Why is socialism such a bad word?

[Alpha]

Mostly because fear and misinformation is what gets ratings for the news media. This is evident with any controversial issue. Facts don't sell nearly as well as exaggeration and outright untruth. Also, the winner-takes-all two party system doesn't help this.

That being said, I believe individualism is more prized in America than in much of the rest of the developed world. A significant portion of Americans desire a much smaller federal government than what currently exists.

'Cause this is Murika. Our media distort facts and over complicates things for those who want to be told want to think. I remember watching the news and this guy was at a pro-Obama rally when he walked up to an anti-Obama protestor. She declared Obama a Communist, and when the reporter asked why she replied "Study up buddy! The facts are there, Study up!" he repeated the question "How is Obama a Communist?" She stalled and replied once again "Because he is! STUDY UP BUDDY!" She clearly watches too much Fox news.

This goes both ways really. If she'd given a well thought out and reasonable answer, it wouldn't have been worthy of the 24 hour news overload.

[Jim]

Mostly because fear and misinformation is what gets ratings for the news media. This is evident with any controversial issue. Facts don't sell nearly as well as exaggeration and outright untruth. Also, the winner-takes-all two party system doesn't help this.

That being said, I believe individualism is more prized in America than in much of the rest of the developed world. A significant portion of Americans desire a much smaller federal government than what currently exists.

This goes both ways really. If she'd given a well thought out and reasonable answer, it wouldn't have been worthy of the 24 hour news overload.

You hit the nail on the head on that one.

+1

[Vellos]

Erm...I suppose one might be able to argue that, by stretching the definition of "totalitarian" somewhat.

And yes, true communism really is people living voluntarily together in a commune. Any kind of central government makes it no longer truly communist (at least, based on my understanding of communism).

Socialism does require a central government, but does not require totalitarianism, unless you want to define any level of government control as being "partly totalitarian," much as the social programs enacted in the US over the past century+ make us "partly socialist".

Not really.

Let's be clear– "redistributive" is not synonymous with "socialist." There are quite capitalist motivations and methods of redistribution. There are fascist motivations and methods. There are nationalist motivations and methods. Presuming that redistribution is necessarily latent socialism is wrong– it is just as wrong when right-wingers call Obama a socialist as when left-wingers claim Medicare or Social Security are socialist institutions.

Consider, for example, the rhetoric of the "trust fund." Americans deeply identify with Social Security as something they invest into, as a form of savings. They visualize it as basically a government retirement plan. And the SSA endorses that view. Get on the website, enter your SSN, and they'll tell you how much you have saved in YOUR account. Which is of course a lie. But Americans' support for Social Security is predicated upon that lie. They desire to preserve benefits, because they regard it as something individually owned, something entitled, and not as redistribution. Socialist redistribution, properly speaking, should not have defined benefits as Social Security does, nor be based on a quasi-regressive payroll tax.

But to the root issue, why Americans oppose socialism– it's because every instance where someone tried to implement it wherein it went poorly (that is, every instance it has been tried), it's advocates lop a gigantic "no true Scotsman" fallacy. When every negative part of the historical record is ignored, it doesn't really win you support. Few Americans (and IMHO few seriously thinking person) can believe that the USSR was not Socialist. No, it wasn't perfectly Socialist– but nothing will ever be perfectly Socialist. And sure, the USSR wasn't only Socialist... but nothing will ever be only Socialist. Paradoxically, Socialism would be more acceptable if it were less preoccupied with divorcing itself from its negative history. You actually can criticize the USSR without ludicrously claiming it wasn't at all socialist.

Finally, regarding socialism as totalitarianism– Perth is right on here. But let's consider an easier example, the special US circuit court of appeals for patents. It was initiated simply to organize and sort out the crazy appellate districts. However, centralized power will tend to attract people who desire to use it; police jobs will draw people who enjoy the things the police do, courts designed to regulate patents will tend to draw people who like regulating patents. In the case of the patent court, the dominant interest is on the part of patent-holders: and thus, patent-holders have monopolized US patent law.

In the same way in a centralized system which is highly invasive in peoples' lives (socialism is, as the economy is the totality of our material lives, and much of the rest), the people most likely to run it are people who like to be involved in managing a centralized and invasive system. Power will concentrate on those people. Perhaps they will be benevolent in states with strong democratic institutions– I am skeptical of that, but maybe. The point is, however, that the natural course of political economy is not towards a decentralized system or a system of liberty, but of the most totalitarian system its constituents will find survivable– which is far more totalitarian than many of those people will find desirable.

[egamma]

There is a Hutterite community in my province. They eat under the same roof and stuff. I've only heard about them from my professor but apparently they are the closest thing to a communist community. They would be a very interesting group to meet.

I have the highest respect for the Hutterites. Also, they often have very good free-range chicken, eggs, and other things for sale. You really should go visit and get some real food for yourself--it's probably at a much better price than what you can get in a whole foods store.

[Chenier]

Stuff

Sure, a lot of "socialist" countries were dictatorial. But that's to expect when the United States did everything they could to make "socialist" states fail. Those who weren't dictatorial just never stood a chance against the CIA and their puppets.

[egamma]

Sure, a lot of "socialist" countries were dictatorial. But that's to expect when the United States did everything they could to make "socialist" states fail. Those who weren't dictatorial just never stood a chance against the CIA and their puppets.

You don't think that the top-down control of agriculture could have been the primary cause of the inability of the USSR to feed itself?

[Anaris]

You don't think that the top-down control of agriculture could have been the primary cause of the inability of the USSR to feed itself?

Probably not, in and of itself.

The utter stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.

Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.

[Chenier]

Probably not, in and of itself.

The utter stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.

Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.

Indeed.

I also don't see how that point relates to my quote.

[Vellos]

Probably not, in and of itself.

The utter stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.

Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.

And you don't think top-down systems are uniquely likely to attract evil or selfish people?

I for one do think exactly that. I think that an institutional willingness to bestow significant power on one individual or one group will naturally lead to evil and stupid actions.

Also, top-down systems are not as efficient at allocating goods as markets. Yes, markets have flaws– but it's not political manipulation that has led the overwhelming majority of economists in every cultural setting in the world to conclude that markets are, in general, the optimal distributors of goods. No mind will every be able to organize an economy as well as all the minds of the economy. Spontaneous order ftw!

In sum: a system which basically is less efficient and less likely to get people what they want, which has a natural tendency towards increasing tyranny, and which creates massive disasters if a less than perfectly competent person runs it, is one that is, well, bad. And advocacy for it in the political arena is also bad. Good and bad economic policies are questions of marginal efficiency of delivering goods and services. Soviet administrators were fantastically competent; if you look at their publications, they were way better than most of their NATO counterparts at actually managing organizations, planning supply needs, determining prices, and any kind of mathematically or statistically rigorous element of economics. But it doesn't matter how excellent the people are in a system if the constraints of the system are suboptimal.

In fact, I would contend that, in an perfect system the aggregate results will be entirely independent of whether the most powerful people in it are benevolent or malicious. I think that essentially free markets in a mixed economy get us pretty much the closest to that we can get.

[egamma]

Indeed.

I also don't see how that point relates to my quote.

He was responding to me, not you.

Probably not, in and of itself.

The utter stupidity of the people in charge of that top-down control—now, that could certainly have been the primary cause.

Yes, top-down control makes it more likely that stupidity in one or a small group of people can spell disaster for millions, but it is not inherently good or evil.

The advantage of capitalism--of small, independent operators making their own decisions of how much water and fertilizer to use, whether to plant corn or soybeans or wheat, etc--is that several hundred people can make sub-optimal decisions and the US can still feed itself and produce a surplus.

Socialism only works if you have a technocracy--if the decision-makers for each segment of the economy are geniuses who have all the needed information to make all the decisions for their segment of the economy. If bureaucrats are in charge (and let's face it, any bureaucracy will promote itself), then decisions are made by people who aren't qualified to make those decisions.

Socialism works in theory; Capitalism works in practice.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Capitalism works so long as the economy is in working order. If it goes down the drain, however, like it did during the Great Depression, what do you think happens? Millions homeless, with little food, little to no work available, only the people with wealth outside the stock market being able to keep themselves afloat. You know what it took to really get the economy back to what it was in the 20's? A WORLD WAR...

[vonGenf]

I have a feeling that many of you are talking about completely different things. Would you care stating your definition of socialism? I think you may be surprised to see that the criticism of others in fact target something completely different than what you advocate (this goes for both sides).

[egamma]

Fair enough. I define socialism as total government control of the economy, determining how many car batteries to produce, how much wheat vs how much barley to grow, etc. That's what a country that called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did in practice.

If you want to call that Totalitarianism, fine. But that is what most people think of when they think of socialism.

[Chenier]

Fair enough. I define socialism as total government control of the economy, determining how many car batteries to produce, how much wheat vs how much barley to grow, etc. That's what a country that called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did in practice.

If you want to call that Totalitarianism, fine. But that is what most people think of when they think of socialism.

The Soviet Union has been described as state capitalism by many. Same for the PRC.

Also, names mean nothing. Unless you think that the People's Democratic Republic of Congo is the beacon of democracy for the world.

[Lefanis]

But to the root issue, why Americans oppose socialism– it's because every instance where someone tried to implement it wherein it went poorly (that is, every instance it has been tried)

Americans ought to look harder.

Kerala, a state in the south of India, was under a democratically elected Marxist government for a large part of the past 50 years. They conducted massive land reforms, in the face of substantial pressure from the central government, ensuring that that hundreds of thousands of peasants got their own plots of land to farm. The government also invested massively in public education system and public healthcare (that didnt forget to cater to the poor who couldn't afford it).

That state has the highest literacy rate in the country, over 92%... Kind of impressive when the national average is 65%. The healthcare is miles ahead of the rest of the country, and income equality is better than the rest of the country. People actually can maintain a decent quality of living, and have good lives, unlike the rest of the country, which embraced the free market (this actually made people more poor, and widened income gaps).

Power will concentrate on those people.

Because that's not what happens in a capitalist society.

And you don't think top-down systems are uniquely likely to attract evil or selfish people?

How much better than a system which assumes that the greatest good of society will be brought about by a few people who are driven by greed?