Any good articles showing how the U.S. really is socialist or close to it? A friend doubts this.

Economics Economics Questions
1

A left-leaning friend of mine likes to think that Europe (he’s European and loves the healthcare system there) is socialist and America is somehow the opposite. When I tell him we’re also socialist here, he can’t accept it and think it’s cause I’m 'right wing. ’ He has a hard time distinguishing Libertarian from Republican, and lumps me in with them as well.

Is there a simple, not overly biased article I can link to him that shows him just how socialist America is that will set him straight?

Also, is there something that illustrates, say, the French healthcare system vs. the U.S. system, something that doesn’t just show it as some kind of miracle system vs. ours? I can’t believe for a second that they have some perfect, no cost system over there, but my friend seems to think so. What are the costs? Is there rationing as one should expect? What about their drugs? Does the U.S. basically subsidize all of Europe by paying high drug costs so they can get cheap drugs over there?

Thanks for any help.

2

Read Thomas Fleming’s Socialism.

The Socialist Party of United States in the 1920s had a handsome charismatic leader called Norman Thomas. He was the front of the Social Gospel movement, a church preacher who joined the coalition of Leninists who were opposing WWI.

He managed to persuasively implement many of his moderate demands, because the Republican Party and Democratic Party took his ideas and implemented them in their own way across the years. The general public also liked his speeches, but found his Socialist Party label unsavoury. Certain political thinkers have called him one of the most successful American politicians in getting his ideas implemented.

3

I’ll take a look. It can’t be a book because my friend wouldn’t go through the trouble of buying something on my advice then actually reading it, not for something like this – an argument I’m having with him. I’ll look for an article or two – that’s the best I can hope to get him to bother with. Truth be told, I wouldn’t read a book about something my friend was debating me on either, unless it was an important argument. So I want to email him links I know he’ll bother to read, not something that resembles a syllabus for a college semester.

Thanks for the pointer. I think William Jennings Bryant was one of the crusaders for socialism, but that’s so old. I want something to jar him, especially to knock the silly idea that somehow the U.S. is somehow so hardcore capitalist nation.

4

I don’t understand how we can be completely different types of governments if our tax rate is 40%, and their tax rate is 48%…

5

Because high taxes are not a staple of socialism (in theory anyway)?

The only socialists thing we do in this country is Social Security. Everything else is corporatist hegemony designed to appease the socialist tendencies of the public. Even this healthcare bill was just a giant handout to insurance agencies.

“You buy insurance, or we will kill you… oh yeah, here’s some money for it if you’re broke”

6

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

All government spending is socialism, so I would just point out the public schools, welfare, public infastructure, government owns over 99 percent of hospitals, government ownership over energy, government-backed monopolies, the great society, subsidization of business, mandetory insurance, labor laws, intellectual property, the central bank, tax rates, public debt, government-backed unionization, federal insurance and transfer payment programs, massive military spending, massive government regulatory agencies, etc etc.

Government spending accounts for almost 40% of GDP. Ask him if any of those things ring of the free market or voluntary exchange.

7

All government spending is socialism

No that’s statism.

Government spending accounts for almost 40% of GDP. Ask him if any of those things ring of the free market or voluntary exchange

No, but it is statist capitalism.\

labor laws

You did get one right tho.

Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States. Finland has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States, while having comparable property right enforcement, financial freedom, and trade freedom. Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation, has greater freedom from corruption than the United States while having comparable business freedom, trade freedom, and property right enforcement. Iceland has greater business freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom and property right enforcement. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more “laissez faire” than the United States

That’s right. Democratic socialism (or as Marxists call it “capitalism w a human face”) is miles above statist capitalism (corporatocracies) as an economic and social organization.

8

@Epicurus, at LvMI, it’s completely pointless for you to try to redefine well defined words as they are understood. All government spending is socialism, because socialism is incompatible with property rights, and government spending is only accomplished by government theft.

There is no such thing as statist capitalism. The two terms, again as understood here, are incompatible.

9

As understood here yes, which is why I’m trying to bring a lil truth into it.

Statism can exist in both capitalist and socialist societies, to suggest anything else is revisionism.

(Meaning there is a difference between market economics and the social structure of capitalism. I’m trying not to distance capitalism from it’s historic roots and act like it never existed. This is capitalism, whether you like it or not. It may not be a truly market economy, but it is a capitalist system.)

10

Socialism is the collectivization of the means of production. A socialist country would imply that all of the means of productions which exist within the boundaries of a so-called nation have been collectivized, or nationalized by the government itself. The United States is not a socialist country, under this definition. However, it imposes socialistic and socialist programs; an example of the latter would be universal health care. Growing government acts to socialize, or collectivize, the means of production.

(Meaning there is a difference between market economics and the social structure of capitalism. I’m trying not to distance capitalism from it’s historic roots and act like it never existed. This is capitalism, whether you like it or not. It may not be a truly market economy, but it is a capitalist system.)

It is an interventionist economy, at best. This is not a “capitalist system”; it is a “capitalist system” with heavy interventionism.

11

Capitalsm’s historic roots? What might those be?

Can you define capitalism for us?

12

Socialism is the collectivization of the means of production. A socialist country would imply that all of the means of productions which exist within the boundaries of a so-called nation have been collectivized

Pretty much.

nationalized by the government itself

That’s the disconnect. How could a school that does not recognize borders “nationalize” anything. Also, social anarchists would disagree about that government part.

However, it imposes socialistic and socialist programs; an example of the latter would be universal health care

This healthcare we passed is anything but socialist. True socialism would not force insurance upon people at the barrel of a gun.

Growing government acts to socialize, or collectivize, the means of production.

Ya, if only welfare gave you stock options instead of paper funny money.

It is an interventionist economy, at best. This is not a “capitalist system”; it is a “capitalist system” with heavy interventionism.

That’s my point. It is statist capitalism. If one can call the USSR socialist, than one can call the US capitalist. Neither fits heavily with the theory, because they both practice statism.

13

Capitalsm’s historic roots? What might those be?

As the show on Adult Swim says; “look around you.”

16th ce Italy, the development of free markets to combat mercantilism, the US’s adoption of market economics, the rise of the West as dominant global power, etc.

Can you define capitalism for us?

Capitalism rests heavily upon market economics, but it differs in its use of coercion to maintain an ownership class that dominates policy and social orginization. I mean, that’s pretty basic, but it gets the jist across.

14

Epicurus,

That’s the disconnect. How could a school that does not recognize borders “nationalize” anything.

The school doesn’t nationalize anything. In any case, just because people here don’t consider borders as legitimate, or they believe them to be artificial, doesn’t mean that they deny that they exist. This is not a school of nihilists.

Also, social anarchists would disagree about that government part.

…

Ya, if only welfare gave you stock options instead of paper funny money.

The problem with the “social anarchist” ideal is that true collectivization of the means of production, or a social-political system in which all means of production were owned by everyone, would be impossible to sustain on any level. What I mean by this is that either the system would revert to a capitalist one, in which all goods were equally distributed amongst the population and economic calculation would once again occur, or the system falls into perpetual poverty. In the latter case, since it is impossible for millions upon millions of individuals to collectively plan a process of production, because there would be no consensus and not everyone is knowledgeable on the different aspects of an economy, the system would revert to one of political tyranny — the collectivization of the means of production would occur by means of government distribution of these same means of production, supposedly for the good of “the people”.

Therefore, the difference between a capitalist system and a socialist system is that only the latter inevitably ends in statism (with my own caveat, that the former has already developed to an extensive level).

This healthcare we passed is anything but socialist. True socialism would not force insurance upon people at the barrel of a gun.

If you re-read what you quoted, you’ll notice that I don’t call the current medical cartel in the United States socialist. In fact, I call universal health care socialist. There is a big difference. The former is socialistic, the latter is socialist.

15

There are governments which earn income from market activities, like Singapore, and they specially allocate some funds back into such business activities and some funds into state programs.

Let us also remember that governments in the days of antiquity often have been funded from bonds i.e. capital, although only for certain specific use like building a bridge or a pipeline, and then paying it back from tolls or fees charged for using them.

The state, as a monopoly of violence, has still practically (not just theoretically) a separate scope for doing activities in the market, other than its use of police enforcement.

16

In any case, just because people here don’t consider borders as legitimate, or they believe them to be artificial, doesn’t mean that they deny that they exist. This is not a school of nihilists.

That’s kind of my point. How could you have a socialist nation? Socialism inherently rejects borders. Workers of the world, not workers of america. (There is another misnomer btw, it would be more accurate to say “productive members of the world unite”)

The problem with the “social anarchist” ideal is that true collectivization of the means of production, or a social-political system in which all means of production were owned by everyone, would be impossible to sustain on any level. What I mean by this is that either the system would revert to a capitalist one, in which all goods were equally distributed amongst the population and economic calculation would once again occur, or the system falls into perpetual poverty.

I think that’s a valid criticism. But it all depends on what you mean by “collectivise.” Getting more people to own capital seems a much better way to evolve past the state than putting it all under the control of some beauracracy.

But alas, many would say the same about an-cap. The capitalist class would use their influence and power to reinstate a new state to protect their interests. Remember, rich people are trying to protect themselves as much as poor people, arguably more because of said power and influence.

It’s nothing new to anarchists for people to say it is infeasible.

In the latter case, since it is impossible for millions upon millions of individuals to collectively plan a process of production, because there would be no consensus and not everyone is knowledgeable on the different aspects of an economy, the system would revert to one of political tyranny

No it’s not. This site discusses it everyday. Unless you just admitted an-cap would inevitably lead back to statism.

People already collectively plan a process of production, through the market. That was the whole point. Socialism wasn’t anti-thetical to capitalism. In fact it required it.

Therefore, the difference between a capitalist system and a socialist system is that only the latter inevitably ends in statism (with my own caveat, that the former has already developed to an extensive level).

Historically, so has capitalism.

If you re-read what you quoted, you’ll notice that I don’t call the current medical cartel in the United States socialist. In fact, I call universal health care socialist. There is a big difference. The former is socialistic, the latter is socialist.

Granted. Social Democracy (capitalism with a human face it has been called. I thot it was funny) is much more socialist than american corporatism. But it still requires a state and has defined borders. So, at best it could be called transitionary socialism.

17

Yes we know. The socialist commonwealth can never achieve its pure socialist form unless it is either isolated from the rest of the world, or the entire world becomes one global socialist commonwealth.

Until then, the transitional socialist commonwealth can resort to prices abroad from the semi-capitalistic commonwealths, so it can function just enough to keep its starving subjects duped and hopelessly enslaved.

You just don’t want to get it, do you? There is no socialist commonwealth without coercion. It’s a figment of your imagination. It’s just a matter of looking beyond your Marxist fairy tales.

18

That’s kind of my point. How could you have a socialist nation? Socialism inherently rejects borders. Workers of the world, not workers of america. (There is another misnomer btw, it would be more accurate to say “productive members of the world unite”)

In my opinion, we shouldn’t focus just on theory, but also on the practical effects of the implimentation of theory. Socialism is a theory which is incongruent with rational human action, and therefore incongruent with anarchistic society. Socialism leads to statism.

But it all depends on what you mean by “collectivise.” Getting more people to own capital seems a much better way to evolve past the state than putting it all under the control of some beauracracy.

The second sentence is not a definition of collectivization. A capitalist society leads to a general increase in the amount of economic goods, and therefore increases the absolute ownership of the means of production of all individuals in a society (income inequality aside, the fact is that the “poor” still get wealthier in a capitalist system, because of the general increase in the volume of economic goods). However, this is not synonymous with collectivization, which is a principle which argues for society’s ownership of these economic goods.

So, by redefining collectivization, you have redefined away the argument. You can redefine socialism as capitalism, but then the argument becomes irrelevant.

But alas, many would say the same about an-cap. The capitalist class would use their influence and power to reinstate a new state to protect their interests. Remember, rich people are trying to protect themselves as much as poor people, arguably more because of said power and influence.

Ludwig von Mises went through great lengths to correct this dichotomic view of society, in which the “capitalists” and the “workers” are always at odds, and where the gain of one is the loss of the other. I will address the roots of government further down, in response to another point of yours, and so I won’t delve too much into this aspect of the argument here. In any case, the difference between an anarchic society and a statist society is that in the latter you have a monopoly on force. This just doesn’t exist in an anarchic society (also, this is one of the reasons why in my original response I mentioned the importance of assuming a high division of labor society), where capitalists are actually “combating” (or competing against) other capitalists for the demand of the consumer.

I sympathize with the right to believe that anarcho-capitalism can result in the same statism, but I just don’t recognize it as true. As elucidated below, I am someone who believes that government finds its roots in anarchic primitive society, where there was little competition, but we have advanced many magnitudes beyond this state. In any case, as I mention above, capitalism is a paradigm which maintains its congruency with human rationality, while socialism is completely and absolutely opposed to human rationality.

No it’s not. This site discusses it everyday. Unless you just admitted an-cap would inevitably lead back to statism.

There is a difference between collectively planning an economy and individually planning one’s own usage of his resources. It follows that system wide, production is anarchistic. In a market economy, individual plans synchronize through the price mechanism, but this is not synonymous with collective economic planning.

(N.B. This is actually a major disagreement I have with George Reisman, who stresses that economic planning is actually that which occurs through the price mechanism. While I agree that it is planning in the sense that individuals plan the use of their own wealth, and that these plans are coordinated through the price mechanism, I disagree with the notion that collective planning is actually anarchistic. This is based on Reisman’s poor understanding of anarchism; he equates anarchism with chaos and the lack of rule of law. Therefore, a collective economy is chaotic, and therefore it must be anarchistic. This line of reasoning is erroneous.)

Historically, so has capitalism.

As eluded above, here is where I lay out my own theory of the origins of the state. I agree that the state developed out of capitalism, in the sense that capitalism is the natural order of society in which it is not distorted by the existence of a monopoly on force. I believe that the state originated from the need to protect property, especially one’s self, in a primitive society without an extensive division of labor. Given the lack of economic competition, it follows that at the time it was far easier to establish this monopoly on force.

I don’t think a transition from statism to anarchy in modern times would suffer from the same problem, given that society benefits from an extensive division of labor.

19

Until then, the transitional socialist commonwealth can resort to prices abroad from the semi-capitalistic commonwealths, so it can function just enough to keep its starving subjects duped and hopelessly enslaved

That’s still the point, it’s not socialism at all if this is all happening.

If you look at the scandanavian countries, probably the closest to socialism, they have much more economic freedom the US. Statism was never the point of, and in fact antithetical to socialism.

Socialism happens when the productive members of society wrestle control/ownership of the means of production out of the hands of the nobles, former slave holders, and those who have used state’s to forcibly confiscate land for capitalist development.

You just don’t want to get it, do you? There is no capitalism without coercion. It’s a figment of your imagination. It’s just a matter of looking beyond your Rothbardian fairy tales

20

In my opinion, we shouldn’t focus just on theory, but also on the practical effects of the implimentation of theory. Socialism is a theory which is incongruent with rational human action, and therefore incongruent with anarchistic society. Socialism leads to statism.

I hold that same opinion. I would ask you to see capitalism in the same light. It has historically lead to statism as well. Really, these words are kind of outdated. Anarchism/libertarianism works just fine.

Plus, none of these countries I think you’re referring to developed out of previously capitalist nations. They were largely aggrarian feudal societies.

So, by redefining collectivization, you have redefined away the argument. You can redefine socialism as capitalism, but then the argument becomes irrelevant.

Collectivization, the dicatatorship of the proletariat in Marxis’ branch, simply meant to them popular ownership. The non-existence of a distinct ownership class is the desire. Public control, or non-consolidation; either works fine.

Once again, the whole point of socialism was it was to develop naturally out of capitalism as the workers realized their place in the system.

Ludwig von Mises went through great lengths to correct this dichotomic view of society, in which the “capitalists” and the “workers” are always at odds, and where the gain of one is the loss of the other.

Labor is not treated as a commodity? Are there not those who only means of subsistence is to labor, and those who can choose to labor, or live off their capital dividends? Just because our classes aren’t naturally based on birth doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Even Warren Buffet is willing to admit this.

If capitalists don’t use government to protect themselves, why are strikes routinely shut down by the state? Why this?

There is a difference between collectively planning an economy and individually planning one’s own usage of his resources. It follows that system wide, production is anarchistic. In a market economy, individual plans synchronize through the price mechanism, but this is not synonymous with collective economic planning.

It’s not inconsistent with socialism either. If socialism was to be stateless, who would do this economic planning? The point is to have popular ownership, it doesn’t neccesarily have to be public. The only point is to eliminate the distinction between a class that has to work, and one that can choose to.

As eluded above, here is where I lay out my own theory of the origins of the state. I agree that the state developed out of capitalism, in the sense that capitalism is the natural order of society in which it is not distorted by the existence of a monopoly on force. I believe that the state originated from the need to protect property, especially one’s self, in a primitive society without an extensive division of labor. Given the lack of economic competition, it follows that at the time it was far easier to establish this monopoly on force.

You’re saying Sumer was a capitalist economy? That was my point, there is a clear distinction between capitalism and markets. Capitalism relies heavily upon markets. But to disconnect it from it’s history is fallacious. And then capitalism destroyed class by birthright, and opened markets allowing the productive process of popular desire to flourish.

But it still had it’s old statists trying to protect themselves. So when workers demanded a higher pay, instead of just moving somewhere else (bcuz it wouldnt be cost effective) they called in state thugs to beat the workers down.

I don’t think a transition from statism to anarchy in modern times would suffer from the same problem, given that society benefits from an extensive division of labor

I think the DoL plays a large part in it, but if it were simply that, the state would have disappeared by now. It is both the division of labor and the popularization of education and ownership, imo, that will get rid of the state. As long as one powerful class exists, it will try to protect itself.