Comments on: Towards a Responsible Definition of “Socialism”

By: david correll

david correll — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:36:09 +0000

Too many worrying about socialism don’t seem to rightly understand what socialism really is or that the U.S.A. has had it since Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced the “New Deal” which started Social Security System and we are regulated by those numbers ever since. In-a-sense if you don’t take the number your abilities to buy and sell are greatly hindered. And today you cannot partisapate in using credit or credit cards without an account number. WAKE UP! We are and have been under Socialism since then. Everybody seems worried about it coming to us but it’s here,I don’t see that it’s so bad in-that it helps a lot of poor people to live better. The only thing bad about it is those who work the system and won’t work if offered a job; that’s the bad side that needs a remedy. That’s my view point. SINCERELY,Lefty Cor

By: Politico Slyly Legitimizes Glenn Beck « Submitted to a Candid World

Politico Slyly Legitimizes Glenn Beck « Submitted to a Candid World — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:39:23 +0000

[...] Nazism, communism, and other historical horrors. The attacks aren’t new, nor are their easy rebuttals. That Hitler pushed for universal healthcare (just like Obama!) conveys about as much information [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:41:01 +0000

My point was that conservative-leaning districts are going to fall. There are plenty of good Republican candidates out there.

By: lanfranc

lanfranc — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:29:13 +0000

On a similar note, considering that (as far as I can recall) all western European social democratic and democratic socialist parties grew out of the original internationalist socialist movement, I don’t think “sordid” is exactly the best way to describe its history. I’d suggest “hugely successful” instead.

By: kyleFitch

kyleFitch — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:46:10 +0000

There is a very important distinction to make between the concept of socialism and Marx’s version of socialism. As you pointed out in your post, to Marx socialism was a transition period between capitalism and communism. It was Marx who identified that control of the means of production was the reason for class inequality. His belief was that public ownership of the means of production was the only way to achieve an egalitarian society. But, also as you pointed out, the concept of socialism predates Marx’s philosophy. Therefore public ownership of the means of production is not sine qua non for socialism. The central idea behind socialism is economic and social equality. Whether it is Marxism, communism, social democracy, etc., if the goal is equal economic outcomes, then it is a form of socialism. So, once again, you are correct in asserting that we are not on the verge of a socialist revolution. Any rhetoric to that effect is just that, rhetoric. Nothing more. However, referring to any policy that one sees as government coercion to achieve “redistributive change” as socialist is not irresponsible. It is not even “red-baiting.” Calling the president a “communist”, that would be red-baiting. The “Joe the Plumber” moment is not the only time Mr. Obama has referred to wealth redistribution. Incidentally, I agree that the exchange with “Joe” was taken out of context. He was talking about progressive taxation, not socialism, and I have no problem with that. The problem I did have is his use of the word “the”, as in “the wealth.” Wealth is not a pie. The economy is not a zero sum game. But that is a different discussion. By the way, taxation is not inherently distributive. A government can choose to spend the revenue in a way that only the people who pay the tax can benefit. For example, municipal land fills that require proof of residency to use. And as for the Fabians, you are right, they are not nearly as socialist as they once were. But then again, neither is Europe.

By: Mike Haubrich, FCD

Mike Haubrich, FCD — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:32:31 +0000

Yes, taht would be a major upset if Kentucky were to elect some conservatives. It would change everything we know abou tpolitics.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:22:59 +0000

I’m not sure about other states but the field we have her in KY is one of the best I’ve seen since I started following politics. And again, this is going to be such a slam dunk in conservative districts that i don’t think it really even matter who the GOP runs.

By: ACG

ACG — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:09:23 +0000

Great points by Steve and Lanfranc; I was looking forward to your comments on this, Lanfranc.

And Mike, the theory that the left will lose hard next year depends on the existence of plausible alternative candidates. How’s that going?

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:24:49 +0000

I think the bigger reason that transit no longer a “profitable” business has more to do with anti-trust law and automotive industry lobbying than anything else. Back in the day when electric streetcar businesses were turning profits, it was because the Electric Company was the Streetcar Company was a big Real Estate Developer. That’s still the case with Japanese suburban development – the commuter rail companies are also big real estate developers, and they design their developments so everybody in them will have to ride their trains. As it applied to the old US electric cable-car transit(which were profit-turning enterprises up until the 40s and 50s), the company would build their line out, powering it with their own electricity, then build houses where their line went (and sell the people who moved in their electricity). That started getting broken up in the 20th century as too much of a monopolistic business. Also, Detroit started lobbying heavily for a shift in zoning and street layouts so that the density you need for transit (if you want to DREAM of coming close to just to breaking even on a single route, for the peak time of use, you’ve got to have 8-12 dwelling units/acre for buses and close to 20 for light rail), but that make having a car a necessity.

Which lets me move in to an observation on ACG’s original post: government regulation of industry may be as much a corporatist act done in the service of a subset of capitalism-market participants, as a socialist act. Take a look at the recent tobacco regulation law: Altria (Philip Morris) supported it. All the other tobacco companies opposed it. Why? Because Philip Morris has close to 50% market share, and everybody else combined makes up the other half, so limits on advertising keep Camel and Winston from edging onto Marlboro’s turf. There’s extensive regulations on pharmacies, and Joe the Pharmacist can’t satisfy them to open his own pharmacy? That’s the whole reason Rite Aid, CVS, and Walgreens lobbied for those regulations to be put in place: to keep Joe the Pharmacist from being able to enter the market. Economic regulation can (not always, but often) serve large or well-established business interests by interfering with smaller business’s ability to compete or new business’s ability to enter the market. And protecting large/established businesses is not socialist by any definition of the term.

By: lanfranc

lanfranc — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:40:58 +0000

It’s not quite true that socialism “lacked real meaning” until Marx and Engels came around. At least a generation earlier, you had Robert Owen and Charles Hall in Britain, and Charles Fourier and Henri de Saint-Simon in France.

What Marx and Engels did was rather to ‘hijack’ this earlier concept and make it simply a part of their idea of their historically determinist progression towards communism.

But a socialist ideology existed before that time as well. Granted, it was a very diverse ideology, but it’d say that’s not any less true of socialism after M&E or even today, for that matter.