The Answer to Socialism

posted at 3:43 am on February 7, 2010 by

American socialism has long functioned under the principle that a strong central government, lavishly funded by the middle and upper classes, should influence the economy in the name of “social justice,” and provide benefits to the lower class. The power and cost of the government have steadily increased – surging under the previous two Presidents, and exploding under the current one. Its financing has shifted to deficit spending and direct control through mandates and regulation, since endless tax increases became politically painful.

I believe this system is very close to total collapse. If nothing else triggers it, the explosive bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare will. The half-life of American socialism may now be measured in years, rather than decades. If we let it run its course and crash, its death throes will be unspeakably painful.

I don’t think our fate is sealed. Several quarters of weak economic performance have not erased the incredible potential of American industry. Technological development will bring new markets. The populace may seem lethargic now, but I think we’ll be surprised how fast the private sector leaps to its feet, once the government boot has been taken off its neck. What can we do, to begin turning things around?

Our challenge is not merely to win a few elections, or pass a bill here and there. We have to change the direction of a culture that has trended leftward, toward collectivism, through several generations. We have to move the center back to the center. This will require leadership, which we should seek out in the elections to come… but it also demands our involvement as individuals. A recent poll showed 36% of Americans, and 53% of Democrats, had a positive opinion of socialism. Our task is to understand why. This moment demands more than a critique of socialism, which is nothing less than a challenge to freedom, and requires an answer. Only by expressing the philosophy of conservatism, in powerful and memorable terms, can we win the popular support necessary to implement concrete proposals. This is a foundation to be laid in countless conversations, both online and around water coolers.

The appeal of socialism comes from more than just using money taken from the wealthy to buy the votes of the poor. It is also an expression of rage, from those who believe capitalism has treated them unfairly. Too many people seem quite willing to put up with a reduction in their modest standard of living, as long as they believe some faceless “fat cats” are getting soaked. Those who follow the bitter politics of envy should understand that every system of ordering human affairs produces both the rich and the poor. In our current situation, what cats are fatter than the political elite? As of 2008, two-thirds of our Senators were millionaires, and all of them enjoy lavish perks, incredible benefits, and gold-plated retirements, including plush lobbying and consulting jobs… when they’re unlucky enough to fall through the few holes in a 90% incumbent re-election safety net. Many of our representatives, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, live like royalty by abusing their power. Every nickel of a politician’s fortune comes directly from your pocket, without your willing consent to purchase products or services.

The lens of socialist envy is rather selective about which targets to focus upon. Its political allies are never presented to the public as object of hatred. Neither are those with enough popularity to insulate them from criticism, such as entertainers and professional athletes. Anyone who supports the Left out of hatred for the evil rich would benefit from considering a list of the fabulously wealthy people they have not been instructed to hate.

If there will always be people who grow rich and powerful through their ambitions, it’s much more sensible to embrace a free-market system, where ambition produces value. Government pursues its ambitions at the expense of its duties. Look at the miserable performance of the Obama Administration on national defense. It has no energy to spare for thankless tasks which promise no rewards of increased power and control. The more our President and Congress pursue their desires, the worse they become at meeting the simple obligations required of them by the Constitution.

Socialism is an object of romance from its devotees. It invites them to join an epic tale of mighty statesmen solving the problems of society with noble laws, and encourages them to turn their back on the small-minded pursuit of filthy money. The Left loves to talk about the pursuit of dreams as the highest human aspiration… and since everything it proposes is presented as a dream, how can any high-minded person raise grubby practical objections? In matters affecting the millions of lives, and the disposition of trillions of dollars, we cannot afford romantic notions. Only hard, cold logic is acceptable.

The truth is that money is not an evil toxic sludge, whose stain the Left works to scour from our souls. Money is the mechanism that allows you to spend your time doing what you’re best at – which produces wealth, the same way a lever amplifies muscle to move great weights. You spend the money you earn each day on a range of products you couldn’t possibly create for yourself. You probably couldn’t create a decent pair of shoes in the hours it takes you to earn enough money to purchase them. You definitely couldn’t cobble a computer system together from nothing but raw materials, in the time it takes you to earn a thousand dollars and buy one. This is the genesis of wealth: the freedom enjoyed by people when the value of their time can be measured and traded through currency.

Through the combination of progressive taxation and payroll withholding, socialism established the principle that government has the right to set the value of your time, along with first claim on it, taking your income before you even see it… and refunding the excess without interest, when it takes too much. Of course this reduces wealth and prosperity. Capitalism is the right to design your own dreams, and you’re much better at it than a gang of politicians scribbling incomprehensible legislation in a distant capitol. The behavioral freedoms socialists like to tout as indulgences are matters of the fleeting moment. The freedom to control your labor and property allow you to build your future. True prosperity is measured in things to come. Nothing is growing in a still photograph of a flower.

The orgy of deficit spending we’ve witnessed over the past year is an explicit judgment that America doesn’t have a future. Its unborn children will be handed the bill for the needs of today, plus a back-breaking load of interest. Allowing the national debt to equal our annual gross domestic product, as in President Obama’s staggering 2010 budget, means accepting the insult that America is too weak to stand without support from its grandchildren.

Follow the premise of socialism to its conclusion, and ask yourself why the government shouldn’t achieve 100% employment by conscripting every single citizen, and eliminate “social injustice” by providing for all of their needs. Why shouldn’t your income be paid in coupons, earmarked by the wise and benevolent State for food, medicine, housing, and leisure? The answer is that a command economy can’t produce value, allocate resources, or nourish the ambitions of its people with a fraction of capitalism’s vigor or efficiency. The value of government scrip could never equal the value of a dollar. Instead of helping its people realize their potential, a socialist government must invest an increasing amount of its energy into compelling their obedience. What capitalism hails as innovation, socialism punishes as impertinence.

To put this philosophy into action, we must return what government has taken to the private sector. We can begin by cracking down on outright fraud and waste. Citizens Against Government Waste has sniffed out over $19 billion in pure pork – money seized from some citizens to buy the votes of others. Medicare oozes $60 billion in fraud and waste. The Cato Institute recently created a web site dedicated to downsizing the government, which lists many more examples of redundant government programs and expensive incompetence. We should also insist, in a unified voice that shakes every seat in the House and Senate, that not one more dime of American taxpayer money will be sacrificed to the “climate change” fraud, and demand its domestic accomplices be prosecuted. The money recovered from cracking down on government waste should be immediately returned to the taxpayers, since it was seized under false pretenses.

We have to do more than just whip Big Government into fighting shape. We must begin devolving the functions of the federal government to the states. We don’t need rivers of tax money pouring into Washington, then trickling back to the states, polluted with frozen chunks of mandate. Let the states handle the financing for these functions… and let state politicians directly face those whose taxes pay for them. The national Congress places too much money in the hands of representatives most taxpayers will never have a chance to vote against.

Government-controlled industries should be privatized, beginning with education, which wastes a staggering amount of money on tragically poor performance… empowering a massive, politically-active union with interests hostile to most of the Americans who involuntarily supply its funding. Industries the government has painfully failed at running, such as Amtrak, should be handed off to private-sector businessmen who can make them work – or put them out of their misery. Ridiculous extravagances like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose services were already privatized years ago, should be eliminated at once. Sorry, liberals, but if we need to rack up a $14 trillion national debt, we certainly can’t afford to fund NPR and PBS any more. A government characterized by uncontrolled deficit spending has lost all moral and reasoned claims to run any business that could be tackled by the private sector. It shouldn’t be allowed to pour tax dollars into statist live-action role playing games like Americorps, either. Privatization is the only way to prevent the collapse of the unsustainable Social Security and Medicare entitlements.

Expensive corporate welfare programs should be eliminated, especially after the odious concept of tax-nourished companies becoming “too big to fail” has deformed our economy. An example of such a program is the $90 billion Advanced Technology Program, a sad attempt to emulate the Japanese model of government-sponsored corporate development, which already crashed and burned a decade ago. There’s no point in talking about privatizing industries when so many companies are stumbling around on the end of umbilical cords that lead back to the federal treasury.

In the longer term, we should scrap the bloated tax code shackling our productivity with thousands of incentives and penalties, and move to a flat tax – collected openly with regular tax statements, instead of allowing the IRS to pick workers’ pockets with payroll deductions. Taxing people at different rates based on their income level is immoral, as Constitutional rights should not dissipate with wealth. It also puts far too much money in the hands of politicians, and allows them to collect it with a club.

Are these radical ideas? They’re far more consistent with Hope and Change than anything proposed by the man who has no ideas beyond giving us more of the same, at triple the price. It’s long past time to try something truly different from the wheezy old machine we’ve been fueling with tax money for the past hundred years. Liberty is a radical concept… but it’s also a very old and traditional one for Americans. It has also defeated collectivism every single time they have been matched against each other. The answer to socialism is that government cannot solve any of the problems our society faces. Only free people have the strength and creativity to find those solutions.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I am now aware that you have the capability of reading minds.

Robert17 on February 7, 2010 at 6:03 AM

An attempt to get some of your work published by a Newspaper could very well be rewarding, for you and for them.

uknowmorethanme on February 7, 2010 at 8:06 AM

It took a Jimmy Carter to get the swing voters in the U.S. to take a chance on Ronald Reagan, and even then it also took Reagan surviving John Hinkley’s assassination attempt for Reagan’s tax cut plan to earn the public support it needed to get past Tip O’Neill and the liberal Democrats who still controlled the House of Representatives. Take the groundswell of public support for Reagan after that out, and the liberals still would have gone to the mat to maintain the confiscatory upper bracket tax rates that FDR put in during World War II and which had dropped only from 94 to 70 percent in the ensuing 35 years before Reagan arrived.

The success of those tax cuts has lowered the bar to making them happen again, if Obama continues his path towards making the general public nostalgic for the economic policies of James Earl Carter. But the left, seeing the success of Reagan, has gotten even more hyperpartisan since then, and has basically tossed out any inhibitions about using any means possible short of direct physical violence in maintaining their beloved dream of a group of liberal elites telling everyone in America how to run their lives.

Even if the U.S.’s economic situation four years from now looks more like California’s current woes, or even worse than that, the left isn’t giving up their dream. Just rolling back the changes Obama, Reid and Pelosi have made in the past 13 months is going to be an ordeal come 2013 (and to be honest, if you could fake newscasts and news reports on the usual liberal big media outlets one day early this fall saying that President Obama — facing massive Congressional losses in November — has announced the suspension of the 2010 midterm elections due to national security and economic concerns, how many liberal Democrats and media pundits do you think would rush to rationalize and defend that Hugo Chavez-like act? My guess is certainly not all, and maybe even not even half, but still a pretty scary amount would put their goal of socialism above the U.S. Constitution, as that above 36 percent poll number on the favorable view of socialism showed).

jon1979 on February 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Not to mention that socialism saps the vitality of people who live under it. I lived in a social democracy (Sweden) for almost a decade. The people are passive sucklers at the state teat. People with drive and ambition try to emigrate to the US or Australia.

disa on February 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Socialism is the opiate of the intellectuals.

I forget who said it.

sleepyhead on February 7, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Get thee to a publisher, Doc. Time for you to educate the masses beyond HA. The Thomas Sowell of the next generation.

publiuspen on February 7, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Doc Zero writes as an adult to an adult audience. It’s refreshing. Keep it coming Doc, you have 7 billion people to educate. And thanks!

Metanis on February 7, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I am now aware that you have the capability of reading minds.
Robert17 on February 7, 2010 at 6:03 AM

He may not only may be reading a lot of our minds, but he has damn fine way of putting those thoughts down on paper.

Knowing that the road of Socialism is a dead end no matter HOW it’s mapped out, people need to consider how to institute theses changes to avoid the oncoming cliff.

Chainsaw56 on February 7, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Ludwig von Mises on Socialism

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSCover.html

rebuzz on February 7, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Yeah Doc, you’re good.

pugwriter on February 7, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Thomas Paine rides again!

turfmann on February 7, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Wonderful, Doc. As always.

Weight of Glory on February 7, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Enough of graft wielding politicians thieving our money. I agree Doc, we must begin to take back what the government has taken from US.

Thanks for your brilliance and your ability to put it in print.

bbh on February 7, 2010 at 10:11 PM

As of 2008, two-thirds of our Senators were millionaires, and all of them enjoy lavish perks, incredible benefits, and gold-plated retirements, including plush lobbying and consulting jobs… when they’re unlucky enough to fall through the few holes in a 90% incumbent re-election safety net. Many of our representatives, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, live like royalty by abusing their power. Every nickel of a politician’s fortune comes directly from your pocket, without your willing consent to purchase products or services.

Excellent, Doc. Precisely why we should not vote anyone in who refuses to live by the same laws/rules we have to.

“You drink the water, while I drink the wine” should lead to ‘chopping their heads off’, with no exceptions, regardless of party.

The lens of socialist envy is rather selective about which targets to focus upon. Its political allies are never presented to the public as object of hatred. Neither are those with enough popularity to insulate them from criticism, such as entertainers and professional athletes. Anyone who supports the Left out of hatred for the evil rich would benefit from considering a list of the fabulously wealthy people they have not been instructed to hate.

Alternate media will hopefully bankrupt the old media, who’re in bed with said hypocrites in Wash. D.C. and Hollywood. Not to forget lawyers, ‘community organizers’ and other assorted arses, who keep the sheeple in modern day plantations, exploit them in the name of “for the good of the people”.

Schadenfreude on February 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM

If progressive taxation is immoral, why is all taxation not immoral? All this theoretical talk about the evils of government in general begins to beg the question of where the boundaries of legitimate government actually lie; more often than not making the philosophical argument against government in general requires logic that can be turned just as easily on even constitutionally valid government, i.e. if the morality of taxation comes down to an issue of coercive burden (collected with a club as you say), how can government in any form, collecting taxes for any reason, remain philosophically legitimate?

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM

As several have said above, Doc, your work has to somehow be made available to an even broader audience.

justltl on February 7, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Unfortunately, Americans have stated loudly and clearly that they don’t want to be free. We have to accept that there are some things that can’t be changed so that we can focus our strength on those things we can change.

53 percent of voters chose radical socialism in 2008. And that’s not including the many, many who simply wanted the Republicans to give them socialism-lite. The number of people in this country who are interested in actual freedom is extraordinarily small.

And if we don’t allow people to suffer under the government they vote for, how will they ever learn?

JohnJ on February 7, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Excellent reasons all. But the primary reason that Socialism must be eliminated is because it is a system that can only operate on increasing heavy authoritarianism.

It presupposes that government employees know what you need better than you do; and when they have decided, that is what you will get…and not one iota more.

schmuck281 on February 7, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Back to the thrust of the article–

“The power and cost of the government have steadily increased – surging under the previous two Presidents, and exploding under the current one…”
“I believe this system is very close to total collapse.”

What to do?

“We have to change the direction of a culture that has trended leftward, toward collectivism, through several generations. We have to move the center back to the center.”

Yes, and that will be slow and painful. I think we must dig in for a long and very tough time. We had a great run, but we blew it on the education front.

“I think we’ll be surprised how fast the private sector leaps to its feet, once the government boot has been taken off its neck…”

Aye, there’s the rub, can we get it off?

Meremortal on February 7, 2010 at 10:45 PM

What he said…

Jeeze Dr… why aren’t running for office, writing speeches for prominent speakers, or sitting on FOX news as an analyst?

katy on February 7, 2010 at 10:49 PM

We’re still dealing with the same American public that demanded that George Bush be more left-wing.

JohnJ on February 7, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Socialism is the opiate of the intellectuals.masses.

I forget who said it.

sleepyhead on February 7, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I believe that was Marx.

chewmeister on February 7, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Great article Ayn!

One problem that I don’t see a solution for is that the romantic socialism Zero speaks of is propagated through higher education. Universities are the breeding ground for this worldview.

So just get more conservatives into education, right? But conservatives don’t teach, they do. I don’t think you’ll ever remove the romantic collectivist ideas from higher education.

hisfrogness on February 7, 2010 at 11:07 PM

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM

A country needs to run at a profit, and needs to be able to defend itself from outside marauders. And a lawful modern society can not have its laws enforced by a bankrupt government. I believe these are fundamental principles of civilization that most sensible people can agree upon.

If you are asking where the line of sensibility begins and ends, then I contend that if nothing else, most thoughtful people can agree that this particular government has crossed the line of sensible, well into absurd.

LibTired on February 7, 2010 at 11:11 PM

53 percent of voters chose radical socialism in 2008. And that’s not including the many, many who simply wanted the Republicans to give them socialism-lite. The number of people in this country who are interested in actual freedom is extraordinarily small.

JohnJ on February 7, 2010 at 10:42 PM

But they were lied to by a media that craves socialism like a cat craves mice. Being uninformed is not a wonderful excuse in this age, but many who were uninformed before are realizing as much now. Freedom is in America’s blood.

It’s not small. It just takes the Democrats getting nakedly in power for everyone to recognize which of their freedoms are in danger.

LibTired on February 7, 2010 at 11:15 PM

LibTired on February 7, 2010 at 11:11 PM

I’m asking that the liberty v. tyranny philosophical rhetoric be properly examined. Too often people wind up equating all government with tyranny. All tax increases become coercive and illegitimate, all deficit spending a theft. Then why not consider all taxes coercive and illegitimate, all spending a theft? If simply taking more is wrong, mustn’t taking in the first place also be wrong?

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:17 PM

socialism established the principle that government has the right to set the value of your time, along with first claim on it, taking your income before you even see it… and refunding the excess without interest, when it takes too much. Of course this reduces wealth and prosperity.

Doctor Zero, have you considered separating your analysis of socialism from the analysis of the political moment? Your strong presentation could become a manifesto, and even a set of talking points, in nine-millimeter bullets, to help us talk down, and take down, the socialist memes scurrying through the coffee houses and public squares.

njcommuter on February 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM

I’m glad the dreaded S-word is finally out in the open. Conservative writers, bloggers, and pundits hesitated to use it in the context of the Obama presidency–I guess because they were fearful of being accused of hyperbole. American socialists, on the other hand, typically don’t refer to themselves as such because of its historical associations with mass-murdering collectivists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il, who, according to these true-believing progressive apologists, were and are an aberration, sinister deviations from the true Marxist ideal. Funny how this ‘aberration’ happens every time the socialist model is allowed to run its miserable course.

The only things socialism is good at, in the end, are gulags and guillotines.

troyriser_gopftw on February 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM

troyriser_gopftw on February 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM

While I am no anti-capitalist, the rhetorical tactic of equating socialism with pol pot and stalin is in fact hyperbolic. When you consider the political economies of Sweden or Germany, it becomes clear that social democracy is in fact feasible and implementable without the brutal totalitarianism of eastern europe and southeast asia. One can make a million decent arguments against social justice as policy, but none of them need be so outlandish as to equate income tax witholding with gulags.

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:29 PM

A recent poll showed 36% of Americans, and 53% of Democrats, had a positive opinion of socialism. Our task is to understand why.

Indeed. I’ve never been able to reconcile why people can’t see that this country became powerful and achieved the highest standard of living for a reason; free market, individualism, opportunity… capitalism! It’s probably to do with the life cycles of civilization (list from the Freedom Factory):

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage”

Pick which phase we are in now…

yubley on February 7, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Dr Zero, what is your goal with this article? I read it and was simultaneously impressed and yet unimpressed. It was enjoyable to read and brought cheer to my heart through its eloquent expression of ideas I too hold, yet it seemed to be contaminated with the fluff of unnecessary hyperbole and, it seems to me, a fair number of ‘straw-men’.

For example, comments about a generic ‘left’ are understandable from regular blog-commentators in the context of briefly expressing their frustration but such remarks cannot withstand critical review because the generic ‘left’ doesn’t really exist; ‘left’ is a merely a label loosely attached by different people to different things. Furthermore the use and misuse of such labels is one of the ways that issues become obfuscated thereby multiplying the ignorance and confusion that favours the plans of evil people, and in which liberty and prosperity suffocate and perish. Can we really use that ‘weapon’ effectively or does obfuscation always work against us? I don’t know.

For me, this article is akin to a sword made of gold; a beautiful piece of craftsmanship that delights the eyes and attracts justified admiration, but in battle too soft and too easily blunted or sliced asunder and thus ultimately ineffective for the necessary work of decapitating the opposing ideas.

I sincerely hope we will be able to provide constructive and useful feedback against which you can both harden and sharpen your linguistic weapons.

YiZhangZhe on February 7, 2010 at 11:34 PM

While I am no anti-capitalist, the rhetorical tactic of equating socialism with pol pot and stalin is in fact hyperbolic. When you consider the political economies of Sweden or Germany, it becomes clear that social democracy is in fact feasible and implementable without the brutal totalitarianism of eastern europe and southeast asia. One can make a million decent arguments against social justice as policy, but none of them need be so outlandish as to equate income tax witholding with gulags.

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:29 PM

They do not have the burden of a huge military budget since we take care of that for them!

yubley on February 7, 2010 at 11:34 PM

They do not have the burden of a huge military budget since we take care of that for them!

yubley on February 7, 2010 at 11:34 PM

And? My point was about there being a logical disconnect between social democracies and the Khmer Rouge…not on the comparative budgets of european social democracies and the US.

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Strange that whenever I read your articles Doc, I always find awe in the thoughts that you set before me. I fantasize being as articulate and inspiring as you are.

thanks.

royzer on February 7, 2010 at 11:41 PM

This moment demands more than a critique of socialism, which is nothing less than a challenge to freedom, and requires an answer. Only by expressing the philosophy of conservatism, in powerful and memorable terms, can we win the popular support necessary to implement concrete proposals.

The opposite of socialism is NOT conservatism, but liberalism, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, John Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, etc. Everywhere in the world liberalism means capitalism, individual liberty, rule of law, separation of powers, free speech, democracy, etc.

Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in 1948:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Conservative in most of the world means rooted in the church or the monarchy or nobility. The tragedy is that America has been hijacked and torn apart by socialists and conservatives. The electorate:

Socialists/fake liberals: 35%
Real liberals/libertarians: 30%
Conservatives: 35%

Conservatives are clueless, because they help the socialists dig their grave. As long as the political debate is defined as conservative vs liberal, the socialists win. Do the math.

The way out: start using the forbidden s-word instead of “liberal”. The opposition to socialism needs to reclaim liberalism. That’s a difficult switch to achieve, so lets start by uniting under the banner of liberty and ditching the conservative label. Urban under-30s will never call themselves conservatives.

modifiedcontent on February 7, 2010 at 11:43 PM

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Hellooooo. National Socialism? Does that ring any bells in that tiny brain of yours?

bitsy on February 7, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Urban under-30s will never call themselves conservatives.

modifiedcontent on February 7, 2010 at 11:43 PM

Entirely correct, though there are those fans of enlightenment scholarship that still find themselves preferring Rousseau to Locke…

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:46 PM

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Gotcha.

…it becomes clear that social democracy is in fact feasible and implementable without the brutal totalitarianism of eastern europe and southeast asia

Of course it is feasible, but then communism would work in a perfect world, too.

yubley on February 7, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Hellooooo. National Socialism? Does that ring any bells in that tiny brain of yours?

bitsy on February 7, 2010 at 11:45 PM

::sigh::

Then what, oh bitsy, ye with superior intelligence, should lead me to equate today’s Swedish or German governments with the Khmer Rouge? Germany today is a participatory democracy…it has a capitalist economy…an export leader in the region…and isn’t murdering its own citizens en masse! Why on earth should I equate the policies of today’s Germany or Sweden with that of Pol Pot?

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Ernesto, socialism is emphatically not ‘social justice as a policy’. It is centralized control of the means of production by the state. And what, exactly, does ‘social justice’ mean, anyway? I hear and read the term ‘social justice’ thrown around a lot, but no one–to my knowledge–has ever bothered to explain it. The term must be one of those self-evident truths or something.

And yes, it’s perfectly fair and right to bring psychotic, mass-murdering megalomaniacs into the argument; or rather, as an argument against any ideological construct founded on Marxist principles, whether a ‘soft’ euro-style socialism or a ‘hard’ Soviet, Chinese, or Cuban-style bloodbath.

Your beloved Che Guevara ordered political prisoners shot out of hand–most of whom who were not, by any stretch of the imagination or knowledge of available facts, threats to the Castro regime. By the way, I understand Che begged for his life on his knees like the coward he was when the Bolivians cornered him. A far cry, I gather, from Benicio Del Toro’s ‘You only kill a man’ performance, but hey, that’s Hollywood for you.

troyriser_gopftw on February 7, 2010 at 11:49 PM

troyriser_gopftw on February 7, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Why is Che Guevara my beloved? And just what ideological construct are proper philosophies of government built on? You needn’t engage in such wild accusations. I made a very paticular point, that one must reach to hyperbole to make arguments that equate something like income tax witholding directly to mass murdering bolsheviks. You give no indication as to why that isn’t so. You’ve argued around me completely. Why?

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM

When you consider the political economies of Sweden or Germany, it becomes clear that social democracy is in fact feasible and implementable without the brutal totalitarianism of eastern europe and southeast asia.

Despite what the clueless conservatives tell you, Sweden and Germany are NOT socialist states.

Continental Europe has a parliamentary system. Governments are always coalitions formed after the elections, so the political parties only have to appeal to their base.

Socialist parties typically get no more than 30 to 40 percent of the vote. They usually form coalition governments with conservatives, usually Christian Democrats, sometimes with liberals (=capitalists in the European context).

Sweden and Germany have functioning economies thanks to capitalism. They are mixed economies, with a free market private sector and a socialist public sector coexisting in a compromise. It’s a system that emphasizes stability and status quo, big business over small business. The private sector is controlled by old money. If you are born into the socialist public sector, you’re not very likely to ever become an entrepreneur or be succesful in business. There is little social mobility.

Europe is stagnating and the babyboomer generation is about to bankrupt their welfare states, just like in the US.

modifiedcontent on February 7, 2010 at 11:55 PM

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM

blah blah blah.

When you consider the political economies of Sweden or Germany, it becomes clear that social democracy

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:29 PM

vs.

Germany today is a participatory democracy…it has a capitalist economy

ernesto on February 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM

So is it a social democracy or a capitalist democracy? Make up your mind.

bitsy on February 7, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Entirely correct, though there are those fans of enlightenment scholarship that still find themselves preferring Rousseau to Locke…

Rousseau was a precursor to fascism. What’s your point?

modifiedcontent on February 7, 2010 at 11:56 PM

So just get more conservatives into education, right? But conservatives don’t teach, they do.

hisfrogness on February 7, 2010 at 11:07 PM

This is indeed a ‘problem’. Most conservatives are generally too busy living productive lives to have the time or inclination to re-arrange the lives of other people in society. The problem highlights, I suppose, the need to keep education institutions small and in competition with one another (i.e. not standardised) so that ideas can compete without one set of ideas being given undue influence because it has been adopted as national policy by the economic parasites and intellectual lightweights that government seems to attract.

Standardisation, whether by the design of policy or the accident of academic cliques, becomes an intellectual suppressant because ideas can no longer compete freely.

In a standardised environment the “better mousetrap” is rejected by some low-level, form-stamping bureaucrat because it doesn’t conform to the previously accepted ways, long before its efficacy and merits as a mouse trap are even considered by the technocrats, philosophers and the users of mouse traps.

Doctor Zero, have you considered separating your analysis of socialism from the analysis of the political moment?
njcommuter on February 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM

+1.

YiZhangZhe on February 7, 2010 at 11:59 PM

So is it a social democracy or a capitalist democracy? Make up your mind.

bitsy on February 7, 2010 at 11:55 PM

…oh forget it. google “political economy of Germany”…or read a wikipedia page. Just…read a bit before we continue this discussion.

modifiedcontent on February 7, 2010 at 11:55 PM

I understand all of this, which is why i make the analogy. All the philosophical talk equating expanded entitlements like health care or higher taxes with mass murdering bolsheviks is wildly out of touch with the realities of the situation. There are too many ‘clueless conservatives’ around these days, as you put it.

ernesto on February 8, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Rousseau was a precursor to fascism. What’s your point?

modifiedcontent on February 7, 2010 at 11:56 PM

That not all of the urban under 30′s that are aware of enlightenment philosophy and true liberalism are of the Lockean variety.

ernesto on February 8, 2010 at 12:02 AM

One talking point you can extrapolate from this article would be this:

collectivist morality is antithetical to a free world and, as such, you cannot argue that collectivism is morally right without also arguing that the constitution is morally wrong.

ehhh…maybe not.

hisfrogness on February 8, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2