Genuine Socialism and Socialized Services, a semantics argument (LONG POST)

[filc]

@bloomj31

The more I’ve been reading, though, the more I’ve come to conclude that properly, “segmented socialism” is better known as corporatism.

Yes I didn’t get into the specific taxomony if different types of government models but I would assign corporatism as being a type of fascism, which is ultimately type of socialism. It’s socialized because the costs are shared amongst all citizen’s against their will and the fascist private firm are directed by the state. It is no less a socialized service though, it’s cost is shared amongst the entire nation. Even if it is a private firm the state is paying for.

@bloomj31

Socialism, according to what you note as its proper definition, is where the state owns the means of production. This usually doesn’t work and as far as I know, our government doesn’t own much.

Well in my essay above I haven’t attempted to classify our present government programs in a specific type of model. My essay is showing the link between all models. What you provided here was the traditional definition of socialism, that is not what my essay argues as I explained in the opening paragraphs. My essay is showing that socialist programs are socialist because they cannot calculate, they are incapable of calculating because of the use of coercion which breaks step 2 of my summarized model to the formation of prices. With step two broken we cannot adequately read what consumers desire.

So in my essay I try to explain that coercive monopolistic programs are what we call socialist. I know that this has far reaching consequences and Caley McKibbin has brought this up, but considering things from a calculating stance I think it’s all very consistent. Ultimately it’s the difference between voluntary and involuntary trade.

@bloomj31

Now doesn’t that sound more like what we have now rather than a situation where the government literally owns everything? I mean what does the government really own?

On paper the government may not own it, but they still control and direct it’s productive use. The only reason why they don’t own it is red tape. Fundamentally the difference between fascism and socialism is red-tape, and who’s names are on various titles of ownership. The mechanical process of fascism and socialism are identical however. The only difference is where/who owns the capital. But even if the capital is owned privately, if it is being operated and managed by the state the same results will occur, inability to calculate.

@bloomj31

Notice he’s not talking about owning the companies, he’s talking about having his hands in them. He’s talking about having them as a part of the State.

I briefly tried to explained this in my section “Consequences of my argument”. That ultimately it matters not who owns the capital, if owners cannot freely employ it as they see fit.

@bloomj31

“Fascism desires the state to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its actions felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social and educational institutions, and all political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation…”

Yes and I’m not sure I’d hold Mussolini as an authority of economics and economic categorization. Marx does the same thing to capitalists, they are allegedly slave drivers to the laborer. It is ofcoarse just rhetoric, just as Mussolini’s statement above. It has no real tangible meaning or value.

@bloomj31

But fascism and socialism are very different even in terms of practical application and historical manifestation. Stalinist Russia was almost purely socialist. Mussolini’s Italy was almost purely Fascist.

Well in my essay I’m explaining that the two fail for the same reasons. If we do not call them socialized programs what do we call them in terms that are not misleading? The only differences between the two systems are aesthetics, mechanically they operate the same. Most people understand why socialism fails, because it cannot calculate. Many folks however do not understand why fascism fails. The point of my essay is to show that they fail for precisely the exact same reasons. Using a more consistent terminology will help people understand this. The only difference between the two are aesthetics of who’s name is on a piece of paper, like a title of ownership. The state however still dictates the control of said private property, regardless of whether it’s state owned or not.

@bloomj31

Couldn’t one direct something without owning it?

This goes back to the Consumer Sovereignty section I wrote. Ultimately it’s the consumers who need to be sovereign. When they are not is when things break down. Again all of these attributes are identical for any type of coercive monopoly, regardless of what we call it.

@bloomj31

I understand what you’re saying. And perhaps, functionally, they can look identical. But, at least nominally, the corporate state leaves the deed of ownership in private hands

So the point of my essay is to show that the differences are simply aesthetics and superficial. Let me give you another analogy. It’s like calling black people a different race from white people, but not calling red heads a different race from brown heads. Fundamentally there is one race, the differences can be found in our gene’s. If we beleive black people are their own race then we also have to beleive that blue eyed people are their own race. What about blue eyed black people?

So the point is that they are not different. Humans are humans with different aesthetics, differences, preferences, ect… Fascism/Socialism are one in the same mechanically. I am not arguing the degree to which a specific state model is likely to socialize a market. It may be true that fascism smaller in size than heavy socialized countries, it may not. I am not debating at which specific model is more likely to annex the largest portion of the economy. socialism.

Thanks for the kind words LS, and thanks for the contributions everyone else. And thanks for posting Bloom. [Y]

[filc]

Thanks for the response Lilburne. My ISP is crapping out atm but when it comes back up I’ll give your response some consideration. I’m not disagreeing with you at all necessarily, my concern is that calling things bureaucratic by todays standards may confuse people of our position on why we think bureaucracy does not work.

[wilderness]

Thanks filc. Enjoyed the post tremendously!

[Smiling_Dave]

Fascinating article, great graphics.

Here are some things I thought about when I read it:

1. I think your analysis holds water for those services the state provides “for free”, like roads, schools, police, things like that.

But what about if they nationalize an industry, then charge for it, like the post office? Would there not be feedback from the consumer in such a case?

2. Mises in Socialism disagrees with you. But I think he is talking about things like the post office, where the people have an option of not buying the product the state offers.

3. In an interventionist thing, like regulating an industry, or taking from the rich to give to the poor, I don’t see how your above analysis would apply.

[filc]

@Smiling Dave

2. Mises in Socialism disagrees with you. But I think he is talking about things like the post office, where the people have an option of not buying the product the state offers.

If the state has a national business and it’s funded by no means of coercion(cannot be funded by taxes) then there is nothing wrong with that service at all. It’s entirely subject to consumer sovereignty. The state would have all the normal incentives and feedback mechanisms to judge their performance.

The problem is the state does not do this, they force consumers to pay for the service via taxation, whether they actually use it or not. But all things aside, assuming no taxes, theres nothing wrong with government attempting to make a profitable business. The problem is it never does that, it always uses some level of force or coercion to keep it’s bad business afloat.

@Smiling Dave

3. In an interventionist thing, like regulating an industry, or taking from the rich to give to the poor, I don’t see how your above analysis would apply.

Interventionism is still a disruption of the direction of the consumers. It’s really another article all together but essentially the consumers are more or less directing things in a free market. When interventionism is applied the consumers wishes are what is lost.

When usually happens in that case is a State or government nationalizes a private industry, so they just end up in one of the models I describe above.

Thanks for the kind words Dave!

[wilderness]

@filc

But all things aside, assuming no taxes, theres nothing wrong with government attempting to make a profitable business.

What kind of gov’t is that? Even a monopoly on currency via gov’t is a tax on purchasing power.

[filc]

@wilderness

What kind of gov’t is that? Even a monopoly on currency via gov’t is a tax on purchasing power.

Indeed, seems like a fairytale notion. I would agree. A government that doesn’t tax, and only offers business subject to consumer sovreignty is no government at all, but just another business.