Resolved:
May 3, 2010
1. It is reasonable, legitimate and necessary to use the power of the central government (through progressive taxation, income redistribution and support for labor) to restrain the tendency of big business to concentrate wealth in the hands of an elite few, and thus provide social and economic stability.
2. Believing proposition #1 does not make one a “socialist.”
27 Comments
Comments are closed.
Thank you. I hear the opposite of this nearly every day, and I have never agreed to it.
I hear the opposite of this nearly every day
Well, yes – we all do; it is in the interests of economic elites for you to hear some version of that opposite narrative whenever you open a newspaper or turn on the television.
Redistribution of wealth I think is a necessary condition under State Capitalism, especially when the State concentrates capital and wealth in the hand of the few. And no, redistribution of wealth isn’t necessarily “Socialism”, depends on the definition of the word.
What does it take to be a socialist? Very few believe in pure capitalism. The question is how much restraint is proper and allows people to reach their potential.
We certainly have seen oceans of blood spilled by the tendency of big government to concentrate power in the hands of an elite few.
If the only choice is unrestrained business or unrestrained government, business is much less dangerous. I can provide numerous examples of the danger of the latter.
What should be restrained is power and privilege, not potential. It is the other way around in our system today, or probably a merge of those three.
If the only choice is unrestrained business or unrestrained government, business is much less dangerous. I can provide numerous examples of the danger of the latter.
Well, I could provide numerous examples of banana republics where a few land owners and oligarchs wield all the power, and landless peasants do things like plot armed revolution, or (especially in more arid places like this) starve – these places (sadly) aren’t exactly rare.
The good news is, our choices are much broader than “unrestrained business or unrestrained government,” thank goodness.
I think there is a “sweet spot” between the two extremes; a system where there is enough regulation to keep business interests from rigging the whole game in their favor, but where enough room is left for economic dynamism; where taxes are high (and steeply progressive) enough that plutocrats have no incentive to agrandize way more than their reasonable share of wealth to themselves, but where work is rewarded. Not “literal equality for everyone” but more, “keep it fair, guys.”
Depends on the meaning of “Socialist”, if it means abolition of all private property, and transferring all of them under ownership and control of the State, then redistribution of wealth isn’t Socialism. And yes, its consequence of this “Socialism” is totalitarianism (centralization of control).
Socialism could also mean workers ownership and control of the means of production while still recognizing private property, this is in harmony with the Catholic Social Teaching. Its consequences is liberty, decentralization of ownership and control.
Using the term is useless without having a view of property and the limit of property rights. Without it, we will only be arguing semantics.
Mr Talbot,
I agree that Banana Republics are not an ideal to work for either, but they are another example of example of unrestrained government, not business. The jefe leads the government, while his minions run the businesses at his behest. This ruling cabal is running things for power, not ideology. The dangerous ones, the crazed socialists, the bloodthirsty monsters, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, murdered for the benefit of their beliefs. The oceans are deep, bloody and wide. The only real difference between this literal Murderer’s Row is that some were international socialists and some were national socialists. Not much of a difference in my opinion.
My version of the “sweet spot” is not to punish the wealthy for creating incredible wealth. Wealthy people take no money from me without my consent. Why should they be punished for earning above a certain level?
Perhaps the most important question was asked by President Obama concerning at some point haven’t you made enough money? Who is he to decide that, AND as long as you are not defrauding people or conducting illegal practices, who is the government to decide when anyone has too much?
Thankfully our Constitution specifically limited the power of the government and left all powers not given to the government to the state or the citizen.
Perhaps the solution that everyone would agree to, except those who benefit from the current monstrosity, is to truly get the power out of the beltway. If the Congress cannot rig the rules to benefit the wealthy, why would the wealthy bribe them with huge contributions? If the law was simply worked to “keep it fair,” then the cash tsunami that has corrupted the system would dry up. What a beautiful concept – laws to benefit everyone, not just special interest groups.
Of course, it would be like my dog voting not to give herself treat, not very likely.
Republicans redistribute wealth, too – just upwards. Not that the Democrats are much to write home to Austria about. It’s hilarious that Obama is viewed as a socialist. By European standards, he’s center-right. What’s with the big bogeyman of socialism anyway ? I guess decades of indoctrination, and the inability to separate Socialism and Communism (granted, Communist states didn’t distinguish that well either).
Democratic socialism has been around in Europe for decades – and, as it happens, Pope Benedict has embraced it. But what does their leader count for when politics get in the way :) (see also: invasion of Iraq & prior pope)
The boogeyman the cretins like Beck present doesn’t exist. Not in Canada, not in Western Europe. It’s not socialism, it’s mitigated capitalism there.
Healthcare reform was nice by American standards, but it’s nothing compared to what the average European gets (horror stories from the Right notwithstanding). Healthcare tied to a job, not to the person, is simply immoral.
Broadly speaking, in Western Europe the average citizen is better off in employment (vacation, p/maternity leave, work hours…), healthcare, education, dealing with banks and tenant rights. It’s downright Dickensian in the USA in many areas. The Social Democratic parties in Europe don’t want to take away your house or kill your granny :-P The traditional conservative parties (Christian Social Union in Bavaria, say) are not like the Republicans. “Social peace” and “Social partnership” are actual words in German.
The worst European right wingers wouldn’t dare suggest social policies like Republicans. The Republicans are a party for the rich, posing as populists, coasting on fear & loathing (minus Las Vegas). The things a significant percentage of Americans believes in/advocates/are afraid of are truly astounding. Gay marriage. Evolution. Socialism. Left Behind/Rapture. You couldn’t get a big crowd together for any of this in Western Europe.
Austria’s Social Democrats were arrested/killed first by the Catholic fascists and then by the Nazis. After WWII, they thwarted a Communist coup. (note: Communists don’t like Socialists). “Red Vienna” had amazing public services that Americans can only dream of – decades ago. My family and friends are rather bewildered by the documentaries on the Tea Party idiots.
A power-hungry crew like Bush’s talking about big government is an absurdity of the first order. Theirs was a big government – it just did a lot of their governing/killing with a little help from various corporate friends. The ideology behind today’s Republicans is to fund private business with tax dollars. Halliburton, Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) and so forth. It’s redistribution alright. Rich suburbs become their own towns so they don’t have to contribute to the larger community. You can have everything you want there – as long as you can pay for it. It’s a two-tier society, a homo homini lupus nightmare. There is no sense of solidarity. If you’re rich and disaster strikes, a friendly corporation will fly you to paradise (not a joke), if you’re poor you end up sitting on the roof of your house – or floating dead in the river. Hey, it’s a great opportunity! (Milton Friedman on New Orleans) Pesky poor gone, time to build another godforsaken development with identical, gauche McMansions. (“Weeds” is the perfect show on this).
The goal is to dismantle everything public, hand it over to crony corporations and milk the people. Private disaster relief organizations were complaining that the Red Cross and others were “mission creep”! Helping people shouldn’t be free, dammit!
The uniquely American unholy alliance is pure genius. A party favoring the rich gets elected by the hoi polloi because of “God, guns and gays”.
It’s still the Oklahoma Land Rush and every yokel thinks he can be a Sooner.
Lastly, doesn’t it bother anyone on the Catholic Right that Catholic Social Teaching is pretty much the opposite of the American system ?
Lastly, doesn’t it bother anyone on the Catholic Right that Catholic Social Teaching is pretty much the opposite of the American system ?
Yes, it does. Which is why they attack “social justice,” but to ignore that it is Vatican teaching they are mocking, they use the USCCB as a place to launch all their scorn. And this goes on for many issues: if you don’t like it, blame the USCCB. If you don’t like an environmental concern, it’s the USCCB trying to make us communists (despite the Pope’s words on environmentalism). If you don’t want immigration reform and want to help AZ support its draconian law, blame the USCCB (and ignore Popes on migration). It goes on and on. It’s very sad. It shows how little Catholicism affects their conscience; they think, like Protestants, a few propositions is the fullness of faith.
If the only choice is unrestrained business or unrestrained government, business is much less dangerous. I can provide numerous examples of the danger of the latter.
If we limit examples of the latter to democratic governments, can you still provide numerous examples of the greater danger of the latter?
Can I also throw out that Socialists are not quite as responsible for “Big Government” as we are accused of. It is the moderate Republicans and “new Democrats” who seem to love means-tested government program for the relief of the poor. We Socialists will take a strong, independent non-governmental labor movment over that any day.
Fundementally, Socialism is about worker empowerment and economic democracy. Government regulation can be a means to that end, but no less than trade unionism, consumer activism, trust-busting, cooperative enterprises, and other means.
Progressive taxation and income redistribution are not related to business, strictly speaking. Concentration of wealth is not necessarily unjust as long as the poor are not denied their human rights. Redistribution of weath does not necessarily lead to social and economic stability, and often results in the opposite.
Thus: It is reasonable, legitimate and necessary to use the power of the central government (through fair regulation) to oversee the actions of big business. Believing in that proposition does not make one a socialist.
Wealthy people take no money from me without my consent.
You are lucky. It happens to me on about a weekly basis.
All this labeling is rather pointless. It’s a question of power and how it’s used. Democracy isn’t good per se. Monarchy isn’t bad per se. Whether power is private or public is secondary. Neither is per se virtuous or sinister. A corporation can be more powerful than a government (heck, some had the American military and CIA do their bidding. Eg, United Fruit Company. That would be the perfect name for the GOP by the way. Since UFC is now Chiquita (sounds much cuter eh?), the GOP could switch acronyms).
Any form of society features some degree of coercion. If you think corporations can’t coerce, well, then you must be new here. Governments are elected (although the 2-party-system in the US is a duopoly that’s almost impenetrable), so at least there’s some degree of accountability. I’m all for free enterprise – but crony corporations getting taxpayer-paid gigs isn’t that. Privatization of conquered lands benefits foreign corporations (and sometimes domestic gangsters, like in Russia), not small business owners. (The US didn’t hire Iraqis for years). In a way, Halliburton became part of the big GOP government – it’s just that the profits don’t benefit the public (the 30 pieces of silver rad-trad Catholic former head of Blackwater/Xe Erik Price got for helping turn Iraq into potters field were probably offshored). Where government is needed is in situations where one party is clearly weaker. Unions, collective bargaining came through the blood, sweat and tears of countless women and men. (that unions can in turn be awful is a given). Being rich isn’t necessarily evil, being poor not necessarily virtuous.
There are areas where EU governments are too restrictive – it’s easier to start a business here. The US is also highly dynamic and adaptable. One can rise faster and higher here probably, but also fall much, much lower than in the EU.
When German speakers talk about Sozialpolitik, they mean aiming for a balance of enterprise and protection of regular people. Sozial doesn’t mean socialist. In Austria, there’s the term Sozialpartnerschaft (Social partnership), referring to a pretty amicable relationship between business and unions. Strikes are basically unheard of. This started in WWII, when Socialists and Christian Centrists found themselves in concentration camps together.
The problem in the USA is the “Paranoid style in politics”, everything’s a war. These trench wars are fairly unique in the West – esp. the issues like gay marriage, abortion, evolution etc. Sure, abortion is legal in Europe, but it’s actually restricted by simple law (1st trimester usually). Here, it’s basically in the Constitution, one group wants no regulation, the other might go as far as forcing women to carry doomed babies to term. Scare tactics, conspiracy theories, religious madness, strawmen – histrionics. Apart from its regrettable stance on gay rights and (in part) abortion (life of mother, 9 year old raped girl by father etc) its social teaching are quite in tune with the European way. Given the cultural heritage of many Americans (persecuted religious fanatics), this paranoia isn’t surprising. If I had to choose between a Catholic ruler and a Calvinist or Lutheran (old school) one, I’d take the Catholic any day. Predestination is a pernicious concept and still responsible for the woeful lack of solidarity in the USA. I’m doing well, so I must be good. You’re poor? Well, God hates you. But here, have some crumbs off my table, wretch. There is a big difference between healthcare due to charity or healthcare being viewed as a right. Socially, “sola fide” has proven disastrous.
All this labeling is rather pointless. It’s a question of power and how it’s used. Democracy isn’t good per se. Monarchy isn’t bad per se.
Gerald, I think we are finding ourselves in more agreement these days. Though I have a preference to one system, for various reasons, I do think no system will lead to utopia, and I think all systems can be used for good or ill. Indeed, it is this kind of political pluralism which one finds in Maistre which I think leads him to go beyond many of his later followers. I also think it might be important to have a change in system, from time to time (I am not certain of this) in order to help deal with political problems after a particular system has been in so long that it no longer brings fresh solutions to the problems of the time. But, I think you are right in saying the American political situation has become, at least in some quarters, geared towards paranoia, which makes for an offensive, “we are at war” response, with the war making “the other” in political beliefs as “the enemy.”
From the seminal 1964 essay by Richard Hofstadter on the “paranoid style in American politics”. Magazine version here: http://neuralgourmet.com/2008/05/09/paranoidstyle/ Read it, then read it again.
“American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.
In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.
Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. But nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content.
Here a real nugget from it.
“Anti-Catholicism has always been the pornography of the Puritan.”
To face into the wind once more with a rather dismal assessment of human nature.
The more power that a socialist/communist/fascist (all just variants of the same theme) has, the more likely he is to end up as mass murderer. You may hate men like the CEOs of big companies, but the number of people they have murdered is the rounding error of monsters like Castro, Pol Pot, and Mao.
All that I needed to know about the true face of socialism was to listen to refugees from North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, the USSR and other places that have gone for the Big Government Experience.
Can anyone think of one experience with full bore socialism, either national or international, that did not end up with millions of corpses?
Navy Vet – again, the two choices aren’t “despotic government” or “all hail our corporate masters.”
This is what I wrote:
1. It is reasonable, legitimate and necessary to use the power of the central government (through progressive taxation, income redistribution and support for labor) to restrain the tendency of big business to concentrate wealth in the hands of an elite few, and thus provide social and economic stability.
2. Believing proposition #1 does not make one a “socialist.”
Nowhere in there do I support despotic government power; I’m suggesting that the government has a role to play in helping balance society by keeping things from becoming too unequal. That’s a far cry from “socialism” by virtually any definition.
Many will say Norway is socialist. People who think Obama is a socialist might just drop dead if they knew Norway. It also has one of the highest standards of living in the world. And nothing in common with Pol Pot. Neither does Holland (pot yes, Pol no). All these countries are basically capitalist, they just lean toward favoring people over business to a bigger degree than the American system. Taxes are higher (15% is a common figure I’ve found). But university is free or cheap, healthcare is tied to the person not the job. Pre-existing conditions don’t exist. Your pension won’t go down with the company. 16 weeks fully paid parental leave, illegal to fire a pregnant woman or to have her work in the 8 weeks before predicted birth. 5 weeks vacation a year is the law (my dad has 6). Medical treatment is the same for all, Catholic hospitals are part of the public healthcare system. You can pay extra to choose the doctor and have a room to yourself. If anything, it’s recommended to stay in hospital longer than shorter. Medication copayments are low. Public hospitals. Rental agreements favor the tenant. CEOs make far less (Japan, for example) . Environmental standards are stricter. And so forth. This is the common standard elsewhere in the Western world.
Navy Vet –
The following administrations:
Ramsey MacDonald, Willy Brandt, Golda Meir, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Olof Palme, Clement Atlee, Francios Mitterand, Felipe González, Mario Soares, Andreas Papandreou, Michelle Bacarlet, David Ben Gurion, Yitzhak Rabin, Edvard Benes, Karl Renner, Bruno Kreisky, and Friedrich Eburt.
I think of the men and woman on this list, their greatest sin maybe was taking all of that CIA money your conservatives funneled to them during the Cold War. Other than that, I would say pretty good guys.
Mr Kurt,
I do admit that I enjoyed reading your list of “socialists.” But to classify them as real socialists, you would bring a tear to the eye of a political scientist.
Even you have to admit that including West Germans on the list is funny. If you want to see first hand the difference between socialist and non-socialist regimes – Germany is a perfect example. You do remember that big wall that split Berlin? It was not to keep the West Berliners and Germans – including Mr Brandt and company – from illegally immigrating to the DDR.
To list that group as reflective of successful socialists is silly. If that is the best that people can come up with to refute the fact that purer socialist equals purer mass murderer, I will consider my point QED.
On the other hand, the Israelis did try to implement a socialist system for quite a while, until they admitted that it really did not work well. Have you been to Tel Aviv lately? It is not even remotely like Pyongyang or Havana.
Bruno Kreisky (Jewish chancellor of Austria for many years) probably didn’t get CIA money, Austria was neutral.’w
Navy Vet –
Every one of them was elected on the Socialist ticket. Willy Brandt was not only head of West Germany’s socialist party, but head of the Socialist International.
But here is what I find funny. I don’t think Obama is a socialist, even though some accuse him of such. But some use the President’s modest social welfare initiatives to suggest a sympathy for the more robust social initiatives of democratic socialist to suggest he is. And then, having applied the term Socialist to him, change the definition of the term as to mean Marxist-Leninism.
Calling people who try to play such rhetorical tricks liars and cads is probably being charitable to them. In fact, they are something much worse.
Mr Kurt,
I agree. Calling people things that they are not is reprehensible, and certainly not limited to either side of the political spectrum.
The reason that I will not support people who run under the banner of socialist is simple. They are advocating stronger and stronger governments, something that I feel is strongly dangerous.
When the government is big enough to take care of everyone, then people tend to lose the sense of obligation to take care of both their neighbors and themselves. Not to mention that nasty habit of killing millions of people.
Navy Vet –
So which is it? Are the leaders I mentioned “real socialists” who just didn’t stay in office long enough to get around to their hidden agenda of mass killing as, given enough time, the socialist Obama surely will? Or are they and other supporters of some form of social democratic policies not “real socialists” as you suggest at one point?
The spinning is getting me dizzy.
Kurt,
I am not sure why you are spinning outside of the plight of trying to deny that socialists have consistently turned out to be mass-murderers.
Any honest list of genocidal monsters is prominently filled with socialists. I am not sure how anyone can avoid that fundamental truth.
Allow me to share some of the logic that the Jesuits pounded into my head at school. Not all socialists are genocidal fiends, but all successful genocidal fiends have turned out to be socialists (using the term socialist as person favoring extremely strong governmental power). Why Portugal did not turn into a bloodbath while having a socialist in power is more than likely due to the ability of the system. It usually takes extraordinary circumstances to allow the people to submit to the takeover of that power. Once the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, etc. are in place, they are very difficult to get rid of because the people correctly fear for their own lives.
Allow me to share an elegant litmus test to see if you live in a socialist paradise – put the following bumper sticker on your car (insert requisite joke about socialists owning either a rusted out VW bug held together by platitudinous bumper stickers or a Rolls Royce limo) “Impeach Stalin” or whoever the dictator happens to be. If you live in a true socialist country, you will quietly disappear into the Gulag. If you survive for the next few months, you live with some freedom, and hence not a true socialist country.
Norway might be able to get away with giving away tons of money on social programs because they have fewer people than Minnesota living in a place that few people want to emigrate to and happen to sit on oceans of petroleum to finance the whole deal. But most places cannot hide the fact that “everybody shares the wealth equally” is not strong basis for an economy. People will not work as hard for everyone else as they do for their own families. Altruism has limits.