How much socialism does the US already have?

[GostHacked]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heathe...socialized-heal

Senators do not like the public option for health care, but all your property is insured by the government. I would say that the cries against socialism are very misplaced considering this kind thing takes place.

How much socialism does the US already have?

[Pliny]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heathe...socialized-heal

Senators do not like the public option for health care, but all your property is insured by the government. I would say that the cries against socialism are very misplaced considering this kind thing takes place.

How much socialism does the US already have?

Too much.

There is medicare and medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, flood insurance, welfare, the post office and the list goes on.

What's a little bit more socialism, ay? Why not a public option for health care? Is this the question you are asking - why not more?

People will not give up privilege and largesse from the public coffers once won. The only way to for that to happen is the failure of the system, and there is a point where the economy will not bear the strain.

[eyeball]

This seems more like a story about corporate welfare than public socialism. In any case...

People will not give up privilege and largesse from the public coffers once won. The only way to for that to happen is the failure of the system, and there is a point where the economy will not bear the strain.

I take it there is no way then for you to give up medicare and medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, flood insurance, welfare, the post office and the list goes on? Just teasing...

But seriously, is there any reason not to think the result would be any different if the world was a libertarian utopia? Both systems appear to need an economy that constantly grows and at some point the environment will not be able to bear the strain. Economies...ecosystems...you can have the latter without the former but not the other way around. What ever system we live by will share a similar fate if it cannot incorporate this simple fact.

I suppose if we can get into outer-space we could avoid the perils of expanding within a closed finite space but I don't see that happening anywhere near as fast as will be needed to avoid hitting a wall at some point and probably sooner rather than later.

We need some insurance of a Third Kind.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Senators do not like the public option for health care, but all your property is insured by the government. I would say that the cries against socialism are very misplaced considering this kind thing takes place.

Not sure what you mean by this, as all "my property" is not insured by the "government", unless you mean the stability of the nation state itself, but even then, there are still many losses.

Canada needn't be concerned by the question at all, because a better one would be how much United States does it have and depend on for economic survival.

[Pliny]

This seems more like a story about corporate welfare than public socialism. In any case...

I take it there is no way then for you to give up medicare and medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, flood insurance, welfare, the post office and the list goes on? Just teasing...

But seriously, is there any reason not to think the result would be any different if the world was a libertarian utopia? Both systems appear to need an economy that constantly grows and at some point the environment will not be able to bear the strain. Economies...ecosystems...you can have the latter without the former but not the other way around. What ever system we live by will share a similar fate if it cannot incorporate this simple fact.

I suppose if we can get into outer-space we could avoid the perils of expanding within a closed finite space but I don't see that happening anywhere near as fast as will be needed to avoid hitting a wall at some point and probably sooner rather than later.

We need some insurance of a Third Kind.

What's a Libertarian Utopia? For me that would be government staying out of socio-economic planning and keeping with their mandate of providing security of person and property and abandoning the role of thief.

An economy generally does grow. Population increases make that necessary and there is also increased wealth and standards of living that mean it is growing.

Government grows an economy through manipulation of monetary and fiscal policy that creates a boom and bust cycle eventually leading to the great bust. They always blame capitalist greed for market failure. How come those capitalists all get greedy at the same time causing a collapse is a great mystery? Where is the line between greed and attempting to improve your lot in life?

Should I call the bum on the street greedy if he wishes to move to better location. Does he get kicked off the street by other bums who are greedy and wish to work the corner where he has been working? If he wants to get a job is he greedily taking food out of someone else's mouth.

The moment a person gives up trying to improve himself or his family or community then I will say he is not greedy. Greed is taking more than a fair share, I suppose. But who decides what a fair share is? Some bureaucrat? The envious? The lazy and irresponsible?

PS: The Ego has landed!

Edited October 5, 2009 by Pliny

[GostHacked]

This seems more like a story about corporate welfare than public socialism. In any case...

Which can be seen as a form of socialism. Take from the rich companies and give to the poor companies, while it is all backed by the US government as gaurantess to those companies that might take a loss. They are covered. Insurance is insured, not by the company that issues it, but by the government (aka tax dollars). Is this just another type of bailout?

BC

Not sure what you mean by this, as all "my property" is not insured by the "government", unless you mean the stability of the nation state itself, but even then, there are still many losses.

Well, flood insurance in the US should not gauranteed by the state/government no matter what company issues it. You decide to live on a flood plain, you get insurance for it, and it is automatically covered by the state if the company cannot pay out all the claims. That might render an insurance company broke (I won't be crying a river anytime soon) because they are simply selling bad policies. My grandparents could not get flood insurance (here in Canada) for the cottage because it was situated on a flood plane. It did flood every 10 to 15 years. Flooded twice in my teen years. Insurance companies won't insure something they know will definatley get damaged in the future. We chose to have the cottage there, and we paid the price. And the cottage got jacked up a couple more feet. We tried to prepare for the next flood by building the cottage on a high mound of dirt. No dice, flooded and went higher. So we jacked the place up on blocks. And yet it got flooded again a couple years later. So as an insurer it would be absolutely retarded of anyone to issue insurance for a property in this type of area. They would lose their shirts. Luckily the cottage is solid preassure treated wood (picked because of the situation) and there was little damage done. Gotta plan for it somewhat.

So your flood insurance that is gauranteed by the government is a form of socialism. And that is costing more than giving the US people a public option for health care. This is why I made the statement your propert seems to be more valuable than your health/life. I guess we do live in a material world. And that is a sad state of affairs.

So where else can we find socialism in the US?

[bush_cheney2004]

So your flood insurance that is gauranteed by the government is a form of socialism. And that is costing more than giving the US people a public option for health care. This is why I made the statement your propert seems to be more valuable than your health/life. I guess we do live in a material world. And that is a sad state of affairs.

Flood insurance is optional.....and I certainly don't need it. Other forms of property and casualty insurance are either required by a lender or just prudent financial planning....no government backup. Not really sure what you are getting at with such a narrow example....FDIC for bank accounts would be a much better example.

So where else can we find socialism in the US?

NORAD

[Bryan]

It's not socialism itself that Americans (or Canadians for that matter) don't like. Most of them openly embrace it without even realizing it. It's just the word that they don't like.

[GostHacked]

Flood insurance is optional.....and I certainly don't need it. Other forms of property and casualty insurance are either required by a lender or just prudent financial planning....no government backup. Not really sure what you are getting at with such a narrow example....FDIC for bank accounts would be a much better example.

Well it is at least one example, and not everyone needs flood insurance. That was not the point here. The video in the article I posted explains quite a bit of what I am talking about when it comes to the flood insurance and how the government backs up the insurance providers in terms of loss because of flood payouts. It might be optional, but you will not be denied it , it seems , even if you live on a flood plain which should not be insured by any company that wants to stay in business for the long run. But if it is eventually backed by the government, well then these insurance businesses are safe aka corporate welfare or corporate socialism.

NORAD

NORAD ??? How so, please explain?

[Pliny]

It's not socialism itself that Americans (or Canadians for that matter) don't like. Most of them openly embrace it without even realizing it. It's just the word that they don't like.

You mean like "Brussels Sprouts"? Is it the word or the vegetable itself?

I agree that most people do not have a working concept of socialism. They have some vague idea it is about the government interfering too much in people's lives. Some have the idea that this is a necessity.

As I have mentioned in various threads, the structure of all organizations is socialistic. Top down and pyramidal in nature. Government as a structure is not any different, where it does become different is in the fact that it attempts to regulate all other organizations and direct the whole society, should we say "govern" the whole society. Socialism, in running an organization is entirely proper, no organization runs efficiently without that basic framework.

Of course individuals are the basic unit in an organization. There are leaders and workers, management and producers and they have generally a common bond that bids their co-operation to achieve common goals. Government exists to protect it's individual citizens and maintain the sanctity of their person and property. Socialism in government evolves over time to void the responsibility of individual's for their own lives and basically starts to reason from the viewpoint of the collective good. When government becomes overbearing in society, that is the point where the State itself becomes even more important than the collective good - it develops that far because it is responsible for the collective good and therefore above it - this is totalitarianism and can take forms such as communism and fascism - the total state; total socialism.

I believe the internet is actually a good tool for the edification of the general populace. Understanding the complexities of professional subjects such as medicine and law and politics and economics has in the past been the province of the intellectual and expert authority. I see a breakdown in the dependence of the general population on intellectual and expert advice. All information can be questioned and queried on the internet one just has to be able to evalute information correctly. I am of the opinion that few really have good evaluative skills but they will develop over time. It is hard to know what is true and false information from special interests is often very convincing.

[Pliny]

Well it is at least one example, and not everyone needs flood insurance. That was not the point here. The video in the article I posted explains quite a bit of what I am talking about when it comes to the flood insurance and how the government backs up the insurance providers in terms of loss because of flood payouts. It might be optional, but you will not be denied it , it seems , even if you live on a flood plain which should not be insured by any company that wants to stay in business for the long run. But if it is eventually backed by the government, well then these insurance businesses are safe aka corporate welfare or corporate socialism.

These companies that rely upon government subsidy will eventually fail. The "moral hazard" created by government overrides the risks involved. It basically then becomes a license to print money and simply await failure and the promise of bailout from government.

Of course, the failure is always attributed to the market or capitalistic greed and under-regulation by government. The bailouts incite a public outcry for government intervention and that is how socialism in society grows.

NORAD ??? How so, please explain?

I would be interested to see why NORAD is brought up as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It might be optional, but you will not be denied it , it seems , even if you live on a flood plain which should not be insured by any company that wants to stay in business for the long run. But if it is eventually backed by the government, well then these insurance businesses are safe aka corporate welfare or corporate socialism.

Flood insurance may be near and dear to your heart, but it is not a product or concern for a majority of Americans. Of course it can be "denied"..... by cost....just like any other risk product. The government doesn't pay all the premiums.

NORAD ??? How so, please explain?

More risk mitigation by government, right?

[GostHacked]

Flood insurance may be near and dear to your heart, but it is not a product or concern for a majority of Americans.

Tell that to New Orleans!!! And many other flooded places in the US we see every year, or every other year.

Of course it can be "denied"..... by cost....just like any other risk product. The government doesn't pay all the premiums.

Actually I have pointed out that in some places like a flood plain, there is no way you should be able to get flood insurance. And yet in the US you can get flood insurance knowing it will flood, and the insurance entity pays out, and if they end up loing money, the government will step in to prevent those insurance institutions from going tits up.

More risk mitigation by government, right?

Two governments maybe. IF that is socialism, then is the whole military socialistic in nature too?

[GostHacked]

Just to point this out, and this is the crux of my post here.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heathe...socialized-heal

But each of them voted just last year in support of government-run insurance, that insurance however protects property. It is the National Flood Insurance Program created in 1968, because the free market decided it could not make money on that unpredictable risk called flooding. Government-run flood insurance is sold through private insurance companies but it is backed by the government and the government assumes all risk. Unlike the public option which relies on customer premiums, government flood insurance gets a subsidy—also known as a handout—from the government and it is mandatory for some people.

[bush_cheney2004]

Tell that to New Orleans!!! And many other flooded places in the US we see every year, or every other year.

Most are disasters just waiting to happen because of government policies (e.g. US Army Corps of Engineers), flood "control, public works projects, development, etc. Many parts of New Orlean should be leveled and restored as tidewater / wetlands.

Actually I have pointed out that in some places like a flood plain, there is no way you should be able to get flood insurance. And yet in the US you can get flood insurance knowing it will flood, and the insurance entity pays out, and if they end up loing money, the government will step in to prevent those insurance institutions from going tits up.

But you have to pay the premiums, which in many cases are unaffordable. That's why many have to live on flood plains ! The only flooding I need to worry about is from a sewage backup....addressed by a private insurance rider with no government backup.

Two governments maybe. IF that is socialism, then is the whole military socialistic in nature too?

It is if we extend your logic to all avenues of government complicity at the federal, state, and local level.

[GostHacked]

Most are disasters just waiting to happen because of government policies (e.g. US Army Corps of Engineers), flood "control, public works projects, development, etc. Many parts of New Orlean should be leveled and restored as tidewater / wetlands.

Agreed.

But you have to pay the premiums, which in many cases are unaffordable. That's why many have to live on flood plains ! The only flooding I need to worry about is from a sewage backup....addressed by a private insurance rider with no government backup.

Different scenarios. And I am talking about the ones that are backed by government. The one you have might be, but most likely not, because you are not on a flood plain, and do not need that type of insurance. Flooding is not very likely in your area.

It is if we extend your logic to all avenues of government complicity at the federal, state, and local level.

Well, maybe you can elaborate on that a little more? You can still use my logic if you want.

[Oleg Bach]

Socialism was based on the original Christian corporate movement..."Sell all your properties and take the money - deposit it in a common purse an those who are in need can come and with draw as needed" THAT was the basis of our culture...America failed at socialism by not regarding the contract...as did the Vatican...we put into a common purse but are NOT allowed to with draw as needed - prime example - The federal reserve and the Vatican...Capitialism is the highjacking of socialism.

[Pliny]

Socialism was based on the original Christian corporate movement..."Sell all your properties and take the money - deposit it in a common purse an those who are in need can come and with draw as needed" THAT was the basis of our culture...America failed at socialism by not regarding the contract...as did the Vatican...we put into a common purse but are NOT allowed to with draw as needed - prime example - The federal reserve and the Vatican...Capitialism is the highjacking of socialism.

Not the highjacking, Oleg. I might accept "a 'result' of the highjacking of government" as occurred in the US. Canada is a different story. State socialism was the tool to maintain the existing consolidation of power and act as a buffer because the same old money that ruled then still rules today.

[The Moderate Man]

You mean like "Brussels Sprouts"? Is it the word or the vegetable itself?

I agree that most people do not have a working concept of socialism. They have some vague idea it is about the government interfering too much in people's lives. Some have the idea that this is a necessity.

As I have mentioned in various threads, the structure of all organizations is socialistic. Top down and pyramidal in nature. Government as a structure is not any different, where it does become different is in the fact that it attempts to regulate all other organizations and direct the whole society, should we say "govern" the whole society. Socialism, in running an organization is entirely proper, no organization runs efficiently without that basic framework.

Of course individuals are the basic unit in an organization. There are leaders and workers, management and producers and they have generally a common bond that bids their co-operation to achieve common goals. Government exists to protect it's individual citizens and maintain the sanctity of their person and property. Socialism in government evolves over time to void the responsibility of individual's for their own lives and basically starts to reason from the viewpoint of the collective good. When government becomes overbearing in society, that is the point where the State itself becomes even more important than the collective good - it develops that far because it is responsible for the collective good and therefore above it - this is totalitarianism and can take forms such as communism and fascism - the total state; total socialism.

I believe the internet is actually a good tool for the edification of the general populace. Understanding the complexities of professional subjects such as medicine and law and politics and economics has in the past been the province of the intellectual and expert authority. I see a breakdown in the dependence of the general population on intellectual and expert advice. All information can be questioned and queried on the internet one just has to be able to evalute information correctly. I am of the opinion that few really have good evaluative skills but they will develop over time. It is hard to know what is true and false information from special interests is often very convincing.

I would disagree with your definition of socialism, though I find your comment that all organizations are socialistic interesting. I would instead use the term 'bureaucratic'. In my understanding, true socialism is actually about workers' control, i.e. the extension of democracy and social ownership. Various autocratic governments calling themselves 'socialist' have come into existence, but these could be more properly categorized as bureaucratic statist regimes. In addition, there have been efforts within capitalist countries to direct government money towards helping the poorer segments of society and the population as a whole, such as by providing social benefits or creating tax schemes that favour the poor; this I would define as social democracy rather than socialism. In both these cases, the governments often co-opted or claimed to represent a genuine workers' movement, but in reality they merely consolidated power into the hands of a new elite (i.e. the political leadership) which either came to predominate or continued to have prominence alongside the traditional private power.

This does not mean, however, that there is not a genuine socialist movement. When workers forum unions to struggle for better pay and conditions, or when other organizers campaign for social causes, they could be said to embody the spirit of socialism (forgive me for using such an esoteric term; but it flows nicely, don't you think?) My point is that we can distinguish between the grassroots, democratic organizing and the top-down bureaucratic systems that take hold. Usually, the bureaucratic institutions only take measures towards socialism (or, more often, social democracy) due to pressure from popular movements; this makes sense, as if there is no call for change then the political leadership has no incentive to effect it. I do feel that the social benefits provided by the government, while necessarily administered from a bureaucratic system, are important concessions to the public, which have been essential to the formation of a middle class and the generation of unprecedentedly high living standards for the bulk of the population. The opportunities we now enjoy didn't magically materialize thanks to the market; granted, a system that allows for ease of business does generate economic growth, but whether that growth translates into a better life for most people has historically depended upon social policy.

This also demonstrates to me how meaningless the word 'socialism' has come to be nowadays. There are so many different definitions of what it means, so how can anyone come to a consensus? As I said, I define socialism in terms of the degree to which ordinary people have control over the factors that impact their daily lives (i.e. democracy, extended to the workplace and the rest of society). Many people, it seems, define it as the level of state intervention in the economy (so they would say that there are aspects of socialism even in the United States). Still others define socialism as a bureaucratic state in which central planners direct the economy from above.

In any case, I find it unfortunate that the American people have such a kneejerk reaction when it comes to words like 'socialism', and also tend to be wary of any government programme (especially if it involves higher taxes; America is seemingly taxophobic). Why not curb military intervention abroad and funnel all that wealth into improving the quality of life? America is the richest country in the world, which has had unprecedented resources and opportunities. There is no reason why it should not be able to extend healthcare and other vital services to all of its people.

[GostHacked]

The Moderate Man

Hats off to you good sir. For a first post, you have set a new standard. Welcome. Agreed on all your points.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In any case, I find it unfortunate that the American people have such a kneejerk reaction when it comes to words like 'socialism', and also tend to be wary of any government programme (especially if it involves higher taxes; America is seemingly taxophobic).

This is to be expected, as America has long championed the idea of "individual" over government; the nation was founded as a "kneejerk reaction" to such policies.

Why not curb military intervention abroad and funnel all that wealth into improving the quality of life? America is the richest country in the world, which has had unprecedented resources and opportunities. There is no reason why it should not be able to extend healthcare and other vital services to all of its people.

America's social programs already exceed military spending, and such spending threatens to further undermine fiscal solvency in the future. There is little doubt about the government's appropriate role in defense and related spending, but this is not clear on such things as "vital services". Healthcare is not a right...not even in Canada.

[The Moderate Man]

This is to be expected, as America has long championed the idea of "individual" over government; the nation was founded as a "kneejerk reaction" to such policies.

First of all, the concept of the 'individual' is itself a social construct. Calling someone an 'individual' implies that he is a single, essentially autonomous unit that is not integrally linked with everyone else around him. On the contrary, particularly since the advent of capitalism, people are more interconnected and reliant upon one another than ever before due to the changes in the international economic order; it's highly ironic that, in such an era of interconnectedness, so many people complain of loneliness or isolation. Everyone relies upon others and upon communities for basic economic reasons, but for much more besides. Communities fulfil an important psychological need in people, that of belonging, and most of us feel that we need the support of our fellow human beings to get through this often difficult experience that is our life. It really is 'our life' because we live together, not as atomized, isolated entities.

I feel that 'individual vs. government' is a false dichotomy. Isn't the United States supposed to have a democratic system? Why, then, should anyone distrust a government if it truly represents their interests? To the extent that the government is democratic, it should represent the wishes of the people; if this doesn't happen, then that's a deficiency in democracy.

Why is the American fear of elite concentrations of power confined only to government? Why not corporations, which are themselves bureaucratic, top-down organizations that manage most of the economic life of not only the United States but also the world? Why aren't Americans irate that corporations, impersonal entities (essentially legal fictions), have usurped the rights of individuals in the American legal system? Corporations also enjoy many additional rights and privileges to those of individuals, such as the right (according to NAFTA rules) to demand 'national treatment' in Mexico, while an individual Mexican could not demand 'national treatment' in America (and some Americans are grumbling about those who try to demand it).

People say they don't like their lives being managed by the government, but their lives are instead managed by the big corporations. The fact is that the economy is always planned; the question is who does the planning and what form that planning should take. Perhaps once upon a time there was such a thing as a free market (or something close), but now international economic relations are very closely managed by corporations, which often receive government support; and yet there is little outcry from those who call themselves supporters of the free market when the U.S. government pursues policies that allow corporations to eliminate whatever is left of 'free trade'. In practice, 'free trade' and laissez-faire are for the poorer countries where the First World corporations operate, but back at home we use measures of protectionism, corporate welfare, and make laws that benefit corporations both directly and indirectly.

Adam Smith was a greater believer in individual liberty. He supported the free market because he believed it would lead to essential equality between people; to him, it was only a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Nowadays, we do not have a free market system; we have a system of government-corporate collusion in the interest of maintaining elite privilege. Has the current system freed us as individuals in any meaningful way? I would say that it has not. Do we have any meaningful degree of control over the factors that influence our lives, which are mostly economic factors? No; such decisions are made by bureaucratic, top-down institutions, whether they be government or corporations. Only when the government itself represents the community (the group of individuals) through a functioning democracy and the shadow of corporate power is removed from the political arena will the individual be free.

America's social programs already exceed military spending, and such spending threatens to further undermine fiscal solvency in the future. There is little doubt about the government's appropriate role in defense and related spending, but this is not clear on such things as "vital services". Healthcare is not a right...not even in Canada.

I didn't say that healthcare was a right in Canada. But I do feel that, if the United States' general trend of economic growth continues in the future, then the benefits of that growth could best be guaranteed to the greatest number of individuals through social spending. One important step would be to make healthcare a right.

Of course the government has a role in defence and related spending; I agree with you. But surely the United States is spending far more than is necessary for its own defence? I wouldn't consider the well over 100 military bases the United States operates around the world 'defence'. A better term would be 'power projection' for the purpose of promoting 'U.S. interests' (read: the interests of corporations rather than those of the public) around the world. I think that the United States could drastically scale back its military spending and still have perfect security domestically. Perhaps a primarily defencive military? And what threat does the United States face militarily? Terrorism is only fuelled by these international interventions; and besides, domestic security provisions and co-operation with the international community are much better means to counter terrorism.

I think that the well-being of the American people would be much better served by cutting back military spending and global operations, and that this could be achieved without compromising the legitimate interests of business. If Americans really love the free market and believe that U.S. businesses are the best in the world, why do they need a powerful government and a massive military to promote the interests of U.S. corporations (e.g. forcing open markets, destabilizing antagonistic regimes) globally? Why not just compete in the global marketplace with all the other countries? Surely that would be the fairest option.

[bush_cheney2004]

....First of all, the concept of the 'individual' is itself a social construct. Calling someone an 'individual' implies that he is a single, essentially autonomous unit that is not integrally linked with everyone else around him. On the contrary, particularly since the advent of capitalism, people are more interconnected and reliant upon one another than ever before due to the changes in the international economic order; it's highly ironic that, in such an era of interconnectedness, so many people complain of loneliness or isolation. Everyone relies upon others and upon communities for basic economic reasons, but for much more besides. Communities fulfil an important psychological need in people, that of belonging, and most of us feel that we need the support of our fellow human beings to get through this often difficult experience that is our life. It really is 'our life' because we live together, not as atomized, isolated entities.

But even within such communities and relationships there exists the concept of individualism, choice, and ultimately, rights established by a written constitution. The balance between a collective and representative government and the individual is not always clear. "We" is a fleeting concept that depends on circumstance and choices by the individual.

I feel that 'individual vs. government' is a false dichotomy. Isn't the United States supposed to have a democratic system? Why, then, should anyone distrust a government if it truly represents their interests? To the extent that the government is democratic, it should represent the wishes of the people; if this doesn't happen, then that's a deficiency in democracy.

No, the US is a constitutional republic that elects representatives democratically. The powers of government have always been suspect and specifically limited by design. Those powers not enumerated are assumed to stay in the hands of the governed.

Why is the American fear of elite concentrations of power confined only to government?

Because in many respects, the US is a corporation. It doesn't even have a real name....it is a corporate name for an amalgam of states.

People say they don't like their lives being managed by the government, but their lives are instead managed by the big corporations. The fact is that the economy is always planned; the question is who does the planning and what form that planning should take.

No...this is a fallacy that confuses behavior with free will. One can choose to be a victim, but victimhood is not required.

No; such decisions are made by bureaucratic, top-down institutions, whether they be government or corporations. Only when the government itself represents the community (the group of individuals) through a functioning democracy and the shadow of corporate power is removed from the political arena will the individual be free.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose - Kris Kristofferson

I didn't say that healthcare was a right in Canada. But I do feel that, if the United States' general trend of economic growth continues in the future, then the benefits of that growth could best be guaranteed to the greatest number of individuals through social spending. One important step would be to make healthcare a right.

You are making a value judgement for Americans. So you wish to sack free choice as well?

....A better term would be 'power projection' for the purpose of promoting 'U.S. interests' (read: the interests of corporations rather than those of the public) around the world. I think that the United States could drastically scale back its military spending and still have perfect security domestically. Perhaps a primarily defencive military? And what threat does the United States face militarily? Terrorism is only fuelled by these international interventions; and besides, domestic security provisions and co-operation with the international community are much better means to counter terrorism.

The United States, and its dominance, is the direct result of the geo-political circumstance you advocate going back about 100 years. Terrorism has been around a lot longer than that.

I think that the well-being of the American people would be much better served by cutting back military spending and global operations, and that this could be achieved without compromising the legitimate interests of business. If Americans really love the free market and believe that U.S. businesses are the best in the world, why do they need a powerful government and a massive military to promote the interests of U.S. corporations (e.g. forcing open markets, destabilizing antagonistic regimes) globally? Why not just compete in the global marketplace with all the other countries? Surely that would be the fairest option.

Because the stability of global markets and security for commerce must be assured first. That's why President Jefferson tangled with pirates off the Barbary Coast a long time ago. You see, America is the same as it ever was, and slowly become the most powerful nation on the planet. And it certainly had nothing to do with being fair.

[Shady]

How much socialism does the US already have?

I'd say more than enough, judging from the new report of a current, and growing $1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Yay socialism!

[Pliny]

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned reply.

I would disagree with your definition of socialism, though I find your comment that all organizations are socialistic interesting.

My definition of socialism is: the attainment of the totalitarian state through an evolutionary process. It is essentially a means to an end and not an end itself.

Organizations are socialistic in their structure. Whether there is democratic input regarding the achievement of the organization's objectives does not take away from the structure.

If we look at a corporation and its participants they all have an assigned position in the organization. A corporation will not generally extend into running the individuals lives outside the operation of the corporation excepting perhaps something that may interfere with the fulfillment of the individual's conditions of employment and the contractual responsibilities of the individual, as agreed by him, to the corporation. People outside the corporation are free of any influence over their self-determination.

Government has it's socialistic structure, similar to all organizations, and it's mandate is determined by the nation's Constitution. As it is the agency of legislation it influences, through the force of law, the self-determination of it's citizens outside it's, I'll use your term, "bureaucratic" structure. The individual's self-determined societal responsibility being relinquished to the State reduces the individual's responsibility to society to nothing more than an economic obligation to the State. The State usrping the responsibility to the structure of society may then override the individual in the evolutionary process and general direction of society. A social democracy evolves toward more State responsibility in engineering society as opposed to the individual citizens contribution to it's evolutionary process. The culture is engineered from the central authority of the State.

I would instead use the term 'bureaucratic'. In my understanding, true socialism is actually about workers' control, i.e. the extension of democracy and social ownership. Various autocratic governments calling themselves 'socialist' have come into existence, but these could be more properly categorized as bureaucratic statist regimes. In addition, there have been efforts within capitalist countries to direct government money towards helping the poorer segments of society and the population as a whole, such as by providing social benefits or creating tax schemes that favour the poor; this I would define as social democracy rather than socialism. In both these cases, the governments often co-opted or claimed to represent a genuine workers' movement, but in reality they merely consolidated power into the hands of a new elite (i.e. the political leadership) which either came to predominate or continued to have prominence alongside the traditional private power.

No form of socialism can exist that does not develop a political class. The Utopian dreams of "workers' control", are just that - dreams. The individuals responsibility to society in a social democracy evolves to simply contributing to the State. The nullification of the individual beyond his expected contribution to the State, eventually becomes complete and society collapses. Generally, there is an underground that overtakes the State.

This does not mean, however, that there is not a genuine socialist movement. When workers forum unions to struggle for better pay and conditions, or when other organizers campaign for social causes, they could be said to embody the spirit of socialism (forgive me for using such an esoteric term; but it flows nicely, don't you think?) My point is that we can distinguish between the grassroots, democratic organizing and the top-down bureaucratic systems that take hold. Usually, the bureaucratic institutions only take measures towards socialism (or, more often, social democracy) due to pressure from popular movements; this makes sense, as if there is no call for change then the political leadership has no incentive to effect it.

Only when there is an agency to appeal to can measures be taken towards socialism. A social democracy is one of those agencies. I believe you are talking about "special interests" when you mention "popular movements". The question in society is, should government effect change through the popular movements or should the popular movements earn their worth in society themselves without the use of government legislative force? If they are truly "popular" they will be able to sustain themselves in society without that "bullying" government force.

I do feel that the social benefits provided by the government, while necessarily administered from a bureaucratic system, are important concessions to the public, which have been essential to the formation of a middle class and the generation of unprecedentedly high living standards for the bulk of the population. The opportunities we now enjoy didn't magically materialize thanks to the market; granted, a system that allows for ease of business does generate economic growth, but whether that growth translates into a better life for most people has historically depended upon social policy.

How rosy! Government is totally responsible for our high standard of living?

Unfortunately, as you point out, we live precariously on the brink of economic and social collapse.

Perhaps, the world that our social democracies built through government needs more government?

This also demonstrates to me how meaningless the word 'socialism' has come to be nowadays. There are so many different definitions of what it means, so how can anyone come to a consensus? As I said, I define socialism in terms of the degree to which ordinary people have control over the factors that impact their daily lives (i.e. democracy, extended to the workplace and the rest of society). Many people, it seems, define it as the level of state intervention in the economy (so they would say that there are aspects of socialism even in the United States). Still others define socialism as a bureaucratic state in which central planners direct the economy from above.

It has so many definitions and has become meaningless because it is pervasive and a part of all governments today. It is a process and not an ideal. It is not an end. It is a means to an end.

The confusion regarding the term is intended so as to further the centralization of power and governmental responsibility.

In any case, I find it unfortunate that the American people have such a kneejerk reaction when it comes to words like 'socialism', and also tend to be wary of any government programme (especially if it involves higher taxes; America is seemingly taxophobic). Why not curb military intervention abroad and funnel all that wealth into improving the quality of life? America is the richest country in the world, which has had unprecedented resources and opportunities. There is no reason why it should not be able to extend healthcare and other vital services to all of its people.

They are the only country that does have concern about the intent of government. Once it starts engineering society it tends to greater and greater nullification of individual responsibility to society and a concentration of it's powers.

I understand people's fear of being responsible for society after decades of just saying, "the government oughta do something about that". What would we do without the nanny state.

I am not by any means an anarchist, government does have a place in the defense of the individual and the nation. That doesn't necessarily mean that police and standing armies cannot be privately run, optimally they wouldn't be needed but that takes individual responsibility to others and society.