The U.S. is already a Socialist society!

Great Debates
1

Well, not really. But it’s amazing to me the number of people on the board who seem to believe this. So I thought I’d give them a forum in which they can articulate their position. (Too bad Boomer’s not here; he would rail against creeping socialism in this country every chance he’d get.)

So anyone who’s claimed that we’re steeped in socialism here in the U.S. of A (public libraries notwithstanding), tell me why. Be sure to defend your argument with specific cites and examples, while contrasting the perceived socialism with capitalism and/or representative democracy. Thanks!

2

Better define the term first. From www.dictionary.com

so·cial·ism
n.

  1. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
  2. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system.
    The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.
    (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition)

From Merriam Webster

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Given these definitions: no, the U.S. is not a socialist society or nation. Opponents of “social programs” use the term incorrectly, but then supporters of the programs themselves usually don’t use the more accurate term, which is social democracy. The dictionary definition of social democracy is lacking; I would put it briefly as a system in which capital is still privately owned, but government has a proper role in distributing it more equitably. This definition falls short, too; maybe someone else can expand on it.

I would say the U.S. society is gradually becoming more of a social democracy than it has been in the past. I’ll have to take another day to give you examples.

3

Okay, here is an example:

Last year, over a quarter of the money that I earned was taken from me before I had a chance to even count it. I couldn’t even touch the bills if I wanted to (I didn’t–I wanted to deposit them).

This money was spent to make society better:
-Some portion was required to feed the federal bureaucracy and the hordes of federal employees.
-Some portion was set aside to pay for the retirement of people I don’t know.
-Some portion was used to feed poor people.
-Some portion was used to feed people who just don’t want to work.
-Some portion was funneled into an education system that I think absolutely sucks.
-etc.

In a Libertarian society, I would have all of my money to spend as I please, including contributing whatever amount my conscience told me to for feeding the poor. Instead, the US government redistributed my income.

No one said that the government owned my property, but I sure never got to exert any influence over a great deal of it.

Am I saying that the US is a socialist society? No, but it sure has some upsetting socialist tendencies.

-VM

4

Smartass:

The rise of democracy was driven by the citizens’ desire to escape from the paternalistic and arbitrary charity of those with money. They accomplished this by replacing charity with a fair, balanced, arm’s-length system of public obligation. The principle tool of that obligation was taxation.

  • John Ralston Saul, Reflections of a Siamese Twin
5

matt_mcl:

I prefer “beggars can’t be choosers”, if it helps. I submit that the fact that you approve of it (and I don’t) does not invalidate any of my statements.

However, I doubt Gadarene would appreciate us hijacking his thread for you to try to convince me that this is fair while I try to convince you that it is stealing.

-VM

6

Oh, please, go right ahead. If you did, I’d be able to tear into some of your examples in your first post (yeah, people who don’t want to work…that’s what welfare’s about!) without feeling guilty about being off-topic myself.

And I’d be able to ask you how–pray tell–an educational system not funded by public dollars would suck any worse than our current one. We may not be spending the money in the right way, but the solution there sure as hell ain’t to stop spending the money altogether. (On second thought, maybe that would work. Those poor kids don’t need to read anyway, they’re just gonna be doing manual labor for the rest of their life. Besides, reading just encourages thinking, and thinking leads to revolution! Jeez…)

Gilligan, thanks. Good answer.

7

Gadarene and matt_mcl:

Hey, it’s your topic. Please feel free to tear into my examples at will. However, please read the rest of this post first, as it may speed the debate.

  1. You seem to assume that I think democracy is the ideal government. I don’t, and it really does not matter to me how it “rose”, although I believe this is a bit of an oversimplification.
  2. It is amazing to me that someone who is receiving charity would have the nerve to bitch about how it is received or who is giving it.
  3. Here is the comparison: Paternalistic and arbitrary charity vs. charity that is forcibly taken from citizens and redistributed. In the one case, people give of their own volition; in the other, people are forced to give by the government. Do you really think the second is morally superior?

Do not assume that I think no one should contribute to help feed and clothe people who cannot provide for themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that I don’t think people should be forced to contribute an amount arbitrarily set by the government. I also think that having the government be the agent of this generosity introduces a ridiculous amount of inefficiency into the system. Also, treating this giving as an entitlement has the unintended consequence of teaching some people that they are entitled not to work if they choose not to–all they have to do is come up with a good excuse.

Let’s expand the example. Right now, the government is using my money (and yours, and everyone else’s) to do the following (plus a bunch of other stuff):
-Feed those who cannot feed themselves.
-Support the Arts
-Pay farmers to allow farmland to lie idle in order to lower the supply and inflate the price of produce.
-Purchase produce from farmers and remove it from the market in order to inflate prices.
-Send spacecraft to other planets
-Provide an education system, controlled largely by teachers’ unions, which parents are forced to put their children into, unless they are wealthy enough to be able to afford private schools–in addition to their contributions to the public system.
-Fight a “Drug War” in order to prevent people from harming themselves by ingesting substances that are bad for them. This war is based on “reducing the supply” of banned substances in order to curtail demand. The result: prices are unnaturally high; illegal drug dealers rake in insane profits and can use them to arm themselves against the government and corrupt all efforts to stop their activities.
-Protect me from being killed by an armed attacker by making it more difficult for me to arm myself.

Obviously, the list goes on and on. To be honest, some of these goals I agree with, some I don’t. Let’s say, for example, that I feel strongly about supporting the Arts and feeding the poor, but don’t care about any of the other stuff. If the government were not taking over a fourth of my money for all of these purposes, then I could choose to contribute the entire sum to the Arts and feeding the poor, or less, as it pleased me and as dictated by my conscience.

The point is: If, as a society, we all feel strongly about, say, feeding the poor, then we will contribute sums necessary to accomplish this end, with each person contributing according to his means and his perception of the need. Thus, those problems that people most want solved will be the ones that are acted upon the most. Those that people are least interested in will get the least support.

Having the government decide how much I will contribute and how it will be spent is interfering with my right to approach these issues in accordance with my own beliefs. Also, it introduces confounding effects: There are probably very few people who would purposely buy up produce and throw it away out of concern for produce prices. However, placing the government in the loop as a middle-man makes it less obvious that I am the one doing this (with my money), so I am more likely to not complain. I so often hear people say, “The government should pay for…” as if the government’s money was separate from their own. A more honest way of saying it would be, “I feel so strongly about this, that I think I should pay money to accomplish x. In fact, I feel so strongly about it, I think you should be required to help pay for it as well.”

This is completely contrary to the notions of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded.

-VM

8

Socialism = the people are too stupid to know what is goood for themselves, therefor the Gov’ tmust decide what is goood for them.

Yes, we are a socialist society.

9

I’ve been trying to dig up statistics from neutral sources regarding the growth of “social democracy” in the United States. Not an easy task, but I thought cites that are free of bias would be more acceptable. Some economic resources:

U.S. federal budget for FY2000:
U.S. Federal Budget 2000

Tables of historical statistics on Social Security income and expenditure:
Social Security Administration

A good, fair summary of government involvement and spending in social affairs throught U.S. history, with some informative charts:
The Visible Hand

Article on increasing government health care spending: (note - not a neutral source)
Tax Subsidies: The Hidden Part of Government Health Care Spending

Hope I did the links correctly, I haven’t been doing that too well lately. Now on to finding examples from a legal perspective.

10

When you pay for things you believe in via taxes, you are participating and collaborating with other citizens through a democracy. You are behaving as a citizen.

When private charity flourishes and upper-class taxes drop, it is a sign that rich citizens consider their only responsibility to the society to be that of noblesse oblige. They do not think of themselves as citizens but as philanthropists and aristocrats. That is not a democratic system.

(When you pay for things that you do not believe in via taxes, it is a sign that your democracy is not working, and/or that you are in the minority.)

11

Actually, I think everyone in this country pays for at least something they don’t believe in through taxes. For anyone to agree with the way each of the 1,000,000,000,000 (incredibly rough estimate) dollars of the annual federal budget is spent is statistically unlikely. It’s not quite like each person gets a copy of a proposed budget, and then gets to strike out things they don’t believe in. Hell, it’s not even like each person has any idea what the fuck’s in the federal budget.

12

Socialism = the people are too stupid to know what is good for themselves

the people are too stupid to know what is good for themselves = Electoral College
Yes, we are a socialist society.

Or something like that.
:rolleyes:

13

The failure of consensus as to what tax dollars (or indeed any currency) should be spent on is a reflection upon the inadequacies of the present system of democracy, that being representative liberal democracy, not strictly a question of how socialist our society is. I would agree whole heartedly with Gilligans synopsis and add that a socialist democracy seems to be rather dependent on the results of the election process rather than an actual system within its own right.

14

I find it amusing that in your list of government expenditures you have not yet mentioned the taking of a sizeable portion of your income to fund an immense standing army of no particular utility.

Just curious why that one escaped you…

15

Military spending doesn’t escape me, but it’s irrelevant to this thread, which is about socialism and redistribution of wealth. If you want to start a “we spend too much on the military” thread, I would be on your side.

16

matt_mcl:

I know you’re going to have trouble with this, but the fact that you define behaving as a citizen in this way and I do not does not mean that your are right. I have never proposed a system that prevented you from meeting your perceived obligations as a citizen in this way. I think you should decide for yourself, as long as you don’t feel obligated to trample someone else’s rights. Yet, you propose a system that requires me to meet my obligations by your definition of them. Try all you want, you will not convince me that this is fair.

I do not believe it is my place to say what citizens, rich or poor, should consider their responsibilities to be. After all, different people have different religious beliefs and moral systems. You want to impose yours on everyone else (or that of the majority).

Citizens do not exist for the benefit of society. Society exists for the benefit of the citizens. Not just the rich ones, not just the poor ones, not just the ones who happen to be in the majority. All of them.

You say this as if democracy were the ideal system. I have been arguing this point with 2sense on the Founding Fathers thread. For your convenience I will post a copy of a particularly relevant, but long, post here that I think directly applies to what your are saying.

And you think it is acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority. I do not. That kind of thinking justifies such wonderful things as slavery and socialism.

You refuse to accept that, not only do government-imposed solutions trample on rights, they are also not good solutions. Centrally imposed policy is never as effective as allowing individuals to choose their own solutions. This is why socialism fails. This not just true in economics. It is true for any situation where people wish to solve problems. (Please see following post)

17

matt_mcl:

The post I promised from Founding Fathers:

Agreed. However, where we disagree is with the proper activities of government. I say that it should only be there to protect the rights of individuals. Sounds extreme, I know, but there is logic to it.

Decisions have to be made. We disagree on which decisions need to be made on behalf of The People in general. Because I value freedom and respect the resourcefulness of individuals, I prefer a system where each individual has as much control over his life as possible.

You keep talking about solving problems and making decisions, as if one problem might not have multiple valid solutions or as if taking more than one course simultaneously were inherently bad. Let’s say that the problem is that people can’t get food in a hurry to have on their lunch break. The strong government solution would be to establish a McDonald’s within a certain distance of every workplace so that everyone could have lunch. The Libertarian approach would be to do nothing. Entrepreneurs, seeing an unfilled need would build all different sorts of restaurants serving all different sorts of food in different places. Thus, the problem gets solved with multiple solutions.

How about another example. Let’s say that there are two groups of 100 people who decide they need a government. The groups are exactly the same, except one group selects Smartass to be their government, the other group selects 2sense. Smartass believes his only purpose is to protect the people’s rights so they can solve their own problems. 2sense believes he is empowered to act in their name for the betterment of society.

Now, on this occasion, each of the citizens has one dollar of income outside of that which he needs to meet his basic needs. Three people approach the government. One offers to dig and install a well in the center of town, so that people will not have to walk to the river for water. He can do this for $40. One offers to establish a park in the middle of town for the people to share and enjoy. He also can do this for $40. Lastly, a guy offers to establish a fund to feed fisherman in the case that they have a really bad month of work. The price? You guessed it: $40.

As it turns out, 40 of the citizens–the “Brown Eyes” live by the river and rely on the river for their livelihoods. 60 of the citizens–the “Blue Eyes”–live farther from the river and rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. Given these facts, once presented with these three options, this is how the people feel:

Brown Eyes
-They don’t see any benefit to a well–the river is closer than the center of town. Therefore, they would rather not spend any of their money on it.
-On the other hand, they really like the idea of “insurance” for fisherman. Any one of them would happily spend his whole dollar for such a system.
-In terms of the park, they think it would be nice, but wouldn’t want to spend “too much money” on it.

Blue Eyes
-They love the idea of a well, particularly during the dry months of summer. Currently they are having to travel all the way to the river whenever they need water, and the center of town is much closer. Any one of them would happily spend his whole dollar for such a system.
-On the other hand, since none of them fish, they don’t see any benefit to insurance for fisherman and would rather not spend any of their own money on such a “socialist” scheme.
-In terms of the park, they think it would be nice, but wouldn’t want to spend “too much money” on it.

2sense government:
2sense realizes that this is a situation where people can use the profits from their production to improve their society. Any one of these ideas could feasibly benefit society. However, being a believer in government serving the people, he decides that it is best to let The People make the determination. So he calls together The People for a vote: “We have the ability to improve our society. Using the collective spending power of The People, we can improve life for everyone. However, because improvements are expensive, we must select which ones to invest in.”

First he asks for a vote on the well idea. The majority is in favor of it. “Now that that is decided, we must choose whether to spend our remaining money on the park or the fishermen’s ‘insurance’ idea.”

40 people vote for the insurance, 60 vote for the park. The $20 remaining goes into the “public trust fund”, to be applied to later spending decisions.

Smartass government:
When the people come to Smartass to present their ideas, he says, “I think these are all great ideas, guys. However, it is not my place to distribute the money of The People. If you want their money, I’m afraid you’re going to have to ask them for it.”

So the three guys make their presentation to the people.

Immediately, the Blue Eyes all get up and head for the guy offering to dig a well. Quickly, they realize that there are 60 of them and only 40 is needed. They work out a deal where each person pays .66 and retains $.34 to spend on cheap women (Blue Eyes are like that sometimes).

At the same time, the Brown Eyes head for the guy with the insurance idea. As there are 40 them, they are just able to afford the insurance.

Sadly, the guy who offered to build a park had no takers.

The Results

So, whose system works better? Well, that depends on what you value:

2sense
60% of the people got the thing they most wanted.
40% of the people did not get the thing they most wanted.
100% of the people got something that wanted “a little”.

Smartass
100% of the people got the thing they most wanted.
100% of the people did not get something they wanted “a little”.

I know this is a ridiculously simple example, but I believe the conclusion is valid: If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Libertarian–you just may not realize it. If you prefer the second outcome, you are a Social Democrat and, to be honest, an enemy of freedom.

Minority/Majority–who cares? I want power to lie with the individual.

18

smartass:

matt_mcl said:

**

Then you replied:

**

It seems to me that the point has been missed. matt_mcl, you are correct in your first assertion - when my tax dollars are allocated to pay for things in which I believe, democracy is working. But, when those same tax dollars are allocated to pay for things in which I do not believe, democracy is still working as intended.

smartass, democracy is based on the idea that it is “acceptable for the majority to impose its will on the minority.” That’s how the system is designed to work. If you can imagine a scenario in which you find yourself in the majority, I am sure you can understand how they system is intended to work.

Of course I over-simplify; an in-depth investigation is too time consuming for me to accomplish over coffee. Let me just say this: there are lots and lots (and lots) of bad things you can say about a democracy (as practiced in the USA), but you have to admit that, in practice, it beats the tar out of any alternative the world has ever seen. If your goals are to provide maximum opportunity for those willing to expend effort, while at the same time, caring for those unable to expend effort, our current free-market, capitalist democracy is the best game in town.

Of course, some people willing to expend effort are not successful, and others who are unwilling to do so receive assistance they do not deserve - it happens.

As to your obvious dissatisfaction, smartass, you have (as I see it) three choices:
[ul]
[li]Grin and bear it,[/li][li]Embrace the system, lobby, find other true-believers and change the rules using the structure inherent in the system, or[/li][li]Leave.[/li][/ul]

19

sdimbert:

Thank you for belaboring the obvious. You seem to think that I am dissatisfied with the system because it is a democracy. This is not true. The system is not a democracy. Actually I am very pleased with the “system” as described in the Constitution. What displeases me is when the protections afforded in that document are flouted.

This is obviously true.

Once again, the USA is not a democracy; it is a constitutional federal republic. This is not a complaint–it is a strength, in that protections of individual liberty were designed into the system. They just don’t always work. These protections, as opposed to any theorizing that we are living in a democracy, are what makes our game the best game in town.

As to my choices:

I am already opting for choice two by being an active member and supporter of the Libertarian Party. As part of this choice, I often try to convince other people that the Libertarian approach is the best approach and they should therefore vote for Libertarian candidates to represent them as they take the Constitution extremely seriously. Which is what I am doing in this thread.

As for you, you could read the posts a little closer before posing a hypothetical ultimatum to someone whose position you obviously don’t understand. But you don’t have to. I support your right to be purposelessly obnoxious.

-VM

20

smartass:

**
You are correct. It is a semantic point I avoided in my post because I thought the generic term “democaracy” was close enough for our discussion.

**

Jeeeezus. :rolleyes: I’m almost sorry I ever got involved. You could be right - perhaps I didn’t comprehend your posts fully… But really, why not leave the pompous sarcasm at home, eh?

Nowthen, you posted:

**

Then we had the following exchange:

**

Unless I misread you again, I see your two comments as admitting satisfatction with the system currently in place, despite the fact that it is based on majority rule. If so, how can you post to the contrary:

**

Is your point that, yes, a democracy is a governmental model you would support, but that ours is not a democracy and, thus, you don’t support it?