Of the many definitions of socialism, we will consider here that of Bernie Sanders. He has declared his basic principle to be that of taking on and defeating “a ruling class whose greed is destroying our nation.” Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist because he is in the spirit of the original “scientific socialist,” Karl Marx. Marx was more formal than Bernie. What Marx said was very similar, however; but Marx would not have said we should “take on” the ruling class, or bourgeoisie. Marx called for violent revolution and a “defeat” of the ruling class, by which he meant the elimination of the capitalist class. (For Bernie’s definition see the website http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/22/1453152/-5-Ways-America-is-Already-Socialist.)
The young socialists at this website complain that nobody understands socialism, then go on to demonstrate the validity of that statement. Their formal definition of socialism is good enough: Socialism is: “A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” This is close enough to a Marxian definition to gain the hero’s stamp of approval.
This website declares that there are many types of Socialists, but the main idea is that “the rich and the powerful don’t get to call all the shots when it comes to the economy.” Their thesis is that no one will tell you, but America is already Socialist! The people on this website call every public sector activity or service “socialism.” Having a public sector does not make a country socialist. Their intent, of course, is not to create a brilliant definition of socialism, but merely to imply that the private sector is bad and the public sector is good.
Well, a market system as defined, evaluated and praised by the great teacher of market systems, Adam Smith, involves both public and private sectors in an appropriate balance. In his view, the public sector didn’t need to provide an exceptional number of services; rather, it must be the referee and the enforcer of the laws and provide for the public defense. Where necessary, it regulates the private or commercial sector appropriately, so as to protect property, life, and justice. But it does not strive to regulate people, depriving them of guaranteed freedoms, as socialism has always done whenever an implementation of that system was attempted in whatever nation. The American definition of socialism today is redefining freedom of speech so that everything they dislike is classified as “hate speech” and forbidden. So much for the first amendment.
This site shows a video of Bernie Sanders defining “democratic socialism,” which concludes: “Democratic socialism means we have an economy that works for all, not just for the very wealthy.” That means the economy must supply free-tuition education, a “living wage” minimum wage, and it must not allow the fossil fuel industry to destroy our environment and our planet. The wealthiest corporations and people must pay their fair share of taxes; and healthcare should be a right of all people, not a privilege.” That is a good, but incomplete sampling of his proposals for government programs.
In other posts I have discussed the nature of Democratic Socialism and addressed the taxation and expenditure issues involved. My book, Socialism, also discusses these things in depth in Part III, which addresses the attempt to revive socialism in the Obama administration’s eight years in power. There is not space here to discuss in depth those developments, but there is space for a bold, bottom-line summary of what has been happening.
Whenever the government has attempted to take over the provision of the goods and services necessary for the people’s “rights,” they have developed subsidy programs funded by very high, but nevertheless insufficient taxation. Not only have they attempted to provide for the poor, but have (in Bismark fashion) also provided the same services and goods for the middle class, although the middle class could afford to pay their own way. The doctrine is that the 1% of very wealthy people at the top of the income scale, could pay the way for everybody. Unfortunately, although the very wealthy have continued to fare well and even better recently than in the past, there are not enough very wealthy people to pay the bills for everyone.
In Europe, where most countries have had the inclination, governments have funded social programs generously. They could do so because they had no defense bills to pay. There has been peace among Europeans since the devastation of World War II, and the Cold War that followed was mostly funded by the United States. While we paid for Europe’s defense, Europe put almost all their resources into social welfare. But even without any serious military sector, some of those countries became ever more generous with their pensions and public goods. They have since been struggling to stay afloat financially. You can’t have a few productive people working and paying for everybody else to have a free ride through life.
Although the United States put a huge share of its resources into national security rather than free education, free health care, and other such programs, its market-oriented economy remained the engine of the free world’s market systems. Americans struggled to educate themselves, scrimped and saved to educate their children, innovated and created new products, services, and technologies, and led the world economy. Creativity was not dramatic in the other more healthy national economies. The emphasis there was not on growing the national economic pie, but on its division – in other words, on the redistribution of incomes. In recent years as socialist inclinations have become more prevalent in the United States, we have been in a rush to pursue consumption, welfare programs, and to avoiding the hard tasks and sacrifice of provident economic management. That brand of economic activity immediately makes clear a lot of our country’s current issues as they developed under the fiscal disaster of the Obama administration..
Socialism today and in the United States is certainly not what it was in the Soviet Union, or in India, or in France at various times in the past. My book gives an easily understood picture of socialism in those places and in general, showing why its false appeal presents a real hazard for America’s future. I invite you to check out the “Order a Copy” link at the top of the page.
