Q&A with Bart DePalma discussion

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?

I think the technical definition is the government controlling the means of production (although the line between Communism and socialism is blurry in my mind, it seems the difference is more or less a matter of degree).

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.

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

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."

Actually, the Socialist party recently released a list of members who are also Democrat memebrs of the House (about 70 people). So they are getting a little emboldened.

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 is anarchy, a condition of no government. I guess "forced" could be "contribute".

I find people use the term "socialism" as a meaningless weapon in political discourse. I mean, who is more "socialist", George H. Bush who started the bailouts, or Barak Obama who continued them? I'm glad you started this thread with a goal of clarifying this term. It sorely needs it.

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 still privately owned, but the government tells you what to do with it. I saw this very primitive explanation once, but it sort of illustrates the point.

Putting aside taxed for the moment. Let's say a farmer has a cow. Under capitalism, he gets to do what he wants with the cow- milk it, slaughter it, sell or keep the meat or the milk, and he get to keep the money. Under socialism, the government takes ownership of the cow and takes any excess milk and "profit" from the milk; the farmer gets to keep what the government decided he needs to live. Under fascism, the farmer gets to still own the cow, but the government tells him what to do with the milk: how much to produce, where to sell it etc.; the farmer gets to keep the profits, but may be also told how to "properly" spend his money. In practical terms, difference between socialism and fascism is a matter of appearances and semantics.

As to who's "more socialist" it's a matter of degree. This governemnt has been doing bailouts forever. That's picking winners and losers (you HAVE to make green cars etc.) and seems closer to fascism. The difference is that now the government gets to actually own a piece of the pie in a company like GM, pushing out private bond holders and forcing them to take a loss. That's socialism.

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: "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.

Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management. Tyranny is the political corollary of socialism, as representative government is the political corollary of the market economy. LvM