Conservatives attempt to discredit Bernie Sanders by calling him a "socialist". Problem is, we need to be able to say what's wrong with that. The label alone does no work. It's instructive to read some of Maggie Thatcher's statements on socialism:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't make people good, kind, generous, thoughtful or dutiful by compulsion. True harmony comes from the willing cooperation of free men. It is not served by an over-regulated society.
Over a century before the French critic Bastiat had written, and I quote his own words:
‘Since the natural inclinations of mankind are so evil that its liberty must be taken away, how is it that the inclinations of the socialists are good? Are not the legislators and their agents part of the human race? Do they believe themselves moulded from another clay than the rest of mankind?
‘If they have received from heaven intelligence and virtues that place them beyond and above mankind, let them show their credentials.
‘They want to be shepherds, and they want us to be their sheep.’
The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.
I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe, who have experienced them, have for theirs. I think that I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out that the logic of those policies is that they would rather the poor were poorer. Once they start to talk about the gap, they would rather that the gap were that—[indicating[—down here, not this—[indicating[—but—[indicating.] So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. One does not create wealth and opportunity that way. One does not create a property-owning democracy that way.
My country, like yours, has several political parties but though there may be many party labels, there are only two political philosophies, only two ways of governing a country.
One is the Socialist-Marxist way in which what matters is not the people but the State. In which decisions affecting people's lives are taken from them, instead of being taken by them. In which property and savings are taken from the people instead of being more widely held among them. In which directives replace incentives. In which the State is the master of the individual, instead of the servant.
Mr. Chairman, in my country as in some others in Western Europe, Socialism has gone too far. Each year more of the decisions are made by the State, and fewer by the individual. Each year therefore the State takes more in tax and leaves less for the individual. This is Socialism in practice.[fo 2]
If we go on like this we shall become a pocket-money society. A society in which the fruits of our work belong mainly to the State, but where we are handed back a little each week for our personal use.
[By contrast] In which each individual is equally important but different in ability; equally entitled to rights, but equally free to rise to the heights of his talents.
In which the family is the foundation of society and the desire of parents to give their children a better start in life is honoured as one of the most powerful influences for good. In which freedom to choose goods, services, education and housing is steadily extended. In which savings and thrift are encouraged so that citizens become independent of the State rather than perpetually dependent on it. In which practical care and concern for others is not confined to demanding State benefits, but is a common purpose of daily life. In which the freedom of all is protected by a just and impartial rule of law.
The contrast between the United States and the Soviet Union is proof of the argument. After more than half a century of the most vigorous Marxism, the Russians are still unable to feed their own people. The Americans, on the other hand, produce not just food in plenty for their own citizens, but a surplus for export to the rest of the world, even to Russia.
We in Britain have seen that every advance to Socialism reduces the individual, exalts the State, exacerbates our economic problems and drains away our wealth. The bait which the Socialists use to gain the support of the people is the promise of increased personal gain without increased effort. But the result is the impoverishment both of the individual and of society.
It would certainly be true to say that as the Labour Government's gone on, State interference has got greater and greater into the ordinary lives of people, and therefore it's become much, much clearer that we would have far less of that, leave much more choice with the ordinary people about how they lead their own lives, about how they spend their pay packet in their pockets…
Perhaps I can summarise it best by saying this—Nations that have pursued equality, like the Iron Curtain countries, I think have finished up with neither equality, nor liberty. Nations, which like us, in the past have pursued liberty, as a fundamental objective, extending it to all, have finished up with liberty, human dignity, and far fewer inequalities than other people.
liberty is fundamental. Liberty, human dignity, a higher standard of living is fundamental. And, steadily, I think, people are beginning to realise that you don't have those things unless you have a pretty large private enterprise sector. Any Iron Curtain country has neither liberty, nor a very high standard of living. The two things go, economic and political freedom, go together.
I'm never quite sure what you mean be consensus politics. I believe that what most people want in their lives, is what the Conservative Party wants to have for them. I believe that our policies are fundamentally common sense policies. Just let's take taxation for an example. Wherever I go I hear enormous resentment about the amount which people are paying out of their own pay packet in tax. And, this goes right across the income ranges. Socialism started by saying it was going to tax the rich, very rapidly it was taxing the middle income groups. Now, it's taxing people quite highly with incomes way below average and pensioners with incomes way below average. You look at the figure on the beginning of a pay slip, sometimes it can look quite high, look along the slip to the other end, and see how many deductions you've had off, those deductions have increased enormously under Socialism…Public expenditure, which they always boast about, is financed out of the pay packet in our pockets. People are saying that they really think too much is being taken out of the pay packet for someone to spend on their behalf, and they'd rather be left with more, and it's now well-known that Socialist Governments put up taxes and Conservative Governments take them down. It's part of our fundamental belief giving the people more choice to spend their own money in their own way.
Don't look at pay separately. Once you start to cut off a man's pay from the fruits of his labour, he will inevitably feel enormous resentment. If he's going to work harder, of course he deserves more pay, and he doesn't want it all taken away in tax. But there are two sides of the equation you've got to look at.
Jobs really come in the productive sector of the economy. The real jobs are where people are producing goods or services which other people will buy. Now, dependent on those people producing those goods, are a lot of others in the public sector. Now if you run up the public sector, you can only do it by draining money out of industry and commerce. But that's where the jobs are. And one of the reasons why you have to cut public expenditure is to get the money back—one of the reasons why you have to cut public expenditure is to get money back out of the public sector, into industry and commerce, so that they, in fact, can invest, and improve, and expand; because that's where the secure jobs are.
Look, I think you're tackling public expenditure from the wrong end, if I might say so. Why don't you look at it as any housewife has to look at it? She has to look at her expenditure every week or every month, according to what she can afford to spend, and if she overspends[fo 11] one week or month, she's got to economise the next. Now governments really ought to look at it from the viewpoint of "What can we afford to spend?" They've already put up taxes, and yet the taxes they collect are not enough for the tremendous amount they're spending. They're having to borrow to a greater extent than ever before, and future generations will have to repay.
Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we're having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have. Look at the William Tyndall School—an example where the parents finally rebelled. Of course they did. These schools are financed by taxpayers' money, but the choice to parents is being reduced.
The last paragraph is possibly the source of the paraphrase (often thought of as a quote), "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
ReplyDeleteI'm not a Sanders fan, but I think the gist of this misses the point, as Sanders isn't advocating Soviet socialism or communism or nationalizing everything, but rather the sort of socialism of FDR or the Nordic countries:
ReplyDeletehttps://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/
http://khon2.com/2016/02/29/what-bernie-sanders-means-when-he-says-democratic-socialism/
from http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/ - ""I would like to make one thing clear," Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said recently in a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." But it is a market with many differences from the United States. All Danish citizens have access to child care, state-guaranteed medical and parental leave from work, free college tuition in which students receive a paycheck from the government during enrollment, free health care and a generous pension, all of which Sanders supports."
"Each year therefore the State takes more in tax and leaves less for the individual. This is Socialism in practice."
America taxes. Rates have fluctuated over the decades. Is America a socialist country whenever taxes have increased?
"The contrast between the United States and the Soviet Union is proof of the argument. "
Sure. But Bernie is not advocating Soviet or Chinese communism or socialism. The contrast should be between the United States and the Nordic countries, which he refers to as his models. The better argument is to analyze the feasibility of Nordic models actually working in America given the differences (e.g. population size, demographics, natural resources/geography, military/defense budget which de facto subsidizes Nordic military, legal/illegal immigration rates, etc.) - that is, Clinton's rejoinder that "We are not Denmark" has merit.
"We in Britain have seen that every advance to Socialism reduces the individual, exalts the State, exacerbates our economic problems and drains away our wealth. "
Did Thatcher abolish all taxes?
"Once you start to cut off a man's pay from the fruits of his labour, he will inevitably feel enormous resentment."
Why hasn't the American working public engaged in mass protests against Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, public schools then yet? Why have they instead galvanized against corporate socialism, thus giving rise to the outsider candidates over establishment ones in both parties, and protested against trillions wasted on the Middle East conflicts? Why do not all those in Nordic countries feel resentment:
"The question is not how much tax you pay or how big your government is, it's whether it works," Lidegaard said. "It's whether you get return on your payment. We pay a lot of taxes, but we get a lot in return."
"I'm not a Sanders fan, but I think the gist of this misses the point, as Sanders isn't advocating Soviet socialism or communism or nationalizing everything…"
DeleteThatcher's comments are hardly confined to the more extreme examples. Indeed, her primary target was the British welfare system before she became Prime Minister.
"Why hasn't the American working public engaged in mass protests against Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, public schools then yet?"
Because American voters aren't monolithic. There's a voting block for the welfare state because some people repeat benefits in the short-term even though it's unsustainable in the long-term.
There's another voting block that's opposed to that, but it's canceled out.
Moreover, you miss the point. It deliberates makes voters dependent on gov't largesse. Therefore, they are no longer in a position to oppose it. They weren't given alternatives. They weren't give a chance to opt out. So it's either that or nothing.
"Why have they instead galvanized against corporate socialism"
What does "corporate socialism" mean?
"Why do not all those in Nordic countries feel resentment"
People become conditioned to the status quo. You have whole generations that grew up under that system. That's all they know. They're not familiar with better alternatives. That hasn't been tried in their lifetime.
"'The question is not how much tax you pay or how big your government is, it's whether it works,' Lidegaard said"
No, that's not the only question. There's the question of individual freedom. Freedom to be treated like an adult, where you make your own decisions. Not surrendering that freedom to faceless, accountable bureaucrats who make all the important decisions for you.
"It's whether you get return on your payment. We pay a lot of taxes, but we get a lot in return."
You only get what they choose to give you.
You become zoo animals. You may live in a gilded cage, but the zookeeper controls you.
In addition, Thatcher's point is that it's incremental. No, the state doesn't necessarily nationalize everything at the outset. But to feed its insatiable appetite, it begins to gobble up ever more of the private sector.
DeleteIt's like states in the US that raise taxes. As a result, people move to another state with lower taxes. Having lost revenue, it raises taxes again, which causes more people to move away. That creates a death spiral.
"Why have they instead galvanized against corporate socialism, thus giving rise to the outsider candidates over establishment ones in both parties..."
DeleteTrump is the epitome of crony capitalism (or "corporate socialism".
"Thatcher's comments are hardly confined to the more extreme examples."
ReplyDelete"Thatcher's point is that it's incremental. No, the state doesn't necessarily nationalize everything at the outset. But to feed its insatiable appetite, it begins to gobble up ever more of the private sector."
America did not turn into Soviet Russia after FDR. The Nordic countries have not turned into Soviet Russia. The "incremental-to-extreme" manifestation never occurred.
"Because American voters aren't monolithic."
Sure, but if "[the worker] will inevitably feel enormous resentment", one would expect to see mass protests of the kind we do actually see with people expressing "enormous resentment". It's not like protesting is limited to one perspective. We had pro and anti-war rallies, pro and anti-abortion, pro and anti-ssm rallies. I've seen mass protests resentful of trillions of taxpayer money spent on wars, I've seen mass protests against corporate socialism (aspects of which include the bailouts and subsidies) with Occupy movement and which the primary process has been showing with Trump's and Sanders' extended traction. I've not seen mass protests against public schools/libraries, social security, medicare - which is why politicians don't touch those with a 10-ft pool.
"There's the question of individual freedom. Freedom to be treated like an adult, where you make your own decisions. Not surrendering that freedom to faceless, accountable bureaucrats who make all the important decisions for you."
Does any level of taxation by the government automatically entail a loss of a degree of individual freedom?
""It's whether you get return on your payment. We pay a lot of taxes, but we get a lot in return."
- You only get what they choose to give you. You become zoo animals. You may live in a gilded cage, but the zookeeper controls you."
Which is why they have elections. The Nordic countries aren't communist dictatorships.
"It's like states in the US that raise taxes. As a result, people move to another state with lower taxes. Having lost revenue, it raises taxes again, which causes more people to move away. That creates a death spiral. "
Why haven't the Nordic countries suffered a death spiral but are instead considered to have a high quality of life index? Why has America not suffered a death spiral every time it increases tax rates?
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"America did not turn into Soviet Russia after FDR."
For one thing, America has always had influential groups pushing back against socialistic trends (e.g. Eugene Debs).
Also, America has had moments of respite (e.g. Reagan).
At any rate, the point isn't so much that America has turned into Soviet Russia, with its tyrants, gulags, and so forth, but what FDR's administration did for our civil liberties, freedoms, federalism, etc.
"Why haven't the Nordic countries suffered a death spiral but are instead considered to have a high quality of life index?"
I believe the Nordic nations have benefited from residual Lutheranism, unlike Soviet Russia with its state atheism.
That said, see here.
Meant to say Eugene Debs and the Red Scare.
DeleteCommunist China is another example. Apart from (significantly) its "state capitalism" economy. If not for elements of capitalism, what would China's economy look like?
DeleteRafael Cruz talks about how he was "fooled" by Fidel Castro and communism (along with other Cubans). Some interesting anecdotes.
DeleteFrom what I've read, you're indulging in dubious overgeneralizations about Skandinavia. for instance:
Deletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427448/its-long-past-time-fixit-andrew-stuttaford
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/the_swedish_model_government_austerity.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/25/vitenberg-norways-mythical-oil-wealth/
"Sure, but if '[the worker] will inevitably feel enormous resentment', one would expect to see mass protests of the kind we do actually see with people expressing 'enormous resentment'. It's not like protesting is limited to one perspective."
Deletei) For starters, we have a gender gap. Female voters are more supportive of the nanny state than male voters.
ii) In addition, it's like animals born and bred in captivity. Makes them more docile. That's the only life they've known. They have no standard of comparison.
It's also interesting to note that while the failures of socialism are well documented, there have been few attempts at true l'aissez-faire capitalism. So socialists are forced to speculate on what capitalism might be like.
DeleteRocking,
ReplyDelete"America has always had influential groups pushing back against socialistic trends"
Sure. And the Nordic countries have free elections (it's not called democratic socialism for nothing) - they're not wringing their hands fretting they're on the verge of becoming Soviet Russia or China or Cuba next year just because they are taxed more to finance greater social programs than America does. America lacks national healthcare. Other developed nations don't. That hardly entails all those countries are Russia and China and Cuba. America taxes quite a bit and has done so for decades. That hardly entails it is Russia and China and Cuba. The point is Sanders is advocating an FDR and Nordic-style "socialism", not communism, state-run economies, nationalization of industry, and abolishment of private property and enterprise.
"Communist China is another example. Apart from (significantly) its "state capitalism" economy. If not for elements of capitalism, what would China's economy look like?"
Pretty bad I imagine. Which is why the Nordic countries and New Deal America still embraced capitalism. As does Sanders, though he rejects corporate welfare and "casino capitalism". Do you think Stiglitz and other well-regarded economists promoting the Scandinavian model are actually hoping for communism - of course not. Sanders is not a communist. Nordic countries are not communist. America with all its taxes and social programs/institutions is not communist.
Cletus Van Damme
DeleteI'm not sure if you're intentionally or unintentionally striving to miss the point:
1. No one here (I guess except you) is assuming the argument is Bernie is a communist or the Nordic nations necessarily "entail" Soviet Russia, China, or Cuba. In fact, Steve explicitly stated at the very beginning of his post that many label Bernie a "socialist" but we need to be able to explain what's wrong with that. Among other things, this presumes we need to further unpack socialism.
2. That said, although there are significant differences, for the most part it's more a difference of degree than of kind. If I recall, Karl Marx himself called socialism a "pit stop" en route to communism. There are different types of socialism, but they're all still socialism (e.g. some forms of anarchy like social libertarianism, social democracy like in the Nordic nations, communism like in Soviet Russia, hybrid communisms like in modern China).
3. Again, does this entail the Nordic nations are decidedly headed toward Soviet Russia styled communism? Again, no, and no one here thinks that - again, except you. The Nordic nations may or may not eventually become like Soviet Russia, China, or Cuba. To use Marx's metaphor, they could remain at their "pit stop," backtrack, or forge ahead toward communism. It's up to them.
4. The Nordic model combines elements of socialism with elements of liberal democracy and capitalism. However, it's hardly implausible to consider some of these fundamental elements of socialism in the Nordic model could increasingly encroach upon the non-socialistic aspects within the same Scandinavian nation (e.g. capitalism). Again, it's not a foregone conclusion like you appear to think it is, but it's likewise not outside the realm of the impossible.
5. Of course, one of the fundamentals of socialism is the central ownership and control of the means of production. Many socialists argue this central ownership belongs to the state gov't, but some argue it could be run by another group(s) or institution(s) such as worker co-ops. But the point is both are agreed there should be central ownership, one way or another. That's a direct threat to what the Bill of Rights stands for.
6. Take another example. Bernie may argue only certain essentials should be centrally controlled by the state (e.g. healthcare), while other non-essentials may be allowed to remain in the free market (e.g. small businesses). But even the non-essentials are only a skip and a hop away from state ownership if the gov't ever wishes to centralize these non-essentials if we as a people have already ceded our autonomy and sovereignty to the state.
7. How do you define freedom? One could define freedom in such a way as to say socialism is a free society, because all are equal, it's a classless system, men and women without property are freest to pursue their interests rather than economic gain, wealth is distributed in an egalitarian fashion, etc. However, this ignores or bypasses the fact that this "freedom" comes at the cost of what's central in our very Constitution and Bill of Rights, the destruction of private property ownership, federalism, whether the redistribution of income and resources is truly just for society, and so on and so forth. As Orwell said: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Rocking,
Delete"No one here (I guess except you) is assuming the argument is Bernie is a communist ... Among other things, this presumes we need to further unpack socialism ... does this entail the Nordic nations are decidedly headed toward Soviet Russia styled communism? Again, no, and no one here thinks that - again, except you."
So posting Thatcher's remarks saying things like "The contrast between the United States and the Soviet Union is proof of the argument" as germane is at best careless, and at worst misleading.
"That said, although there are significant differences, for the most part it's more a difference of degree than of kind ... The Nordic model combines elements of socialism with elements of liberal democracy and capitalism."
So is America a "socialist" country? Why or why not?
If the Nordic countries are somehow inferior capitalists because they have "elements of socialism", odd that they rank higher than America for business - http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/
"But even the non-essentials are only a skip and a hop away from state ownership"
Should America do away with all government-run programs and institutions then to avoid this lurking danger?
"How do you define freedom?"
Is any government that taxes thereby limiting freedom?
Are the majorities of American citizens who favor spending on social programs less free and brainwashed by Great Leader - http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/
http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanders-too-radical-america
Somehow these people - Reps and Dems alike - are failing Thatcher's prediction that they "will inevitably feel enormous resentment" by funding social programs.
"One could define freedom in such a way as to say socialism"
So how you "unpack socialism" is saying socialist " 'freedom' comes at the cost of what's central in our very Constitution and Bill of Rights, the destruction of private property ownership, federalism, whether the redistribution of income and resources is truly just for society, and so on and so forth. As Orwell said: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
And then you wonder why I would conclude you might be conflating communism with socialism; New Deal America and the Nordic countries never fell into Animal Farm.
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"So posting Thatcher's remarks saying things like "The contrast between the United States and the Soviet Union is proof of the argument" as germane is at best careless, and at worst misleading."
How does posting Thatcher's words here demonstrate Bernie is a communist or the Nordic nations are headed toward Soviet style communism? If it doesn't, then how is it "at best careless, and at worst misleading"?
"So is America a "socialist" country? Why or why not?"
Not as long as we still hold to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. Fundamentally speaking, isn't this still true today?
"If the Nordic countries are somehow inferior capitalists because they have "elements of socialism", odd that they rank higher than America for business - http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/"
The links Steve suggest a different picture.
"Should America do away with all government-run programs and institutions then to avoid this lurking danger?"
It depends what you have in mind when you say "all." But speaking in general (and I suppose vaguely) I don't necessarily have a problem with "America do[ing] away with [many or maybe most] government-run programs."
"Is any government that taxes thereby limiting freedom?"
As I said, it depends what you mean by freedom. Also, it depends what you have in mind when you speak about taxes. These are all just vague generalities at this point.
"Are the majorities of American citizens who favor spending on social programs less free and brainwashed by Great Leader"
Who are you referring to when you say "Great Leader"? Bernie Sanders? Obama?
At the risk of stating the obvious, our nation isn't currently ruled by a communist dictator.
"Somehow these people - Reps and Dems alike - are failing Thatcher's prediction that they "will inevitably feel enormous resentment" by funding social programs."
1. Steve already corrected you, but you just repeat the same thing without interacting with what he said.
2. Also, what makes you think "Once you start to cut off a man's pay from the fruits of his labour, he will inevitably feel enormous resentment," then he won't feel "enormous resentment"? It seems like common sense.
For example, I'm most familiar with the healthcare industry and physicians, because that's the sector in which I work. There's plenty of "resentment" among many physicians thanks to what the ACA (Obamacare) has already wrought and will continue to wreak. The ACA is of course a step toward socialized healthcare - which is what its supporters like about it, but its detractors dislike about it.
"And then you wonder why I would conclude you might be conflating communism with socialism"
Not sure why you're having such difficulty with basic logic. How does the fact that I cite this Orwell quote from Animal Farm necessarily mean I'm "conflating communism with socialism"? Particularly in light of what I said about both in my previous reply? Or are you just looking for some angle, any angle, by which to attack me, contrary to what I've actually stated?
"New Deal America and the Nordic countries never fell into Animal Farm."
Since I never suggested otherwise, you're tilting at windmills.
The US has a high corporate tax rate that makes it less competitive with many other countries.
DeleteBTW, polisci types operate with a pedantic definition of socialism, but socialism is not a natural kind. It didn't drop out of the sky. It's a political and economic system that mutates according to national circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed this too...the classic definition of socialism is something like "a form of gov't that controls the means of production" as opposed to communism, which "owns the means of production." So this definition of socialism makes it pretty similar to communism. But this definition of socialism is also very old hat. That's not what the modern left means when it refers to socialism. When the modern left refers to socialism, they seem to mean a more centralized gov't with more social programs and controls.
DeleteRocking,
ReplyDelete"How does posting Thatcher's words here demonstrate Bernie is a communist or the Nordic nations are headed toward Soviet style communism?"
As Steve said, "Thatcher's comments are hardly confined to the more extreme examples [of USSR]... Thatcher's point is that it's incremental. No, the state doesn't necessarily nationalize everything at the outset. But to feed its insatiable appetite, it begins to gobble up ever more of the private sector."
"[America is not socialist,] Not as long as we still hold to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc."
Can you tell me what would be different about your answer if I instead asked you why America is not communist?
So New Deal America was not socialist. Contemporary America is not socialist. Sanders proposals aren't socialist. None of them did or do away with the constitution or bill of rights. So they aren't socialist even with all the taxes and social programs in those eras that formed Thatcher's criticisms and Steve's comment above.
Can you tell me what rights Americans have that Nordic citizens don't, thus making the Nordic countries socialist?
"As I said, it depends what you mean by freedom. Also, it depends what you have in mind when you speak about taxes."
Thatcher didn't abolish all taxes. Was she a socialist by her own argument and British citizens unfree? Why or why not?
"At the risk of stating the obvious, our nation isn't currently ruled by a communist dictator."
Exactly. So the free people support social spending, not mass protesting against it due to "enormous resentment". Steve's response was female voters like nanny states and they outvote men and that voters are akin to ignorant animals bred in captivity with no standard of comparison (the irony coming from one protesting communism - voters just don't know what's good for them!).
This is a dead-end argument. If voters were bred in a tax-free environment, they wouldn't know any better and thus their free support of tax-free government could just as easily be undermined by the same argument. I also missed these qualifiers in Thatcher's argument that "once you start to cut off a man's pay from the fruits of his labour, he will inevitably feel enormous resentment." Apparently this only applies if the voter is male and is well-educated to make comparisons. Apparently the polling data in the 2 links excluded this demographic. America isn't North Korea with a bunch of sheep who know only propaganda with no access to the outside world.
"what makes you think ... he won't feel "enormous resentment"? It seems like common sense."
Is everyone in the polling data supporting social programs lacking common sense? The issue is obviously one of degree. People resented communist countries because everything is taken. People aren't fleeing and resenting America and the Nordic countries. As the Dane said above, "The question is ... whether you get return on your payment. We pay a lot of taxes, but we get a lot in return." People evaluate this on a personal basis. Apparently most of the Nordic and American citizens are fine with it and have been for decades.
"How does the fact that I cite this Orwell quote from Animal Farm necessarily mean I'm "conflating communism with socialism"?"
It wasn't your citation of Orwell alone, it was "One could define freedom in such a way as to say socialism is a free society... [but] this ignores or bypasses the fact that this "freedom" comes at the cost of ... the destruction of private property ownership, federalism, whether the redistribution of income and resources is truly just for society, and so on and so forth. As Orwell said: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.""
Is the above a description of communism or socialism or neither?
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"As Steve said..."
This doesn't address how Bernie is a communist. Nor does this address how the Nordic nations are necessarily headed toward Soviet style communism, which was the implication of what I said. Steve only said it was "incremental." And as I pointed out there are different types of socialism. For instance, it could be they're headed toward one of these other types of socialism instead.
"Can you tell me what would be different about your answer if I instead asked you why America is not communist?"
That depends in large part on what you mean by communism (e.g. Soviet styled communism). Keep in mind communism can't be abstractly isolated as a theory, at least not in a relevant manner, but is played out in the real world.
"So New Deal America was not socialist. Contemporary America is not socialist. Sanders proposals aren't socialist. So they aren't socialist even with all the taxes and social programs in those eras that formed Thatcher's criticisms and Steve's comment above."
Bernie Sanders has claimed otherwise. Sanders has said his "socialism" builds on FDR's "socialism" (including his New Deal).
"None of them did or do away with the constitution or bill of rights."
I never claimed Sanders did away with or wants to do away with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. However, what I do claim is what you quoted Steve saying: it's incremental.
"Can you tell me what rights Americans have that Nordic citizens don't, thus making the Nordic countries socialist?"
Don't take my word for it. The Nordic nations explicitly tell us they subscribe to democratic socialism. See the Nordic model for a start.
"Thatcher didn't abolish all taxes. Was she a socialist by her own argument and British citizens unfree? Why or why not?"
What makes you think "abolish[ing] all taxes" means you're not a socialist?
"Exactly. So the free people support social spending, not mass protesting against it due to "enormous resentment." Steve's response was female voters like nanny states and they outvote men and that voters are akin to ignorant animals bred in captivity with no standard of comparison (the irony coming from one protesting communism - voters just don't know what's good for them!)."
You're taking his comments out of context. His comments were in response to your point about "resentment" and "expect[ing] to see mass protests" as if "resentment" is necessarily publicly displayed.
"This is a dead-end argument. If voters were bred in a tax-free environment, they wouldn't know any better and thus their free support of tax-free government could just as easily be undermined by the same argument. I also missed these qualifiers in Thatcher's argument that "once you start to cut off a man's pay from the fruits of his labour, he will inevitably feel enormous resentment." Apparently this only applies if the voter is male and is well-educated to make comparisons. Apparently the polling data in the 2 links excluded this demographic. America isn't North Korea with a bunch of sheep who know only propaganda with no access to the outside world.
DeleteI think you keep missing the whole point about "incremental."
"Is everyone in the polling data supporting social programs lacking common sense?"
1. Which polls are you referring to? For example, I don't doubt if you poll the majority of people, say, if you poll liberals or Democrats, then, sure, many if not the majority would likely say they'd support "social programs." Such as if you just ask it as a yes or no question and only reference "social programs" in general.
2. In addition, what makes you think when people say they support "social programs" that they understand the costs involved, the consequences, etc.? Many may, but many may not.
3. Related, how do these polls capture "resentment"? It's possible for a poll to say the majority support social programs, but in a different poll for the same people polled to say they're unhappy with how high their taxes are, that they don't have good jobs, etc. They may not blame their unhappiness or resentment or similar on the "social programs," but it doesn't mean they're not happy or resentful.
4. You can't just vaguely talk about "polling data" as if all polls are agreed or as if one poll is necessarily as reliable as another poll. It depends on the poll, the methodology used by the poll, the demographics polled, etc.
"People evaluate this on a personal basis. Apparently most of the Nordic and American citizens are fine with it and have been for decades."
Which doesn't consider Steve's reply to you.
"Is the above a description of communism or socialism or neither?"
Actually, the above was an attempt to tease out what you mean by freedom.
Rocking,
ReplyDelete"Nor does this address how the Nordic nations are necessarily headed toward Soviet style communism, which was the implication of what I said."
As Steve said, "Thatcher's comments are hardly confined to the more extreme examples [of USSR]... Thatcher's point is that it's incremental. No, the state doesn't necessarily nationalize everything at the outset. But to feed its insatiable appetite, it begins to gobble up ever more of the private sector."
"For instance, it could be they're headed toward one of these other types of socialism instead. "
Or it could be they are "headed to" maintaining their current democratic socialism, not headed to nationalization of everything in order "to feed [the state's] insatiable appetite, it begins to gobble up ever more of the private sector.", just as New Deal America did not "head to" nationalization of everything and communism.
"That depends in large part on what you mean by communism (e.g. Soviet styled communism)"
Considering Steve cited Thatcher saying, "The contrast between the United States and the Soviet Union is proof of the argument" in support, let's go with that. What would be different about your answer that America is not socialist because of the constitution and bill of rights if I instead asked you why America is not communist?
"Bernie Sanders has claimed otherwise. Sanders has said his "socialism" builds on FDR's "socialism" (including his New Deal). "
I agree; I was adopting your own standard. You argued America is not socialist because of Constitution and BoR. Bernie and FDR didn't get rid of those. So neither are socialist by your own lights.
"what I do claim is what you quoted Steve saying: it's incremental."
On one hand it's incremental, on the other hand the Nordic nations are not "necessarily headed toward Soviet style communism". So Thatcher's criticisms comparing British welfare to Soviet communism and applying them to Sanders is not germane.
"The Nordic nations explicitly tell us they subscribe to democratic socialism."
Again, I'm adopting your standard. I agree they subscribe to demo socialism. You said America wasn't socialist because of Constitution/BoR. So I'm asking what rights Americans have that Nordic citizens don't, thus making Nordic countries socialist while America isn't socialist.
"Which polls are you referring to? For example, I don't doubt if you poll the majority of people, say, if you poll liberals or Democrats"
The two I linked to showing majority support for social programs by both Reps and Dems alike - http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/
http://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanders-too-radical-america
"Many may, but many may not."
So the public doesn't know what's good for them. Again, the irony is a bit much.
"Related, how do these polls capture "resentment"?"
The polls also show support for expanding funding. Odd if they already "enormously" resent being taxed. People vote with their feet. Do we see mass protests and population flight from America and the Nordic countries due to taxation (Steve's "death spiral")?
"Which doesn't consider Steve's reply to you."
I already interacted with his reply which consisted of females like nanny states and outvote men and voters are akin to ignorant animals in zoos cages. This apparently is a worldwide phenomenon.
"Actually, the above was an attempt to tease out what you mean by freedom."
And you tied it to socialism. So I'd like to know how you would describe communism differently, thus showing you and Steve are not conflating the two in criticizing Sanders via Thatcher.
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"Or it could be they are "headed to" maintaining their current democratic socialism"
Precisely, and this supports what I said, that you're not showing how the Nordic nations are necessarily headed toward Soviet styled communism.
"just as New Deal America did not "head to" nationalization of everything and communism."
Neither Steve nor I have claimed the New Deal itself was going to lead to the "nationalization of everything and communism." You're jumping to conclusions.
"Considering Steve cited Thatcher saying, "The contrast between the United States and the Soviet Union is proof of the argument" in support, let's go with that. What would be different about your answer that America is not socialist because of the constitution and bill of rights if I instead asked you why America is not communist?"
The Thatcher quotation is "proof of the argument" about whether or not the US vs. Soviet Union is better able to feed their own people. This doesn't immediately have anything to do with my previous answer to you that America isn't fundamentally speaking socialist as long as we still hold to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"I agree; I was adopting your own standard. You argued America is not socialist because of Constitution and BoR. Bernie and FDR didn't get rid of those. So neither are socialist by your own lights."
1. Of course, FDR and Bernie wouldn't come out and tell Americans that they want to "get rid of" the Constitution, now would they? That wouldn't exactly go over well!
2. Also, you keep failing to grasp the concept of "incremental." Democratic socialist policies could incrementally erode or otherwise change our fundamental system of gov't, dependent on factors such as the degree of adoption, public support, the weakness of opposition, perhaps time transpired, etc.
3. Finally, Bernie himself explicitly declares he's a democratic socialist. Yes, that's a form of socialism.
"On one hand it's incremental, on the other hand the Nordic nations are not "necessarily headed toward Soviet style communism". So Thatcher's criticisms comparing British welfare to Soviet communism and applying them to Sanders is not germane."
They're germane to the extent that we've adopted socialistic elements. They're germane to the extent that we're incrementally moving in that direction. They're germane as a harbinger of what may come.
"Again, I'm adopting your standard. I agree they subscribe to demo socialism. You said America wasn't socialist because of Constitution/BoR. So I'm asking what rights Americans have that Nordic citizens don't, thus making Nordic countries socialist while America isn't socialist."
You have a simple-minded understanding of all this. As if it must be either/or, not both/and. As if America either is or isn't socialist. As if Nordic nations either are or aren't socialist. As if it's merely black or white. No other options. No room for variety. No room for differences in degree. You're failing to see how it can range along a spectrum.
"The two I linked to showing majority support for social programs by both Reps and Dems alike - http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/
Deletehttp://prospect.org/article/bernie-sanders-too-radical-america"
1. Nice to see you completely ignore my previously stated considerations and qualifications.
2. The first article is a survey (not poll as you implied) about public spending. One of its conclusions is public views on gov't spending across the past 25 years is "away from spending growth."
The methodology relies on an unweighted sample size, not weighted. No weight calibration to approximate its effects.
3. The second article is essentially a partisan piece attempting to spin a Gallup poll. No surprise since it's a famously liberal (progressive) magazine.
"So the public doesn't know what's good for them. Again, the irony is a bit much."
The only irony here is your self-assuredness in light of your weak performance. How did you draw such an illogical inference?
"The polls also show support for expanding funding."
Amusingly, unless you wish to prevaricate between synonyms, the very survey you cite contradicts your own claim. Here's what the survey says (emphasis mine): "While there has been little change in public views on government spending within the last two years, the long-term trend over the past quarter-century is, for the most part, away from spending growth. When the question was first asked in 1987, a 64% majority felt that Social Security spending should be increased; this stands at 41% in the new survey. Similarly, support for increased federal spending on health care has fallen from 72% to 38% since 1987, and the share favoring more spending on environmental protection has declined from 59% to 33%. While the trends are shorter, two other issues have seen similar trajectories. When first asked in 1994, 71% supported more federal spending on combating crime. This figure stands at 41% today. And even just over the past 12 years, the share saying education spending should be increased has fallen from 76% to 60%."
"Odd if they already "enormously" resent being taxed. People vote with their feet. Do we see mass protests and population flight from America and the Nordic countries due to taxation (Steve's "death spiral")?"
Again, you've taken Steve's remarks out of context.
"I already interacted with his reply which consisted of females like nanny states and outvote men and voters are akin to ignorant animals in zoos cages."
It wasn't interaction. As I already told you, it was taking Steve's comments out of context. It's strange how often you need transparent statements repeated to you.
"And you tied it to socialism."
No, you have a basic reading comprehension problem. I didn't "tie" freedom to socialism. I gave examples of how one might believe they're "free" under socialism in contrast to "freedom" in our republic. It doesn't follow that I'm "tying" freedom to socialism. If anything, I'd be "tying" freedom to our system of gov't.
"So I'd like to know how you would describe communism differently"
Broadly speaking, communism is a type of socialism.
Not sure why you're exhausting so much effort striving to prove Bernie isn't a "socialist" despite the fact that Bernie himself explicitly affirms he's a democratic socialist which is a (hybridized) type of socialism. It's sort of like you're trying to argue how white the paint is. You're trying to argue shades of white. Is it off white? Snow white? Maybe more of an ivory white? Perhaps a seashell white? Etc.