Socialism. We need it America......... For now

"Nationalisation is socialism" is a classic error. Were the British Tories 'socialist' when they nationalised Rolls Royce? The very idea would be ludicrous.

Its a common error though. Rand, for example wrote "fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government". That isn't consistent with the evidence. For example, Buchheim and Scherner (2007, The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, Journal of Economic History, Vol 66, pp 390-416):

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.

 

No, the error is yours not Rand's. Under fascism, control of property was entirely with the state. The error is in your sources interpretation of what this necessarily entails. It will be useful to reference a statement by Ayn Rand's intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff from 'The Ominous Parallels' first:

(emphasis mine)

The degree of "freedom" left to industry to "devise their own production and investment profiles" and to choose from "a number of contract options" is a calculated act by the state to provide "important incentives for increasing efficiency" but this is precisely what should be expected from "socialism in the outward guise of capitalism".

 

I've just referred to a peer reviewed scholarly paper that shows that I am quite correct. There's a lot of nonsense spewed over fascism (from all sides admittedly), but the attempt to confuse it with socialism or economic planning is perhaps the most insipid

 

That Germany faced a different world with different rules and conditions. There was no China to stand in it's way throughout it's 'socialistic' phase. If America embraces socialism...there will be no turning back. Once that corner is turned, it will be the permanent path for us. If China totally embraces capitalism, not state run capitalism, it will have it's foot on our neck for decades, if not centuries. Socialism in America guarantees 3rd world status.

 

First, a quote from Hank Rearden in 'Atlas Shrugged':

"I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers - with the facts, but not with the evaluation."

Your "peer reviewed scholarly paper" is correct on the facts. The error is in the evaluation. Fascist dictatorships do not need to micromanage every aspect or detail of production to have total control over it. Another quote from Peikoff (this from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand):

The Nazis set the length of the leash, never relinquishing total control.

 

You'll get quotes agreeing with David Icke. I refer directly to scholarly research as all aspects of the output has gone through quality control. And what do we find? My comment is supported. I'm not actually surprised as, unlike socialism, fascism followed a 'by mistake, rather than design' economic outcome. Focusing on core aspects (such as the Theory of the Elites where its perceived that those with a natural talent for ruling will rule over the masses), it lacks the political economic analysis associated with socialism

Its clear what happened in Germany: continued use of private property in order to increase efficiency. That approach was of course aggressive in is anti-labour design. Not surprisingly, for example, the Hitler regime is associated with labour losing out relative to capital

 

Please comment on this. In the 1930s, when most countries were nationalising stuff to try to overcome the depression, the Nazis were privatising.

Nazi Privatization in the 1930s
Germà Bel*
Universitat de Barcelona i ppre-IREA

http://www.ub.es/graap/nazi.pdf

 

A good measure of how capitalist or socialist Nazi Germany was would be foreign investment.

American capitalists increased their investments in Germany from 1933 to 1941 by 50%

 

There is no chance of socialism in America in the near future. Obama is a capitalist. Socialism needs a revolutionary workers party to take all the big companies and banks into public ownership under democratic workers control.

 

An interesting perspective!

 

The term socialism has been demonized in the USA by the powers of capitalism for the past 50 to 60 years. I say the "term" of socialism. That is because most if not almost all Americans have no understanding of the concept of socialism.

While Capitalism allows wealthy and monopolies to manipulate the people, capitalism becomes ingraned in the government and it's policies to allow capitalism to hold power in all areas of politics, public education, universiteis, manufacturing, marketing, and all manipulated by broadcast media. In other words, it becomes part of the psychological and genetic makeup of the uSA.

As a result, there will be no chance to change the USA to socialism. Even if it is good for the majority of the uSA and the future of the USA. The powers that I have mentioned are to big and powerfull (wealthy), to allow others in the USA to be free from capitalism. In other words, it's like the corporations created consumer dependancy where the massess need capitalism to survive. And the simple minds of the massess, can see no further than the pay check they desire.

 

Socialism is knocking on the door my friend and Obama is nothing close to a capitalist. He advocates taxing one citizen to give to another. That is socialism. The "pay their fair share" argument is socialism on parade.

Anyhow, to your point about capitalism. Capitalism doesn't "allow" the wealthy or monopolies to manipulate people. You are asserting that people are dumb and cannot pursue their own interests without the assistance of some supreme authority. That is a tyrannical position.

Socialism is incompatible with America because we are a free people. As a free people our intellectual and physical labor belongs to us. It is our private property and so are the fruits thereof. Socialism requires the confiscation of that private property, your labor, so it can be given to another.

In a free society, the taking of your labor for the benefit of another is immoral. It robs one of his finite time on this planet. We labor to accumulate private property and to pursue our personal interests. We have a finite amount of time on this planet to do so. When the authority you desire so much takes the fruits of someones labor from them, they are in effect taking finite pieces of that persons life.

That my friend is the antithesis of liberty and freedom and this nation was founded on both of those premises.

 

I suppose you have evidence to back these outlandish claims?

 

That poster didn't seem to make any outlandish claims.

 

When have I suggested that socio capitalism be 'on par' with capitalism versus socialism? Where are you getting this from? I have now had to submit several questIons as to where you are getting these things from, which, I have never mentioned. It seems you are arguing against points which I have never made, nor in any way came within close proximity to.

And---

Socio capitalism has no, 'specific welfare plan'. It has no specific plan other than a flexible state to respond to failures and/
or market inefficiencies. An appropriate summary of what this system entails would begin concisely where I began several posts ago when I first mentioned the concept. Anybody with experience in the subject would most certainly agree.

 

I agree that it's important when there is a clear and singular definition, but socialism has no such definition. It has a long and varied history which you are neglecting. I agree that the enemies of socialism are all to eager to misattribute it name, but to conflate socialism to anarchism in all instances is simply incorrect both historically and in usage by those who call themselves socialists.

There are plenty of non-marxist forms of communism. Indeed I would argue that anarchism is better conflated with communism than it is with socialism.

By this reckoning no one is free because of the fact that unless everyone controls equally the factors of production, and this would mean on a specifically individual basis, not with any sort of communal control, that no one could ever be free. Indeed it's hard to take such a definition of freedom seriously when it seems to argue that unless one lives in a position of perfect power of his environment, that he is not free.

What I mean in this instance is that words can be incredibly misleading. This is indisputable. At the same time not only the explicit definition is what guides people's understandings and interpretation, but rather a whole host of implicit meanings and contextual associations, this is indisputable. Finally, some words have more of the implicit definitions than others. This is indisputable. The definition you provided with socialism is filled with these sorts of words.

The first person's beliefs to be referred to as socialist was Saint-Simon, whose beliefs were most certainly statist. Furthermore the anarchists often refer to themselves as communist. You could of course make the distinction between marxism and socialism, but that's nothing new.

Marx and Engels dominated the first international and Marxism has been an exceedingly large force in socialism to this day and to say that the vast majority of socialists have not been statists is simply false. I agree that we have to deal with correct definitions, but when you're trying to redefine a word.

 

Its a fact. General Motors for example grew to be one of the biggest employers.

No, this is wrong, this is not socialism.

This is incorrect. Socialism means public ownership and democratic control of the big industries. It is capitalism which confiscates your labour, when you go home from work the work you have done is owned by the capitalist who owns the company.

What he wrote was correct.

Socialism and anarchism have the same end goal, just a different view on how to get there.

Socialism and communism are the same thing, communism is the goal of anarchism. All anarchists are socialists. Communists are basically Marxists. Anarchists do not call themselves communists because they are not Marxists, but communism is their goal. Obviously there are one or two variations.

 

You must have missed them.

 

What irony. The very existence of socialism grew out of demonizing capitalism in every way that can be thought of. You seem to have things backwards.

 

IMO, OP needs to change his name. I trust the decisions of the masses over those of a few in government at anytime.

 

Then I suppose you will experience no difficulty providing evidence to back the outlandish claim that a system cannot be changed. You happen to have many many examples in history which will effectively negate whatever it is you feel will back these allegations.

 

No demonization needed. The flaws with unrestrained capitalism became apparent shorly after its inception. That was one thing laissez faire made clear pretty quickly. Socialism and other ideas were thus spawned in response to these obvious problems.

 

Its guff, nothing more. Analysis into liberal and social democracy is much more advanced, for good reason.

Capitalism is built on market inefficiencies. The idea that you can have a 'flexible state to respond' is nonsense. Without the defence of property rights (and therefore socialism), economic rents are rife. Even attempts to reduce them (as with social democracy) tend to just create new hierarchies (e.g. insider-outsider analysis into how higher unemployment rates are the norm)

 

If you truly believe that then socialism, which is a return of economic decision making power to the people, would be a very bad goal for you. What you seem to want is fascism, which is state control over economic decisions.

I think that is a horrible sentiment.

 

Socialism as a coherent political philosophy came about in the early 19th century. It was a contemporary of "laizzez faire" capitalism, not a consequence.