White House Announcement on "Socialism"
- This topic has 22 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Not often that the US Government makes an official press release on socialism. Shows how things are changing
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/cea-report-opportunity-costs-socialism/
“It is unclear, of course, exactly what a typical voter has in mind when he or she thinks of “socialism.” But economists generally agree about how to define socialism…” But do they?
1 Criterion a is from the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines socialism as public policy based on “a political
and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and
exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Criterion b further focuses the discussion
to rule out state ownership or regulation for other purposes, such as fighting a war. See also Samuelson and
Nordhaus (1989, 833), who describe “democratic socialist governments [that] expanded the welfare state,
nationalized industries, and planned the economy.”
2 For classical socialists, “communism” is a purely theoretical concept that has never yet been put into practice,
which is why the second “S” in USSR stands for “Socialist.” Communism is, in their view, a social arrangement
where there is neither a state nor private property; the abolition of property is not sufficient for communism. As
Lenin explained, “The goal of socialism is communism.” The supposed purpose of the “Great Leap Forward” was
for China to transition from socialism to communism before the USSR did (Dikӧtter 2010). The classical definition
therefore stands in contrast to vernacular usage of communism to refer to historical instances of socialism where
the degree of control was the highest, such as the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, or Maoist China. This report therefore
avoids the term “communism.”The full Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report and it is well worth taking the time to read to understand just what the ruling class understands what is meant by socialism if we can take this report as an official view.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Opportunity-Costs-of-Socialism.pdf
Yes, we will definitely deal with this in the Socialist Standard but note already from the passage quoted by Alan that it is self-confessedly not dealing with what the Leninists call “communism”, i.e what we mean by socialism, but what the Leninists mean by “socialism”, i.e. state capitalism which is neither socialism nor a step towards it.
For classical socialists, “communism” is a purely theoretical concept that has never yet been put into practice, which is why the second “S” in USSR stands for “Socialist.” Communism is, in their view, a social arrangement where there is neither a state nor private property; the abolition of property is not sufficient for communism. As Lenin explained, “The goal of socialism is communism.”
They also bring in the confusion of the Nordic “from the cradle to the coffin” welfare state as a form of socialism which they now depict as no longer viable or feasible for those Scandinavian countries.
But we also predicted that when costs to the capitalist class of social services became too much of a burden to them, they would introduce cuts and in the case of the NHS it began within a matter of years with charges on glasses and dentistry and prescription charges being introduced and hasn’t ceased ever since with cut-backs on hospitals and whatnot.
I recall i had some sympathy for those Republican wingnuts that said the NHS possessed death panels…and indeed it does…NICE operates by determining the cost benefits of particular treatments that result either in a quick or slow terminal prognosis.
On the other hand, i am pretty sure such committees may well exist inside socialism but it won’t be pounds and pence determining a specific drug but the high or low percentage of effectiveness of it.
But in regards to this official government statement, i think it does reflect some sort of evolution of political thought within the USA that mild forms of state capitalism have now been targetted for critiques because they are growing in popularity that once again they must be scaremongered by the “socialist” label.
Not so long ago, the Koch brothers had a report focused on socialised healthcare (which inadvertently provided a defence for it) yet happily encouraging government assistance for fossil fuels while other anti-Big Government support the subsidies for farming.
I’ve now finished reading the 50 or so pages. We already know that it is not an attack on socialism/communism. It is in fact a criticism of any state intervention in the working of the competitive, profit-seeking capitalist economy (whether through state ownership or through state regulation) to redirect production, redistribute income or introduce free services (education, health care). According to the report, this leads to a misallocation of resources (ie not what the unregulated market would bring about) resulting in a lower standard of living all round. Hence “the opportunity costs of socialism” of the title.
The report says this applies just as much to the milk-and-water reformism practised in the Nordic countries as to what went on in the USSR under Stalin and China under Mao. It states explicitly that it has been drawn up because “socialism is making a comeback in American political discourse” and it attacks “Senator Sanders” and “Senator Warren” for standing, in a moderate form, for the same sort of thing as Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
To tell the truth, I was surprised at the extent that the authors are “mad marketeers”, citing with approval Hayek, Milton Friedman and … Margaret Thatcher. I can’t imagine that this is going to get them very far in the debate between raw capitalism and reformism. No doubt “Senator Sanders” and “Senator Warren” will be able to defend themselves but, as it’s not a debate between capitalism and socialism we don’t need to take sides, especially as we know that reformism doesn’t and cannot work.
It must be a good sign, though, that the word “socialism” has made “a comeback in US political discourse”. That gives us a chance to get a join in, if only to say that socialism is not about state ownership or regulation. In fact by stating that communism (which = socialism for Marx and us) has never been tried and is “a social arrangement where there is neither a state nor private property” (footnote p. 4) the White House has given us a perfect cue to intervene.
The ruling of the whole world has the same wrong conception about socialism-communism in the same way as the leftists and the Leninists. For most peoples in the USA socialism is public education, medical services, and public transportation run by the state, also based on the wrong conception that the workers are the taxpayers and the financier of the state, and that the state is the common institution for the benefits of mankind, it is the good boy that is going to resolve our problems, and the presidents and ministers are the saviours of the working class, and they are the trouble shooters to resolve the problems of the working class. Every presidente elected is an administration, and a so called socialist president can run a capitalist economy, and the state and the economy are two separated entities
That gives us a chance to get a join in, if only to say that socialism is not about state ownership or regulation. In fact by stating that communism (which = socialism for Marx and us) has never been tried and is “a social arrangement where there is neither a state nor private property” (footnote p. 4) the White House has given us a perfect cue to intervene.
This is the already main activity of most of the comrades posting on Quora and elsewhere has been focussed upon, debunking the distortions held up as examples of ‘socialism’ ‘communism’.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Ian-Rae-8
https://www.quora.com/profile/Brian-Johnson-429
https://www.quora.com/profile/Matthew-Culbert
There is one passage where they make rather a large concession to the advocates of reformism and/or state capitalism:
In modern models of capitalist economies, there is, of course, an ample role for government. In particular, there are public goods and goods with externalities that will be inefficiently supplied by the free market. Public goods are undersupplied in a completely free market because there is a free rider problem. For example, if national defense, a public good enjoyed by the whole country, were sold at local supermarkets, few would contribute because they would feel their individual purchase would not matter and they would prefer others to contribute while still being defended. Consequently, the market would not provide sufficient defense.
The market doesn’t do this in other cases too, not that state intervention can rectify this.
It looks as if the end-of-history-is-capitalism man disagrees with the White House’s economists and has gone over to the reformist camp they criticise:
Fukuyama added, to my surprise: “At this juncture, it seems to me that certain things Karl Marx said are turning out to be true. He talked about the crisis of overproduction… that workers would be impoverished and there would be insufficient demand.” Yet the only plausible systemic rival to liberal democracy, Fukuyama said, was not socialism but China’s state capitalist model.
He seems impressed by China’s ability to see and plan long term, but is fearful of a USA reaction. Citing the Thucydides trap.
It is all grand narrative stuff, he should really go back and read Marx to understand poverty is both relative and absolute with its reproduction an invevitable consequence, rather than a manageable abberation of capitalism even in command statist capitalism with Chinese characteristics. His justifiable fear of global conflageration doesn’t seem to notice the present proxy skirmishes delivering $100,0000 U.S. made missiles launched from $20M planes and bombs falling daily upon civiliian populations living on less than $1 a day in the Yemen.
A follow-up article on Bloomberg website
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/maybe-we-should-take-socialism-seriously#gs.QKGuGts
Doesn’t add much to the discussion but the graph of perception of socialism is of interest which appears to say that our target audience should be the under-30s who are more receptive to socialist ideas than the older generations….(or am i accepting identity politics by saying that)
Matt said:
“This is the already main activity of most of the comrades posting on Quora and elsewhere has been focussed upon, debunking the distortions held up as examples of ‘socialism’ ‘communism’.”
https://www.quora.com/profile/Ian-Rae-8
https://www.quora.com/profile/Brian-Johnson-429
https://www.quora.com/profile/Matthew-Culbert
May I encourage these members to follow the example of this sympathiser and use the party’s introductory video more often.
Another article focussed on the White House statement on Socialism
America’s best-known economist gives his view on the CEA report, in particular, on the Nordic welfare states.
And a commentary on his article here
And by Michael Roberts there is this:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.