Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

ThatRobGuy said:

Actually, with regards to what the Nordic countries have, I'd be okay with adopting their model for college education.

Click to expand...

It's free for the people who get to go (so that accessibility isn't determined by family wealth), however that "who gets to go" is based on a strict, very selective meritocratic system, and the majors students can pursue once their in are quota driven based on job placement prospects and how marketable the skills will be.

Click to expand...

You know that the "Liberals" would never allow that. There would be howls about discrimination if there were any distinction made between the students, the majors, or anything else.

mark46 said:

I vote for none. The word "socialism" should never be used in a discussion of US politics. Almost no politician espouses socialism. The tenets of socialism are not going to become law in the US.

The only purpose for the us of the term is for Republicans to scare their base and others with regard to the Democratic Party and its candidates. This strategy worked incredibly well nation-wide in 2016. It worked well in some districts in 2020, especially in Florida.

Click to expand...

It is a movement that's growing in popularity among certain age demographics.

...and while Republicans certainly use it as a scare tactic, they were given that ammo by a few key (quite popular) Democratic politicians using that term to define themselves.

Using a stigmatized word to describe yourself seems like a pretty big strategic blunder.

It'd sort of be like someone trying to start up a new church, and calling it "Reformed Westboro Baptist Church", and then being surprised when their opponents immediately pounced on the semantic overlap it has with the original Fred Phelps organization.

ThatRobGuy said:

The list of countries that are actually socialist is small after the fall of the Soviet Union.

...and continues to shrink.

For instance, even Cuba started making the transition about 8 or 9 years ago to start allowing private sector businesses to open, and if I'm not mistaken, finally started recognizing the concept of private home ownership. However, Cuba (and Belarus) still have a situation where their public sector size is still around 70%.

China has increasingly been making the move toward a more mixed economy over the past few decades.

Vietnam started allowing for the concept of "public-private partnerships" for businesses in certain industries (granted, they still only allow one business per person).

Laos has also been moving in that direction as well and in the late 80's, started encouraging some private sector activities. (however, the government still maintains control of the critical ones...so in that regard, it's still very much centrally planned for the most part)


It also depends on which means of production are being referred to, and how much of it is "up for grabs" by the private sector.

For instance, if a hypothetical country maintaining overwhelming majority ownership of most of the means of production for all of the important/critical industries, but allowed the private sector a few somewhat trivial token ownership opportunities, I'd still say that's largely centrally planned. For instance, if a country allowed people to own their own small processing facility for some non-essential goods, or allowed a person to own a very small insignificant farm (while the government still owned all of the big ones), that would still fit the description.

Click to expand...

So no, you can't name a single example of a country that has a centrally planned economy and doesn't allow for private ownership of the means of production (with the exception of North Korea).

Albion said:

You know that the "Liberals" would never allow that. There would be howls about discrimination if there were any distinction made between the students, the majors, or anything else.

Click to expand...

...perhaps.

But it's a win-win either way.

If the Nordic model were to be implemented, it would stop the over-pursuit of non-marketable degrees.

However, if many in the camp of "I deserve to be able to pursue my passion of getting a Masters in Gender Studies, and I deserve to get that degree paid for so I don't have to take a loan" actually knew what the Nordic college model entailed, perhaps they would stop asking for it.

Tanj said:

So no, you can't name a single example of a country that has a centrally planned economy and doesn't allow for private ownership of the means of production (with the exception of North Korea).

Click to expand...

I guess not...which re-affirms my point that the countries that people prop up as "socialism success stories" aren't actually socialist...

...but as I noted, I don't think socialism is negated necessarily by a trivial level of private sector activity.

For instance, if N Korea decided tomorrow that they would allow 5% of farmland to be run by the private sector (while still retaining government control of the other 95%), I still wouldn't call what they have a market economy.

As I'm sure, we'd both agree there's a big difference between Cuba & Belarus having 70% of their employment being in the public sector, and Finland having 27% of theirs in the public sector.

ThatRobGuy said:

...perhaps.

But it's a win-win either way.

If the Nordic model were to be implemented, it would stop the over-pursuit of non-marketable degrees.

Click to expand...

I suppose so, but instead of adding more government dos and don'ts to the situation, wouldn't it be best just to have the feds stop underwriting college costs? Then market pressures would accomplish what you have in mind.

ThatRobGuy said:

For instance, if N Korea decided tomorrow that they would allow 5% of farmland to be run by the private sector (while still retaining government control of the other 95%), I still wouldn't call what they have a market economy.

Click to expand...

And if the Soviet experience with doing exactly that were to be imitated, there would be no more starvation in NoKorea.

ThatRobGuy said:

I guess not...which re-affirms my point that the countries that people prop up as "socialism success stories" aren't actually socialist...

Click to expand...

I'm not going down the semantic hairsplit road of arguing the definition of the word "socialist", the same way I've not extended our previous discussion in which you put the head of the US communist party and Nancy Pelosi into the same "far left" category.

Whether the measures entertained by various left thinking people do or do not come under the banner of some word you don't like is an entirely trivial dead end to the discussion, as is the decision as to whether said measures should come under that banner in the first place. You can call single payer, universal coverage healthcare neocommunistmarxistexpialidocianism for all I care. It's still a good idea.

ThatRobGuy said:

China has increasingly been making the move toward a more mixed economy over the past few decades.

Click to expand...

China is a weird one, as their system has always been somewhat mixed (waxing and waning with the various five year plans). It's just been a hi-low sort of mix.

For individuals, private ownership, private labour and small scale private enterprise and entrepreneurship were not only allowed, but encouraged (exceptions being the 1953 and 1958 five year plans).

At the other end of the scale though, markets and prices were tightly controlled, economic policies and production/output quota were all set under five year plans and labour was conscripted into certain areas.

The outcome has been described as 'market socialism'. The slogan of the current five year plan is "Everyone is an entrepreneur, creativity of the masses".

All Englands Skies said:

The Syndicalist will often find himself on the opposing side of most corrupt governments, against both uber-Capitalists and the Marxian Socialist. Look at the former Eastern Bloc, Syndicalists, Trade Unions and strikes were the grass roots of fighting against the corrupt Marxian elite,

Click to expand...

Do you see syndicalism and socialism as related and intertwined? Is there any country with syndicalism but no socialism? The government ultimately runs the factories that are supposedly owned by the workers, no? Is there such a thing as pure syndicalism ever tried in history?

ThatRobGuy said:

It is a movement that's growing in popularity among certain age demographics.

...and while Republicans certainly use it as a scare tactic, they were given that ammo by a few key (quite popular) Democratic politicians using that term to define themselves.

Using a stigmatized word to describe yourself seems like a pretty big strategic blunder.

It'd sort of be like someone trying to start up a new church, and calling it "Reformed Westboro Baptist Church", and then being surprised when their opponents immediately pounced on the semantic overlap it has with the original Fred Phelps organization.

Click to expand...

It may be a blunder to lean into the socialist label when you’re not actually about abolishing the commodity form or running industries democratically, but it’s borne of a blunder of the right. By calling government-run services socialism they hoped to make us believe that government-run services were bad, but instead they made us believe socialism was good.

Gene2memE said:

China is a weird one, as their system has always been somewhat mixed (waxing and waning with the various five year plans). It's just been a hi-low sort of mix.

For individuals, private ownership, private labour and small scale private enterprise and entrepreneurship were not only allowed, but encouraged (exceptions being the 1953 and 1958 five year plans).

At the other end of the scale though, markets and prices were tightly controlled, economic policies and production/output quota were all set under five year plans and labour was conscripted into certain areas.

The outcome has been described as 'market socialism'. The slogan of the current five year plan is "Everyone is an entrepreneur, creativity of the masses".

Click to expand...

It doesn't strike me as that weird...

They took a hard run at communism....it failed and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions. They executed and blamed a bunch of innocent people, made some changes, and continued to fail.

By the 80s they were facing a genuine political battle against their 1 party system. The party won the battle, but in order to stay afloat they had to allow more capitalism. They struggle to maintain their political control over an increasingly capitalistic economy.

It's a pretty good example of what happens when a planned economy tries to compete in a free market world.

gaara4158 said:

It may be a blunder to lean into the socialist label when you’re not actually about abolishing the commodity form or running industries democratically, but it’s borne of a blunder of the right. By calling government-run services socialism they hoped to make us believe that government-run services were bad, but instead they made us believe socialism was good.

Click to expand...

I'm aware that Reagan was one of the original perpetrators of the "socialism scare" with his statements about Medicaid.

It was a slippery slope argument on his part.

However, the flip side of that is that the concept, in reality, isn't so much of a "slippery slope" as much as it is:
"A slight grade in which sometimes governments can keep their footing, and sometimes they can't"

There are examples of governments that have been able to increase the amount of public services and are able to find a good cutoff and stick to it, and others where the slope did end up being a tad too slippery.

That's why the rhetoric resembling calls for socialization have such a polarizing effect on Latino/Hispanic voters, and why there's an anomaly with regards to certain Hispanic folks siding with republicans over democrats.

Central and South America is a perfect example of how people can have two very different experiences with that concept.

If you lived in Chile (specifically under the Pinochet regime), or in one of the central American countries that had their resources ravaged by privatization which allowed foreign interests to gobble up all of their resources, then price gouge them, you likely had your life made better by certain aspects of socialization at a domestic/national level.

If you lived in Cuba or Venezuela, you had the experience of having some minor problems in the free market realm, and then having someone come in to make promises about how "the government will run these particular sectors, and make it fair for everyone", only to have their country destroyed and run by a dictator (in the case of Cuba), or had such a hyperinflation issue that they literally can't pay cash for anything because the currency is devalued so bad that buying a hot dog would require a suitcase of of Bolivars of the highest denomination. (1 USD = ~1.1 million bolivars).

Ana the Ist said:

It doesn't strike me as that weird...

They took a hard run at communism....it failed and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions. They executed and blamed a bunch of innocent people, made some changes, and continued to fail.

Click to expand...

Yes, and no.

Yes, they botched things with the 1958 collectivisation effort and it resulted in famine and tens of millions dead due to stupid centralised decision making.

But, outside of the urban areas (and their weird collectivist labour management councils), there was still plenty of "private" industry, in the form of the private land plots, collective enterprises and the joint public-private stock companies.

These were curtailed in the second FYP, but in the third FYP private land allowances were expanded, collectivisation was downsized (rather than eliminated) and controls on pricing and local markets were eased, also allowing for the formation of more small enterprises.

The Chinese approach to private enterprise during the CCP's reign has been something along the lines of "private ownership and industry isn't socialist, but isn't necessarily negative and we'll allow it for now".

Ana the Ist said:

By the 80s they were facing a genuine political battle against their 1 party system. The party won the battle, but in order to stay afloat they had to allow more capitalism. They struggle to maintain their political control over an increasingly capitalistic economy.

It's a pretty good example of what happens when a planned economy tries to compete in a free market world.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment here, or at least your assessment of the cause of dissatisfaction. I'd classify the challenge to the one party state in the 1980s as a political and social one, not an economic one.

Yes, there were economic elements of it. But Deng had already begun the 'more capitalism' thing in the 1970s with the 'Socialism with a Chinese Character' reforms and the ejection of certain Classical Marxist economic models. By the early 1980s the state's role in China had already moved on from interventionist to one of planning and setting investment priorities.

Here's a statistic I remember my from university days: In 1970, less than 1% of tractors in China were privately owned, by 1980 it was about 50%.

Tanj said:

I'm not going down the semantic hairsplit road of arguing the definition of the word "socialist", the same way I've not extended our previous discussion in which you put the head of the US communist party and Nancy Pelosi into the same "far left" category.

Whether the measures entertained by various left thinking people do or do not come under the banner of some word you don't like is an entirely trivial dead end to the discussion, as is the decision as to whether said measures should come under that banner in the first place. You can call single payer, universal coverage healthcare neocommunistmarxistexpialidocianism for all I care. It's still a good idea.

Click to expand...

I agree with single payer healthcare (as I've noted before).

Having a social safety net program isn't socialism. Increasing taxes in some realms, and then using the proceeds for public services has nothing to do with the means of production.

As far as the "far left" conversation, I remember it clearly, and I gave a detailed explanation for that assessment, as well as the GovTrack infographics showing where that conclusion was derived from.

The "far-right"


The "center-right"


The "center-left"


the "far-left"




...again, someone not being to the furthest extreme as the most extreme example doesn't negate that.

By the logic you're invoking... Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell aren't "far right" on the basis that they're not "as far right" as Augusto Pinochet.

The key distinction to be made with regards to the public programs being provided is whether or not they're non-rivalrous and non-excludable.

A government providing funding (via taxation) for goods/services that meet the two aforementioned criteria isn't socialism.

ThatRobGuy said:

That's why the rhetoric resembling calls for socialization have such a polarizing effect on Latino/Hispanic voters, and why there's an anomaly with regards to certain Hispanic folks siding with republicans over democrats.

Central and South America is a perfect example of how people can have two very different experiences with that concept.

Click to expand...

How do you compare the experience in Mexico and Brazil? And does their experience explain their presidents' refusal to acknowledge Biden's electoral win?

ThatRobGuy said:

...again, someone not being to the furthest extreme as the most extreme example doesn't negate that.

By the logic you're invoking... Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell aren't "far right" on the basis that they're not "as far right" as Augusto Pinochet.

Click to expand...

Report Cards for 2019 - Ideology Score - All Senators - GovTrack.us

The report cards on the above website show M Romney as #39 (center-right), M McConnel as #49 (in the middle), E Warren as #75 (center-left), and K Harris as #100 (the absolute most socialist member of the Senate). How can you make sense of this?

Vanellus said:

You omitted to say that the preceding autocratic Tsarist rule was murderous as well - and they weren't communists. Maybe the Apostle Paul has the answer (Rom 3:23). Hitler and Mussolini weren't communists - nor socialists except by self labelling. And the non communist USA has some blood on its hand as does Great Britain via its empire e.g. Bengal famine.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

But what about the basic principle - that the workers have control of the means of production rather than the fat cats (or the dictators). Where did Marx advocate rule by dictator?

Click to expand...

The basic principle fails. The means of production is not a thing....it's a system which needs maintained, updated, revised, etc. Someone has to make those decisions and the workers generally don't see the entire picture.

It's not as if it hasn't been tried. Small communes have been created right here in the US. One in particular lasted 2 years.

The workers fought the entire time. They argued over what should be done and who does it. Eventually, they wanted to sell their share of everything and leave. It doesn't work.