10 ms·
Socialism, American-Style
- ExpiredLink 11y ago> The fund collects and invests proceeds from the extraction of oil and minerals in the state. This is not at all "Socialism". BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
- lyncnshare 11y agoI wonder about the state owned investment funds and if there is a parallel to state owned factories. Norway has a giant sovereign wealth fund built off of its oil industry, but does it perform as well as a private fund would? What about the California pension funds. I understand that they get screwed by their private equity and hedge investments all the time. I wonder if they weren't public funds if they would have more clout on wall street and could work out better deals to get better returns.
- eru 11y ago> BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe). Industrial factories, yes. Local utilities seem to do well enough in Europe. I wonder if there's a principled difference?
- pjc50 11y agoQuite a lot of private factories have failed in the west too. Factories are very vulnerable to globalisation. Utilities, on the other hand, are a natural monopoly inherently tied to a geographic location. They're not producing a "product", but instead a commodity that's the same for all customers. Many utilities are mostly forms of "road" - they just happen to be wire-shaped or pipe-shaped roads. Note the mostly. Telecoms and electricity have two parts: the central, complex, services; and the big mostly-dumb network.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y agowell Telecoms networks can be quiet complex and in the USA broadly you had more complexity at the local plant level than say the UK does. Its the last mile that makes telcos's natural monopoly's not the exchanges/switches/central offices
- geon 11y agoLike the electricity/internet provider in my city of Jönköping, Sweden. It is a for-profit company, owned by the municipality. The Municipality obviously dictates the goals, like 100/100 fiber in the most remote parts of the area (which I just signed up for), and the company gets to execute them in the way it sees fit. The municipality housing company is operated the same way.
- _delirium 11y agoMany of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either distributed equally to everyone as "shareholders" (as in the Alaska dividend), or used to finance public goods. There are some overlaps with socialism, especially social-democratic models of government. But clearly the full social-democratic program is nowhere near popular in conservative areas of the US. If you look at why only these specific ideas are popular in those areas, one commonality is that they have a Georgist feel to them. Or at least, I'll propose that as a hypothesis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
- nickff 11y agoWe must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often simply against increased (discretionary) government spending, and believe that distributing the funds to the people will have cause less market distortion and malinvestment.
- _delirium 11y agoI agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these cases also prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing the TVA is an example. And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)
- eru 11y ago> Moreover, contrary to conventional opinion, studies of the comparative efficiency of modern public enterprise show rough equivalency to private firms in many cases. (They aren’t perfect, of course: Many public agencies, boards and corporations that control enterprises are not fully accountable or transparent in their operations.) Companies get efficient if they have to. Competition is one way to force their hands. (There might be others, like public oversight?) Private vs public ownership doesn't make too much of a difference.
- kristopolous 11y agoState-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's using. According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called "Socialism". What's next? Insisting cities which build private sports stadiums with public funds participate in profit sharing instead of just presenting the stadium with a little bow on top to some billionaire? Woah, Socialism cometh! The real thing that's happening is that people want a fair shake... "If we're going to be on the hook in the bad times, then we should see some of the good time too." The companies that were bailed out with public funds now have record private profits ... that's the problem. It's got zilch to do with socialism.
- calibraxis 11y agoHe's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he has to phrase his message in certain ways to get published in NYT.
- trentmb 11y agoThey seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.
- kristopolous 11y agoI understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.
- msoad 11y agoSan Francisco rent control policy is another example of weird and conflicting policies in the U.S. I can't believe a policy like that is in place in the United States!
- eru 11y agoThey also have minimum wage in the US.
- kristopolous 11y agohow so?
- tete 11y agoOne should in my opinion not forget about two things here: - The US American arms industry - Welfare and other benefits for veterans I think when it comes to citizens and industries somehow related to military the US has a history of applying (some) socialist principles, which is interesting, because it actually was used to "fight socialism".
- _delirium 11y agoThere's an interesting-looking book on that subject coming out this fall: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674286139 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674286139
- hukep 11y agoThe article is misleading. It is far away from the concept of the socialism. I live in country in which were everything in public property for 40 years. It totally destroyed our state and the society as well..
- g7376693 11y agonope
- realusername 11y agoTo the americans here, please understand that socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is regrouping a lot of different things (including the most extreme form of communism) and please do not mix the two together.
- afsina 11y agoPerhaps today the meanings are different (one is a superset). But according to Von Mises: "In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them. The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917. " http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1060#lf0069_label_908 http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1060#lf0069_label_908 Also, uses of "Liberalism" has been changed even more throughout the history.
- allendoerfer 11y agoCommodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g. networks) should be owned by the public. There is no point in having a market, when only one option makes sense or it is irrelevant which option you choose. There is no point in having competition, when it cannot improve the product or any process of its making. In these cases private ownership just leads to cartels or innovation in marketing departments alone, both rising prices. Having said that, the difficult part is to determine these cases and to figure out how to transition the privately owned companies into public property without stealing it or overpaying for it. Another difficulty is to judge, when something suddenly stops to be one of these cases (e.g. postal services with electronic messaging as an alternative to it).
- nightcracker 11y agoWhy is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, and I'm proud to say I live in a socialist country. It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll pay 50%. And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it. In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't matter, education is free. If I have or get some disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community. Anything else, in my book, is uncivilized. --- To those citing governments destroying incentive structures (can't reply - your comment is deleted), I strongly suggest looking up the Dutch model for infrastructure. In a very, very summarized example, the government gives subsidy to private/public hybrid organizations. Those organizations compete in the regular market. In order to qualify for subsidy you need to meet the government standards. Think internet companies, hospitals, etc. You're perfectly free to set up a 100% privatized hospital in the Netherlands - you just won't qualify for government subsidy.
- moistgorilla 11y agoThe government of almost every country is -almost always- incompetent and inefficient. Why would I want to give them my money for "security" when I could assure myself that security much more effectively?
- nightcracker 11y agoBecause we are a civilized society, and this is not about you. A lot of people can _not_ assure that security for themselves.
- x5n1 11y agoAccording to Richard D. Wolfe https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff It's because American Capitalists felt threatened by the Socialists, because the New Deal and a bunch of other things that happened in the 20th century due to unions and Socialist activism along with American elite alignment that scared them and their continued ability to run America for their interest, so they spread tons of rhetoric and propaganda to make Socialism a boogie man, eventually associating it with Communism... and it worked. In general in the United States ideological words get muddled through rhetoric and propaganda until you can no longer talk about them. When this happens it's impossible to act on anything because you can't talk about it much less come to any conclusion about whether it's good or not or if it serves your interests. It's a brilliant propaganda technique that seems to have been mastered to stifle any debate about ideology.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- TomGullen 11y agoThe US Army is the biggest socialist organisation in the US. They provide medical care, educational grants and benefits, housing etc etc.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?" Because every single time it's been enacted in the past 100 years, it's resulted in the deaths of millions of its own citizenry. Because the very basis of the american legal system and the american legacy (not to mention english common law) is based on individual over collective rights. Socialism is, quite simply, unamerican, by definition.
- nightcracker 11y agoYou're going to have to back up those bold claims for them to hold any value. Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'. In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is depriving the 99% of most value.
- PopeOfNope 11y agoplease do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good' That's your own projection, not mine. I clearly stated in my comment that socialism was unamerican because it goes against the founding principles of the country. I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time. But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention to history. Socialism always results in tyranny. It did in Russia. It did in China. Vietnam. Korea. Even the Nordic countries, who had the best chance of pulling it off, have started to suffer under its weight.
- dghf 11y ago> Socialism always results in tyranny. Anarchist Catalonia? (Admittedly, it didn't last long, thanks chiefly to a different bunch of socialists, who were in turn defeated by fascists.)
- PopeOfNope 11y agoI remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit. Interestingly enough, he was also one of the pioneers of the totalitarianism theory. He argued that Vladimir Lenin created the first totalitarian dictatorship and that nearly all communist and fascist states were totalitarian in nature.
- bsbechtel 11y agoI wish there was a mainstream medium that discussed (and made accessible) the real risks and benefits of policy ideas. The biggest policy decisions our government makes are more or less discussed and debated through anecdotal stories shared in op-ed pages of major newspapers. (Note: I'm talking about policies pushed by both sides of the aisle, not just this particular op-ed.) This seems to be the biggest driver of polarization in the political sphere, as individuals tend to seek out op-eds that reinforce their own views in an exercise of confirmation bias, instead of thinking critically about what the positive and negative effects, plus potential risks, would be. Personally, I tend to default to looking for free market/libertarian solutions to societal problems based on two major risks. First, if the government fails to deliver the good or service promised (like energy for your home, or healthcare), you normally have no other alternative to choose from. This can cause an entire population to suffer greatly, especially given the government is most often tasked to providing fundamental goods and services most necessary for human life (water, energy, healthcare). Second, choosing your government to provide a solution for you is fundamentally saying that 1 (non)elected government official can offer a better solution than ~330 million other individuals (in the US). Statistically this is highly unlikely, even considering the advantage of coercive power the government-provided solution possesses. I'm not opposed to government control over productive capital in some arenas, but any policy idea needs to mitigate and address these two fundamental risks. Very few policy proposals pass this test, and no mainstream media source exists to provide an objective risk analysis of the ideas and policies being debated by our elected officials.
- xname 11y agoUSA contributed most of the world's innovations in science, technology, culture, and institution. It is silly to compare other countries to the USA. Why Netherlands can be a socialist country, but not USA? Because Netherlands consumes innovations, while USA creates innovations.
- PauloManrique 11y agoWhy people insist in say "I live in a socialist country" when they clearly does not live in one? Welfare State has nothing to do with socialism