In an American Spectator article in 1976 entitled “Socialism: An Obituary for an Idea”, Irving Kristol wrote “The most important political event of the twentieth century is not the crisis of capitalism but the death of socialism. It is an event of immense significance. For with the passing of the socialist ideal there is removed from the political horizon the one alternative to capitalism that was rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition and in the Western civilization which emerged from that tradition.”
So what’s going on now with all of this political talk about socialism coming from the presidential candidates on the left? Is it truly making a comeback in a country that is arguably the poster model for anti-socialism?
First, it’s important to get definitions straight. Socialism, simply and properly understood traditionally in economic theory, means state ownership of the means of production. Most of what is being bounced around in the current political conversation is not of this traditional definition, but more of the kind of economic system called democratic socialism, in which there might be varying degrees of state ownership of capital and a large portion of GDP controlled by the state, but not total state ownership of production.
But upon delving into definitions and semantics a little further, I prefer to think of the popular notion of socialism, and one that is even more insidious, as being the “socializing” of a broad range of public costs and benefits that undermines individual initiative and produces over time a condition of coercion and dependency in the populace. This is the creeping socialism that is the core of the progressive movement.
Why has this notion of socialism become attractive, particularly to the younger generation who seem to be its driving force, inspired by Bernie Sanders and led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her colleagues in the Democratic Socialists of America? An old joke is that anyone who is not a socialist at age 16 has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist at 26 has no brain. Historically, a certain amount of truth rings there, but I would add that the age of maturity should be extended today beyond 26 due to the poor quality of education this generation has been subjected to, particularly in economics and history. And there is more at work here. In a recent issue of National Review, Timothy Carney makes the point that modern American society, in which community and family are weaker and people are more alienated, has proven fertile ground for socialism, which has a strong appeal to political communitarians. And most communitarians abhor the individualism that is inherent in our founding. Remember Hillary Clinton’s motto “it takes a village to raise a child”?
In a recently published excerpt from George Will’s new book, The Conservative Sensibility, he covers a lot of ground on this issue in his usual pithy style, as with this key passage: “Dilution is a prerequisite for advancement of a collectivist political agenda. The more that individualism can be portrayed as a chimera, the more that any individual’s achievements can be considered as derivative from society, the less the achievements warrant respect. And the more society is entitled to conscript–that is, to socialize–whatever portion of the individual’s wealth that it considers its fair share. Society may, as an optional act of political grace, allow the individual to keep the remainder of what society thinks is misleadingly called the individual’s possession. Note that “society” necessarily means society’s collective expression: the government”.
Conservatives have not been very effective in responding to these trendy realities. Capitalism is based on a strong moral-cultural underpinning. As John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. The founders considered this a given, and did not contemplate the current cultural dominance of self-expression, instant gratification, and passive dependency.
National Reviews most recent issue covers socialism in depth from a variety of angles. A great read.
Any political system that diminishes the importance of the individual and denigrates individual achievement will produce a substandard society. The moronic”you didn’t build that” from people who damn sure never built anything summarizes the progressive’s vision as articulated by early leader Jane Addams–“We must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement and shall be content to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many”. This may be the most un-American idea ever proposed.
I will congratulate you on acknowledging that no one in the US body politic is advocating for state control of the means of production (at least I think you are saying that)…
However “Socialism, simply and properly understood traditionally in economic theory, means state ownership of the means of production.”
That is Communism, not what most countries would call “socialism.”
Socialism – a mixed economy – is what the vast majority of people on the planet live under. Whatever the percentage of the private/public mix of the economy, there is no examples of 100% private (it is simply impossible for a variety of reasons), and very few (North Korea, possibly Cuba) of 100% state control. Old examples – the USSR, and China pre 1980, are all faded, failed memories.
“ I prefer to think of the popular notion of socialism, and one that is even more insidious, as being the “socializing” of a broad range of public costs and benefits that undermines individual initiative and produces over time a condition of coercion and dependency in the populace. “
If you could provide some examples, I would be interested in them.
Perhaps I can help, lets’ talk about Scandinavian countries – Norway, Denmark and Sweden – Finland is usually included, but etho – linguistically, it is not ‘Scandinavian’. Perhaps we will call them the Nordics. All those countries would probably not be offended if one referred to them as “Socialistic”.
Are they hostile to business? I don’t know, next time you drive your Volvo (Swedish) to IKEA (Also Swedish) to buy some LEGO (Danish), you may have an answer. Don’t forget to get some new Nokia (Finish) tires for that Volvo, or something made of Aluminum from Norsk (Norway)..So it seems like they actually have functioning successful businesses…You might also take in a museum exhibit, or live in a beautiful building designed by Bjarke Ingels (Danish)….
How about all those social programs these countries have being a dis – incentive for people to work…well, if you look at the 18-65 year old laborforce participation rates of Sweden (73%), Norway (69.9%), Denmark (69.7%), or Finland (66.4%), and compare it to the USA (62.8%) you see that that can’t be true either (even that apparently always on strike country France – has a participation rate of 72.3%)
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/labor-force-participation-rate
So I am not sure what exactly the USA would have be worried about. Besides:
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Richard Wright, A short History of Progress..
Ideas may have consequences, but they are better when backed up by facts.
As I have noted, there are variations of socialism, but historically the political theory has held that the best way to remedy the ills of capitalism is for the state to nationalize the productive resources and manage them on behalf of all of society. It has almost always favored collective solidarity over individualism, which was really the main point of the essay. I think Bob Gruy has captured it well in his response above.
And those who invariably want us to feature Scandinavia as the successful model almost always want to ignore the Venezuelan and Cuban models.
“…And those who invariably want us to feature Scandinavia as the successful model almost always want to ignore the Venezuelan and Cuban models….”
There are many, many, many stages between cowboy capitalism, and the failed examples of authoritarianism of Cuba, and Venezuela. In fact, there are precious few examples of those types of countries…Ignoring the political aspect of these countries (dictatorial, etc.), and assuming that it is an outcome their failed economic polices is false. If anything, it is their dictatorial politics which has driven their increasing roles on the economy.
“…the political theory has held that the best way to remedy the ills of capitalism is for the state to nationalize the productive resources and manage them on behalf of all of society. ..” I don’t believe anyone advocates that in any western country. What is promoted, is responsible levels of taxation, to help those who find themselves needing it for basics, in order to make if not them, their offspring productive members of society. The examples I provided, indicate this help does not have a negative effect on the participation of these people in the labor force, quite the contrary. Social programs can make people educated, and healthier, and thus better, more productive citizens. People want to participate, as the quoted figures indicate.
To be clear, there are many examples of no political freedom, with shades of economic freedom (such as modern day China), but there are no examples of political freedom, without economic freedom. It is all in the balance, and if you want to live in a healthy society, or not.
Besides, assuming its’ either no government involvement in any aspect of a county’s life or a communist dictatorship, is like saying having a bourbon at 5pm makes one a full blown alcoholic, with nothing in between that, and being a responsible drinker.
forgot…
“…And those who invariably want us to feature Scandinavia as the successful model almost always want to ignore the Venezuelan and Cuban models….”
To that I say,
And those who invariably want us to feature Venezuelan and Cuba as the unsuccessful model almost always want to ignore the Scandinavian (and Dutch, and German, and Australian, and Canadian, and Icelandic, and New Zealand, and…) models.
So for which particular country’s model would you exchange the one currently in use by the U. S.?
Well, I am still waiting for an example of a country that do not think the USA should emulate, or where “socialism” has failed it.
And no, Venezuela, Cuba do not count. Nor do Communist countries (You know who I am taking about), current or past. Lets’ try and stick to the OECD at least. Or ones with working electricity, and a currency that can be exchanged outside its’ borders..
And yes I do have at least one country in mind, but I will wait for your reply…
Well, that’s pretty easy for me. We have the best political/economic system; other free societies have some admirable attributes in their economic systems but none have a system I would want to emulate in exchange for what we have.
Well, I am still waiting for an example of a country that do not think the USA should emulate, or where “socialism” has failed it.
Still waiting….
As for not wanting to exchange anything you know about the USA versus any other country is there any objective support to your statement, or is it just your “feelings?”
Look, I get that the USA has been good to you, and likely most of your readers (me included). However by any object verifiable measure, that is not true for everyone in the USA, and has become less and less so for more and more people over the last 50 years.
Is the USA “better” on average than Honduras? Undoubtedly. That is one reason Hondurans want to come to the USA.
But for everything from economic mobility, education achievement, to life expectancy for the ENTIRE population, the USA is at the bottom of the list of “First World” countries, and falling fast.
I could provide you with a collection of references, but I understand that feelings, and opinions (not facts) are the name of the game here, so I won’t.
By most major development indices, The USA is out of the top 30 countries of the world, and unfortunately on many of these low performing statistics, actually spends near the top. (healthcare, as an example).
At some point, the peasants revolt, because they do not have a stake in the system, or a sense that it cares. And when they revolt, they won’t be instituting Scandinavian style social programs, that is a certainty.
That is when your Venezuelan boogie – man example comes into play.
Some years ago, I gave a software maintenance renewal clerk at my company a ride home. I was telling him about a business trip I had coming up. He could not believe that I did not need to get the approval of the VP to book flights, hotels, etc., and expense it. He was someone, who needed the approval of his supervisor to essentially blow his nose. Being in charge of my own time was something that he simply could not imagine for himself.
What this taught me, is that not everyone is their own “brand” or can “win” at the game of capitalism…but I needed him to manage the maintenance renewal of our licenses in order to sustain the company…So letting him fall by the wayside, because he was not capable of making it as an individual, would have been penny wise, but pound foolish.
In a broader sense, society has to be like this, looking out for the least, even when they don’t look like you, worship like you, speak, or are as educated like you.
It might cost you a few points on your tax return today, but it may save you from having to live in an armed compound, or worry about getting you, and your money out of the country in the future…
People fleeing places like Honduras? Not everyone…the rich certainly aren’t, for them it is a really good country..low taxes, cheap labor (especially the armed guards for your compound), and great weather….shame if anything were to happen to it…
I will stick with my previous answer–I don’t have an example of a country we should emulate. No doubt we have operated our system often in perverse ways, but there is no other that has provided more opportunity for more people around the world than ours. And I’m not going down this road of comparing GDP, life expectancy, child mortality, etc., etc. That is a meaningless exercise in which there is no way to properly control for the myriad of cultural, demographic, regulatory, and vast differences in lifestyle choices to compare a complex and diverse society of 330M with most of the small homogeneous countries that might seem attractive in some aspect of such an analysis. We are still the hope of the world, the indispensable nation if we don’t completely screw it up. Now I must begin packing to leave for Europe next week. We can reconnect in July.