Is Obama a Socialist?
More like a corporatist.
In an April 14 Washington Post column , Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, took issue with conservatives (and presumably some libertarians) who call President Obama a socialist. Ornstein’s counterargument largely consisted of demonstrating that most of Obama’s policies, from health care to the “stimulus” to foreign policy, were based on ideas proposed by conservatives or Republicans, or passed with their cooperation or approval. He concludes: “This president is a mainstream, pragmatic moderate, operating in the center of American politics; center-left, perhaps, but not left of center.” In other words, he is not “the most radical president in American history.”
There is much that is interesting in this argument, but I want to focus on two related points. First, I agree with Ornstein that Obama is not a socialist, at least not in the usual ways that term is used. However, that hardly means his ideas are not of concern, lying as they do toward the center of American politics. What Ornstein misses, and this is my second point, is that the very fact that Obama’s policies are supported by Republicans should be what makes us even more concerned about this presidency.
Obama isn’t really a socialist, but he is, like most of Democrats and Republicans, a corporatist, if not an economic fascist. Unfortunately, the “center” of American politics, or the intersection of where so-called liberals and conservatives agree, is not a pretty place. It’s full of underlying beliefs and assumptions that are inimical to liberty.
So why isn’t he a socialist? Even though many of Obama’s critics have thrown that word at him, it really doesn’t fit, even if it carries rhetorical punch. We’ve yet to hear him argue for nationalization of the means of production. We’ve yet to hear him argue that markets are to be rejected as the primary means of economic coordination. Yes, he has his doubts about markets and has presided over the nationalization of parts of the auto and banking industry, but there’s nothing in any of those actions to suggest he thinks government ownership is so desirable that it should be expanded to other industries. In fact, he’s gone out of his way to praise (what he believes he understands as) “free markets” and deny that he wants to eliminate them.
And it’s that very lip service to markets that shows him as something other than a socialist. Talking the talk of “free markets” but proposing policies that mostly amount to collaborations between well-placed private-sector interests and the State is the hallmark of “corporatism,” or “state capitalism,” or even economic fascism. From the bailouts of the banking system to “green jobs” to health insurance “reform” to various pieces of the “stimulus,” the real winners from the Obama administration’s policies (and Bush’s before him) have been those in corporate world lucky enough to be in the favored industries and to have sufficient political connections to benefit from the changes.
Rather than take over various industries, Obama seems to believe he can work with industry leaders and labor to negotiate and manage them collectively in the national interest. This is the essence of the “third way” of Italian Fascism. It is not socialism, as private ownership is nominally maintained, but it is not capitalism, since private owners are not fully allowed to make independent decisions based on perceived profitability. Those decisions must take a back seat to predetermined national priorities.
Again, consider the health insurance package. It’s not a single-payer system, which would arguably be more truly socialist. Instead, we will have a system of nominally private insurance companies heavily regulated and controlled so that they serve political goals, such as trying to guarantee that everyone has insurance regardless of income or medical history.
Viewed through this lens, it should be no surprise that Obama really does sit in the corporatist/fascist “center” of American politics. The Republicans have been playing this same game for years, just in different industries. Consider the way in which well-connected firms have benefited from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether it be the manufacturers of arms or “private” security companies hired to do the State’s bidding. Many Republicans have long supported various limits on international trade as well as subsidy and quota systems in agriculture. Here, too, those with the right connections are the winners in the collaboration between “capitalists” and the State. For Republicans and conservatives to suddenly call Obama a socialist for doing more or less what they’ve been doing for decades is the height of hypocrisy.
The real problem here is that the line of scrimmage in American politics has moved so far from the end zone of freedom that what looks to observers such as Norman Ornstein like the moderate center is in fact a place very hostile to the liberty on which our prosperity and peace depend.
Obama is no socialist, but he, like just about everyone else in Washington, shares the presumption that he knows better and can — in collaboration with those he sees as the “right people” in the private sector — better run our lives than we can.
If that’s the pragmatic middle, call me an extremist.
Comment by Dr Steve on 22 April 2010:
Thank you, thank you, thank you! For over a year I have said his style is closest to fascism, just stepped up from many others in both parties in the D.C. leadership.
Many say it is inflammatory to use the term fascist, but using what is a controversial term if it is accurate is a good thing. Now we just have to educate more what fascism means and it’s threat to our liberty.
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
Steve,
I can’t believe this. You’re now going to concede to the fallacious Marxist concept behind private ownership? You basically have to ignore the difference between private ownership by name only (formality) and real private ownership where the owner has full right to its disposal, in order to say that Obama is not a Socialist.
I find it preposterous for you to say that Obama is not aiming at nationalization of the means of production? Isn’t regulating the economy just a step by step process to converting private ownership to government ownership? Isn’t it a method, even according to some Marxists, to convert the market economy into a socialist economy?
Didn’t we learn from Mises that there are different variants to socialism? Marx/Russian type, or the German/Fascist type? In the latter, private ownership is a sham. The real control is in the hands of government planners/bureaucrats. Unless you’re a Marxist, this is as socialism as it can get!
So why are we now going out of our way to say that Obama is not a socialist? Why are we contrasting Socialism with Fascism when they are practically the same thing?
It’s almost as if you had fallen into a trap placed by the advocates of Socialism of the Marxist type. Now they’ll say that all of our problems are not the result of Socialism. Even Ron Paul and Steve Horwtiz say so.
Comment by Gary on 22 April 2010:
fascism fasc”ism (f[a^]sh”[i^]z’m) n.
1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian
hierarchical government; — opposed to democracy and
liberalism.
[WordNet 1.5]
The above is the first definition of fascism from my electronic dictionary. Does it sound quite a bit like what has been developing in Washington, DC for decades? I say yes.
The current administration seems to fit the definition all too well, and the current population seems all too ready to accept the government into almost every aspect of its life.
Comment by Kent S on 22 April 2010:
Sorry DD-I think this is the BEST discussion on what he is doing and where he is going. There is no question that he (BHO) is an elitist Social Democrat and this just fits right in whth what he wants to do. He will control production AND the people AND stay in power through this philosophy.
He is a typical progressive and he BELIEVES that HE knows best-THIS is the hybrid mix that he will/is using.
“Rather than take over various industries, Obama seems to believe he can work with industry leaders and labor to negotiate and manage them collectively in the national interest. This is the essence of the “third way” of Italian Fascism. It is not socialism, as private ownership is nominally maintained, but it is not capitalism, since private owners are not fully allowed to make independent decisions based on perceived profitability. Those decisions must take a back seat to predetermined national priorities.”
Comment by Drik on 22 April 2010:
per Wikipedia:
“Nazis declared support for a form of socialism that is to provide for the nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.”
“To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic “third position”; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist”
Ah, but the Nazis also saw the Jewish people as being a threat to the nation, and instituted policies designed to ensure the ultimate destruction of the Jewish people.
Obama would NEVER do that. He LIKES Israel.
A socialist ready to throw Israel under the bus, that’s only something the Nazis would do. Right?
Comment by Dr Steve on 22 April 2010:
DD, I do not presume to know what goes on in the deep, dark reaches of BHO’s mind. He may well be a Marxist type of socialist/communist. I still contend that what is currently happening most closely is fascist. As that fails to deliver the goods and services, it likely would evolve into a Marxist economic/political state.
And cool off! Read again my last sentence. I’m not advocating this policy, just defining it to resist it.
Comment by Jeff Smith on 22 April 2010:
I’m right with you DD – Mr. Horwitz seems to love to harp on distinctions without any useful differences.
Marxists / Stalinists / Fascists / Socialists / Communistists, all of them, are antithetical to every thing this country stands for. I don’t want any of it – no matter which label is exactly the correct one.
Most Americans don’t understand all the subtle differences and frankly don’t care (and I’m right there with ‘em), but they probably have enough understanding of “socialist” that makes it the easiest way to refer to any / all of the above and be easily understood.
Besides, no politician in his right mind would call for nationalizing the entire economy all at once – at least not until conditions a’la 1930′s Germany exist here. Marxists / Stalinists / Fascists / Socialists /Communists are a bit too subtle and patient for that. A piece here, a piece there and next thing you know…
Good lord man – maybe you should find something to write about that’s a bit less academic, and more useful to us common folk. Or, if you prefer, expound on these differences without distinctions until you grow blue in the face, then put them in an academic journal or book that not one person in 100 thousand will read or even consider reading. Your choice…
Comment by Capt. A. on 22 April 2010:
Mr. Horwitz says: “If that’s the pragmatic middle, call me an extremist.”
Really? You might consider this: “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” Epictetus (c.55-c.135)
Hayek’s comment below might dissuade you from further intellectual verbal volleyball.
This article instigates rhetorical device, linguistic chicanery, and in some instances syntactical assassinations. How sad.
How about this:
F.A. Hayek on the Meaning of Socialism, changed
“At the time I wrote socialism meant unambiguously the nationalization of the means of production and the central economic planning which this made possible and necessary. But since then socialism has come to mean chiefly the extensive re-distribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state.”[3]
[3.] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Second Edition 1976), p. viii.
Private Property and Social Justice
By Antony Flew
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty – May 1997
*********************************************
SHELDON RICHMAN’S portmanteaux, “fascialism” (socialism/fascism) accompanied with my portmanteaux, “CRAPitalism” (corporatism; capitalism blended with government, business, rent-seekers, etc.) would necessarily describe the current American president, Mr. Obama. I’d call him an implicit statist-loving soft-core socialist, having his statist/socialist health care program instituted under the definition of F.A. Hayek. How many times does Mr. Obama have to state he’ll “redistribute wealth?” He’s doing exactly that!
This article reminds me of two bald-headed men fighting over a comb. Frankly, as academicians argue semantics and create ideas that beat this dead horse over and over, America, the country once proud of its idea and understanding of freedom, liberty, private property rights etc., slips into the moral, economic and regulatory abyss. Americans will not get what they really want in the end but they will surely get exactly what they deserve. And brother, do they deserve it! Enjoy your “socialized Obama health care” … or else go to jail if you fail to comply with the IRS regs and U.S. Congressional decrees.
America is a place … to be from.
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
Steve,
First of all, I didn’t say you advocated any such policy.
In a pure fascist economy, the government controls the means of production. Whoever controls and directs production, is therefore, its real owner. Therefore, I find the contrast between Obama the Socialist and Obama the Fascist nonsensical from an economic point of view. The superficial differences may seem huge to the economic ignoramus, and in a way you sort of address this point by talking about the calculation problems, however, it makes no sense to contrast the two as you did. Obama may be a socialist of the fascist variant (German pattern), or he may be a socialist of the Marxist pattern (Russian pattern), but to say that Obama is not a socialist but a Fascist, is in my opinion, pure nonsense.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 22 April 2010:
Look folks, I’m NOT defending Obama. I’m just trying to identify the nature of what he’s up to. Yes, all those other “isms” are bad, but if we can’t be accurate about the nature of what we oppose, we aren’t going to be very effective opposing it. Part of my point is that calling Obama a “socialist” sounds to many other people like YOU are the one playing word games when, to them, he’s pretty obviously not. And they’d be right. This isn’t an academic game – it’s about conversation and persuastion. And calling him a socialist eliminates you from being taken seriously as far as I can tell.
And as for Jeff Smith’s comments: maybe I write a weekly column here, blog at three other blogs, and write various op-eds because I like to type? I think my record in writing about things that matter to you “common folk” is pretty clear, as a quick perusal of my prior Calling columns would indicate. No need to be insulting me as I certainly wasn’t insulting anyone with this piece.
If you think words and terms don’t matter, fine. But don’t be surprised if your “Obama is a Socialist” arguments continue to lock you out of any serious conversations about what’s really going on with an administration that is, as we all agree, highly inimical to liberty.
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
Steve,
Another question for you.
“Rather than take over various industries, Obama seems to believe he can work with industry leaders and labor to negotiate and manage them collectively in the national interest. This is the essence of the “third way” of Italian Fascism. ”
Do you agree with the Misesian classification of Planning or Socialism of all forms on one end, Unhampered market economy on the other, and the middle of the road policy or third way -Interventionism?
Because you seem to be conflating Fascism with Interventionism in that article.
Pingback by Is Obama a Socialist? « thak’s cool links on 22 April 2010:
[...] The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty » Is Obama a Socialist?. The synopsis? No. He’s an economic fascist, just like all the other Republicrats like Bush, McCain, Palin… [...]
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 April 2010:
For the record, I can’t recall ever using the word “fascialism.” By no means is it my portmanteaux.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 April 2010:
Look at it this way: If you convince people that health-insurance requirements like coverage for preexisting conditions is socialism, they may decide that they were wrong about socialism and that it isn’t so bad after all. The point should not be to teach them that insurance regulations are socialism, but that insurance regulations are counterproductive and immoral.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 22 April 2010:
DD,
I take Fascists at their word. Read Luigi Villari’s “The Economics of Fascism,” which is a description of the Italian system written by one of its own. Then tell me it’s not more or less what we have now. Fascism is a form of interventionism, yes. But it’s not the same thing as Socialism in its classic sense. The socialists knew that and the fascists knew that. Mises knew it. Jonah Goldberg knows it in his book on “Liberal Fascism.” Fascism/corporatism is a distinct variety of interventionism. That, in summary, was my whole point.
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
Steve,
Ludwig von Mises: “If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production… then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State.” – Socialism
Well, according to the definition of Fascism as just another word for interventionsm, then nothing could make Obama or anybody else a socialist no matter what they did, unless he nationalized the entire economy in one stroke. I thouhgt it was clear to everyone that we are living in a hampered/interventionist market economy no matter what policy they go with. I thouhgt the point was about the goal or nature behind the policy. Socialism or Fascism in their total hypothecial, abstract, and purest form. In this respect, it is nonesensical to contrast Socialism with Fascism
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
Sheldon,
And when the government fails to cover every form of preexisting condition in an adequate and promptly manner (if at all), then people may decided that Socialism is not at fault here, but Steve’s corporatism or fascist economy. They’ll say – ‘That’s it, it’s the private corporations that are still after those profits that are depriving us from the real socialism that covers everything.’ They are already saying this even before the bill is going into effect.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 April 2010:
DD, that will be true no matter what you call ObamaCare. We need to be preemptively answering that argument now. But calling it “socialism” doesn’t advance the case.
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
Sheldon,
I’m not advocating to call it Socialism. I’m just saying that it is a mistake to contrast Socialism with corporatism or Fascism or whatever, as Ron Paul has done, or as Steve just did. You can call it whatever you want, but the socialism vs. fascism dichotomy is a false one. We shouldn’t be advancing false dichotomies.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 22 April 2010:
I wouldn’t call it a false dichotomy. It is a refinement of our concepts. If we don’t need such refinements, let’s just call every alternative to freedom simply “statism.” Throw all the rest of the terms into the dustbin.
Comment by Jeff Smith on 22 April 2010:
I wasn’t trying to insult. I was merely pointing out that “fiddling” about whether obama is this kind of “ist” or that is a fools errand (no, I’m not trying to insult – geez, people are touchy; good thing our ancestors weren’t so touchy. The first scowl and harsh word would have sent the Pilgrims packing).
Let me put it another way: I’m not interested in the blood-line of the dog as he rips my face off – I just want the damned thing off of me.
To Capt. A: well put.
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
Stephan Kinsella recently wrote about the error in the “Obama is not a socialist” crowd:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/04/16/socialism-political-gabfest/
I think he captured it quite well.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 22 April 2010:
Jeff,
Knowing what kind of dog it is might matter for knowing how best to deter an attack, even one in progress.
Comment by Lynn A. Bloxham on 22 April 2010:
As an aside to this great discussion, but yet slightly pertinent; I have a book, largely a travel book, 1931 Macmillan Company, “Italy Yesterday and Today” author, A. Marinoni. The praise for Mussolini is effusive and for the corporate state and fascism, it is over the top. Though in retrospect it is difficult to imagine this type of praise given the horrors, nevertheless, substitute current (and prior) actions and names and it is not so far off.
I think the comments reflect an intelligent, sincere desire to get the unthinking to think. If a more accurate label accomplishes that, as it is certainly more specific, great.
Comment by Jacob Steelman on 22 April 2010:
An economic fascist and socialist are the same Steve. They both are government interventionists and both use force. To see a distinction between the two is to suggest that Hitler and Stalin had different political philosophies. This brings to mind the great line of the Old Rightist and Mr Republican, Robert Taft, when a consituent from Ohio commented that there was no socialism in the United States. To which Congressman Taft responded “what do you think the public education system in the United States is?” or words to that effect. Steve I really think you need to re-take libertarian philosophy 101 since I continue to be shocked at your high degree of ignorance especially as a columnist for what is suppose to be a libertarian think tank. The conventional distinction between economic fascism and socialism has long since been discredited by libertarian and Austrian philosophers and economists.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 22 April 2010:
Jacob,
Speaking as a libertarian and an Austrian economist: no it hasn’t.
And Hitler and Stalin DID have different political philosophies. Both were evil statist dictators, but their underlying philosophical visions were different. Perhaps it’s YOU who needs to take some political philosophy and some history before trying to correct ME.
Socialism and fascism are indeed both “government interventions” but that doesn’t mean they are the same. Yorkshire terriers and golden retrievers are both dogs, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t important differences between them. Sure they are not human. Sure they are both dogs. (Fascism and socialism are not capitalism – they are both forms of interventionism.) But they are different KINDS of dogs, just as socialism and fascism are different kinds of interventionism and require distinct treatments for the ways in which they affect liberty and the ways in which libertarians might respond to them.
Let me add that I’m also not denying that the attempt to institute corporatism/fascism might well lead to attempts at complete, full socialism. Mises’s argument about the dynamics of interventionism is right on. My point was only that *based on his own words,* Obama’s intentions look much more corporatist than socialist. Whether the outcome is what he intends is a very different thing. FWIW, this is exactly what Mises argues in *Human Action* (pp. 817ff). He says there that the fascists intended something very different than true socialism but would/did find themselves caught in the interventionist dynamic. I have no argument with that.
Why is this so controversial or so difficult for some of you to accept? Do you think calling it fascism makes it less bad, because that’s not what I’m saying. Apparently it makes me less of a libertarian because I want to make these distinctions? What’s up with that?
Comment by chris on 22 April 2010:
DD,
I agree with Mises’ grouping of fascism as just a slight variant of state socialism in the context in which it was written. That is to say, fascism and other forms of state socialism function in the same way (top down direction). That doesn’t mean there isn’t a qualitative difference between *how* society is manipulated by a “fascist” or by a “socialist.” To call Obama a “socialist,” just won’t make sense to most people. He’s a “fascist socialist,” not a “socialist socialist.”
Comment by DD on 22 April 2010:
I still think Steve is conflating Fascism with Interventionism. If Steve wants to claim that the current health care bill is a form of Interventionism, I think nobody will disagree.
Chris,
The problem is not the fact that Steve is making a distinction between Socialism and Fascism. It is correct that there are differences, although, I contend that they are somewhat superficial. The problem is that fascism and socialism are being contrasted as if they were totally different.
Comment by Steve Trinward on 22 April 2010:
thank you thank you thank you! I’ve been trying to get through to both troglo… umm, conservatives and… umm, progressives as they now call themselves … making this precise point. I consider Obama (as I have since about the time it became clear it would be he, and not Hillary, ascending to the ever-rising throne this time) to be the embodiment of a left-side-of-the-aisle version of the President in the Sinclair Lewis (vastly under-appreciated) novel, “It Can’t Happen Here.” I read that again during the 2008 campaign and got chills, and not the good kind. Little has occurred this time around that was not in some way predicted back then (even though Mr. Lewis was warning about a RIGHT-wing fascist takeover).
Comment by Liberty on 23 April 2010:
It is ludicrous to conflate socialism with fascism, as some libertarians love to do (see many of the comments above), because the issues that matter to socialists and fascists are simply not the same as the issues that matter to us. Their opposition to each other is very real – it just happens to be based on issues other than the role of the state.
Yes, yes, socialists and fascists both promote some form of government intervention in the economy. Big deal. EVERYONE (except us) promotes some form of government intervention in the economy. EVERYONE (except us) promotes some degree of regulation, some degree of restriction of private property rights.
We need to stop encouraging this terminological slippery slope that says that interventionism = fascism = corporatism = socialism = anything that is not libertarianism.
Comment by DD on 23 April 2010:
Liberty,
The opposition to each other by Socialists and Fascists is real but it is based on sheer economic ignorance. It is our task to show that they are both advocating for the same thing.
And I agree with you that Interventionism is something different from both Socialism and Fascism/corporatism. It seems to me that that this article actually conflated interventionism with the rest.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 23 April 2010:
Gee maybe I’m not the only one who’s crazy: ttp://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/obama-is-not-a-socialist
Something about that George Mason education that enables us to understand these differences while still opposing them all.
Comment by Liberty on 23 April 2010:
DD,
No, the opposition between socialists and fascists is not based on ignorance. It’s based on the fact that they want the state to intervene on behalf of different (and usually opposing) interest groups.
If I said that the state should intervene on behalf of the poor and you said that the state should intervene on behalf of the rich, then we would be enemies, even if we both supported the same degree of state intervention.
That’s the kind of difference that exists between socialists and fascists. Of course, as libertarians we understand that all state intervention is wrong, but we should not pretend that the people who want an all-powerful state to do X are the same as the people who want an all-powerful state to do anti-X.
Comment by Chris Bolts Sr. on 23 April 2010:
For those of you who are interested, Jonah Goldberg has written a good piece on this topic for Commentary Magazine:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama–15421
Comment by DD on 23 April 2010:
Liberty,
You assert that the opposition is not based on ignorance and then go on to restate the alleged differences as seen from their own perspective. How exactly does this show that they are not ignorant about the real economic and sociological analysis of their proposed systems? Their dreams about the goals and nature of their ideal system is irrelevant as far as reality is concerned. Both systems are nearly identical in practice.
Obama has substituted government control for private control by mandates, restrictions, and prohibitions. It makes no difference as to what groups profit and what groups loose. Every system of coercion will have its “winners” and losers. The vast difference between the two is illusory.
Comment by Liberty on 23 April 2010:
DD,
Again, socialism and fascism are not identical even in practice, because the winners and losers are different! The people who get state privileges under socialism are not the same people who would get those privileges under fascism.
Yes, both systems cause the same economic problems, but the burden falls on different people and the benefits go to different groups.
Why is this important? It’s important if we ever want to make our case to people who might benefit from one kind of intervention but not another. Think about it: if you know that X will benefit you and Y will hurt you, would you be inclined to listen to people who insist that X and Y are the same?
You seem to be saying that socialism and fascism are the same because they both impose the same costs on society in the abstract. But there is no such thing as an abstract entity called “society”! We have to think about individuals – and, from the perspective of many individuals, socialism and fascism are different because they have different individual costs and benefits.
Comment by DD on 23 April 2010:
Liberty,
“Again, socialism and fascism are not identical even in practice, because the winners and losers are different! ”
Says who? The socialists or the fascists?
Again, you’re making assertions based on preconceived differences that bear no relevance to the actual reality. There is no different class of winners as oppose to losers that is associated with socialism, and a different class of people associated with fascism. Both systems would have an elite class that would benefit more then the rest. In both systems there is no private property in the real sense and all economic activity is planned by a directing board. As Mises noted about National Socialism (or Fascism): It is Socialism in the guise of Capitalism. That is all.
Now, as far the real world of interventionist policies. Whether you take the Marxian socialist route or the German pattern, It is still a fairytale of socialists that the different routes somehow provide different results. For example, the idea that one system is helping the poor while the other system is helping the rich is totally fallacious and is only a product of fictitious socialist theories. If you replaced the private entities providing the mandated services to the poor with pure government bureaucrats, then the poor will be no better off.
Comment by Brian on 23 April 2010:
It is very interesting and needed that we understand what we are seeing concerning the trend of the Federal government. But I think there are many times more U.S. citizens who only know what they see but don’t know what they could be seeing. The public education system has sufficiently or very nearly sufficiently dumbed down the population to the point that they don’t understand what real freedom looks like. I believe that if more people clearly understood individual liberty and the capitalist system they would not stand for, at least the moving toward, Fascism or Socialism. Maybe this is not the audience for it but we don’t need to be won over. As odd as it sounds, Americans need lessons in freedom.
Comment by Jim Fedako on 23 April 2010:
Who really knows what lurks in the hearts of folks in DC. That said, Obama’s actions are fascist in nature — economically speaking. I would add that he has a very strong vein of cultural Marxism.
Pingback by Culled « Brian Wilson on 24 April 2010:
[...] Obama defined: NOT a “Socialist” – a lot worse. Excellent revelation from Steve Horwitz : http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/is-obama-a-socialist/ [...]
Comment by Jeff Smith on 24 April 2010:
“Something about that George Mason education that enables us to understand these differences while still opposing them all.”
Oh good God. You did not just say that, did you? All of us that are taking issue with your article, MR. GEORGE MASON Stephen Horwitz, know there are differences in the various “isms.”
Our point, if your thick skull would let it in (yes, that’s an insult), is that where the rubber hits the road, the differences are MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!!!!!!
Tyranny is tyranny regardless of the dress it happens wear. Good God, you’re either dense, or you just like to argue. I suspect the latter, but I’ve not made up my mind (number two).
My son is scheduled to go to grad school at GM in the fall. Maybe I should reconsider (number three, as insults are the only things that seem to penetrate your pate).
Pingback by More on Obama and Socialism « International Liberty on 25 April 2010:
[...] blog on the topic for those too impatient to wait for a book), and Steve Horowitz does a great job addressing this topic for the [...]
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 25 April 2010:
Jeff,
Sorry if a little sarcastic humor escaped you.
In any case, as I said above, I certainly agree that all of these “isms” are bad and nowhere in my article nor anything I’ve written have I ever suggested that whatever we call the Obama Administration that we, as libertarians, shouldn’t be fighting its expansion of the state. So let’s be clear about that. It just seems that some of the commenters here think that by refusing to call him a socialist, I’m somehow arguing libertarians shouldn’t be seriously concerned about his threats to freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth.
My reasons for making these distinctions have to do with recognizing the exact nature of the threat and understanding what might be some effective ways of dealing with it. It *matter* what he’s up to for how we should respond. And it *matters* that we tell the accurate, honest truth about what he stands for. Calling him a socialist when he’s not makes libertarians look stupid and that harms our ability to persuade other people of the errors of Obama’s ways.
If you think the distinctions don’t matter, go right ahead and call him a socialist nice and loud. I think it’s shouting into the wind myself.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 25 April 2010:
It’s funny too that commenters here seem so free to insult me and question my libertarianism and call me an elitist etc when I have tried, I think, to treat you all with respect. This is another problem with libertarian opposition to Obama – the harsher our rhetoric, the most insults we toss around, the weaker we look.
Classical liberalism is about the use of reason and civil persuasion, just as it’s about exchange and peace. We should practice it both politically and personally.
Comment by Dr Steve on 25 April 2010:
To Jeff Smith: Is it your son or you going to grad. school? I would think it would be his choice, or are you some kind of fascist?
Have a glass of wine and relax a bit.
Comment by Stephan J on 28 April 2010:
While true that fascism vs. socialism is a distinction without much of a difference, the subtle distinction makes fascism vastly more dangerous to freedom. The distinction is that when socialism nationalizes a company, they boot out the old capitalist managers and replace them with people selected for their political qualifications, but when fascism “nationlizes” the same company, they leave nominal title in the hands of the extant management team. Socialists undervalue human capital, particularly management skills, while fascists realize that it would be folly to waste the skills of the men with the proven ability to successfully manage the business, so long as that management team follows the planners’ orders. Additionally, fascism addresses tragedy of the commons by tricking people into believing that property is still privately held since a man can produce and show others the titles and deeds to “his” property. But as has been pointed out, title without control can’t really be called ownership.
The reason this is such a vastly greater threat to freedom is that those selected for their political skills will probably soon run a company into the ground, while a savvy businessman intimately familiar with the capabilities of the men and equipment in a plant can often find a way to meet the goals of the planners without destroying the company. This means that fascist control may well be able to keep the economy limping along until after people who remember something of what freedom used to be like have died of old age, and the young never realize the birthright that was taken from them.
The distinction is largely a psychologic one, but most people will readily deceive themselves. Fascism works pretty well, don’t you think? Want to add a room to your house. Not so fast. You have to ask permission of the planners. Redo the bathroom or the kitchen? Build a shed? Ditto. Don’t comply with their dictates, or fail to pay “your” property tax? New managers will be found and men with guns will arrive shortly to boot out the current managers for not following the planners’ orders…
Pingback by More on Obama and Socialism « The Market Center Blog on 2 May 2010:
[...] April 30, 2010 by Dan Mitchell More on Obama and Socialism. I got some interesting feedback about my pseudo-defense of Obama against the accusation that he is a socialist. It was a faux defense because my goal was simply to point out that Obama is guilty of a different form of statism. For those interested in more information, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism book is first rate (and he has a discontinued blog on the topic for those too impatient to wait for the book), and Steve Horowitz does a great job addressing this topic for the Freeman: Talking the talk of “free markets” but proposing policies that mostly amount to collaborations between well-placed private-sector interests and the State is the hallmark of “corporatism,” or “state capitalism,” or even economic fascism. From the bailouts of the banking system to “green jobs” to health insurance “reform” to various pieces of the “stimulus,” the real winners from the Obama administration’s policies (and Bush’s before him) have been those in corporate world lucky enough to be in the favored industries and to have sufficient political connections to benefit from the changes. Rather than take over various industries, Obama seems to believe he can work with industry leaders and labor to negotiate and manage them collectively in the national interest. This is the essence of the “third way” of Italian Fascism. It is not socialism, as private ownership is nominally maintained, but it is not capitalism, since private owners are not fully allowed to make independent decisions based on perceived profitability. Those decisions must take a back seat to predetermined national priorities. Again, consider the health insurance package. It’s not a single-payer system, which would arguably be more truly socialist. Instead, we will have a system of nominally private insurance companies heavily regulated and controlled so that they serve political goals, such as trying to guarantee that everyone has insurance regardless of income or medical history. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/is-obama-a-socialist/ [...]
Comment by annoyed iconoclast on 4 May 2010:
"Good lord man – maybe you should find something to write about that's a bit less academic, and more useful to us common folk."
You could just stop being a babbling moron, read a book and stop voting with your hand on a flag draped over a bible. FFS learn something or shut up and sit down
Comment by DD_ on 3 May 2010:
Ludwig von Mises: "Yet it is clear that both systems, the German and the Russian, must be considered from an economic point of view as socialist." – Omnipotent Government
Pingback by ReasonAndJest.com » Dissent and the Presumption of Innocence on 7 June 2010:
[...] of suppression of individual rights by regimes of fascist and Marxist ideologies, to which Obama clearly subscribes. Such regimes would not tolerate a “Tea Party” [...]
Comment by Ross Wolf on 19 June 2010:
Who Would You Trust More To Run U.S. Government Obama/Or The U.S. Military the Next 2-years?
The Neomarxist behind the Obama/FTC intend to drown out the voice of America with Obama/Marxist propaganda, enforcing new regulations that will cripple bloggers and other alternative media from disseminating information that grass-roots among other organizations depend on to make informed decisions. Obama’s support of the DISCLOSE Act confirmed what many Americans already believed; that Obama and certain Democrats in Congress intend to strangle the flow of information. If Obama and his leftists associations get their way, our Children will be brainwashed by Obama’s one-sided propaganda at school, through Obama controlled Radio, TV and Obama media policies that restrict the free flow of information. Historically when communists attempt or take over a country, one of their first steps is to control the media and all forms of public communications to control the Civilian populations. When Russia took over Hungary, it immediately took control of the Radio stations to thwart Citizen resistance and to psychologically control the population. Considering the Obama administration’s obsession with controlling all media, one might ask, are some of the same persons inside and outside U.S. Government working with the Obama administration to push the Disclose Act and other censorship regulations, involved in causes that promulgate overthrow of the United States? While some in the Obama Government say they support dismantling capitalism, brick by brick, does their endgame call for destruction of the United States? If it does, what should Americans do to stop it? Does the Obama administration’s proposed censorship of information threaten National Security? In other countries where members of political parties and ideological extremists attempted or succeeded in this kind of forced censorship, forbidding Citizens to receive information, they have been arrested for treason among and other crimes. The Obama administration appears intended to curtail Americans’ right to know, restrict American’s right to communicate via the Internet and the Obama administration admits they want to pay writers in newspapers and other media to covertly propagandize their point of view. Is this not treason? Top CZAR Cass Sunstein prepared a 2008 paper that proposed spying on Americans, infiltrating groups and organizations to obstruct Free Speech, disrupt the exchange of ideas and disseminate false information to neutralize Americans that might question government. See: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121884
The majority of Americans oppose military governments. But increasingly during the last six months, more Americans quietly state they would trust the U.S. Military running U.S. Government temporarily over the extremists in Obama’s government; that they would support a quasi-military form of government temporally provided their civil and constitutional rights were protected and importantly, all leftists extremists in U.S. Government were deposed. This recent change of attitude by Americans might be explained by the fact they can relate to their U.S. Military and find nothing in common with Obama and his extreme leftist associations and supporters. Increasingly Americans appear to fear the Obama government more than the idea of having the U.S. Military temporarily run U.S. Government. Additionally Obama’s refusal to secure America’s Mexican border might have contributed to Americans’ identifying with a quasi/U.S. military government over an Obama government that won’t protect Border States from foreign invaders. The number of Marxists in the U.S. is small, but having them control any part of our government is repugnant to most Americans that believe it not in the best interest of our economy, national defense and National Security. Considering the direction America is going economically, more Americans are afraid that if things collapse, Obama might use the U.S. Military against U.S. Citizens; that should things collapse a quasi Civilian/ U.S. Military government not the Obama administration should run America. This is mentioned only to note there is a strong wind blowing across America, that is howling enough of Obama.
Comment by penny on 20 June 2010:
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, Obama is a socialist, a liar, and an America-hater.
good night,
penny@dorne.info
Comment by dave bockman on 12 July 2010:
I think it would be more accurate to say that socialism is the system of enslavement which justifies the shooting of people who try to own property. If we’re going to be accurate, let’s go all the way.
Pingback by Impeach Barack Before His Death Spiral Takes Us All Down | The American Jingoist on 8 August 2010:
[...] any president in history, debating the details of whether he’s socialist, Marxist, statist,fascist or corporatist is probably not meaningful. But Barack’s hidden motivations for failed policies, while pouring [...]
Pingback by Quasi-Freudian Analysis of Father-hating Atheists and “anti-democratic” “classic tyrant” Barack Obama « CT2.0 on 22 March 2011:
[...] any president in history, debating the details of whether he’s socialist, Marxist, statist,fascist or corporatist is probably not meaningful. But Barack’s hidden motivations for failed policies, while pouring [...]