News America's aversion to socialism ?

[MarcoD]

I think it has a lot to do with the history of the US. The US has historically always been the land of opportunities. People could just get out of society, claim a piece of land, start for themselves, and build a their own life as they saw fit somewhere on the plains of the nation. (The little house on the prairie with a mother with a gun defending against Indians or low-life.)

Generalizing, my common description (no offense) of a typical US citizen is someone who is born with a national flag in one hand, a gun in the other, a kick-*** attitude, and "In God we trust, the rest we buy" stamped into his forehead. US citizens still dream of being completely independent, it leads to anarchistic tendencies.

In Europe, everything has been old and static for centuries. There is nowhere to go (except for the US), and people historically just read their newspapers, dragged themselves to their jobs, and drunk some alcohol around noon just to get through the day. There was little else except for dreaming of other means (socialistic) of organizing the state, or said differently, just share the poverty. (Of course, life is different these days.) [To balance the scales, I guess, that generalizing, the historic description of a European citizen would be a somewhat well-informed, rational, worker with alcoholic tendencies.]

The US and Europe are somewhat similar these days. It must be harder to just start somewhere else, so I think the US will slowly become more socialistic. At the same time, if the borders fall away in Europe, people will find soon out that you can just buy a small kingdom in Romania for 15K Euros. Maybe we will become more like the US.

 

[redsunrise]

Definitions I know (sorry, I have them in Polish only) put pressure on the fact that means of production are not privately owned. I don't think anyone plans to change that in US, and in this context speaking of socialism in US makes no sense to me.

There are as many definitions as there are makers of the definition. Definition per se is useless, the thing is the nebula of ideas that the word designates, not a filter of definition. If from someone's viewpoint a socialism is pay as you go retirement system, that's what socialism is. Then someone else comes along and defines it as a voluntary socialism, like this, my definition:

Socialism is a system of managing capital and production via voluntary collective means, driven by various worker collectives, from a plethora of small ones managing particular facilities, to conceivably one huge collective managing every facility, industrial or other, remotely, and where produced goods are distributed along the lines of social justice (somehow defined adequately, even though it's not clear how this end would be achieved) or principle "from everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need" and not through system of individual purchases according to market prices like in capitalism; such a system would promote human flourishing along progressive, collectivist, materialist and scientist version of enlightenment mentality and it would satisfy almost every material need a human could have (need definition and evaluation notwithstanding), and it would be fundamentally collectivist in production and consumption, unlike individualist like capitalism.

The thing is, this definition requires underlying axiom of socialism as voluntary. A Stalinist socialist would not agree, for example, holding philosophy that people have to be forced into socialism with the use of coercion, propaganda and terror.

 

[redsunrise]

We need a large and strong central government for the US to survive and prosper in today's world.

That's about the worst recipe you could propose. The bigger and more centralized the government is, the more removed are its inner workings from realities of the country.

And no, small states could deal with most things just fine. Take Norway, for example, 4 million people and somehow it deals just fine. I don't see a reason why American state could not deal in the same manner, minus national defence provided by federal govt.

 

[redsunrise]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

I'm thinking about the Republican presidential debate the other night. Some of the tea partiers in the audience applauded after the moderator asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question on letting an uninsured 30 year old die. Clearly, the right wing is skilled at convincing poor and working class whites that the government is their enemy.

Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies. So, what makes them so appealing to Americans?

There's a "medium term" theory in sociology, that once ideas take root in a country, they are hard to get rid of. In US it appears that as it has been found as classical-liberal republic, the ideas are fundamental distrust of government power as such, belief into individual rights and capability, and constant rereading the constitution to get to its "original meaning" (originalism). E.g. Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court judge is a strong originalist. He just reflects broader American society.

That is not the case with Europe, which had collectivist ideas in mind since Bismarck state.

 

[redsunrise]

I think it has a lot to do with the history of the US. The US has historically always been the land of opportunities. People could just get out of society, claim a piece of land, start for themselves, and build a their own life as they saw fit somewhere on the plains of the nation. (The little house on the prairie with a mother with a gun defending against Indians or low-life.)

Generalizing, my common description (no offense) of a typical US citizen is someone who is born with a national flag in one hand, a gun in the other, a kick-*** attitude, and "In God we trust, the rest we buy" stamped into his forehead. US citizens still dream of being completely independent, it leads to anarchistic tendencies.

In Europe, everything has been old and static for centuries. There is nowhere to go (except for the US), and people historically just read their newspapers, dragged themselves to their jobs, and drunk some alcohol around noon just to get through the day. There was little else except for dreaming of other means (socialistic) of organizing the state, or said differently, just share the poverty. (Of course, life is different these days.) [To balance the scales, I guess, that generalizing, the historic description of a European citizen would be a somewhat well-informed, rational, worker with alcoholic tendencies.]

The US and Europe are somewhat similar these days. It must be harder to just start somewhere else, so I think the US will slowly become more socialistic. At the same time, if the borders fall away in Europe, people will find soon out that you can just buy a small kingdom in Romania for 15K Euros. Maybe we will become more like the US.

That's a rough approximation of history as it happened, but in my view too rough. The difference is in ideas, read up on origins of welfare state in Europe, like here:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/miller-george_failure-of-the-welfare-state.html"

I completely disagree with the ideas presented, Miller is proponent of the welfare state as such, which I hold as a very bad idea, even though I'm European.

There's evolution of ideas here that anthropologist could best tell about. Consider British TV series titled "Little Britain", which pretty much satirizes lives of people in welfare state, reflecting growing disillusionment with welfare state in some sections of society. To be sure, this is not turned into political worldview - yet.

 

[redsunrise]

Those are basically the two reasons. So many people think socialism is a political system, associating it with the likes of the former Soviet Union, but it's more of an economic system that can incorporate democracy (or not). I can understand if someone is against socialist-like policies because they are pure free-market capitalists, but pure capitalism and pure socialism (IMO) are both bad policy - a mixture of both is what is necessary.

This is a popular error, that we should have a "mix" of policies. A correct policy is what we should have. If capitalism is correct policy, this is what we need to have. If socialism is necessary, this is what we should have. If something else is correct, this is what we should have.

The truth does not lie in between two falsehoods, and you don't get a good medicine by mixing two bad ones.

I argue for minimal government, tackling only the problems that individuals cannot handle themselves: national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting, environment pollution.

Everything else is just a bad policy: good along simplistic mental model, and a collectivist sentiments instead of reason.

I realize it's not easy to settle this down: this pretty much depends on your philosophy. If you think government is more competent than individuals, a big government is what you will probably argue as a proper policy.

 

[redsunrise]

Excellent post.

Nope. It's complete rubbish. Popular rubbish, rubbish nonetheless.

Try to apply scientific thinking to an argument of "policy mix": is a good scientific number an average of two bad ones?

 

[redsunrise]

There are a lot of false dichotomies in political analysis. The basic dynamic of any human social system is the natural need to balance competition and co-operation. Any system needs its global constraints (its mechanisms of co-operation), and also its local freedoms (its competitive and creative capacity for action).

So from this, we can see why it is generally right for states to be in charge of regulation, but not production. Yet also, why self-regulation is what you want (regulation being pushed down to the lowest scales practical) and equally why production can also have an appropriate scale that is state-sized (when for example a state is acting as an individual - as in conducting wars, or ensuring the health of its collective body, the wisdom of its collective mind).

This is why the military, health and education, as well as general regulation, lead to "socialised" production mechanisms.

So the left vs right, conservative vs liberal, dichotomies become phony debates as all social/political systems have to strike a balance of competition and co-operation. And they would be having to do this across all scales of a society.

As many note, the US seems trapped in some strange internal war against itself. Politics looks quite dysfunctional - perhaps losing an external enemy in communism has something to do with this? Perhaps it is the high levels of economic inequality (IMO of course).

In my country, New Zealand, we went through a period of neo-liberal extremism in the 1980s. As an experiment, it now looks a dismal failure.

But anyway, we have started to employ a more systems approach to our politics again - still in small ways, but at least testing the water.

And I see they gave out a Nobel to the US lady who is one of the inspirations.

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

There is nothing objective in socialized medicine or education, about dynamism, cooperation or competition. I claim you presented a bad model.

There's one idea behind socialized health and eduction: from cradle to grave. That is, it's expression of philosophy that an individual is largely helpless and the state has to manage many aspects of his life, and this will make things work better.

It won't. Even proponents of welfare state admit it has been a failure re achieving its original objectives:

That guy wants the welfare state to work, dammit. It won't, in my view, it's not a matter of some or even many tweaks, the whole thing is conceptually, economically, philosophically and politically broken. There's nothing one can do to fix this.

Still, I'd like to hear from you what you mean when you say that neoliberalism in New Zealand has failed? What particular policies were put in place, and what was the result?

 

[russ_watters]

There's a "medium term" theory in sociology, that once ideas take root in a country, they are hard to get rid of. In US it appears that as it has been found as classical-liberal republic, the ideas are fundamental distrust of government power as such, belief into individual rights...

There is also a theory that because socialism redistributes money from the few to the many, it will inevitably and continuously expand in a democratic society, even if the policies are actually self-destructive in the long term. My fear is that this problem could cause western society to self-destruct and that the current problems in Europe are a harbinger of that.

 

[MarcoD]

That guy wants the welfare state to work, dammit. It won't, in my view, it's not a matter of some or even many tweaks, the whole thing is conceptually, economically, philosophically and politically broken. There's nothing one can do to fix this.

Well, from my Dutch perspective, that Miller article is utter nonsense. The welfare state works, he says it himself, everybody is better off. The fact that the poor are not poor out of choice but also are just worse at coping with everyday life, and do more dirty jobs, translates to statistics that they have a poorer health, I don't find that anywhere strange.

What is broken about a welfare state? In a more static, complex and populated society, it just makes sense to institutionalize caring and sharing. There's nothing wrong with that, and in general just leads to a more prosperous and calm society.

 

[russ_watters]

What is broken about a welfare state? In a more static, complex and populated society, it just makes sense to institutionalize caring and sharing. There's nothing wrong with that, and in general just leads to a more prosperous and calm society.

A capitalist believes it does not lead to a more prosperous society. And americans also value freedom, which socialism reduces and you don't even list as a relevant issue.

 

[mheslep]

Tax rates don't tell us much, considering the vast loopholes available to powerful U.S. corporations...

and to powerful French, Canadian, and UK companies, and even the not so powerful. You made the blanket statement that "Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies", and while I'd agree there are cases where those governments are to the left of the current US government, I argue that the reality is more complicated and I'm inviting you examine the basis for that statement instead of just accepting it as a given.

 

[MarcoD]

A capitalist believes it does not lead to a more prosperous society. And americans also value freedom, which socialism reduces and you don't even list as a relevant issue.

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal, I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected. It's an orthogonal issue.

[Anyway, it makes little sense to discuss 'socialism' in US terms. I assume that most people in the US identify the Netherlands as a socialist state, although most people here wouldn't agree to that. So, it's inherently a difficult issue to discuss.]

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Why does a unified labor market increase mobility? I would expect that it decrease mobility because you're in a homogenized environment. (How many union members move up and become management for instance?) This is also a downside to a unified health policy - you're creating a finite number of catergories (or 1) for an individual to choose from. Are everyone's health concerns so easilly put into a bucket?

By labor mobility I mean geographic mobility. Growth rates and employment opportunities are not uniform among the States; never have been. The freedom to move to "where the action is" is a great boon to all, labor or management. Imagine how difficult that would be if you could not take your previous SS payments, unemployment tally (how long you've been working, important if your current employer asks you to relocate), etc along with you. A seamless market is a boon to all, and certainly guarantees businesses can seek the best candidates nationwide. Good for capitalism!

A unified health policy may include a range of choices. My personal opinion is that whatever the system, we would benefit from coverage, private or public, that is based on actuarial tables over the largest population possible, which would lower the average cost, cover pre-existing conditions, and avoid capricious policies that game the system by excluding pathologies or placing arbitrary caps. Perhaps three nationwide insurers and a salary tax for those uninsured to cover the public cost of treating them would do the trick. A national policy might also regulate those circumstances that tend to lead to excessive costs (e.g., prescriptions specify component drugs, not brands.) Good for the common welfare!

 

[MarcoD]

A seamless market is a boon to all, and certainly guarantees businesses can seek the best candidates nationwide. Good for capitalism!

Or it means in times of recession that the poorest from all regions drive out the middle-class everywhere to increase the wealth of the richest. Maybe good for capitalism, but whether it is good for everyone, clueless.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal, I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected. It's an orthogonal issue.

[Anyway, it makes little sense to discuss 'socialism' in US terms. I assume that most people in the US identify the Netherlands as a socialist state, although most people here wouldn't agree to that. So, it's inherently a difficult issue to discuss.]

Having lived in your nice country for 18 months, I found the business climate quite amenable to what people in the US would consider open and free competition, and employee attitudes and work ethic were top notch. No wonder it's one of the strongest economies in Europe, with enlightened social policy along with that.

Certainly one factor that helps a society to support and implement an adequate social safety net is the degree to which an individual's perception is that he/she is helping others like him/herself. I fear that much of the debate in the US is driven by the fear that one is subsidizing a lazy, no good ethnic group distinct from one's own. Media-driven frenzy about individual cases of abusing the system helps drive the perception that "those people are living off me."

I remember back when President Johnson implemented many of the policies and programs under attack today, the majority ethnic group was much more a majority, and the common perception was that one was helping the "old folks back home." Support was also derived from having seen the alternative in action in the form of grinding poverty and ill-health. I still remember the 50's, when hobos had chalk signals to help others find where friendly and charitable people lived.

Americans today are blinded by an ideological perspective that obscures the realities that factually existed only a few decades ago. To suggest that charity, especially Christian charity, would voluntarily cover the gap left by eliminating the social safety net is so laughable and pathetic it makes me sick whenever I hear that lame, historically counter-factual argument.

 

[mheslep]

What is an example of "enlightened social policy" in the Netherlands as compared to the elsewhere?

 

[MarcoD]

Having lived in your nice country for 18 months, I found the business climate quite amenable to what people in the US would consider open and free competition, and employee attitudes and work ethic were top notch. No wonder it's one of the strongest economies in Europe, with enlightened social policy along with that.

I am glad you liked it. Not everything is perfect here, of course. I visited the US shortly twice and liked it too. The same, but different, right?

Certainly one factor that helps a society to support and implement an adequate social safety net is the degree to which an individual's perception is that he/she is helping others like him/herself. I fear that much of the debate in the US is driven by the fear that one is subsidizing a lazy, no good ethnic group distinct from one's own. Media-driven frenzy about individual cases of abusing the system helps drive the perception that "those people are living off me."

We get that argument here too. But most people really don't want to be unemployed. And also, there just is a (very) small percentage of the population for which the country is even better off that they stay at home. People just receive money, they rent houses, pay for food, good for the economy and they remain reasonably happy with that. It redistributes the wealth somewhat and I don't see where it would hurt the economy one bit (as long as we can pay the 4% of the unemployed.)

I remember back when President Johnson implemented many of the policies and programs under attack today, the majority ethnic group was much more a majority, and the common perception was that one was helping the "old folks back home." Support was also derived from having seen the alternative in action in the form of grinding poverty and ill-health. I still remember the 50's, when hobos had chalk signals to help others find where friendly and charitable people lived.

Americans today are blinded by an ideological perspective that obscures the realities that factually existed only a few decades ago. To suggest that charity, especially Christian charity, would voluntarily cover the gap left by eliminating the social safety net is so laughable and pathetic it makes me sick whenever I hear that lame, historically counter-factual argument.

It will mean a return akin to what we had during the start of the [previous] century in my country. Too many people living in too little spaces with little else to do except for 'drift' around in society holding their hands up for scraps. You don't get a job if you don't even have the clothes to apply anywhere and just drink your unresolvable problem away [neither do your kids].

 

[russ_watters]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal...

By taking something that I would have done for myself and doing it for me or forcing me to do it a certain way. It boggles my mind that people who favor socialist policies do not see that.

…I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected.

Only by re-writing the definition of freedom does protection become freedom. They are practically opposites!

[Anyway, it makes little sense to discuss 'socialism' in US terms. I assume that most people in the US identify the Netherlands as a socialist state, although most people here wouldn't agree to that. So, it's inherently a difficult issue to discuss.]

It is only difficult because people who favor socialist policies keep throwing around that strawman. There is no need for black and white labeling of countries here, only policies. That was addressed earlier.

 

[Dale]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal

Socialism is anti-parallel to freedom, not orthogonal. Under socialism you as an individual do not have the freedom to own or control the means of production. Under capitalism you do.

While there are economic reasons to favor capitalism over socialism I think that American aversion to socialism is not primarily an economic objection, but an objection based on principles. Specifically the principle that a human should own and control the fruits of their own labor and means of production. We fought a rather bloody civil war over the general topic.

 

[Hootenanny]

Socialism is anti-parallel to freedom, not orthogonal. Under socialism you as an individual do not have the freedom to own or control the means of production. Under capitalism you do.

We have to be careful here not to confuse economic freedom and social freedom. I think that is where the confusion arose between Russ' comment and MacroD's response.

 

[russ_watters]

We have to be careful here not to confuse economic freedom and social freedom. I think that is where the confusion arose between Russ' comment and MacroD's response.

Er, I would say pretty much the opposite: economic freedoms are a subset of social freedoms.

 

[redsunrise]

There is also a theory that because socialism redistributes money from the few to the many, it will inevitably and continuously expand in a democratic society, even if the policies are actually self-destructive in the long term. My fear is that this problem could cause western society to self-destruct and that the current problems in Europe are a harbinger of that.

You nailed it, man.

The problem is insidious, but inevitable: if a public sector employee can award himself $100 at the cost of $0.1 to every member of the public via politics, trying to prevent that is a proposition that incurs net loss to a politician: he loses support of the public sector, while the public doesn't even notice. And so everyone does that, and soon redistribution grows more and more massive. Until it becomes actually unsustainable, like in Greece now or in USA soon.

 

[russ_watters]

Socialism is anti-parallel to freedom, not orthogonal. Under socialism you as an individual do not have the freedom to own or control the means of production. Under capitalism you do.

While there are economic reasons to favor capitalism over socialism I think that American aversion to socialism is not primarily an economic objection, but an objection based on principles. Specifically the principle that a human should own and control the fruits of their own labor and means of production.

Yes, and it doesn't seem that Europeans recognize that social implications exist and they matter to Americans, which would be why the OP asked the question.

 

[Hootenanny]

Er, I would say pretty much the opposite: economic freedoms are a subset of social freedoms.

Whilst I admit that they are somewhat linked and true freedom means both social and economic freedom it doesn't mean that a communist state is less free than a capitalist state. One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush), just as one can left-wing and libertarian (Gandhi).

 

[mheslep]

A truly communist state is by definition not free. Freedom in such a society only exists in gaps in communist control.

 

[redsunrise]

Well, from my Dutch perspective, that Miller article is utter nonsense. The welfare state works, he says it himself, everybody is better off. The fact that the poor are not poor out of choice but also are just worse at coping with everyday life, and do more dirty jobs, translates to statistics that they have a poorer health, I don't find that anywhere strange.

What is broken about a welfare state? In a more static, complex and populated society, it just makes sense to institutionalize caring and sharing. There's nothing wrong with that, and in general just leads to a more prosperous and calm society.

Look, I can't help you with comprehending that at the end of 19th century 5% of children were illiterate, whereas now in Britain, after so many decades of welfare state, 20% are practically illiterate.

If you read the article precisely, with comprehension, you'll see a Miller pointing to the fact that by empirical accounts, welfare state does NOT work. It actually made the situation worse. Due to human psychology, motivations, economics, politics, mentality - it makes everyone, including but not limited to the poor, worse off. Except a handful of truly needy and sick, welfare state could collapse tomorrow and we'd be no worse off than we are.

Miller wants it fixed and good welfare state in place. I argue this cannot happen because due to complex reality welfare state works precisely opposite to your idea: that it leads to more prosperous and calm society. It doesn't. Every improvement over the 20th century can be traced to other improvements, but not to welfare state: higher incomes, better technology, better medicine, public health campaigns like anti-smoking. The things that made our life better are not parts of the welfare state. That's the point that both Miller and I make.

Correlation is not causation. Just because welfare state correlated with improvement of situation does not mean it made things better.

Regarding Dutch, here's an interesting paper:

"[URL
[/URL]

Those are lower-educated Dutch that are against welfare state - I wager this is precisely because they experienced it first-hand. Those are educated people who support welfare state, precisely because they did not experience it.

 

[WhoWee]

Er, I would say pretty much the opposite: economic freedoms are a subset of social freedoms.

In the US, it might be more accurate to further define the freedoms as as derived from productive or unproductive participation in the economy?

This might over-simplify - IMO - people who seek freedom to be economically productive are more inclined to also want social freedoms. On the other hand, people who are unproductive economically and/or dependent upon the Government or an organization for survival are more acclimated to accept less social freedom - a rational trade-off.

 

[russ_watters]

Whilst I admit that they are somewhat linked and true freedom means both social and economic freedom it doesn't mean that a communist state is less free than a capitalist state.

It would depend on how they are scored, which, again, is why I would focus on policies, not countries: You can't have a single (not combined with others) socialist policy that increases freedom. Socialist policies deacrease freedom, by definition.

 

[WhoWee]

Whilst I admit that they are somewhat linked and true freedom means both social and economic freedom it doesn't mean that a communist state is less free than a capitalist state. One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush), just as one can left-wing and libertarian (Gandhi).

Please support your assertion regarding "One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)" - or label as opinion.