it to mean. Pointless.
I think you are being somewhat evasive. Actually, I have been quite straightforward about the definition of the word as I'm using it. The question is whether you choose to accept that definition. You may not. You may choose to argue with it. That's fine. But why are you just throwing up your hands and saying "it's so pointless, there's no definition, now we can't get anywhere in this discussion!" It seems to me that this is merely an attempt to short-circuit the debate.
Besides, it is not true. Maybe I have to lay it out for you more explicitly. Basically, there are only two competing definitions.
Definition 1: the government must own all property (your definition). By this definition, no country has ever been "truly" socialist.
Definition 2: the more the government owns, manages, or controls private property, the more socialist that government is, on a sliding scale from (say) 0 to 100. By this definition, the USSR was 98% socialist, Sweden was 80%, USA might be 50-60%. Or whatever the numbers are.
Is this really that confusing? Seems to me it's perfectly reasonable for me to say the following: "By Definition 1, the USA is Not Socialist and neither is any other country. By Definition 2, Socialism is a sliding scale; the USA is more Socialist than it used to be, and still less socialist than the USSR ever was."
As long as one is clear about which definition one is using, and when, then no confusion should arise.
That's what it boils down to, isn't it. Since the answer ends up having to be in comparative terms anyways, maybe a better question for this thread would have been: "Do you agree that our country is far more socialist than it was 100 years ago?"
Of course, the real question is this: "Why hasn't the Republican party been able to stop our country's drift towards socialism and collectivism, and away from capitalism and individualism?" This question is at the root of all those blazing-hot Republican-vs-Libertarian and Bush-vs-Keyes megathreads that we see around here. Republicans' sensitivity to this question is also why Dr.Frank was accused earlier of being a commie-lover, and I suspect it may also have something to do with Huck's evasiveness.
And by my definition it isn't. That's because we don't have an objective definition. I understand the substance of your complaints regarding taxation and regulation. I just think we have multiple versions of what "socialism" means. Had the thread posed the question thusly:
Is America overtaxed and overregulated?
The substance of your remarks wouldn't change, but there would be no question about the labels attached to them.
I think that taxation = ownership of the taxes which have been collected. If the government takes 30 thousand dollars away from you in the form of income tax, the government owns, manages, and controls that 30 thousand dollars. Can you really dispute this?
I do not dispute that. But owning taxes imposed on the fruits of my labor is not the same thing as owning the means of production. By your definition, there has never been a country that wasn't socialist.
But why are you just throwing up your hands and saying "it's so pointless, there's no definition, now we can't get anywhere in this discussion!" It seems to me that this is merely an attempt to short-circuit the debate.
I don't mean to short-circuit the debate/discussion.
Definition 2: the more the government owns, manages, or controls private property, the more socialist that government is, on a sliding scale from (say) 0 to 100. By this definition, the USSR was 98% socialist, Sweden was 80%, USA might be 50-60%. Or whatever the numbers are.
Like I said, by your definition, all countries are socialist, to varying degress. We are a socialist world, and always will be. If this is so, the question posed as the title of the thread is even more meaningless than I originally thought.
As long as one is clear about which definition one is using, and when, then no confusion should arise.
There should be no confusion as to the substance of one's complaints/criticisms, but as to whether or not those coplaints/criticisms fit the common usage of the word "socialism", there is plenty of room left for confusion. At least, to a simple person like me.
If we accept your definition, that all nations that ever imposed a single tax or regulation, on any level, are in fact socialist to some degree, then the question ought to be "If you had to rate America for its degree of socialism, Cuba being a 10 and Switzerland being a 3 (there are no zeros), what would you rate America?". Or, alternately, as I suggest, "Is America overtaxed and overregulated?", which is more clear, more precise, and also exposes what an inane question it really is. Of course America is overtaxed and overregulated. That can be objectively shown (but don't ask me to present the numbers. Life is too short)
But I appreciate your comments, and I am not arguing that your definition is right or wrong. I simply went to the dictionary in hopes of finding an objective standard. I am willing to accept yours, as I discussed above.
By your definition, are there any "socialist countries"? I think not. (Remember that "your definition" was a description of socialist theory, and there's no such thing as a country which Completely Lives Up To Socialist Theory, never has been, never will be.)
To me this suggest a larger issue at work. The word "socialism", for most people (including yourself), has been defined so strictly that nobody thinks it is ever valid to come out and make the statement, "this country is socialist". The definition is so strict that this statement is practically impossible - or meets with such heavy resistance (as you have demonstrated on this thread) - that for all practical purposes people are disallowed from making the statement This Country Is Socialist until, of course, it is so far socialist that there's no turning back.
Reminds me of the whole "boiling a frog" concept.
But owning taxes imposed on the fruits of my labor is not the same thing as owning the means of production.
What do you mean? If that 30 thousand dollars hadn't been taken from you, you could have bought some equipment if you had wanted to - some "means of production". You could have done tons of things with it. But it was taken away from you, now the government has it, and controls it, and uses it to do what they (the collective, or "We the People" if you prefer) want to do with it.
One problem here is you seem to be relying on 19th century Marx type economic theory which thinks that there is some substantial difference between "capital" and "means of production", when of course there isn't. If I take your factory - or if I take X dollars away from you which you could have used to buy that factory (and use it to build my own factory, to produce something else) - then I have done the exact same thing, in the end.
By your definition, there has never been a country that wasn't socialist.
I'll amend this. By my definition, there has never been a country that wasn't partially socialist, a tiny bit socialist at least. But so what? Why does this bother you so much? You still don't seem to understand the concept that socialism is not an on-off switch. Do I have to say it in bold capital letters? SOCIALISM IS NOT AN ON-OFF SWITCH.
Like I said, by your definition, all countries are socialist, to varying degress. We are a socialist world, and always will be. If this is so, the question posed as the title of the thread is even more meaningless than I originally thought.
Not at all. You are correct that all countries are socialist, to varying degrees. So the real question is, to what degree have we become socialist? Are we "a little" socialist, or "a lot" socialist? The degree is of utmost importance.
What you are saying now is kind of like saying, "All basketball players score at least some points per game. Therefore a discussion of how many points per game a basketball player scores, is meaningless! Therefore there's no substantial difference between a Michael Jordan and a Joe Schmoe at all! So why even discuss it?" That is ludicrous.
The "how much" part of the question is the most important part of the question. How socialist are we? That is the question, and despite your protests, it is a very meaningful one: the difference between "a little socialist" and "a lot socialist" is all the difference in the world.
, but as to whether or not those coplaints/criticisms fit the common usage of the word "socialism", there is plenty of room left for confusion.
That's just because the word "socialist" has been defined so narrowly that the common person thinks it never applies. I have already explained, several times, that such a narrow definition is ridiculous. For one thing, under such a definition no countries have ever been socialist.
As a result, anytime someone (like me) tries to argue that this or that program is socialist, or that this country is becoming socialist to a disturbing degree, someone else (like you) chimes in, points at the dictionary, and says in effect: "no, we're not 100% socialist, therefore we're 0% socialist, so just stop talking about it altogether."
It is enough to make me wonder whether the deflation in the dictionary definition of "socialist" has been effected intentionally, for just this purpose. (The purpose of boiling the proverbial frog.)
the question ought to be "If you had to rate America for its degree of socialism, Cuba being a 10 and Switzerland being a 3 (there are no zeros), what would you rate America?".
Exactly. I agree with this completely. That is the real question that is being asked when someone asks, "are we socialist?"
It's just that "are we socialist?" is much shorter and less tedious. That's why specialized words like "socialist" are convenient, you see, because they allow one to express oneself with fewer words.
The problem, as I see it, seems to be that the definition of the word "socialist" has been deflated for propaganda purposes in what is probably a conscious attempt to prevent Americans from being able to successfully use the word in a sentence without a chorus of protest from dictionary-pointers.
Or, alternately, as I suggest, "Is America overtaxed and overregulated?"
Let's get down to brass tacks. You are evidently one of those people who simply doesn't like to let other people use the word "socialist" in a sentence. I have encountered several people like this in debates. I will never understand what their problem is. What is it about the word "socialist" that bothers you so much that you don't want anyone to actually use it?
On the "left" side of the spectrum, they are allowed to throw around words like "capitalist", "corporate", and "fascist" with abandon. For some reason that is okay. For some reason they seem to understand that it is convenient shorthand to call someone a "hawk" or a "capitalist" or a "libertarian" or a "jingoist" or whatever, if such a word is an accurate and historically-well-understood description of both (1) a person's beliefs and (2) the philosophical underpinning of those beliefs.
Well, the term "socialist" is just that. It expresses both a person's beliefs in practice (higher taxes, bigger government, more regulations...) as well as the philosophical underpinnings of those beliefs (disrespect for property rights and belief in "the collective" as a more just administrator of property). It is therefore a very useful and perfectly precise term. In particular, it is more precise that just to say someone advocates "high taxes and lots of regulations", because the term "socialist" calls attention to their motives as well, the philosophical movement to which they belong, in which their beliefs place them.
But you don't want me to use the word.
Why not, may I ask? Why does it bother you so much? Can you explain this?
I thought I had splained that already. I prefer the words "regulation" and "taxation" because they are, IMO, more precise. In fact, they are indisputably more precise, and more measurable. You don't agree and have explained your thought on the matter. I don't agree with your viewpoint at all. A little while ago, socialism, by your account, meant the government's ownership or control of property to any degree. I contend that this is not the common usage of the word, because since this describes ALL governments, it essentially renders the word meaningless. But now you go on:
It expresses both a person's beliefs in practice (higher taxes, bigger government, more regulations...) as well as the philosophical underpinnings of those beliefs (disrespect for property rights and belief in "the collective" as a more just administrator of property).
You seem to think this complex definition, added on to your previous definition, is somehow obvious to the common reader. I would enjoy putting that notion to the test, but I suppose we will simply have to disagree. You now add to the observable measures of regulation and taxation the much harder to measure "philosophical underpinnings" held by....whom? How do we measure that? What metric constitutes very socialist, or only somewhat socialist? My point remains unrefuted that this is a totally subjective question based on a totally maleable definition of "socialism". In fact, on this thread, socialism means whatever anyone says it means. Whereas everyone knows what "taxes" and "regulations" are. But this discussion has definitely grown tedious. I doubt there is more to say on it.
Actually, I agree. They are more precise. I erred in saying that 'socialist' is "more precise".
What it is is more complete. To say that someone "likes high taxes" or "likes regulations" is not to give a complete picture of their political stance and philosophy. To call them "socialist" (if that is what they are) completes this picture. Not to call them "socialist" leaves out essential, germane information: namely, that such people believe that the collective is more suited to administer property than are individuals.
For one thing, it is possible, I suppose, to support a manifestly socialist policy without "being socialist". Social Security is, I hope you would agree, a socialist policy. Suppose I am a desperate elderly person, knowing or caring little about politics, but for whom that check is my only income. I would probably "support Social Security". In doing so I would be supporting a socialist program. But this wouldn't necessarily mean that I was "a socialist", namely that I believe that "it is more just for the collective to administer property than for individuals to do so." Maybe I'm just desperate and have no real choice in the matter because I have no other way to get the bills paid. Agreed? So I wouldn't call such a person "a socialist", even though objectively they support a socialist program: or as you would prefer to refer to it, a program which engenders high taxes.
But there are people who believe, in an ideological sense, that programs like Social Security are just and good and ought to be expanded. They also "support Social Security", and as a practical matter, high taxes. But there is a difference between them and the elderly desperate person. They have an ideological stake in the matter. They have "socialist" views on the subject.
By your ground rules, I would never be allowed to observe this, or to make the distinction. But why not? Do you think the distinction unimportant, or ought not to be observed?
A little while ago, socialism, by your account, meant the government's ownership or control of property to any degree.
Argh. Once again you have turned a continuum into an on-off switch. How many times do I have to explain this?
I am not saying that socialism "means" government ownership/control of property "to any degree". What I am saying is that the more the government owns/controls property, the more socialist that government is.
Do you comprehend this notion of "more socialist" of which I speak? Do you understand that one can speak of greater or lesser degrees of socialism? Every time I think you get it, you turn around and say "but that means that every single government Is Socialist!" This comment makes it seem like you've forgotten the rich spectrum of socialisms which can exist, and converted them back into an on-off switch.
Analogy: I say that "tallness" is a matter of having a height, and one person can be taller than another, if he has a greater height. You: But everyone has a height, even midgets! So you're saying that everyone is tall! Which is ridiculous!
No: I am not saying that everyone "is tall". Some are taller than others. Equally: I am not saying that all countries "are socialist" (except in a very trivial sense, the same sense in which all people have a height). Some are more socialist than others.
Why do I feel like I'm giving a lesson on Sesame Street? ;)
I contend that this is not the common usage of the word,
Actually, I agree with you once again, that the way I'm using the term is not the "common usage" of the word. That's because the way I'm using it actually makes sense, whereas the "common usage" is so deflated and distorted, for propaganda reasons, that as far as I can tell it doesn't apply to any country anywhere.
You seem to think this complex definition, added on to your previous definition, is somehow obvious to the common reader.
What I am saying is that to say someone is socialist, or has socialist leanings, connotes more for the average person than just to observe that they advocate high taxation percentages. Yes. Something wrong with that?
You now add to the observable measures of regulation and taxation the much harder to measure "philosophical underpinnings" held by....whom?
By socialists.
How do we measure that?
It is difficult, and it is open to debate (which I admitted long, long ago). Something wrong with that? This is a political discussion, not physics class. Why all of a sudden are you worried about "measurability"? Odd.
Left-wingers don't seem to worry too much about "measurability" when they call me an "arch-conservative", whatever that means.
For some reason, out of all political terms in common parlance, only the political term "socialist" is subjected to these strict standards of scientific objective measurability. Why is that?
What metric constitutes very socialist, or only somewhat socialist?
That is a good question. It is difficult to say. People can disagree. It is open to debate. That's what political debates are for.
Or so I had thought.
My point remains unrefuted that this is a totally subjective question based on a totally maleable definition of "socialism".
I don't know that it it "totally subjective" - after all, I think we would probably get widespread agreement among a broad sample of society that the USSR was More Socialist than, say, Hong Kong.
But you are right, it is at least somewhat subjective. As are all political terms. If it weren't subjective, then there would have been no need for this thread! We could just look up the US on the Universal Objective Socialist Index (UOSI) and find its value, and that would be that.
In fact, on this thread, socialism means whatever anyone says it means.
Well, that would indeed be a problem. If you have a problem with my definition, let me know. I had a problem with your definition, and I told you what it was: it was a description of socialist theory only, and presented an impossible standard to which no country could ever live up, thus it described nothing: no country, anywhere, ever.
Consequently, I elaborated upon my definition. You haven't objected to the substance of it; in fact the example you gave ("Cuba gets a 10, Switzerland gets a 3...") indicates that you understand the nature of my definition to a very large extent. You and I could probably agree quite well on "how socialist" we would rank a lot of countries.
Except of course that now you insist that "socialism means whatever we want it to mean!", once again finding a reason why We're Just Not Allowed To Talk About This Subject. But that's weird, especially since you seemed to understand my definition so well and everything, at least at the time. Did you forget?
What's wrong with my definition, if you disagree with it? And if you don't have a big problem with it, then it seems your complaint here - that socialism "means whatever anyone wants it to mean" - is moot. No it doesn't mean "whatever anyone wants it to mean". "Socialist" means the government owning/administering property, and the more the government does so, the more socialist that government is.
Just like I've said all along.
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.