The E wrote:n7axw wrote:You kinda tripped across one of my pet peeves...That word socialism... Classicly what it refers to is public ownership of the means of production. But that word has gotten pretty greasy. So it would be helpful at least to me if you would define yourself...
Public ownership of the means of production (in the original, Marxian sense, not the distorted "no private ownership of anything" that a lot of people think is meant by that phrase) is a good, maximalist end goal.
I am a believer in european social democracy. I believe in a state that actively intervenes on behalf of the population and that works to keep the good parts of capitalism (i.e. competition, drive to innovate) while shielding the populace from its worst effects (a race to the bottom in wages coupled with a race to the top in pricing). This includes strong social security networks, from unemployment insurance to health care, it also includes worker participation in corporate decision making through worker's councils and unions.
The big problem with american-style neoliberal capitalism, and the reason why I call it hell, is simple: It is not resilient. Its foundation is that everyone offers their labour on the free market, receiving money, goods and services in return. This system encourages employers to pay their employees the least amount they can get away with, while everyone else is incentivized to sell their goods and services at the highest price the market will bear, which creates a segment of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck.
This can work out for a time, but when something like Corona comes along, the whole system crashes hard and creates suffering and misery; when all you have to offer on the market is a good noone is buying, you're pretty much screwed unless you managed to put away a nest egg -- which a neoliberal capitalist system makes very very hard!
There is much to what you say, but I think you are over simplifying. So here are a few thoughts.
We will start by noting that the public does normally expect the government to step in during times of emergency such as we are facing now. Money allocated by Congress and signed off on by the president for dealing with the situation is in the pipeline. That Washington has been ineffectual has been largely due to the reality that either by ideological design, incompetence or both our executive branch has been rendered impotent.
Upward mobility is still possible here. The key to that is education. Skip out on education and upward mobility vanishes. Even a couple of years in a tech school can help a lot. But all too many young people skip out on education for low paying jobs and then end up stuck. And education is expensive. Mitigating this situation somewhat is the growth of online education making it possible to obtain a degree by working at home and supporting a family at the same time.
Our situation with minorities creates a large underclass. Blacks have made a lot of progress. But all too many are still living in substandard communities with substandard chances at good employment. Latinos have a better shot. They are good family people and industrious. But as a group they still have a ways to go. As for poor whites, things are a bit easier. If they live in economically challenged communities, it is easier for them to relocate to where jobs are.
I disagree that public ownership of the means of production is a good goal. You incentivize capable people by encouraging them to get ahead by doing that to which their hand turns and allowing them to enjoy the fruit of their labor. There has been no successful society that has not honored that basic law of human nature. Socialist societies place too much attention to how the pie is divided and not enough to growing the pie. And, the only way for socialist societies to do capital formation is through totalitarian forms of control. Marx refers to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The old Soviet Union tried that and eventually it collapsed. China eventually had to introduce a private sector to avoid collapse.
Sooo, what about us? Capitalism does have its flaws. For one thing, It's predicated on pure greed which can devolve into a nasty form of social Darwinism. Capital formation is all very well, but when it progresses to the point where a tiny group of people control roughly half the country's wealth, things have gone too far. And matters get worse when Washington is unwilling to enforce laws put in place to deal with this. Capitalism really works best when it operates in a regulated environment where the laws on trusts and monopoly are enforced and our markets are regulated to keep the high rollers from rolling over everybody else.
So I agree with much of what you said about government actively intervening to ensure the public welfare. One can always ask how much "welfare" a country can afford to pay for. After all, somebody pays. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That is a valid discussion and is perpetually being relitigated.
So to conclude, consider the following about a cow. The Capitalist says, "Stay away from my cow!" The Communist and Socialist say, "Let's shoot the Capitalist, butcher the cow and divide up the meat!" The Liberal says, "Let's milk the cow and skim the top enough to share, but leaving enough for the Capitalist to prosper, thus encouraging capital formation and investment." I am a liberal. And as I read your post so are you. We both want enough wealth held back to care for the folks who for whatever reason can't compete, knocking the rougher edges off of Capitalism's heedless ways. Perhaps socialism is a term that is ok in Europe. But on this side of the pond it is a poison pill, most wisely avoided,
Don
-
