Bart’s Comments (group member since Jan 07, 2012)

Bart’s comments from the Q&A with Bart DePalma group.

Masha wrote: "That's why I think the definition lies with who owns the property. In a socialist system, it's the government. In a capitalist system, property is privately owned. In a fascist system, property is ..."

The thesis of my book is that the goals of socialism are government direction of the economy to redistribute wealth. Socialisms variations are determined by the means used to accomplish these goals.

Classical socialism owned the means of production simply because one of the rights of ownership is direction of the business. However, ownership is not the only means to achieve this. A socialist government can also (ab)use its regulatory, tax and spend powers to accomplish the same goals.

This theory is not original to me. The later version of socialism was theorized and practiced back a century ago in Germany and was resurrected in the 1960s when classical socialism began to fail.

Jeffrey wrote: "Still confused. Show me ANY government system that did not involve "the producers in a society are forced to donate the fruits of their labor to those who do not produce". The only one that would i..."

There are a spectrum of ideologies exercising every greater power over our lives from anarchy on one end to totalitarianism on the other. Socialism is but one and it concentrates on exercising economic power.

Several ideologies redistribute wealth in some manner or another. This is bad enough on its own, but socialism directs the economy (badly) as well causing other further problems.

Identifying socialism is important because this ideology causes such economic destruction. If you allow socialists to misrepresent socialism as capitalism, then people are more likely to support it because they know capitalism works.

Masha wrote: "Funny, though, how fast socialists run away from the term (however defined) when they get called on it."

I am still trying to figure that one out. Every developed country except the United States has at least a substantial majority of socialists who openly organize socialist parties and propose socialist policies. Instead, American socialists have evolved a rather unique asymmetric socialism where they misrepresent themselves as progressives and their policies as "reforms of capitalism."

Interesting take, Marge.

When researching my book, I found that defining socialism is a bit like herding cats because socialists themselves could not agree. I ended up boiling the necessary elements of socialism down to the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth. The variations of socialism are the means used to achieve those two goals.

In my book Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste, I describe a new evolution in socialism I call Asymmetric Socialism, where a socialist government denies they are socialist and declines to nationalize business to achieve its goals of directing the economy and redistributing wealth. Instead, the government abuses its regulatory, taxing and spending powers to achieve the same goals, while pretending that their actions are meant to advance or reform capitalism.

Barack Obama's efforts to redistribute money from the energy industry through his "Cap and Trade" legislation to establish a government directed and taxpayer financed "clean energy economy is a typical example of Asymmetric Socialism. Like all socialism, though, the bureaucrats directing the economy are appallingly ignorant of how an actual economy works. CBS News is now reporting how the Obama's administration's venture socialism into solar energy is going bankrupt, losing tens of billions in involuntary taxpayer "investor" money.

If Mitt Romney had pissed away investor money like this at Bain Capital, he would be occupying a prison cell alongside ponzi scheme artist, Bernie Madoff. Because he is president, though, Barack Obama continues merrily run up the national credit card forming his own government failing energy industry.

Originally posted at the Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste blog.

After two years of exploring the man and his policies, I am constantly amazed when liberals and progressives complain that Barack Obama is insufficiently left and is instead some sort of a moderate or even conservative.

My take is the Barack Obama is the most successful president of the left after FDR, with no close third place candidates. Indeed, my book argues and I hope demonstrates that Mr. Obama is our first socialist president.

Before I discuss the basis for my opinion, I wanted to open the floor to your views. What do you think of Barack Obama's political ideology and policies?

When I started my research on Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste back in 2009, I discovered some of my preconceptions about socialism were wrong and that trying to define the political economy was akin to herding cats. Before I offer the definition I derived and its variations, I would like to open the floor to your ideas.

What do you believe socialism means?