
Socialism, American-Style - eplanit
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/opinion/socialism-american-style.html
======
nightcracker
Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does
everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire?

I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they
lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same
people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't
understand it.

I'm from the Netherlands, and I'm proud to say I live in a socialist country.
It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than
I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax,
I'll pay 50%.

And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it.

In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of
social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It
doesn't matter, education is free. If I have or get some disability, I will be
taken care of. If I get injured, I will be taken care of. If I get sick, I
will be taken care of. By the community. Anything else, in my book, is
uncivilized.

\---

To those citing governments destroying incentive structures (can't reply -
your comment is deleted), I strongly suggest looking up the Dutch model for
infrastructure. In a very, very summarized example, the government gives
subsidy to private/public hybrid organizations. Those organizations compete in
the regular market. In order to qualify for subsidy you need to meet the
government standards. Think internet companies, hospitals, etc.

You're perfectly free to set up a 100% privatized hospital in the Netherlands
- you just won't qualify for government subsidy.

~~~
wozniacki

      It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll
      give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly 
      capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll 
      pay 50%. 
    
      And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year,
      I can miss it.
    
      In return I know that my life is safe from being 
      destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or
      will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't
      matter, education is free. If I have or get some 
      disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I
      will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken 
      care of. By the community.
    

Here, I'm only referring to the sensible, politically astute contingent of
Americans who yet don't warm up to socialism or even high taxation for that
matter. I'm not talking about the impulsively right-leaning lot here.

I think such Americans genuinely question if such a smooth trade off - between
paying a good chunk more in taxes and a proportionate increase in the standard
of living of those on whom that increase in taxation is supposed to benefit -
is ever possible in a government that is rife with dysfunction, graft and
bewildering inefficiencies at every level. The examples of this present
themselves at regular frequencies - say the botched roll out of the healthcare
website [1] a few years ago - in the glare of the American media, which don't
exactly help either.

Further exacerbating this problem is that bright young Americans [2] don't
want to serve in the public sector in similar rates as in Northern Europe.

[1] Obamacare Website Costs Exceed $2 Billion, Study Finds

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-
website-costs-exceed-2-billion-study-finds)

[2] 'Pro-Government' Millennials Take Government Jobs, Discover They Suck,
Move to the Private Sector

[http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-
governmen...](http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-government-
jobs-discove)

~~~
x5n1
As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the
government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed
by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national.

That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is
pure propaganda.

~~~
afsina
As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been
developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.

~~~
x5n1
If it was State run then you could say hey the State failed to deliver. This
was a private company which failed to deliver. And the private company, if you
actually look it up subcontracted it, so you can't say hey there was no
private Capitalist oversight over the project, you know greed to make things
run efficiently.

~~~
TheBeardKing
But even subcontractors on government projects are subject to the same
limitations as the prime contractor. So many limitations and increased
overhead are imposed on government contractors, it's not surprising government
projects fail in ways a similar private project would not with similar
funding.

------
allendoerfer
Commodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g.
networks) should be owned by the public.

There is no point in having a market, when only one option makes sense or it
is irrelevant which option you choose. There is no point in having
competition, when it cannot improve the product or any process of its making.

In these cases private ownership just leads to cartels or innovation in
marketing departments alone, both rising prices.

Having said that, the difficult part is to determine these cases and to figure
out how to transition the privately owned companies into public property
without stealing it or overpaying for it.

Another difficulty is to judge, when something suddenly stops to be one of
these cases (e.g. postal services with electronic messaging as an alternative
to it).

~~~
igonvalue
> Commodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g.
> networks) should be owned by the public.

Why do you think there's a water shortage in California right now?

~~~
splawn
Lack of snow melt.

------
kristopolous
State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a
state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in
state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity
instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the
profits? That's socialism? No...

This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice
he's using.

According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public
commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called
"Socialism".

What's next? Insisting cities which build private sports stadiums with public
funds participate in profit sharing instead of just presenting the stadium
with a little bow on top to some billionaire? Woah, Socialism cometh!

The real thing that's happening is that people want a fair shake... "If we're
going to be on the hook in the bad times, then we should see some of the good
time too." The companies that were bailed out with public funds now have
record private profits ... that's the problem. It's got zilch to do with
socialism.

~~~
twblalock
Most of the examples in the article are about state-owned, state-operated
enterprises, such as sovereign wealth funds, utilities, oil and mineral
extraction, etc.

In fact, I could not find any example of "putting a state-run monopoly in
private hands" anywhere in the article. Did you even read it?

> According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public
> commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now
> called "Socialism".

That's quite a strawman there. He never argued anything remotely like that.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I think those to examples are intended to describe "privatization" as it's
often done (i.e. badly from an purely economic perspective, because it's
partly/mostly ideological) which is, as you note, the exact opposite of the
article's focus, which is state run stuff that makes economic sense.

That's combined with pedantry about the term "socialism", which has confused
some readers of the comment.

So _kristopolous_ appears to approve of certain things being run by the state,
and would prefer that not to be described as socialism, as it might put people
off who immediately dismiss anything with that label, and lead to more
economically silly privatization or public subsidy of private profit.

------
_delirium
Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of
Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim
that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent,
especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from
utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of
these by right, the revenues should be either distributed equally to everyone
as "shareholders" (as in the Alaska dividend), or used to finance public
goods.

There are some overlaps with socialism, especially social-democratic models of
government. But clearly the full social-democratic program is nowhere near
popular in conservative areas of the US. If you look at why only _these_
specific ideas are popular in those areas, one commonality is that they have a
Georgist feel to them. Or at least, I'll propose that as a hypothesis.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism)

~~~
nickff
We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative
presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these
proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians
will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not
necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often
simply against increased (discretionary) government spending, and believe that
distributing the funds to the people will have cause less market distortion
and malinvestment.

~~~
_delirium
I agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these
cases _also_ prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-
style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing
the TVA is an example.

And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting
the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax
entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits.
But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative.
My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant
factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through
their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private
land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a
resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now
own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their
extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral
asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this
kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an
income tax.)

------
TomGullen
The US Army is the biggest socialist organisation in the US. They provide
medical care, educational grants and benefits, housing etc etc.

------
tete
One should in my opinion not forget about two things here:

\- The US American arms industry

\- Welfare and other benefits for veterans

I think when it comes to citizens and industries somehow related to military
the US has a history of applying (some) socialist principles, which is
interesting, because it actually was used to "fight socialism".

~~~
_delirium
There's an interesting-looking book on that subject coming out this fall:
[http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674286139](http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674286139)

------
msoad
San Francisco rent control policy is another example of weird and conflicting
policies in the U.S. I can't believe a policy like that is in place in the
United States!

~~~
kristopolous
how so?

~~~
msoad
It's against free market

~~~
stuaxo
The market can only exist within a framework of laws, therefore it's exactly
as free as we make it.

A completely free market couldn't exist outside of anarchy, which would very
quickly stop being free.

------
hukep
The article is misleading. It is far away from the concept of the socialism. I
live in country in which were everything in public property for 40 years. It
totally destroyed our state and the society as well..

------
bsbechtel
I wish there was a mainstream medium that discussed (and made accessible) the
real risks and benefits of policy ideas. The biggest policy decisions our
government makes are more or less discussed and debated through anecdotal
stories shared in op-ed pages of major newspapers. (Note: I'm talking about
policies pushed by both sides of the aisle, not just this particular op-ed.)
This seems to be the biggest driver of polarization in the political sphere,
as individuals tend to seek out op-eds that reinforce their own views in an
exercise of confirmation bias, instead of thinking critically about what the
positive and negative effects, plus potential risks, would be.

Personally, I tend to default to looking for free market/libertarian solutions
to societal problems based on two major risks. First, if the government fails
to deliver the good or service promised (like energy for your home, or
healthcare), you normally have no other alternative to choose from. This can
cause an entire population to suffer greatly, especially given the government
is most often tasked to providing fundamental goods and services most
necessary for human life (water, energy, healthcare). Second, choosing your
government to provide a solution for you is fundamentally saying that 1
(non)elected government official can offer a better solution than ~330 million
other individuals (in the US). Statistically this is highly unlikely, even
considering the advantage of coercive power the government-provided solution
possesses. I'm not opposed to government control over productive capital in
some arenas, but any policy idea needs to mitigate and address these two
fundamental risks. Very few policy proposals pass this test, and no mainstream
media source exists to provide an objective risk analysis of the ideas and
policies being debated by our elected officials.

------
eru
> Moreover, contrary to conventional opinion, studies of the comparative
> efficiency of modern public enterprise show rough equivalency to private
> firms in many cases. (They aren’t perfect, of course: Many public agencies,
> boards and corporations that control enterprises are not fully accountable
> or transparent in their operations.)

Companies get efficient if they have to. Competition is one way to force their
hands. (There might be others, like public oversight?) Private vs public
ownership doesn't make too much of a difference.

------
PauloManrique
Why people insist in say "I live in a socialist country" when they clearly
does not live in one?

Welfare State has nothing to do with socialism

------
realusername
To the americans here, please understand that socialism is NOT communism.
Socialism is regrouping a lot of different things (including the most extreme
form of communism) and please do not mix the two together.

~~~
afsina
Perhaps today the meanings are different (one is a superset). But according to
Von Mises:

"In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are
synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them.
The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917.
"

[http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1060#lf0069_label_908](http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1060#lf0069_label_908)

Also, uses of "Liberalism" has been changed even more throughout the history.

------
ExpiredLink
> _The fund collects and invests proceeds from the extraction of oil and
> minerals in the state._

This is not at all "Socialism".

BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th
century Europe).

~~~
eru
> BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th
> century Europe).

Industrial factories, yes. Local utilities seem to do well enough in Europe.

I wonder if there's a principled difference?

~~~
pjc50
Quite a lot of private factories have failed in the west too. Factories are
very vulnerable to globalisation.

Utilities, on the other hand, are a natural monopoly inherently tied to a
geographic location. They're not producing a "product", but instead a
commodity that's the same for all customers. Many utilities are _mostly_ forms
of "road" \- they just happen to be wire-shaped or pipe-shaped roads.

Note the _mostly_. Telecoms and electricity have two parts: the central,
complex, services; and the big mostly-dumb network.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
well Telecoms networks can be quiet complex and in the USA broadly you had
more complexity at the local plant level than say the UK does.

Its the last mile that makes telcos's natural monopoly's not the
exchanges/switches/central offices

------
PopeOfNope
"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?"

Because every single time it's been enacted in the past 100 years, it's
resulted in the deaths of millions of its own citizenry. Because the very
basis of the american legal system and the american legacy (not to mention
english common law) is based on individual over collective rights. Socialism
is, quite simply, unamerican, by definition.

~~~
nightcracker
You're going to have to back up those bold claims for them to hold any value.

Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'.
In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and
thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is
depriving the 99% of most value.

~~~
PopeOfNope

      please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'
    

That's your own projection, not mine. I clearly stated in my comment that
socialism was unamerican because it goes against the founding principles of
the country.

I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time.
But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention
to history. Socialism always results in tyranny. It did in Russia. It did in
China. Vietnam. Korea. Even the Nordic countries, who had the best chance of
pulling it off, have started to suffer under its weight.

~~~
dghf
> Socialism always results in tyranny.

Anarchist Catalonia? (Admittedly, it didn't last long, thanks chiefly to a
different bunch of socialists, who were in turn defeated by fascists.)

~~~
PopeOfNope
I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly
critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they
inflicted on Barcelona in his book _the spanish cockpit_.

Interestingly enough, he was also one of the pioneers of the totalitarianism
theory. He argued that Vladimir Lenin created the first totalitarian
dictatorship and that nearly all communist and fascist states were
totalitarian in nature.

~~~
dghf
> I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly
> critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror
> they inflicted on Barcelona in his book _the spanish cockpit._

Are you referring to the Stalinist oppression that began with the Barcelona
May Days in 1937, or to anarchist atrocities in the city before then?

~~~
PopeOfNope
The description of the book I'm reading doesn't specify, but from what I
understand, Borkenau spent a few months there in '36 and in '37, so he could
have written about both.

The book just made it to the top of my to read pile. :)

