Who’s Afraid of Socialism?
Time to reassess our strategy.
I predict Thomas Geoghegan’s new book, Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?, will ignite a vigorous debate over which is better: American capitalism or German socialism. (If I’m wrong, who’ll remember?)
I further predict the debate will be largely worthless.
Let me disclose at the outset that I have not read the book yet. But I have read an excerpt and have seen Geoghegan interviewed on MSNBC. So I know what he’s getting at, even if I don’t have all the details.
Geoghegan’s website summarizes the book thus:
There’s been a lot of throwing around of the term “socialism” by critics of President Barack Obama, who has been maligned as a European socialist by conservatives even though his administration’s agenda isn’t close to that of a European social democracy. But if you really think about it, perhaps we would be happier in cozy Germany or France, where there is a socialist-type government to catch us, than in the wide-open, free-fall United States….
It’s not just that European social democracy is “nicer.” It’s not just that, under European-type socialism, many of us would perhaps be happier. It may be that only with some form of it can our own country, with its ballooning trade deficit, globally compete—or even just keep going without repeated financial crashes and crack-ups. High-wage Germany, which offers the most bottom-up worker control of any European country, nearly ties with China as the leading exporter in the world, well ahead of the United States. But in China and America we work until we drop while in Germany, they take six weeks off a year (with a shocking number of four-day weekends along the way). It’s not just that the Germans can outcompete us, but they seem to be doing it with one hand tied behind their backs.
And he writes in the book (excerpted in In These Times):
The bottom two-thirds of America would be better off in Europe. I mean the people who have not had a raise (an hourly raise in real dollars) in maybe 40 years, and who do not even have a 401(k), nothing but Social Security, and either have no health insurance or pay deductibles of $2,000 or more. Sure, they’d be better off in Europe. When unemployed, they’d certainly be better off in Europe. Over there, even single men can get on welfare. And in much of Europe, contrary to what we hear, unemployment is much lower than over here.
On MSNBC he said, “[I]n Germany and France the average work time per year is about 1500 hours. In the U.S. it’s closer to 2000. That leaves 500 hours of extra free time for Europeans. I mean you only have one life to live.”
You get the idea. He thinks that “European socialism” and “social democracy” would not be effective scare words in American politics if people understood that they mean “free education, free child care, free nursing home care, guaranteed vacation time, and generous unemployment payments — while their white-collar American counterparts struggle to pay for the same.”
The reason I expect the debate to be mostly worthless is that nearly everyone has a stake in portraying it as a debate between socialism and free enterprise, or “capitalism,” call it what you will. So conservatives and even many libertarians will feel impelled to defend the American system’s honor.
What’s in a Name?
But why? Because it’s called “capitalism” and “free enterprise”? That’s not a good reason. What counts is what the system really is. And it’s nothing like an open, competitive market void of government privilege. It’s a corporatist system in which the liberty and property of regular people are subordinated in myriad ways to the interests of a mainly business-oriented ruling elite. (Do we need further evidence than the “socialist” Barack Obama’s coziness with Wall Street — rhetoric notwithstanding — and his generous gift to the health insurance industry?) Yes, we have some degree of freedom, but it is freedom circumscribed by a system of rules and regulations aimed at producing certain broad economic outcomes for the well-connected. At the federal, state, and local level, money has always talked. Intervention is of course defended on moral grounds (say, protection of consumers and workers), but behind the scenes lurks an economic interest. “Baptists and bootleggers” are ubiquitous.
In reality the debate is not between socialism and free enterprise. Rather it’s between two forms of corporatism, America-style and European-style. I don’t want either, but it’s not obvious to me a priori that the American variant is superior in every respect to the European variant. (Nor is it obvious to Matt Welch, my counterpart at Reason.) One variant may indeed cushion the victims of political privilege-granting better than others. Considering who writes the rules over here, I see no grounds for thinking that we necessarily have it better than the Germans do in every possible way.
I’m not saying Geoghegan’s description of Germany is accurate or complete. But Germany is no basket case like Greece. Sure, Geoghegan overlooks the fact that education, child care, and such can’t really be free. I hope he realizes that he’s defending not free benefits but rather taxpayer-provided benefits, that is, a distribution of wealth by the political elite. But it’s not as though we have none of that here.
Questionable Logic
Geoghegan caught my attention because I’ve been wondering about the wisdom of the libertarian and conservative penchant for calling every objectionable thing – Social Security and Medicare, for example — “socialism.” The logic apparently is this:
People don’t like socialism. So if you convince them that Social Security is socialism, they will not like Social Security.
Well, maybe. But things just might work out this way:
People don’t like socialism. But if you convince them that Social Security is socialism, they might decide socialism isn’t so bad after all.
Wouldn’t it be better to explain what’s wrong with Social Security morally and economically and what the real alternatives are, rather than going for a short cut that might take you where you don’t want to go? Critics of Social Security have been calling it socialism since 1935. Just how long is this strategy supposed to take before it succeeds?
Maybe our strategy for talking people out of the welfare state is all wrong. We often imply that Americans are like scared children for wanting the security the welfare state promises. That’s ridiculous. When I lecture about mutual aid, I make the opposite point: The wish to create islands of relative certainty in life’s sea of uncertainty is perfectly rational, even reasonable. The entire mutual aid phenomenon, which flourished until the government crowded it out, can only be explained in those terms. Insurance too.
The problem with the welfare state, besides its foundation in forced subsidy, is that it’s bad at providing security – including income security — in the long run. It’s based on political whim and perverse incentives. On the other hand, mutual aid and the truly freed market — which would likely produce more worker control and a shorter work-year than Germany has — would actually deliver what the welfare state only promises.
Comment by Troy Camplin on 13 August 2010:
We do need better arguments. We need good economic arguments. We need to ask people if they want to live in a wealthier, more creative culture and economy. We need to point out that this economic system is not the economic system we want. We want free markets, not crony capitalism, not a welfare economy, not a pro-business political economy. And we need to tell people what the differences are. I’m not sure the moral arguments work. What is moral about a spontaneous order? There can be perverse spontaneous orders, after all. However, a moral people will create a spontaneous order that encourages more moral behavior. What incentives will any system create? How and why? This is what we need to answer.
These are big questions requiring big answers. Unfortunately, in our soundbite culture, “It’s socialism!” is going to be heard far too often than we would like — and the result, I fear, will be exactly what you predict.
Comment by MechMan on 13 August 2010:
I would say this guy’s claims about the trade deficit and Americans not having a real raise in forty years are very wrong. For one, a trade deficit is not like a budget deficit. It is not a bad thing. Weak dollar versus strong dollar are the same thing. Both have benefits and drawbacks. Our country ran a trade surplus (or very close to one) during the Great Depression. And the trade deficit has shrank during recessions.
I find many of the same people who complain about the trade deficit also complain about a “weak” dollar, even though a weak dollar helps to shrink the trade deficit, and a strong dollar helps to grow it.
On incomes, he is going by household incomes, which have remained stagnant and even declining for some years now, and wages, which have remained rather stagnant. What he is ignoring or unaware of is that household incomes is a GROUP measurement, and you do not measure incomes by groups. Groups change. People change jobs, families change in numbers, etc…it’s an inaccurate measurement.
The other fault is wages. Wages are not incomes. Wages are PART of incomes.
Incomes per capita have been increasing consistently for years now. The only times they stall are during recessions. They stalled in the 1980-1981 Volcker Recession, they stalled in the recession of the early 1990s, they stalled in the recession of the early 2000s, and now they have stalled again.
Incomes consist of wages and the various benefits. And this is why real wages can even be declining while incomes consistently can be increasing.
In addition to the above, these European nations don’t get these welfare states for free. They tax the poor and middle class through VAT taxes and high fuel taxes (neither of which we have in America). They also have very lackluster defense spending (they let us handle that kind of stuff). Europe never would have been able to spend on its social systems if the U.S. had not bee nthere during the Cold War to stand up to the Soviet menace.
And finally, the Euro systems are unsustainable. Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, are all on the brink. The French national healthcare system is deeply in debt, and the British system is having to ration.
In America, Medicare and Medicaid, both single-payer, government-run, health insurance companies, are completely unsustainable. Social Security at its current rate is unsustainable.
To try to copy Europe, which is now REDUCING its spending, because they are at the limit (on average, the Euro nations have had a higher national debt-to-national GDP ratio in comparison to the United States, up until the financial crash and Obama anyway), would be crazy.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 13 August 2010:
Of course, I was not vouching for every detail of Geoghegan’s indictment of the U.S. system or his glowing picture of Europe and Germany in particular (which is the system he favors most). Income stats are easy to put to misleading purposes, to be sure. On wages being an incomplete measure of income, that is of course correct. Noncash benefits, the value of which have risen in the last decades, are left out of the account. But the most significant of those is medical insurance. The outrageous State/corporate health system in this country helps push up the price of medical care to levels we would not see in a freed market. So the increasing value of medical benefits does not exactly win the American system a gold star.
Comment by norman on 13 August 2010:
Everyone should know that Socialism is the form of imperfect collectivism that follows Capitalism and leads to perfect collectivism, Communism. Europe maybe slightly ahead in the historical evolution towards the workers paradise. This is pure Marxian economics and logic, and cannot be denied.
Comment by Bogart on 13 August 2010:
MechMan:
I was with you all the way on the point that Welfare ISN’T FREE until this sentence:
“They also have very lackluster defense spending (they let us handle that kind of stuff).”
And you continue: “Europe never would have been able to spend on its social systems if the U.S. had not bee nthere during the Cold War to stand up to the Soviet menace.”
This is exactly wrong and why the Europeans are correct. Despite all the guff, the Soviets were never even near the threat to Europe fantasized by the USA. In fact Soviet society was worse off than the Europeans imagined. The Military/Intelligence complex in the USA sold the citizens of the USA a bunch of crap and the Europeans being slightly more cynical about these things rejected it for the most part leaving the USA to bankrupt itself playing “Big Brother” to the entire of humanity.
Had the USA realized what the EU guys were saying they would have abandoned the defense crap during the 70s and been a significantly wealthier group of people because of it.
Comment by Jonas Barbarossa on 13 August 2010:
The crux of the matter is stated in the article: (if) socialism is bad and because X is socialism, X is bad or; socialism is bad but if X is socialism and good therefor socialism is good. Firstly one has to challenge the premise that socialism is bad. It is ingrained through indoctrination and many people accept that notion without question. In arguments one arguing FOR socialism is usually defeated by another by simple argumentum ad numerum – more people believe socialism is wrong and therefor it must be wrong. MechMan uses another method, the natural law fallacy where he states that anybody who reduces spending is mad. The premise for his argument is that the debt:GDP ratio is higher in Europe than the US. The numbers are(in trillions): US 14:14 Europe 8:19. Since the premise does not hold the argument fails. The numbers about household income etc. are possibly also incorrect as well but the argument is misplaced in any case viz. it is no good if the household income is even 10% more but there is more unemployment. Look at your banks for example: who cares if they make xy billions of vapor money on futures trading if it does not translate into jobs? And what is a freaking future worth anyway? Is it real? Does it do anything? That is why China has set up its own rating agency with vastly different rules to Moody’s et al where they assign value to real things only. But consider US capitalism: Ferrari driving bank agents are allowed to write their own rules for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which allows them to loan more than they can afford to people who could not even afford less and who won’t repay. When the share price tumbles due to bad debt those agents ‘repackage’ the debt which Moody’s rates ‘A’ and they sell it off to some retirees in Iceland. The rest is history: the banks take a dive, the taxpayers help them out and they repay you by repossessing your homes. The bank lobby group chairman (on RTV the other night) says ‘It is in the interest of the American taxpayer’; which he repeats after every sentence. It seemed to me, as an outsider socialist, that this catch-phrase gets you anything in the US. Yeah, right! Now go figure…
Comment by Fat Man Don on 13 August 2010:
Bogart.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Reagan’s trouncing of the “Evil Empire” was the only way to eliminate the errant nuclear threat of the day. They had (and still have) nukes pointed at us, we had,(and still have) nukes pointed at them. Whethere of not, in hind sight, that they would have actually worked is monday morning quarterbacking at it’s finest. Had you been in the position of responsibility for 230 Million American men, women and children, wouldn’t you have believed your intelligence agencys?
We’ve Carried the European Continent since world war 2, and now everyone wants to make us the bad guys….
piss off. We did what we had to do. We’re still here…
Comment by Rob Maranville on 13 August 2010:
For the most part I am relatively unarmed in this conversation, but that would of course not preclude me from uninformed comment. While I have no doubt that threats are oversold by ALL states to their citizens for the obvious reasons, and that the Soviets may have posed less of a threat than the trumped up USA hawkish analysis may have assumed, The USSR did have a bit of history of being a threat to it’s neighbors. I feel quite certain that plenty of Europeans were rightly uneasy about the possibility of Soviet power plays in the region if not outright invasion. We now have the luxury of forensic analysis – ex post facto – decades later which reveals the then-hidden weaknesses of the entire Soviet empire. The European nations would undoubtedly have spent much more of their GDP on defense, absent the USA’s profligate military spending there, even though it would almost certainly have been less in total dollar amount.
Comment by Bob Kaercher on 13 August 2010:
MechMan mentions an important point, I think, which is that in the midst of our current economic crisis, it is the supposedly “socialist” Europeans who are advising the supposedly “capitalist” (or, with a tip of the hat to Sheldon, supposedly “free market”) Americans to cool it on the public spending, while the supposedly “free market” Americans insist on pushing the Keynsian paradigm of increased public spending. (Anybody who thinks a “President McCain” wouldn’t be doing the same thing just ain’t paying attention.)
Which brings to mind that back in the 1960s it was the “socialist” Europeans who expressed increasing concerns about the “free market” USA’s accelerating dollar creation. (One of “socialist” France’s finance ministers at the time–whose name escapes me at the moment–was actually for the most part pretty much a hard money advocate.)
Sheldon, I think you make good points here. A lot of American libertarians could probably benefit from taking a step back to get a better look at the overall context of each model, European and American.
Comment by MechMan on 13 August 2010:
The Soviet Union was very much a threat, a major one. It’s weaknesses meant nothing. It was an empire: Russia, the master nation, surrounded by its satellite nations, which it held to it by force. And a slew of overseas colonies.
It was bent on expansion. The only thing that kept the Soviet menace from taking over all of Europe was the threat of America, and even that, in terms of military forces, may not have been enough. But the nuclear threat of America, the fact that if the Soviets invaded Western Europe, Moscow might go up in a nuclear fireball, was a serious deterrant to the Soviets.
The Soviet Union took a while, but built up a navy to match the United States navy by the 1970s, and they also engaged in the most extensive biological warfare program in human history.
The fact that the standard of living of the Soviet peoples was very low, or that the Soviet military wasn’t the ultra elite unbeatable force many in the West thought, did not keep the Soviet Union from being an extreme threat.
On American defense spending, while one must beware the military-industrial complex, the defense budget is what allowed America to develop the most technologically advanced and sophisticated economy in the world.
In a way, our defense budget served throughout the 20th century as a form of industrial policy of the government investing in research to advance the economy.
Everything from cell phones to GPS, the Internet, to laptop computers, all stem from military funding.
The C programming language, C++, the Unix operating system, the laser, the transistor, all of these technologies were developed at Bell labs, with funding from DARPA.
A new technology for cars now is thermal imaging (to see better in the dark). The defense budget ultimately had to do with the development of this technology. Now it helps everything from firefighters finding those trapped in buildings to people driving home safely at night.
I might be mistaken, but from what I understand, historically the largest research grants at Stanford, Caltech, Cornell, MIT, and hundreds of other engineering research schools stem from defense spending. Non-engineering and hard science fields also benefitted from this as well, due to military funding the expansion of research during the Cold War.
Yes, the free market played a huge component, but by adopting the inventions and results of the research that stemed from military funding, to create all the goodies we have today.
Defense also allows us to help other nations when in need as well, for example, during the tsunami an aircraft carrier was sent to Indonesia to help with relief. Our aircraft carriers have multiple hospitals on board that can treat lots of people? They are nuclear powered and in turn can provide emergency power to on shore facilities. They can feed many people and they can produce thousands of gallons of fresh water per day. The aircraft and helicopters on board can be used for search and rescue and critical transport. Because of our spending we currently have eleven aircraft carriers. We send them to war zones, and we send them to relief zones.
And defense doesn’t bankrupt us. Defense is in fact a very small part of our GDP (about 4.5% right now, one of the lowest amounts ever; critics will often point out we “spend more on defense now than ever before,” well yes, in absolute dollars perhaps, but as a percentage of the economy, defense spending is at a historical low point; during the 1980s, defense was about 8% of GDP, during the 1960s, it was around 16%).
The defense budget has served as a tremendous investment for our economy’s development and for our, and Western civilization’s, protection.
What is bankrupting us is our bloated entitlement system that is unsustainable (namely Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). And now Obamacare.
Comment by MechMan on 13 August 2010:
Let me re-phrase my second sentence from that post; the Soviet’s weaknesses DID mean something, but I mean it having various weaknesses did not keep it from being a threat.
Comment by Capt. A. on 13 August 2010:
I agree with you Sheldon – arguing this issue not really going to benefit the individual or circumstance to any great extent. No matter which door you walk through you’ll wind up in the same room. If any system is pressed and you find “other people’s hands in your pocket,” these same people voting for “legalized plunder” for various reasons then all the maw jacking in the world is moot about individual freedom and liberty! Talking about being “free” under the master’s lash and yoke of ANY “ism” is exercising self-inflicted stupidity. Leave the jurisdiction, renounce citizenship for starters … otherwise you will remain in the hands of the plundering philistines. Simple as that. Talk is in comparison weak – action is strong! (Robert Ringer)
Vaguely remembering Lawrence W. Reed’s acquaintance, Stefan Kisielewski who said, “Socialism is stupidism,” succinctly stated – nailed! I’ll drink to that!
Being an American expatriate of more than 30-years now and staying in Europe and other socialistic venues, I’ve witnessed first-hand exactly what socialism, every variety offered has done to the voting booboisie here. (America too!) Believe me the collective is very much alive and well! There are age-old signs available to weigh the affects. The education system here, (The majority of Europe in fact) as well as government propaganda … plus very old tribal inculcations (groups known as the collective) have essentially emasculated the individual. I personally will have none of it! Do NOT gain/maintain citizenship within ANY nation-state that ascribes to socialism, or any “isms,” the exception … if you believe in your individualism! Period. If not, then join the collective … and do as you are told … or else.
I’d look very closely at “income stagnation/appreciation” only as a secondary measure; first looking at the increase/decrease of the “standard of living” with reference to “time.” And then we certainly can’t forget the effects of inflation… Real income after taxes and inflation, wow! The tax slaves lose! You lose if you don’t counteract the egregious affects of the State. Life goes on.
Germany and France are bureaucratic/socialistic nightmares! I know first-hand! Capital flees Germany big time as I write this comment! Government tax-eating thugatarians and their system of taxation (don’t forget the mind-numbing VAT) effectively lowered the standard of living for the inhabitants of Europe. (I’m not even sure if these people KNOW it! Apparently not … or they just don’t give a damn!) Remember the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Suffice to say, you do not want to be here in Europe, as an individual who wants to be free. (There are a few very limited venues of real freedom and liberty, as much as is available in this world today. Price becomes the prime determinant for those individuals lusting to be free from the nation-state, but they do exist!) Well, it’s time to watch the nightly activities here and enjoy a glass of fine cognac with a good Cuban Cohiba cigar! (Americans are not allowed to enjoy these cigars, (U.S. embargo of Cuba) along with many, many other things subtracted in their lives by their elites, huh? That’s the way it is…) C’est la guerre.
Regards,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +2:00CET
“Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn’t deserve to be.” ~ L. Neil Smith
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama … who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president. – Author unknown
Comment by Bob Kaercher on 13 August 2010:
Suggested reading for MechMan:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Comment by Brittney on 13 August 2010:
Sheldon, you are spot-on about the OTHER possible result of this ridiculous game of calling everything socialism. (And I laughed when you asked who’d remember if you were wrong.) Ah, your articles are my favorites.
Pingback by Would You Like Freedom Fries With That? on 13 August 2010:
[...] See Sheldon Richman on the phony contrast between American “free enterprise” and European “socialism.” [...]
Comment by Jonas Barbarossa on 14 August 2010:
@MechMan. There is little doubt that the US is a superpower and that it had achieved its dominance through spending. It is also clear that military wars accelerated technological progress in areas where we could kill each other cheaper, better and in greater masses. As Sir George Porter says: “I have no doubt that we will be successful in harnessing the sun’s energy… If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago.”
The Internet is a noteworthy exception because it benefits mankind. The ‘free market’ you refer to is anything but. It is through protectionism that the developed countries reached their ascendancy. The US only liberalized trade after WW II when its industrial supremacy was unchallenged but even then it impose tariffs of ca. 13% until after 1960. The developed countries now kick away the ladder, demanding that undeveloped countries consent to free trade. This is because free trade benefits the rich; Prof. Willem Buiter explains it as follows: ‘…unilateral trade liberalization is not a concession or sacrifice…it is an act of enlightened self-interest…once you object to free trade, you are effectively inviting ex-communication.’
As for your statement that ‘…defense doesn’t bankrupt us…’ please refer to the IMF statement on the state of the US economy (July, 2010) which reads “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.” i.e. the US is bankrupt! The war in Afghanistan and Iraq has cost the US economy $1,064,000,000,000 so far. Thousands of your men and women have died…and for what?
Comment by MechMan on 14 August 2010:
Free trade is very necessary and without it, the nation would have a very low standard of living; most nations could not have a developed economy without free trade. The only times protectionism works is when a country is developing, in order to allow its industries to develop so that they can compete against foreign competitors that are already established. Otherwise, the foreign competitors will dominate and the nation’s own industries cannot get going.
But once developed, it is protectionism that benefits the rich. Free trade allows people to be able to purchase goods and services from the producers that can produce them with the highest quality and cheapest price.
For example, tariffs to protect the U.S. steel industry, which have forced the rest of the economy to make due with higher-priced steel, and thus costs the rest of the economy jobs.
The U.S. is not bankrupt, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not bankrupting it. The stimulus from the Democrats and Obama alone could have been used to fund the war in Afghanistan for the next seven years alone.
It is the entitlement system that is bankrupting the U.S. As for what, Hussein was a Middle Eastern Adolf Hitler who was believed to be a major threat, and the U.S. acted accordingly on the intelligence at the time. Afghanistan was due to 9/11, as 9/11 occurred because the U.S. had left the terrorists to fester in Afghanistan alone throughout the 1990s.
Comment by Jim Turney on 14 August 2010:
Well said, Sheldon. I agree with your point about use of the word “socialism” even tho I’ve been guilty of it too often.
The reason Geoghegan likes the German model is that they are currently benefiting hugely from the Eurozone dynamics. If there was no common currency with southern European economies (for example, the Swiss high valued franc), Germany would not be living in the bubble provided by the low value Euro…and Geoghegan would be without such an attractive example of “socialist” success.
To continue the somewhat off-topic comments on military spending: I volunteered for the US Army (because the draft ended, I was already a libertarian) and served in Germany during the cold war, 1974-76. I spoke fluent German at that time (rusty now) so I had almost daily conversations with Germans anxious to share views with an American in their language.
Everyone I met thought the Soviets were a threat and they wanted us there (but out of sight). Germans were also uncomfortably aware the they desperately needed the many jobs (even so, unemployment was very high) and spending that we poured into their economy. They could not imagine paying for their own defense or the failure of communism; both were simply not possible to discuss (they often became angry when I brought up these subjects).
A view I found shared by almost all US soldiers and Germans was that, in case of an invasion, the Soviets would take Germany as fast as their vehicles could move across the country with roads jammed by fleeing civilians (including many families of American military).
I thought there was very little risk of such an invasion (however, dictators aren’t always rational) for many reasons, including that since Soviets didn’t have the moral support of their people or the economic and man power to follow thru, despite the misinformation we learned from our schools and media (since corrected by their fall).
I don’t buy the argument that military spending caused the fall of the Soviets. I believe it prolonged their power.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 14 August 2010:
MechMan, you have a rather blindered view of things. Military-related spending exceeds a trillion dollars a year by a healthy margin. (Robert Higgs has done the calculations.) It also provokes reaction that then justifies more spending. Saddam was a nasty dictator, but if you think Iraq under him in any way approached Germany under Hitler, you must know very little about the latter. Likewise, if you think 9/11 was the result of the U.S. government’s failure to do something, your knowledge of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world is appallingly deficient. The national debt is closing in on 100 percent of GDP, and annual deficits are at a trillion dollar and more. Yes, entitlements are a huge part of the problem, but so is military spending, which buys us not security but insecurity. And we haven’t even spoken of the effective repeal of the Bill of Rights. Not all costs are fiscal. We can’t afford the welfare-warfare state.
Comment by D. Saul Weiner on 14 August 2010:
Clearly, Geoghegan has not read Bastiat, and believes that the state is NOT a fiction that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else.
Sure, it would be great if I could be guaranteed high pay, lots of vacation time, and free health care, among other things. Likewise, it would be great if I could do whatever I wanted to without any restrictions. But justice, if the term has any meaning at all, requires that we are all equal under the law. And the bankruptcy of Greece, California, Social Security, and Medicare are living proof that welfare programs are anything but just.
Comment by N. Joseph Potts on 14 August 2010:
The nonsense about “40 years of no increase in real income” will always elude the too-hasty-to-think, and so will always be a football in the service of demagogues such as Geoghegan and his clients.
Let’s say that 40 years of no increase in real income IS a fact for some significant (say the bottom quartile) segment of earners in the US (and elsewhere, as it would be if true in the US). IS this, for any period of more than a few years, Bob and Juan and Sally and Latisha? Of course not! From one year to the next, the specific people making up this and all the other quartiles CHANGES. Bob retires, Juan gets an increase in pay, Sally dies, and Latisha goes on welfare (exiting, like Bob and Sally, the group of all earners). Meantime, Mary, Li Chen, and Ernest have entered that bottom quartile from all directions (Mary turned 18 and got her first job, Li Chen immigrated, and Ernest sustained a decline in income).
The difficulty posed by “subtleties” of this kind will forever make clear-sounding statistics a major means of bamboozling the easily-incited.
Comment by Jonas Barbarossa on 14 August 2010:
MechMan, although your statement that free trade is necessary and that it leads to higher living standards etc. is unsubstantiated, I wish to point out to you that your perception is probably founded in indoctrination. Your argument is baseless and therefor non sequitur. Africa is a shining example of free trade induced poverty (figures available, if you insist).
it is however perfectly understandable that you would want to believe this. But tell us: which form of free trade do you aspire to? Ricardian or HOS? Ricardian is unacceptable to the developing world because they want to change the status quo by acquiring those technologies that would make them more competitive. HOS theory is fundamentally flawed because it assumes perfect factor mobility – a fallacy and a practical impossibility. In practice it is generally accepted that free trade will produce winners and losers but that the losers will be compensated. The ‘compensation principle’ i.e. that those who win, win enough to compensate those who lose and have some left over for themselves is a myth! It cannot be assumed that your house will always be worth more – ask any US taxpayer.
Ha-Joon Chang uses this example: “In recommending free trade to developing countries, the Bad Samaritans point out that all rich countries have free(ish) trade. This is, however, like people advising the parents of a six-year-old boy to make him get a job, arguing that successful adults don’t live off their parents and, therefor, that being being independent must be the reason for their success. They do not realize that those adults are independent because they are successful, and not the other way around.’ [p73, Bad Samaritans, Random House, 2007]
Comment by caprican on 14 August 2010:
MechMan,
You are right on about how Protectionism Benefits certain groups (mainly Corporations/Business leaders) at the expense of others (mainly consumers), but wrong on advocating it as a policy for a developing nation. The Effects of Protectionism are to decrease the standard of living for the General Population AND to give uncompetitive businesses and business practices a leg up. The state sponsored advantage thus allows certain industries at home to grow more sufficiently, but those may not be the right industries. Remember, businesses compete for resources and labor, the artificial stimulus to those industries allows for a misdirection of those resources and labor into generally uncompetitive practices. In other words, perhaps one region of the world is best suited to produce cars, while we are better suited to have our workers and business resources put to other uses. In the end, this goes back to Bastiat’s what is seen, and what is unseen (see link on Bob Kaercher’s post above).
Comment by Jonas Barbarossa on 14 August 2010:
Statement: The stimulus from the Democrats and Obama alone could have been used to fund the war in Afghanistan for the next seven years alone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/14/why-petraeus-cant-make-th_n_681733.html quotes as follows: U.S. taxpayers are spending vast amounts of money on the war — over $200 million a day for military operations alone.
US taxpayers or the military? As for seven years; that brings the stimulus package (money from operations alone) to $511 trillion. Seems a bit high hey?
Comment by js on 14 August 2010:
“The problem with the welfare state, besides its foundation in forced subsidy, is that it’s bad at providing security – including income security — in the long run.”
I don’t think you would have much trouble convincing people of this, especially the American version. So we have social security, and so the population over 70 is happy with it, while meanwhile noone under 40 really believes it will necessarily be there for them (what security?). Meanwhile the politicians, afraid of saying anything that might strike anyone the wrong way, don’t even try to address the issue making the whole thing an even greater cause of insecurity.
Anyone with prudence and the means of course also saves their own money for retirement, but meanwhile the government constantly threatens to “inflate away all our problems”, wiping away some debts perhaps, but making all such saving for one’s own future seem almost futile (what security?). Welfare state security in the u.s. is a joke and individually providing for one’s own security just as tenuous due to the Fed’s money printing penchant (Germany by the way has a LOT stricter monetary policy! Yes, I would take German’s monetary policy over the U.S. in a heartbeat!). Meanwhile voluntary collective security in the form of mutual aid is nearly non-existent.
Comment by Robin Adair on 14 August 2010:
Oh please!
They’ve been running this Germany’s economic miracle crap since the ’30s when Times published a glowing article on the great cause of Nazism as in National Socialism.
I mean let’s forget about the fact that we funded Germany’s economic recovery after her imperial over stretch known as World War II through the Marshall Plan.
Never mind the billions we spend defending her from an “enemy” that no longer exists.
Nor should we overlook the fact that if we weren’t on an endless and expensive mission to police the world and produced something other than weapons like say durable goods, clothing and other consumer items used for peaceful purposes instead of shipping all such manufacturing overseas or north and south of the border.
We’d economically be kicking Germany’s ass.
As far as I’m concerned this so called “controversy” between capitalism (bank and corporate controlled socialism) and socialism (state capitalism) is a straw man.
Comment by Steven Hankin on 14 August 2010:
I think that Sheldon’s article makes an important point,
yet, I find that most of the comments made in response to his article do not really address the central thesis of Sheldon’s article.
As I read his article, he is pointing out that comparisons of the US and Europe, assume a straw man,–that the US is portrayed as a free market, capitalist system and then compared with Europe’s socialistic/Corporatism model. As Shelton points out, the current US political system is, at this point, best described as one where the dominant feature is corporatism. Thus, the more meaningful comparison is between US’s mixed system of corporatism and free market/ capitalism and Europe’s mixed system of socialism (with a an ample residue of free/market capitalism). In other words, the real is we are comparing two, corporatist, economic systems. From this, Sheldon concedes that there may well be clear advantages with the European system over the US system.
Here is my observation:
Consider the institutions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–which I would contend are perfect examples of the the type of US corporatism that Sheldon refers to. With these institutions, private parties reap the benefits while ultimate losses are borne by the government, i.e., the taxpayers. I would argue that if both of these institutions had been completely socialized, i.e., government owned and run, they would have probably not have contributed to the recent financial meltdown. Of course, the best course would be to get rid of these two quasi government institutions and thus leave mortgage lending entirely to free market forces. But my point is that this presents a great example of where the US type of corporatism is far worse than even socialism. Steven Hankin
I would like to throw our for comment since our system of corporatism serves to make almost every issue a political one, that socialism may actually involve less political activity.
Comment by MechMan on 14 August 2010:
“MechMan, you have a rather blindered view of things. Military-related spending exceeds a trillion dollars a year by a healthy margin. (Robert Higgs has done the calculations.) It also provokes reaction that then justifies more spending.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It promotes security. Dictators and thugs are not going to become less aggressive or warlike if the U.S. spends less on defense. That is the philosophy of trying to appease the crocodile.
“Saddam was a nasty dictator, but if you think Iraq under him in any way approached Germany under Hitler, you must know very little about the latter.”
Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug whose Baath party was modeled after the Nazi regime. He imprisoned people, attacked two neighboring countries, bombed two others, and used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of people. He was seeking to acqurie a nuclear bomb as far back as the late 1970s, but Israel took out the Osirak reactor in 1981 (which if they hadn’t, Hussein might well have been nuclear-armed when he invaded kuwait in 1991).
“Likewise, if you think 9/11 was the result of the U.S. government’s failure to do something, your knowledge of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world is appallingly deficient.”
9/11 was the result of the U.S. government not paying enough attention to what the terrorists were up to.
“The national debt is closing in on 100 percent of GDP, and annual deficits are at a trillion dollar and more.”
That is not the fault of defense, it is the fault of the drop-off in revenues from the financial crises and resultant recession, and the excessive spending that was done under the Bush administration and the Republicans, and now the Obama administration. Remember, Bush signed what at the time was the largest government expansion into healthcare in history (expanding Medicare by $400 billion).
Then there were the bailouts of the financial system, then the $800+ billion “stimulus,” and now a multi-trilliondollar healthcare entitlement, all of which have ballooned the deficit and debt.
“And we haven’t even spoken of the effective repeal of the Bill of Rights. Not all costs are fiscal. We can’t afford the welfare-warfare state.”
What repeal of the Bill of Rights?
Comment by MechMan on 14 August 2010:
“MechMan, although your statement that free trade is necessary and that it leads to higher living standards etc. is unsubstantiated, I wish to point out to you that your perception is probably founded in indoctrination. Your argument is baseless and therefor non sequitur. Africa is a shining example of free trade induced poverty (figures available, if you insist).”
I’d say it is fully substantiated, but for developed nations. Also it has nothing to do with indoctrination of any sort. No nations thrive without engaging in free trade in the long-term, because without it, it infringes on their productive capacity. Their people cannot get the best-quality and cheapest goods, and thus are stuck with over-priced, lower-quality goods put out by established businesses that don’t need to worry about competition.
Now with developing countries (as opposed to developed), it’s different. Africa is an example of under-developed/developing nations being forced to engage in free trade. As I said, protectionism is fine when a country is developing. South Korea, Japan, etc…all engaged in it, along with subisidies for certain key industries as well. It is not per se good for developing nations though.
“it is however perfectly understandable that you would want to believe this. But tell us: which form of free trade do you aspire to? Ricardian or HOS? Ricardian is unacceptable to the developing world because they want to change the status quo by acquiring those technologies that would make them more competitive.”
I don’t agree that there are really any “forms” of free trade in that sense (HOS is a mathematical trade model built off of Ricardo). Free trade is free trade I’d say. Some countries may choose certain amounts of tariffs or subsidies for industries (which can result in retaliatory tariffs and subsidies from other countries as well, so they have to be careful).
Most countries have to have free trade or they could never develop the more capital-intensive industries that allow them to become first-world nations, because their domestic populations are too small to achieve the economies of scale that are necessary. And of course, while many nations can do almost anything better than another nation, they cannot do everything better. Some nations also are just naturally blessed for certain things. For example, Alaska could have a banana-growing industry, but it’s cheaper to just import bananas from the countries in the tropics that can grow them cheaply.
Why is it bad for the developing world to acquire technologies that would make them moe competitive?
“HOS theory is fundamentally flawed because it assumes perfect factor mobility – a fallacy and a practical impossibility. In practice it is generally accepted that free trade will produce winners and losers but that the losers will be compensated. The ‘compensation principle’ i.e. that those who win, win enough to compensate those who lose and have some left over for themselves is a myth! It cannot be assumed that your house will always be worth more – ask any US taxpayer.”
Ha-Joon Chang uses this example: “In recommending free trade to developing countries, the Bad Samaritans point out that all rich countries have free(ish) trade. This is, however, like people advising the parents of a six-year-old boy to make him get a job, arguing that successful adults don’t live off their parents and, therefor, that being being independent must be the reason for their success. They do not realize that those adults are independent because they are successful, and not the other way around.’ [p73, Bad Samaritans, Random House, 2007]”
Yes, again, I agree that for developing countries, just recommending “free trade” isn’t going to cut it. There are lots of variables needed: you need an educated and uncorrupt population, developing banking and financial systems, stable government, framework of laws (intellectual property laws, bankruptcy laws to encourage business creation, etc…), functioning legal system, along with appropriate tariffs and subsidies to get developing industries going.
This can depend as well though. For example, during the 19th century the mining companies in America were notorious for abusing and pretty much “owning” the workers. One reason for this was tariffs. The American mining companies had no competition, because free trade was infringed upon.
In the early 1980s I think it was, the American company Harley-Davidson (the motorcycles) was in trouble and getting its butt kicked by foreign companies. So it asked the government for a temporary tariff to get its act together, which it did, then it requested they remove the tariff.
Once developed, protectionism is for the most part a bad thing for a nation.
Comment by Born Free on 14 August 2010:
Who is John Galt?
Comment by MechMan on 14 August 2010:
“You are right on about how Protectionism Benefits certain groups (mainly Corporations/Business leaders) at the expense of others (mainly consumers), but wrong on advocating it as a policy for a developing nation. The Effects of Protectionism are to decrease the standard of living for the General Population AND to give uncompetitive businesses and business practices a leg up. The state sponsored advantage thus allows certain industries at home to grow more sufficiently, but those may not be the right industries. Remember, businesses compete for resources and labor, the artificial stimulus to those industries allows for a misdirection of those resources and labor into generally uncompetitive practices. In other words, perhaps one region of the world is best suited to produce cars, while we are better suited to have our workers and business resources put to other uses. In the end, this goes back to Bastiat’s what is seen, and what is unseen (see link on Bob Kaercher’s post above).”
Everything you say is also correct and makes sense, the important thing to remember with developing nations is that it is not any exact science.
There are examples of free trade hampering the development of developing nations and developing nations that used protectionism initially to get going.
There are also examples of, as you say, protectionism being bad for developing nations as well to a degree.
Comment by caprican on 14 August 2010:
“Everything you say is also correct and makes sense, the important thing to remember with developing nations is that it is not any exact science.”
Do Explain more, I would Like to know more about this, I know Economics isn’t exact (because people are too subjective to be significantly predictable), But I have yet to find any examples that do not conform to basic Economic laws and Human behavior.
“There are examples of free trade hampering the development of developing nations and developing nations that used protectionism initially to get going.
There are also examples of, as you say, protectionism being bad for developing nations as well to a degree.”
A few sources for this would be nice, How exactly can Protectionism benefit one country, while free trade benefits another? Free Trade makes sense because it allows individuals to engage in exchange that they perceive to be in their benefit, working to achieve there best interests. Protectionism distorts these incentives and excludes others from those benefits. How does this change from country to country?
Comment by MechMan on 15 August 2010:
“But I have yet to find any examples that do not conform to basic Economic laws and Human behavior.”
Well for example, does stimulus spending work or not? That is a ferocious debate amongst economists. Of demand-side stimulus, do tax cuts work better or government spending? Some say tax cuts because the people get the money immediately, whereas government is a slow-moving bureaucracy that will take time to spend it. Others say government because people may hoard the money as opposed to spending it, whereas government will spend the money.
Is inflation bad or good? Normally it’s considered bad, and is bad in excessive amounts, but can also help pay down the national debt. Is deflation bad or good? Normally it’s bad, but economies can grow during deflation occassionally as well.
According to Keynesian economics, unemployment and inflation are inversely related. When unemployment goes up, inflation comes down, and when inflation goes up, unemployment should go down. But during the 1970s we had stagflation, where unemployment and inflation both go up at the same time, which threw Keynesians for a loop.
Should we adhere to a gold standard or not? Some considered the gold standard sacred, others a silly fetish.
And when is free trade bad and when good.
“A few sources for this would be nice, How exactly can Protectionism benefit one country, while free trade benefits another?”
Japan and South Korea both benefitted early on from protectionism. Protectionism will benefit developing countries (though not always) when developing, as it allows their domestic industries to develop. A risk can be that, as you mentioned, investment goes to the wrong areas, it depends.
“Free Trade makes sense because it allows individuals to engage in exchange that they perceive to be in their benefit, working to achieve there best interests. Protectionism distorts these incentives and excludes others from those benefits. How does this change from country to country?”
If your country is trying to get industries going and established, foreign companies can pose a real challenge sometimes. So a lot of times, a nation will use protection to establish the domestic industries, then lift the protectionist policies.
Comment by Dave on 15 August 2010:
MechMan,
I’m not sure how you happened upon this site, but I’m sure glad you did!! While many of your beliefs, on the surface, seem completely reasonable, I think the more articles you read by Sheldon (and the other wonderful freedom-lovers/economists here at FEE), the more you will see the error in protectionism and other government attempts at socio/economic planning.
Comment by Adam on 15 August 2010:
Mechman raises good points about Keynesian protectionist policies working out well for Japan & South Korea….at least for the first few decades.
Lately, however, the weaknesses in those countries has become apparent. Both countries adopted forms of Corporatism; Japan called them “keiretsu”, and Korea called them “chaebol”. Sure, if you use the government to guarantee loans to a few selected export-focused industries, you can make them grow very quickly.
However, as happened in both countries, while the economy can become very large under such a system, it tends to be quite brittle. When economic conditions change rapidly, it can cause almost total failure in the economy, since such a large amount of the economic activity is tied up in just a few businesses.
The Japanese “Lost Decade(s)”, and the Korean Monetary Crisis in the late 1990′s, caused huge disruptions to their respective economies. Years of malinvestment had to be purged from the system, and without a diverse economy, this was devastating. Of the 30 largest chaebol, 11 collapsed between July 1997 and June 1999. Throughout 1998, Korea’s economy shrank quarterly at an average rate of -6.65%.
Pingback by State Planners’ Plans Always Fatal » ReasonAndJest.com on 15 August 2010:
[...] Sheldon Richman: Who’s Afraid of Socialism? [...]
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 15 August 2010:
MechMan writes: “That is not the fault of defense,…”
You beg the question. It’s not defense. It’s offense.
Comment by Anonymous on 15 August 2010:
Sheldon,
My soft-core rant some might suggest – “Time to reassess our strategy” (?)
When the same-old-same-old doesn’t work, the depreciation of freedom, liberty, privacy, freedom of contract, and the diminishment of private property rights endures and continues in America since inception, when do you recognize reality? Hope and wishful thinking have failed to convince the collective. Was Marx correct? Capitalism—socialism—communism? A foregone conclusion? I don’t know, and I don’t care! Here’s why…
Choice is not necessarily “free choice.” (You already know this!) To the man being hanged or shot by the mob (the collective) – which might ask, “Would you rather be shot or hung?”—That’s a choice! It’s just not necessarily a “free” choice via the fact that you might select neither choice offered; my free choice is to live! Ah yes! That democratic group, the lynch mob! Be that as it may…
It seems to me that if any system which is based on a collective, and resorts ultimately to force (sanctions) whether it’s right or wrong, moral or otherwise, you have no real “free choice.” So, if the venues circumscribed by the “collectives’ jurisdiction” does not ascribe to “free choice,” the only alternative is to LEAVE THAT JURISDICTION! (If you still can and best: renounce citizenship!) That’s precisely what I did 30-years ago! There are jurisdictions in this world that DO ascribe to the greatest degree of free choice on this earth, short of anarchy, the preferable system. I stay is several of them.
When you live in ANY system that requires varying degrees of “compromise” of individual freedom and liberty, sanctioned by the collective, then recognizing this fact that the least compromise of principles that you live by will be served best in a given venue, you seek it out! (Notwithstanding government-controlled schooling, propaganda and tribal inculcation—just after eating and sex!)
“Sometimes, time spent trying to change something is TIME best spent looking for something you don’t have to change.” ~ Capt. A. (Time is a most valuable finite resource possessed by an individual, especially if they are living free, would you not agree? If the collective says you have no more time to live, nothing else really matters, does it? Nothing matters to the dead.)
The collective can’t stand and abhors the “freedom-seeking individual!” I know this personally. The collective will attempt everything possible to force the individual into the fold. And, if necessary, the collective will “kill the individual” to make it patently clear of its contempt for that individual—as a message to the rest of those in the collective. The collectives’ master of lash and yoke (government) doesn’t give a damn about the individual’s free choice not to accept the rule of the collective! Period. To anyone who thinks otherwise, think again … that is if you like living! The Age of Denial is firmly affixed to the masses of this world. (Especially “legalized plunder,” [Bastiat] redistribution of the individual’s productive efforts, being forced to support the collective through the vote! Shear poppycock!) Why would you stay in a place like that? Why?
ALL the talk in this world, “ain’t gonna change it!” History and truth rest on my side! To spend the ONLY life you will ever have trying to change the collective—in my opinion is to waste the only life you will ever have. To live your life seeking out personal happiness, focusing on that happiness with little to no regard for the collective is in this captain’s way of thinking, superior. Hey, was it Thoreau or Emerson who said, “The fault-finder will find fault with paradise.” I’m not sure… Sheldon, what I am incontrovertibly sure about is that when I discovered things that you have so cogently addressed in all of your writing and speaking, it’s this: One must compromise their principles when dealing with the collective—always. Any variance not acceptable to the collective will, in the end will be met with sanctions, the badge and the barrel of a gun! (Tell the IRS to get bent and see what happens!) You can take that to the bank—just not a bank in America where “privacy” is essentially non-existent! I impone you already know and understand this. Would you disagree?
I could go on… It’s not really necessary. I often reflect on L. Neil Smith’s comment made long ago: “Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn’t deserve to be.” Life is far to valuable and short to spend it trying to make converts out of those sallow-jowled swill-seeking, trough-sucking individuals that lust for government pelf to support the collective, all while admonishing the individual to “accept us” … or we will kill you in the end. Actually, this too, you already know. Am I missing anything? The best to you Sheldon.
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +2:00 CET
Comment by Dave on 21 August 2010:
Mech Man,
You are a fool.
Comment by Wayne Jericho on 26 August 2010:
Mechman:
When I think of defense spending I think of it in these terms: a whole bunch of money being transferred from a lot of people to a few people. Pretty sure that’s how all these programs work.
But we can’t “all just get along”–all too clear throughout history. I’m not that naive.
We spend all that money to protect the US and her interests. That’s the tagline, anyway. But how much is enough? If we aren’t attacked at home, if we kill so many of them vs. them killing us? No one wants to be the politician who said “enough” when the enemy comes knocking and we find our defenses lacking.
We also spend that money because it benefits people in the defense industry…an industry that prides itself (even justifies itself)on gadgets and machines. We don’t need F-22s to gain air superiority in Afghanistan. But we DO need F-22s to keep defense industry workers employed…and maybe to prove a point to China (the F-22 has a kill ratio of over 100-1 against 4G fighters like the F/A-18. We can have air superiority anywhere with that.).
In this next stage of global conflict, we might as well take the “Special” off of Special Ops. Those are just “Ops”, now. Our soldiery has to root out, discredit, and destroy deeply entrenched enemies, and it is the individual’s skills that are the keys to success–if success is possible at all in such an nebulous arena. Those skills aren’t produced at a factory, and the benefits of that spending don’t go to manufacturers, but to the trainers & trainees.
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
“He thinks that “European socialism” and “social democracy” would not be effective scare words in American politics if people understood that they mean “free education, free child care, free nursing home care, guaranteed vacation time, and generous unemployment payments ”
In other words, he wants people to judge socialism for what it pretends to be, as opposed to what it really is. Like all socialists.
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
““Likewise, if you think 9/11 was the result of the U.S. government’s failure to do something, your knowledge of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world is appallingly deficient.””
And if you think that 9/11 occured, not as a result of violent religious mania, but because of a solipsistic need to view Muslims as perpetual victims, then Noam Chomsky has another glass of KoolAid for you.
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
“Mech Man,
You are a fool.”
He makes valid points while you simply try to wish them away via ad hominem.
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
“Everyone should know that Socialism is the form of imperfect collectivism that follows Capitalism and leads to perfect collectivism, Communism. Europe maybe slightly ahead in the historical evolution towards the workers paradise. This is pure Marxian economics and logic, and cannot be denied.”
Your failure to grasp the concept of evolution or honestly evaluate Communism’s abhorent human rights record and inability/refusal to reach anything remotely resembling a “worker’s paradise” sure can’t be denied.
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
” Firstly one has to challenge the premise that socialism is bad.”
You spout a lot of fallacies and ad hominem, but not once do you even begin to address why collectivist-totalitarianism that relies on genocide and the complete suppression of rights should not be considered “bad”.
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
” Despite all the guff, the Soviets were never even near the threat to Europe fantasized by the USA.”
uh huh. be sure and pass that neologism along to all Eastern European countries they violently took over.
“USA to bankrupt itself playing “Big Brother” to the entire of humanity.”
Don’t try to channel Orwell if you don’t understand him, k?
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
“says ‘It is in the interest of the American taxpayer’; which he repeats after every sentence.”
Kinda like when socialists/communists talk about “workers” and “the people” when what they’re really talking about it “the all-encompassing state oligarchy”.
Comment by Marxist Hypocrisy 101 on 9 June 2011:
“The ‘free market’ you refer to is anything but”
And the “social” systems you espouse only ever seek to serve the government controlling them.