Why is socialism such a bad word?

[vonGenf]

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

Maybe most people where you're from, but that doesn't mean most people overall.

I live in Geneva, where the right wing parties are discussing establishing a flat tax at 13%.

The Socialist Party (note the name) thinks it's unacceptable. They want to establish a flat tax at 15% instead.

In some places, that's called socialism. It's important to know what you are talking about.

[egamma]

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).

Actually, what I learned in a video about India ( I can't even remember if it was high school history or college economics or what) is that there was a factory sitting idle. Because the government wouldn't allow electric lines to be ran to the factory, because that might disadvantage some other factory. So 150 jobs were lost.

To me, that's not capitalism. That's not socialism, either. That's excessive bureaucracy, an inefficient restraint on unfettered capitalism. Don't blame capitalism when it's the government bureaucracy that's the true cause of the problem.

In that same video, Singapore was lauded as an example of a good capitalist economy. Almost no restraints on the creation of new companies, and enough safety net to ensure that people didn't starve. So people weren't afraid to take risks, in by taking risks, they often succeeded.

[Zakilevo]

Countries which adapted democracy after the WW2 are mostly suffering from corruption. India is extremely corrupted sadly.

One system is not necessarily superior to another. One system might work well for one country but a totally different system might not work at all.

Also, you can't blame the system. You can blame people who work under the system.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Actually, what I learned in a video about India ( I can't even remember if it was high school history or college economics or what) is that there was a factory sitting idle. Because the government wouldn't allow electric lines to be ran to the factory, because that might disadvantage some other factory. So 150 jobs were lost.

To me, that's not capitalism. That's not socialism, either. That's excessive bureaucracy, an inefficient restraint on unfettered capitalism. Don't blame capitalism when it's the government bureaucracy that's the true cause of the problem.

In that same video, Singapore was lauded as an example of a good capitalist economy. Almost no restraints on the creation of new companies, and enough safety net to ensure that people didn't starve. So people weren't afraid to take risks, in by taking risks, they often succeeded.

Since you obviously failed to pay attention, I will state what the person you are replying to stated. It was a SPECIFIC STATE within India. It was NOT India as a whole. You want to know what true unfettered capitalism is, you should look back at the Gilded Age in the United States. Sure, our economy itself was booming. But the average worker was in horrid, underdeveloped housing because he had no legal ability to protest such conditions. There was no union to balance out the company he was working for. Unions were practically illegal because the government wouldn't step in when the companies used groups such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency to intimidate any worker group.

[egamma]

Since you obviously failed to pay attention, I will state what the person you are replying to stated. It was a SPECIFIC STATE within India. It was NOT India as a whole.

I paid attention. You used a specific state as an example; I used the entire country as a counter-example.

You want to know what true unfettered capitalism is, you should look back at the Gilded Age in the United States. Sure, our economy itself was booming. But the average worker was in horrid, underdeveloped housing because he had no legal ability to protest such conditions. There was no union to balance out the company he was working for. Unions were practically illegal because the government wouldn't step in when the companies used groups such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency to intimidate any worker group.

So there is such a thing as proper regulation and improper regulation; I'm glad we agree on that. Assaulting striking workers should be covered as assault, plain and simple, and those responsible should be charged the same as anyone else. We now have building codes that put a minimum (a very good minimum) quality requirement in place, so that fire departments typically spend 80% of their time on medical calls and not fire calls. And of the fires we do have, about 75% aren't structure fires (source: Texas Department of Insurance, in 2011 1038 fire departments responded to 102799 fires, of which 23672 were structure fires). So I'd say that the building codes we have in place are sufficient to prevent abuses in that area. I wouldn't call building codes "fettered capitalism"; builders and homeowners can build whatever kind of house they like, as long as it is safe.

[Vellos]

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).

Is there a dataset I can dig up anywhere on this? Because what empirical evidence I have seen about Indian states (and I'll readily admit I haven't seen much) has suggested that more liberalized economies have produced markedly better results, but I haven't seen any large datasets.

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

No. It's not. Capitalist societies have middle classes. They're the only societies with large and dominant middle classes. Indeed, the defining feature of a modern market economy is the middle class, and especially a service-sector middle class.

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?

No, capitalism asserts that the greatest good of society will be brought about by all people being driven by greed. It's why it works.

You want to know what true unfettered capitalism is, you should look back at the Gilded Age in the United States. Sure, our economy itself was booming. But the average worker was in horrid, underdeveloped housing because he had no legal ability to protest such conditions. There was no union to balance out the company he was working for.

Nobody here has suggested "unfettered capitalism." We aren't debating "absolute economic control by government" vs. "no government."

[vonGenf]

So there is such a thing as proper regulation and improper regulation; I'm glad we agree on that. Assaulting striking workers should be covered as assault, plain and simple, and those responsible should be charged the same as anyone else. We now have building codes that put a minimum (a very good minimum) quality requirement in place, so that fire departments typically spend 80% of their time on medical calls and not fire calls. And of the fires we do have, about 75% aren't structure fires (source: Texas Department of Insurance, in 2011 1038 fire departments responded to 102799 fires, of which 23672 were structure fires). So I'd say that the building codes we have in place are sufficient to prevent abuses in that area. I wouldn't call building codes "fettered capitalism"; builders and homeowners can build whatever kind of house they like, as long as it is safe.

I have a hard time parsing that as anything other than "Regulations I agree with are a normal part of Capitalism; regulations I don't agree with are Socialism, which is totalitarian."

[Eldargard]

Just as a warning, I am next to ignorant when it comes to economics and politics. At least I feel that way. I always find these kind of discussions hard as it is so difficult to separate economic systems (capitalism/communism) from political systems (Democracy/Dictatorship).

As I understand it, Socialism is about the Government owning land and means of production and deciding how to use that. Like deciding that they need more corn and less iron. I do not think, however, that it has to be tied to a particular government system. From what I have read here, it seems that, historically, socialism is tied together with some form of totalitarianism or dictatorship. I am guessing that this does not always have to be the case. Are there not Scandinavian countries that are very socialist but have a republic/democratic form of governance?

As far as America's view of the word socialism goes, I do not think it is fair to make a blanket statement. I would venture to say that only a sight majority of Americans have the "socialism is bad" mindset. A lot of that is probably doe to many of the factors already listed - education, media, perspective, definition and all that. Many other Americans are eager to see America adopt more socialist policies. Some simply see it as being just another means to an end. Do we tax Americans and give them the money later when they retire or let them keep their money and save for their own retirement? I can not claim to know enough to say which is the better solution, if either.

I will say, however, that It irritates me when a private company is given a localized monopoly. Garbage service in Washington state feels like this. It seems like each garbage collection company is given a local monopoly. As a consumer I can use the single approved private garbage collection service or none at all. I have yet to live in an area in washington in which I really had a choice in garbage collection services. Either privitize and step back or do not!

[Chenier]

No. It's not. Capitalist societies have middle classes. They're the only societies with large and dominant middle classes. Indeed, the defining feature of a modern market economy is the middle class, and especially a service-sector middle class.

Many studies show the decline of the middle class, at least in the West, crumbling under the pressures of outsourcing to third-world countries (thank you globalization) and due to the more profitable companies needing less and less manpower as time passes by (so they don't have to share their profits with their employees anymore, or with much of anyone). Not to mention the myth of how we'll be better with globalization thanks to a brain-based economy, where we'll just ship our danky jobs nobody wants and we'll just get more better-paid high-tech jobs (as if India and China aren't catching up or can't copy our technology for cheaper), gradually leveling workers's condition to the level of the poorest involved in the free-trade agreements (because obviously, signing free-trade agreements with no regards to minimum legal working conditions and minimum wage is a great way to improve our workers' quality of life on the long term).

I also wouldn't compare the "middle class" of the western countries with the middle class of the rest of the capitalist countries in terms of wealth and prosperity...

I will say, however, that It irritates me when a private company is given a localized monopoly. Garbage service in Washington state feels like this. It seems like each garbage collection company is given a local monopoly. As a consumer I can use the single approved private garbage collection service or none at all. I have yet to live in an area in washington in which I really had a choice in garbage collection services. Either privitize and step back or do not!

Right, it's just been revealed in Québec that the private engineering companies bribed Montreal's civil engineer in order for him to over-evaluate the costs of infrastructure projects... Because of this, the city had to pay up to twice as much (500 000 vs 250 000 for the first time it happened)! A bunch of cartels are set up. All of this thanks to the Liberals' "reengineering" (what a pun) of the state, which kicked out most of the public-sector engineers in order to post the jobs for tenders. What a winner move that was... I guess it was for them, considering how these crooked engineering firms gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Liberal party.

Then there's all the great examples on the federal level, where they cut public jobs because the public sector unions are too far and they weigh on the economy, only to have the federal government then hire private-sector consultants and firms to do the same job, usually for greater cost and much lesser quality.

Damn neoliberals and their religious obsession of attacking the public sector to hand it all over on a silver platter to private-sector buddies.

[vonGenf]

As I understand it, Socialism is about the Government owning land and means of production and deciding how to use that. Like deciding that they need more corn and less iron. I do not think, however, that it has to be tied to a particular government system. From what I have read here, it seems that, historically, socialism is tied together with some form of totalitarianism or dictatorship. I am guessing that this does not always have to be the case. Are there not Scandinavian countries that are very socialist but have a republic/democratic form of governance?

Scandinavian countries are socialist in that they have a strong welfare state. There are also more government-owned companies there than in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Sweden), but in no way are all the "means of production" ruled by the government. Private land ownership is also possible and common.

You are right that it is confusing: socialist economic governance in quite independent from socialist governance (marxist). Most Socialist parties today are not socialist according to a textbook definition, which is why I asked people to clarify their definitions.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Chenier, as OP I will ask you not to attack specific political parties or entities that you do not happen to agree with. While you may feel that they are the biggest evil to walk the lands, this is not the correct topic, as this is about the United States view of socialism in general, whether it is seen badly or not in the United States, and not a place to blast out about your personal opinions regarding a specific party or group of people regarding their beliefs.

[Vellos]

Many studies show the decline of the middle class, at least in the West, crumbling under the pressures of outsourcing to third-world countries (thank you globalization) and due to the more profitable companies needing less and less manpower as time passes by (so they don't have to share their profits with their employees anymore, or with much of anyone). Not to mention the myth of how we'll be better with globalization thanks to a brain-based economy, where we'll just ship our danky jobs nobody wants and we'll just get more better-paid high-tech jobs (as if India and China aren't catching up or can't copy our technology for cheaper), gradually leveling workers's condition to the level of the poorest involved in the free-trade agreements (because obviously, signing free-trade agreements with no regards to minimum legal working conditions and minimum wage is a great way to improve our workers' quality of life on the long term).

I also wouldn't compare the "middle class" of the western countries with the middle class of the rest of the capitalist countries in terms of wealth and prosperity...

lol.

Repeated empirical studies have failed to identify the supposed link between globalization and inequality on any conclusive basis. But even if they have, I personally care far less about the have/have-not gap in-country than the have/have-not gap cross-country.

Free trade has lifted more people out of poverty into the middle class than any other program ever. China has hundreds of millions of middle class people now because of liberalization (and if they liberalized more, they'd be even better off). Companies in China or India which export to western states have higher wages and better working conditions than other firms (Foxconn is a great example of this).

Furthermore– even if I grant your argument that the middle class is crumbling because of capitalism (which it isn't), you still are missing the point. The middle class only exists to crumble in places that are capitalist. Insofar as a middle class exists, it exists because of capitalism. See the rising middle class of China– it exists since the late 80's. See the bulk of the population of the US and western Europe– capitalist states have produced middle classes. Non-capitalist states... far less so. Eastern Europe does have some, but even that has rapidly expanded since the fall of communism. The middle class is one of the defining features of a modern market economy.

I have a hard time parsing that as anything other than "Regulations I agree with are a normal part of Capitalism; regulations I don't agree with are Socialism, which is totalitarian."

No, what he's asserting is that "Regulation is not everywhere and always a socialist phenomenon." The burden of proof rests on the person who believes that all regulation is essentially socialist– they must prove that all regulation is predicated upon and/or aimed towards central control of the means of production, or some de facto equivalent. I can have motivations for regulation which have nothing in kind with central control of the means of production. I can favor standardized weights and measures and rules against contract violation without favoring radical redistribution.

[egamma]

No, what he's asserting is that "Regulation is not everywhere and always a socialist phenomenon." The burden of proof rests on the person who believes that all regulation is essentially socialist– they must prove that all regulation is predicated upon and/or aimed towards central control of the means of production, or some de facto equivalent. I can have motivations for regulation which have nothing in kind with central control of the means of production. I can favor standardized weights and measures and rules against contract violation without favoring radical redistribution.

Thank you. What I was asserting is that a socialist economic policy is one where the government interferes with prices and quantities of goods and services. Other interference in the market (such as lead paint standards for childens' toys), particularly when they are properly designed to protect the lives and health of humans, is not socialist, is not anti-capitalist.

[DamnTaffer]

Thank you. What I was asserting is that a socialist economic policy is one where the government interferes with prices and quantities of goods and services. Other interference in the market (such as lead paint standards for childens' toys), particularly when they are properly designed to protect the lives and health of humans, is not socialist, is not anti-capitalist.

Them evil socialists! They might stop our babies growing immunities to lead poisoning! *Shakes Fist*

[vonGenf]

No, what he's asserting is that "Regulation is not everywhere and always a socialist phenomenon." The burden of proof rests on the person who believes that all regulation is essentially socialist– they must prove that all regulation is predicated upon and/or aimed towards central control of the means of production, or some de facto equivalent. I can have motivations for regulation which have nothing in kind with central control of the means of production. I can favor standardized weights and measures and rules against contract violation without favoring radical redistribution.

Well, I fully agree with that: some measures are socialists in intent, and aim at redistributing wealth, while others aim at defining a safe and fair playing field for a capitalist society to thrive in. That may be the crux of Gustav's question: socialism is seen as horrible because once the word socialism is attached to a measure, people see it as fundamentally redistributive in nature, while in other places the tag has evolved and refers to a different intent.

Take socialized medicine as an example. I make the argument that presenting a bill for a necessary surgery is basically blackmail: it is threatening violence, as those unable to pay will suffer. Therefore it is necessary for the government to step in to ensure a fair treatment.

Of course, socialized medicine can also be used as a wealth redistribution tool. Most people will require hospitalization at some point in their lives, and these costs are a significant fraction of GNP; therefore how you pay for it will affect the distribution of wealth in society.

The same analysis can be made of social security. In the end, intent matters, and detail matters.