Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[mark46]

Hi, Mark. I really don't know what you have in mind there.

I have checked back through a number of posts on this thread and see nothing that would prompt that inquiry, so is this just "out of the blue" curiosity?

I had thought that you believed that the far left of the Democratic Party favored moving the US to socialist principles. Curiously, I agree. I just think that the far left is a small minority in government, as it is in European countries.

I apologize if I have misstated your position.

 

[mark46]

I would note that there is a difference between the concept of the workers owning the plants and the government owning the plants (and means of production).

There are, and have been, lots of cooperatives in the US where the workers own the company. Some would call this "socialism"; some would call this "communism"; some would just call this a co-op or kibbutz.

There are many such companies in the US. If we include family owned companies where the the distribution isn't "even" among workers, then there are many more companies where all the assets of the company are owned by the workers. And yes, I understand that most of you don't consider the top tech folks to be workers.
============
When I think of the scare of socialism, I think of state socialism in countries such as Russia and China. Some call these countries state communism. In any case, the objection is having the state own and direct the means of production.

The old-fashioned idea of communism being the workers owning the factory was a dream of another age. IMO, this concept would be a co-operative.

 

[Albion]

I had thought that you believed that the far left of the Democratic Party favored moving the US to socialist principles.

Well, yes. But what you asked me was this:

Just for giggles, do you think that the majority of Democrats believe the government should OWN steel mills, car manufacturers, tech companies and other businesses?

..................................................................

Curiously, I agree. I just think that the far left is a small minority in government, as it is in European countries.

Okay, but it's nothing special to note, as many people have, that the Bernie Sanders--Keith Ellison--AOC and "The Squad" faction of the party has gained ground pretty fast in the past few years and appears to have increasing influence, even if it is not the majority at present.

 

[Speedwell]

It's the "non-working types" that make socialism fail. Those who do work don't get the full share of their labors but are forced by the state, through exorbitant taxes, to support those who don't.

Under capitalism, the money goes directly to the "non-working types" as profits. Cut's out the government middle-man.

 

[gaara4158]

It's the "non-working types" that make socialism fail. Those who do work don't get the full share of their labors but are forced by the state, through exorbitant taxes, to support those who don't.

What you’re referring to is state-funded social programs, which isn’t what socialism is, as discussed above. It’s the non-working types that make capitalism appear closer to feudalism than a free society.

We are on the same page with a lot of this that's been discussed, but when it comes to this particular comment, I have to disagree. You talk as though workers in a Socialist system share something about the company and, as employees, get paid.

The fact is that a Socialist system is not Syndicalism. Instead, it is a system in which the central government DOES own and operate the industries and major businesses, excepting only for the matter of "National Socialism" or Fascism which some people consider to be a version of Socialism and others do not.

You might be right... I am, ultimately, an anarcho-syndicalist and I might just be slipping my preferred system under the banner of socialism. Assuming that’s the case, we still have to be careful equating “when the government does stuff” with “when the government owns all industry.” I still think it’s likely that the capitalist owners of big media networks have an interest in maintaining the status quo and thus use their pundits to spread fear and disinformation around the subject of socialism.

 

[Albion]

What you’re referring to is state-funded social programs, which isn’t what socialism is, as discussed above. It’s the non-working types that make capitalism appear closer to feudalism than a free society.

You might be right... I am, ultimately, an anarcho-syndicalist and I might just be slipping my preferred system under the banner of socialism. Assuming that’s the case, we still have to be careful equating “when the government does stuff” with “when the government owns all industry.”

I still think it’s likely that the capitalist owners of big media networks have an interest in maintaining the status quo and thus use their pundits to spread fear and disinformation around the subject of socialism.

Again, there's a lot there for me to agree with. The one note that I stub my toe on is the word disinformation. State Socialism IS scary, and that's not for no reason. What's more, the "capitalist owners" of the big media networks are almost all left of center people and not particularly hostile towards Socialism. Nor should they be, since Socialism works to their benefit in the short run.

The track record of actual Socialist regimes is abysmal. As for Syndicalism, I don't think there is much campaigning against it since most people consider it (if they even know what it is) to be a theory but not something that could work in the real world.

 

[pitabread]

What's more, the "capitalist owners" of the big media networks are almost all left of center people

[citation needed]

 

[gaara4158]

Again, there's a lot there for me to agree with. The one note that I stub my toe on is the word disinformation. State Socialism IS scary, and that's not for no reason.

But what they’re doing is taking all the arguments against the worst types and implementations of anything that resembles or self-labeled as socialism and applying them widely against the idea of socialism as a whole. If that’s not disinformation, it’s at least disingenuous.

What's more, the "capitalist owners" of the big media networks are almost all left of center people and not particularly hostile towards Socialism. Nor should they be, since Socialism works to their benefit in the short run.

I don’t think that’s true. The owners (and sponsors) of these media companies control what is viewed as left of center and what range of views is worthy of public attention by curating anchors, pundits, and guests with pre-screened/pre-determined messages. Whatever “left of center” message they allow to come through is carefully calculated to capture the market that exists for leftist talking points without posing a serious threat to their business model.

 

[mark46]

.
Okay, but it's nothing special to note, as many people have, that the Bernie Sanders--Keith Ellison--AOC and "The Squad" faction of the party has gained ground pretty fast in the past few years and appears to have increasing influence, even if it is not the majority at present.

I agree. Having supported the liberal (now the center-right part of the Democratic party for over 50 years, I have seen the left gain influence several times. The center-right even had to set up an organization within the party to fight the left wing. This effort led to Bill Clinton being elected.
======================
I don't see the left as having more influence than they've had in the past. However, some ideas develop over time. Ted Kennedy proposed single payer care. Bill Clinton proposed single payer care. Obama got what he could, the Republican Romney plan. Biden doesn't favor single payer care yet.

I don't see the left having influence on other issues. I don't see them as being far to the left of Biden's moderate positions on climate change, and justice reform.

I suppose the left will push hard for stronger regulation of tech, not a favorite position of the billionaire donor. But, that has to come. There will need to be spin-off companies, such as Amazon's cloud company.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Social democracy, what Denmark or Scandinavia historically has had, is a kind of socialism.

It's a market economy with an expanded social safety net system.

It's not a kind of socialism.

Their PM elaborated on that on a speech he gave at an American university after he got tired of hearing people prop his nation up as a "glowing example of why socialism is great".

(and even he mentions that their model can be a little too generous in some ways and needs some reforms)

They're a mixed economy like we are...they just have a few additional things in the public sector than we do.

If you want to see the difference between a Mixed economy and Socialism, then compare and contrast West and East Germany post-WW2. (Only one of those two had to actually build walls to keep their people in)

 

[FireDragon76]

It's a market economy with an expanded social safety net system.

It's not a kind of socialism.

Their PM elaborated on that on a speech he gave at an American university after he got tired of hearing people prop his nation up as a "glowing example of why socialism is great".

(and even he mentions that their model can be a little too generous in some ways and needs some reforms)

They're a mixed economy like we are...they just have a few additional things in the public sector than we do.

If you want to see the difference between a Mixed economy and Socialism, then compare and contrast West and East Germany post-WW2. (Only one of those two had to actually build walls to keep their people in)

Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy or even a market economy. Socialism is not a monolithic ideology, and is broader than Leninism or Maoism.

 

[MIDutch]

I don't see the left having influence on other issues.

LGBTQ protections, same-sex marriage, unions, environmentalism, endangered species protections, exotic animals trafficking laws, green technologies, immigration reforms, women's rights, civil rights, etc..

All of these were/are part of left wing politics. In that some of these are now fairly mainstream in many countries merely indicates how much the left has influenced the modern global consciousness.

Heck, it was only a few decades ago here in the US that black women couldn't vote, women had to get abortions in back alleys, companies could dump toxic waste into the Great Lakes, union busting was a common corporate practice, gays could still be killed with relative impunity, blacks could be lynched on a regular basis, etc..

It wasn't conservatism that changed the national mindset about these things. And it certainly isn't conservatism that is still influencing things like green energy, action on climate change, LGBTQ rights, etc..

 

[FireDragon76]

LGBTQ protections, same-sex marriage, unions, environmentalism, endangered species protections, exotic animals trafficking laws, green technologies, immigration reforms, women's rights, civil rights, etc..

LGBTQ politics isn't exclusive to the Left. Andrew Sullivan is a prominent conservative intellectual that argued in favor of gay marriage for years.

But as a generalization, I agree with the above. And Sullivan himself is more of a British type of conservative.

 

[mark46]

LGBTQ protections, same-sex marriage, unions, environmentalism, endangered species protections, exotic animals trafficking laws, green technologies, immigration reforms, women's rights, civil rights, etc..

All of these were/are part of left wing politics. In that some of these are now fairly mainstream in many countries merely indicates how much the left has influenced the modern global consciousness.

Heck, it was only a few decades ago here in the US that black women couldn't vote, women had to get abortions in back alleys, companies could dump toxic waste into the Great Lakes, union busting was a common corporate practice, gays could still be killed with relative impunity, blacks could be lynched on a regular basis, etc..

It wasn't conservatism that changed the national mindset about these things. And it certainly isn't conservatism that is still influencing things like green energy, action on climate change, LGBTQ rights, etc..

You seem to think the choice are that social progress comes from conservatism or from the left.

I strongly disagree. First, as an aside, many Republicans have supported civil rights in the past. Libertarians used to be horrified at the idea of the government intruding on the choice of marriage partner. They also rigorously supported rights for indiviuals.

In any case, there has been a tradition of who leads on the issues you mention, in addition to expanding social program in general: Roosevelt, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy, Humphrey, Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden. These folks are not of the left. They fought the left of the Democratic Party in their respective eras. They are part of the liberal tradition of the last half of the 20th century, continuing until today, when these folks (and their positions) are more accurately called center-right.

Let's be more clear. The left actively opposed Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy or even a market economy. Socialism is not a monolithic ideology, and is broader than Leninism or Maoism.

There are varying degrees of certain aspects within socialism, for instance, the current governance in Laos or Vietnam isn't the same or quite as authoritarian as a North Korea or a 1980's Cuba.

However there are a few hard attributes that would have to be adhered to in order for a nation to be socialist by the true definition of the word...one being ownership over the means of production and large amounts of government/public ownership over industry sectors.

Having a market economy with some more generous social safety nets, as the Danish PM stated, doesn't equate to socialism.

Another key aspect (though not a hard fast rule, but a trait that's replete in socialism) is that you can't typically vote your way out of it. Many of the truly socialist states have the hallmark of single-party rule, or one dominant party, with a few faux parties tossed in the mix (that have no real power or policy influence) to give the appearance of legitimizing elections, but with very strict rules pertaining to which parties are allowed to run candidates once the socialist-leaning party takes a majority. (Sort of the 'pulling up the ladder behind you' mentality)

For instance, if we look at the current Leninist states that still exist (N Korea, Laos, Vietnam), they all have single-party rule.

If we look at some of the non-Leninist states...
Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua

They carry the latter trait I mentioned, which is that even though it's "multi-party", it's "dominant party rule", meaning that the socialist parties have the vast majority of seats, and put laws in place drastically limiting the number of people from other parties who are allowed to run.

For instance, in Bangladesh, their socialist party holds 298 seats in their legislative branch, the two center-right parties combined have 33 seats, and the controlling party has put a rule in place stating the conditions (that favor the controlling party) for being able to run for additional seats.

 

[Albion]

They carry the latter trait I mentioned, which is that even though it's "multi-party", it's "dominant party rule", meaning that the socialist parties have the vast majority of seats, and put laws in place drastically limiting the number of people from other parties who are allowed to run.

And this is the direction in which our country appears to be heading. Many people will foolishly think it's still a democracy just because they cast ballots.

...and the controlling party has put a rule in place stating the conditions (that favor the controlling party) for being able to run for additional seats.

 

[MIDutch]

Let's be more clear. The left actively opposed Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama.

You seem to imply that the left actively opposed Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama in the same way that the conservative right opposed Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama.

This is, of course, wrong. The left merely thought that Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama didn't go far enough into the liberal agenda.

If the left DID seem to oppose Humphrey, Johnson, Clinton, Biden and Obama it was probably because they opposed particular policies which had right wing leanings such as Johnson's commitment to the Vietnam War or Obama's deportation policies.

 

[MIDutch]

And this is the direction in which our country appears to be heading. Many people will foolishly think it's still a democracy just because they cast ballots.

So you are claiming that countries like Sweden, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. are no longer functional democracies who cast ballots and elect their government.

Is that correct?

 

[FireDragon76]

There are varying degrees of certain aspects within socialism, for instance, the current governance in Laos or Vietnam isn't the same or quite as authoritarian as a North Korea or a 1980's Cuba.

However there are a few hard attributes that would have to be adhered to in order for a nation to be socialist by the true definition of the word...one being ownership over the means of production and large amounts of government/public ownership over industry sectors.

That's Marxist socialism, but doesn't include all forms of socialism.

 

[FireDragon76]

And this is the direction in which our country appears to be heading. Many people will foolishly think it's still a democracy just because they cast ballots.

You don't think the majority of citizens could legitimately elect a socialist government?