Go Socialism!

Walter Hinteler wrote:

rayban1 wrote:
This means Socialism has been forced to give up some of it's ideals in order to accomodate desireable features of capitalism.

Like other historians, I think, all started back in the late 19th century, with the foundation of the Social Democratic Party of Germany in 1871 and especially later with the famous Erfurt program of 1891.

Quote:
The Erfurt Program (1891):
Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany

The struggle of the working class against capitalistic exploitation is of necessity a political struggle. The working class cannot carry on its economic contests, and cannot develop its economic organisation, without political rights. It cannot bring about the transference of the means of production into the possession of the community, without having obtained political power.

To give to this fight of the working class a conscious and unified form, and to show it its necessary goal-that is the task of the Social Democratic Party.

The interests of the working classes are the same in all countries with a capitalistic mode of production. With the extension of the world's commerce, and of production for the worldmarket, the position of the worker in every country grows ever more dependent on the position of the worker in other countries. The liberation of the working class, accordingly, is a work in which the workmen of all civilised countries are equally involved. In recognition of this, the Social Democratic Party of Germany feels and declares itself to be one with the classconscious workmen of all other countries.

The Social Democratic Party of Germany does not fight, accordingly, for new classprivileges and classrights, but for the abolition of classrule and of classes themselves, for equal rights and equal duties of all, without distinction of sex or descent. Starting from these views, it combats, within existing society, not only the exploitation and oppression of wageearners, but every kind of exploitation and oppression, whether directed against a class, a party, a sex, or a race.

Proceeding from these principles, the Social Democratic Party of Germany demands, to begin with:

1. Universal, equal, and direct suffrage, with secret ballot, for all elections, of all citizens of the realm over twenty years of age, without distinction of sex. Proportional representation, and until this is introduced, legal redistribution of electoral districts after every census. Biennial legislative periods. Holding of the elections on a legal holiday. Compensation for the elected representatives. Abolition of every limitation of political rights, except in the case of legal incapacity.

2. Direct legislation through the people, by means of the rights of proposal and rejection. Selfdetermination and selfgovernment of the people in realm, state, province and parish. Election of magistrates by the people, with responsibility to the people. Annual voting of taxes.

3. Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army. Decision by the popular representatives on questions of war and peace. Settlement of all international disputes by arbitration.

4. Abolition of all laws which limit or suppress the right of meeting and coalition.

5. Abolition of all laws which place women, whether in a public or a private capacity, at a disadvantage as compared with men.

6. Declaration that religion is a private affair. Abolition of all expenditure of public funds upon ecclesiastical and religious objects. Ecclesiastical and religious bodies are to be regarded as private associations, which regulate their affairs entirely independently.

7. Secularisation of schools. Compulsory attendance at the public national schools. Free education, free supply of educational materials, and free maintenance in the public schools, as well as in the higher educational institutions, for those boys and girls who, on account of their capacities, are considered fit for further education.

8. Free administration of justice, and free legal assistance. Adminis tration of the law through judges elected by the people. Appeal m criminal cases. Compensation of persons unjustly accused, imprisoned, or condemned. Abolition of capital punishment.

9. Free medical attendance, including midwifery, and free supply of medicines. Free burial.

10. Graduated income and propertytax for defraying all public expenses, so far as these are to be covered by taxation. Duty of selfassessment. Succession duties, graduated according to the amount of the inheritance and the degree of relationship. Abolition of all indirect taxes, customs, and other economic measures, which sacrifice the interests of the community to those of a privileged minority.

For the protection of the working classes, the Social Democratic Party of Germany demands to begin with:

1. An effective national and international legislation for the protectlon of labour on the following principles:-

(a) Fixing of a normal working day, which shall not exceed eight hours.

(b) Prohibition of the employment of children under fourteen.

(c! Prohibition of nightwork, except in those industries which, by thelr nature, require nightwork, from technical reasons, or for the public welfare.

(d) An unbroken rest of at least thirtysix hours in every week for every worker.

(e) Prohibition of the trucksystem.

2 Supervision of all industrial establishments, investigation and regulatlon of conditions of labour in town and country by a central labour department, district labour bureaus, and chambers of labour

3. Legal equality of agricultural labourers and domestic servants with industrial workers; abolition of the laws concerning servants.

4. Confirmation of the right of coalition.

5. Taking over by the Imperial Government of the whole system of working people's insurance, though giving the working people a controlling share in the administration.
source: Modern History Sourcebook

Walter
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I want to make note of 1891 as being the date for the launch of the SDP in Germany. This was the heyday of the "Robber Barons" at least in this country. People such as Vanderbilt, Mellon, Rockefeller, Carnegie and such scum who made people work for 10 cents an hour while they hauled tons of gold to their vaults. There was great need for reform and in the US, it took the form of unions. IMO the unions were the engine (for want of a better word) that created the vast redistribution of wealth and created an affluent middle class in the US. I am less sure of exactly what happened in Europe. Here, the unions used violence, force and intimidation to achieve their ends but they were necessary because nothing else would force the greedy barons to restructure and adapt. In the early 1900s we watched as Marxism became Leninism and swallowed Russia. Then as it became Stalinism under the cloak of Socialism we watched as the monster of totalitarianism became a reality. We watched as the Nationalism of Germany became another monster of totalitarianism in the form of far right Nazi Fascism. Socialist ideas were becoming popular in this country but were mostly resisted because( IMO) of an awareness that a truly Socialist system must make the desires of the individual subserviant to the State. This has always been a nation of unconstrained individualism which is totally incompatible with the Socialist ideology.

So Walter as I see it your Social Democratic Party was as necessary in your country as the unions were in this country. The SDP was formed for the purpose of creating conditions favorable for the working class through a political process. Here, the unions had a narrow focus of higher wages and better working conditions for the working class and only became political by latching on to the Democratic Party which was (at the time) more aligned with the lower, and middle class and thusly became the majority party. The Republican Party was considered the party of the wealthy and with a smaller membership were the minority party. We have just witnessed a complete reversal of this situation.

Taking note of the stated principles, goals and objectives listed in your post above it is perfectly understandable that you would be a proud member of the SDP and a guest member of the Labour Party in the UK. Actually I think you should change the name of the SDP to: The Labour party of Germany since it is really only the working class that you are interested in protecting and for improving their conditions. The SDP, being aligned with the lower and middle class(the workers) should be the dominant party with great political power.

I hope this little encapsulization has not been too boring and simplistic.

0 Replies

Only for clarification:

the SPD was founded in 1871 (not 1891 - I only copied/pasted that 1891 program).

It is and was a political party - unions had been founded much earlier (and did and do work in the same way as they did in the history of the USA).

It's not a 'labour party' - the SPD is besides the conservative CDU what we cxall a "Volkspartei" here: a party for the people. (The conservatives have a "worker wing" as well as the SPD has one for employers.)

0 Replies

There are endless branches this discussion could follow, and which we take will be determined by the choices of those who post. I am more interested in the differences in the central tendencies of the Soviet, Contemporary European, and American models for these matters, than I am in the details of any particular social program (though in deference to Einher I do acknowledge that the details are important and that generalities without specifics won't illuminate much).

For example the Erfurt program, which Walter posted here, was based on the goal of breaking down the fairly rigid class barriers that existed throughout Europe and, to a lesser extent, in America, at the time. While much has changed since it was published, most of the elements of this program have been realized by a succession of German governments to the great general benefit of the people. Moreover from Norway to Portugal variations of these policies have also been applied with great success and benefit.

In America the situation was a bit different. While the economic differentiation (and exploitation) was every bit as great here as in Europe, the enduring social elements of class differentiation and distinction were far less significant here. The possibility of rising from poverty to great wealth in a single lifetime was much greater, and the social barriers to it much less pervasive.. Indeed many of the industrialists of the late 19th century whom Rayban referred to as "scum", rose from the working class themselves (Carnegie is perhaps the best example - and after he retired he gave his fortune away on public projects). This opens another pathway in the common struggle for political and economic justice, and that is a society in which justice is achieved with equal emphasis on protecting the rights of all economic classes and on suppressing the permanent barriers to the movement of people from one to the other.

The Soviet model has shown us clearly that the elimination of all class distinctions is at best an illusion and at worst an invitation to horrible, lasting tyranny. The European model has certainly improved the lives of the working classes in the countries that have applied it, and it has narrowed the social and economic distinctions between social and economic classes. However, it has certainly NOT eliminated classes and class distinctions. Moreover, in many cases, it has led to some worrying signs of economic and social stagnation - low economic growth rates, high unemployment, protectionism, demographic decline and resistance to immigration, etc. The American model has delivered high degrees of economic and social adaptability and creativity, and general economic prosperity, but at the cost of greater economic inequality and lower levels of social services for those at the bottom of the ladder.

None of these statements is perfectly accurate, however, I believe they capture the central differences among the three models affecting our world today. We all face continuing challenges of adapting our systems to the ever-changing situations the evolving world imposes on us. It is worth considering the advantages and disadvantages these models present relative to them. It is also worth considering how these different models shape and influence the attitudes of Europeans and Americans towards each other.

0 Replies

A belated answer to George

georgeob1 wrote:

If I understand you correctly then socialism does indeed involve government ownership and control of the principal means of production, central planning of the economy, but stops short of the totalitarian control and attempts to reshape humanity according to the doctrines of the ruling avant garde that characterized the Soviet model. OK so far?

Yes, basically. There's still the matter of Marxism vs other forms of socialism: the definition you propose here fits Marxist ideologies, whereas other socialists opposed such a central, ownership rule of government. They instead proponed direct worker or peasant control, through eg community ownership, workers councils etc (this ranges the gamut from anarchists to ?'council communism' etc). But granted: after the thirties of the last century those currents played a marginal rule, leaving the Marxist definition of socialism as the main relevant one. And I'd go with your definition here.

georgeob1 wrote:

I take it that the post war Labor/Social Democrat governments in Sweden and the UK (Attlee & Brown & co.) were moving towards your definition of Socialism, but perhaps stopped short of reaching it. Still OK?

Yes. That's where my notion of "socialism in degrees" comes in. "Socialism" would be what you describe (in the Marxist version). But since mainstream Socialists don't believe in the totalitarian imposition of a system, they ended up infusing elements of the programme into the reality of democratic societies. What you end up would be, in Sweden, say: 50% capitalism 50% socialism (or something of the sort).

OK, that brings us to the next definitional hurdle: socialism versus social-democracy?

I would say that Socialists in general reject totalitarian imposition on an unwilling population. But there's still socialists striving for a popular revolution that would have the masses voluntarily insisting on a new system. That's a slippery slope, imho (what kind of revolution affords one the chance to fairly poll people's opinions?). But in any case (ever more) other socialists were contented with using the institutions of parliamentary democracy to achieve their aims.

Now how do we define social-democrats? As those people who embrace parliamentary democracy as a means to arrive at a socialist society? Or - one step further: as people who actually believe that a mixed form itself is the best solution - who don't want to end up at "socialism" at all, but merely insist on integrating enough elements of it to arrive at a social-democratic society. For whom the 50%/50% is not a compromise, but the objective. Over time, after WW2, it's the latter group that has become dominant in mainstream politics - and that's also a kind of slippery slope really, which has ended the British Labour party at Blair's "communitarian" third way.

In a way, many Socialdemocrats, Blair the ultimate example, have embraced the compromises that were achieved by previous generations of Socialists as themselves the desired objective. The irony is that this has made them into conservatives (with a small 'c'). All they want is to defend and preserve the status quo, while on the Right politicians are still, energetically as ever, pushing to slant the system more towards 100%/0%.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Here is where my objections begin. This "socialization" of the UK was stopped and substantially reversed by the Thatcher government precisely because it wasn't performing economically. It produced stagnation, uniform relative poverty, and the decay of public services at the hands of self-serving bureaucracies and unions.

That is a matter of perception. Thatcher came into power thanks to the "Winter of Discontent", with its many strikes that afforded her the opportunity for those brilliant "Labour doesn't work" posters. What the Winter showed was that something had gone seriously wrong with the position of the unions. But its good to remember that before the Winter, the Labour government was enjoying very favourable ratings - and that was after governing for a few years already, and after 30-something years of governments that, since Attlee, had switched back and forth between socialdemocratic policies and gentle, One Nation, Heath-type conservatism. Did the one Winter of Discontent, after three and a half decades of a degree of ?'welfare statism', prove that the system was bankrupt? I am not convinced. I think Thatcher's recipe went far beyond what the situation itself called for.

Obviously, looking back the 1980s did have many attainments. A new entrepreneurial class and (eventually) healthy economic growth percentages. To the credit of Thatcherism? I dunno - Germany didn't do badly in the 80s either, and although there too the government was right-wing, it was positively, well, conservative (small ?'c') compared to Thatcher's strident sturm and drang. Even France with its Socialist governments didn't do much worse.

On each of the counts you mention, discussion is possible as to whether Thatcherite capitalism offered better recipes than Labour Party socialdemocracy had. "The decay of public services"? It did suffer from an overdose of bureacracy. But I'd be surprised if you could bring me numbers that show that, say, health care in the UK improved over the years that Thatcher slashed away at the NHS. It seems counterintuitive to turn to those who don't believe in the concept of public good in the first place (Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families") when it comes to improving public services. Tough love can only achieve so much, especially if its something rather more like indifference.

The Thatcher era would not eventually have been rejected as clearly as it was, first within the Conservative party itself, then in the 1997 landslide victory for Blair, if it had indeed proven its superiority. It simply turned out to have its own flaws - dogmatic ideologies usually do. Flaws that in turn need to be countered with a dose of socialdemocracy.

For example, you mention the "uniform relative poverty" of yore. Relative to what? Britian was a fairly prosperous society in the mid-70s, also in comparison both to previous eras and most other countries. In fact, Britain's prosperity seems to have increased over time quite regardless of what colour the government of the moment was. But the impact of that increased prosperity has been greatly diverging. For example, a recent research showed that the inhabitants of the poorest districts of the UK today have the same purchasing power as they had in 1980. While overall wealth leapt ahead, the poorest are exactly as poor as they were back then - and we're not talking in relative terms compared to the rest of the population here. (In those terms, they're much worse off now, of course). The same kind of flaws can easily be distinguished in Thatcher's guiding country, the US. American workers in manufacturing now have less purchasing power than they had in the 1970s.

The US as a whole has become more wealthy (like pretty much any Western country, whether Republican-, liberal- or socialdemocrat-governed); the embrace of private ownership apparently is very effective in the generation of wealth. But when it comes to the "trickle-down" of the benefits and opportunities, capitalism itself apparently doesn't cut it. It needs help. You criticize "decaying public services", but if it were not for the infusion of degrees of socialism, there of course wouldn't be any NHS in the first place; in Holland, we wouldn't have had the "ziekenfonds" that guarantees every citizen of below-average income affordable health care insurance. Compare the masses of Americans who just can't afford health insurance to see what a greater conformity to capitalist orthodoxy leads to.

georgeob1 wrote:

I have referred to this contemporary European synthesis as capitalism with a number of socialist features as you have noted. I am perfectly willing to call it whatever you want, Is this what you wish to call socialism? Or, instead, is there an alternate, albeit theoretical condition for which you wish to reserve the term? For example is socialism the condition to which the UK was headed before Thatcher, and which it would presumably have reached had her Conservatives not come to power?

See above; no, the European synthesis of capitalism and socialism that characterised the post-war decades was exactly that: a synthesis of both systems. Where enough socialist elements were incorporated (say, in Sweden), I suppose you could call the result a social-democracy.

(I don't share your estimation that before Thatcher, the UK was heading towards a form of socialism more far-reaching than such social-democracies as one could find elsewhere in West-Europe).

(More to follow)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Only for clarification:

the SPD was founded in 1871 (not 1891 - I only copied/pasted that 1891 program).

It is and was a political party - unions had been founded much earlier (and did and do work in the same way as they did in the history of the USA).

It's not a 'labour party' - the SPD is besides the conservative CDU what we cxall a "Volkspartei" here: a party for the people. (The conservatives have a "worker wing" as well as the SPD has one for employers.)

Walter
I am relatively certain that the platform of the SDP has evolved to become a party of "ALL" the people since it was founded but in the initial platform you posted, it was written to appeal to workers,(men and women) and other voiceless minorities.

I think George has pointed out an important factor in defining differences between European and American models of Socialism and that is in the more rigid class structure in Europe vs America which is primarily because we are a nation of immigrants. People came to this country seeking religious freedom and individualistic opportunity both of which are at odds with socialist ideology. On the other hand in Europe, there was the recognition that the working poor must break free of the stranglehold that had been created by monarchies and passed on to the landed wealthy who perpetuated the economic slavery. America benefited from those who had the initiative to immigrate because these rare individuals would no longer tolerate the oppression. In Europe those remaining formed organizations such as the SDP which became political powerhouses which utilized certain benevelent forms of Socialism but rejected the Utipian model of Marx.

I realize I am guilty of generalization but I believe the unfavorable conditions triggered psychological reactions within those individuals who became immigrants to America. America benefited greatly from these aggressive pioneers. Does anyone agree with this simplistic overview?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

If, instead you chose the contemporary synthesis of the major Western European states as your model for Socialism, then the question rests on the relative adaptability and sustainability of that model, and what you call the North American model, relative to the challenges the world presents to us all today.

To complete my thoughts, I'm a bit torn here myself.

In a day-to-day politics sense, I find it easy to defend the merits of the Social-democratic model. Yes, it's often enough challenged regarding its adaptibility and sustainability in this modern world. It has its flaws, which makes it easy to attack on exactly those counts: just look at German or French unemployment. But those who attack it only show one side of the equation: they ignore the counts on which their proposed alternative, a more wholesale surrender to the undiluted mechanisms of the market economy, itself does not adapt to the needs of society in many ways. The need to secure affordable health care and education for all, for example. The need to avoid outright poverty in a country that can well afford to.

Capitalism, too, has its sustainability issues - just different ones. When it comes to the environment, for one. Individual cases showcase specific instances where the capitalist model does not suffice: look at the demise of the American railways. The privatisation of the Dutch railways has been a disaster. Privatisation of public services in general has led to a total lack of accountancy. Housing corporations were supposed to work "more efficiently" after privatisation, but instead they've built up enormous assets, which they're not investing in constructing new houses - least of all the low-cost housing they provided when they were still publicly owned, but which offer little profits. And there's no way anymore to tell them to.

In short - for every example showcasing where the welfare state model is grinding itself into one or the other deadlock, there is one that showcases how the Reagan/Thatcher model does not provide an 'adaptable' enough alternative.

Furthermore, the talk of adapting to the modern world ignores the degree of self-fulfilling prophecy that's involved. ?'This modern world' the social-democracies are failing to adapt to, is the one created by the Reagans and Thatchers of this world; and the more they will compromise and adapt, the more that will boost the modern world's change into that same direction, the result of which can then be used as argument against other Social-Democrats still that they're not adjusting yet etc. The right-wing liberals here (the adherents of the free market) are always quick to refer to how we're "behind" other countries - but do so highly selectively, keeping mum about the international aspect when they're themselves going further than others and setting a new limit, or when they don't like the international development at hand. The reproach to Social-Democrats of "unadaptibility" all too often is just a guise for driving a partisan agenda.

I don't blame them - I would do the same. I wished our Social-Democrats would respond in kind - wished they would have taken the opportunity, a few years back when the French introduced the 35-hour working week, to blast our rightwingers for "leaving us behind on other countries". Just like I'll point out, to anyone who refers to the Thatcherites-achieved paradigm change in Europe in the 80s and 90s as the proof that the old system was "past its time", that in another continent, Latin-America, electorates seem intent now for a few years already to consistently reject the capitalist panacees of the past twenty years. Kirchner, "Lula" - the first Socialist President in Brazil in how many decades?, and in a landslide, too - Uruguay for the first time ever making the same drastic turn, also in a landslide - which system is being shown to be considered "past its time" there?

So - Social-Democracy, in short, is still easily defendible IMHO. The bit where I'm torn refers to something much more far-reaching. Lookit - at heart, I'm a Socialist. The non-Marxist kind, the kind that doesn't like an all too powerful government either. At heart I'm an Anarchist. Even when I acknowledge that the market economy has turned out to be a very efficient generator of material wealth, I'm still not convinced it was the best choice when it comes to, well - human happiness. Note that a recent, comparative happiness research showed that the experience of happiness hardly correlated to wealth itself, at all: while in Uganda, say (I'm making the names up, don't remember the specific countries), people were comparatively very unhappy, they were very happy in Ghana; just like they were quite happy in Sweden but quite unhappy in Italy (again, making up the country names). Surprisingly, an element that did turn out to correlate strongly was distribution of wealth. Happiness was significantly lower where differences between poor and rich were glaring, while people were relatively contented in societies with a more egalitarian sharing of wealth.

Such a finding can be inserted above in defence of a more Social-Democratic system, but what I'm on about now is simply that even percentages of GDP growth do not necessarily equate with proof of a system's superiority. This is a bridge I don't usually cross in a discussion, because it takes us out leftfield. But personally, I don't like much this modern world. Personally, at heart, I am still open to the idea that, if in the late 1800's or early 1900's those would have gotten their way who were proponing self-governing local communities, working the land (even factories) in common ownership, people might have ended up happier. (Hey, I've always said that I'm way to the left of all them liberals here, even if you dont usually notice much of it ... ;-))

Could it have happened? The fact that it didn't, looking back, always suggests it wasn't possible - but that's a fake equation. I dunno. The history of the Spanish Republic shows an awful lot of obstacles, many self-imposed. The enormous destruction of know-how, efficiency - the sheer chaos, arbitrary violence that accompanied Anarchist rule where it did materialise. But look at what we got instead. The first decade of Franco's dictatorship came with much more bloodshed than the Anarchists ever caused. And in Russia, instead of the "mir", the old rural commune, we got Stalin's kolchozes. Things are still not getting much better in the Russian villages now.

The time is past, of that I am convinced. I can not possibly conceive of how one would develop decentralised self-government with public ownership of the kind that Utopian Socialists and Anarchists proponed in our time, when two-thirds of us work in offices. When the scale of things has been increased ever again, the ante upped, the world interconnected and the local community disconnected. I get my Bakuninist moods in which I want to have it all just smashed up, but then I regain my senses again. I have to accept that I live in the wrong time - and have to content myself with defending Social-Democracy. But that still feels likes being "a mayor in war time", as we say here - most unsatisfactory. It's like trying to push some buttons in a train that's speeding along in the wrong direction, to ensure that the airco and heating work properly.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think such a scheme would be very favorable for attracting private capital in an increasingly competitive world. I also don't see government as a particularly adaptive and agile owner. (Something to think about in a fast-changing entreprenurial world). Moreover you appear to have vastly more faith in the business acumen of government than I.

France has seen serious recent financial performance issues in several of its favored, largely government-owned businesses. Such entities do well when government is also the customer, but it is usually easy to beat them in a free market for their products.

I don't see how the markets would operate any differently under the system I scatched than it does at present, all stock, all management, and virtually all risk would still be the domain of the market. The public money would simply earn interest which could be put to use running government programmes or aleviating the taxburden.

Again my sugestion was that government might buy up to half the loans of private business, never allowing the public share of a businesses debt rise above 50%, under laws that would have the government collect its debt in case of bankrupcy before other creditors. Thus market forces would still be responsible for management and riskevaluation.

I can't see how this would distort the market.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

I think George has pointed out an important factor in defining differences between European and American models of Socialism and that is in the more rigid class structure in Europe vs America which is primarily because we are a nation of immigrants.

I think this distinction is overplayed. The newspaper-boy-to-magnate myth of course is at the core of American self-perception, and a very powerful one at that. But how true is it? And how true is it still? If you look at America's upper crust today, how many of their parents - or even grandparents - were not also already in the upper strata?

FWIW, I once looked through GWB's family tree. The Bush family I suppose would count as the American equivalent of aristocracy, a kind of cultural aristocracy? You can go back to 1810, and find a full total of three people born abroad. No Latino names, no Irish or Italian-sounding names. Apparently, the "integration" of new blood into what I believe is a classical American upper-class family was nearly nil.

0 Replies

Lots of very interesting commentary - and disagreements - here. Thanks.

First to Einher, --- I understood you to be proposing government investment of capital in private corporations (and therefore subsequent influence as an owner), as opposed to just lending money (i.e. stockholders vs. bondholders.) I think the former would be very bad, because government will pursue its interests, and not those of the enterprise in its influence over the governance of the enterprise in which it invests. ( I have had occasion to learn some of the arcane features of French corporate law in the operation of a subsidiary we set up there: in France one can "lend" stock to non owners and allow them to act as owners - it was made clear to us that we should thus lend stock to the French government and allow them a seat on the board - that is if we wished regulatory decisions to go our way. Very strange - we got out just in time.)

I think that government lending is less harmful, but your proposal would in effect make government the principal holder of prime bonds leaving only the junk for the private market. In the first place there is little need (here at least) for this kind of government lending, and the priority demanded by government would likely drive more private capital out of the market than government capital would come in to replace it. In short a remedy in search of a solution.

Nimh,

I fully agree there is an American aristocracy and the Bush family (as well as the Kennedy's) exemplify it. However it is noteworthy that in both families this exalted status goes back only three generations (an ancient lineage, by our standards). JFK's grandfather owned a saloon (an Irish one at that - not at all "respectable"). My grandparents were Irish immigrant laborers, and my parents came here as children. My father served 30 years in the Congress and Senate; I did a career in the Navy and now run a $200 million/ year business. The fastest-growing group of high wage earners in the country is black - perhaps only the rush of high-performers after generations of unfair discrimination, but it is happening. . Despite the self-serving myths, there really is a high degree of social and economic mobility here. (and it goes in both directions, - up and down).

There are families like the Bushs with generations of the native born, no latinos, no irish, Italian or Polish influences. We call them WASPS - white, anglo-saxon, protestants. However they are a minority and, where I grew up, if you were a WASP, you had to be tough.

0 Replies

Thanks to Nimh, Walter, and Einher for painting a complete picture of the Social Democratic movement in Europe, and giving us a more precise model for comparison of the contemporary approaches to these problems.

I suspect there is something "natural", indeed almost inevitable, in the evolution of the somewhat different social-economic systems that prevail in Europe and America - each a reasonable adaptation to the historical conditions that preceded it. The questions that result are - how and how much do those different adaptations influence the way in which each country perceives and reacts to the contemporary political and economies challenges we face; to what degree do these different perspectives influence our current relations and perceptions of each other; and what relative differences may there be in our respective abilities to deal with the challenges before us???

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

but rejected the Utipian model of Marx.

Short terminological note to Rayban -- I know, it's a veritable definitional thicket, and not being the weathered handler of the leftists' intricate ideological termonologies my father is, I'm bound to stumble myself as well (so if Walter wants to jump in, please do). But Utopian Socialism Not Equal

Marxism. Various Marxist tenets may look pretty utopian from our point in time, but the Marxists distinguished themselves from the other and earlier Socialists exactly by claiming they were not some utopian idealists - no, their take was a scientific one.

Marx and Engels proposed a scientific analysis of the course of history more than anything else - including a theory on how society would develop as a matter of natural evolution. First would come bourgeois democracy, and only then, when the time was ready, revolution and socialism et cetera. Those who embraced it therefore drew a clear line between themselves and the various socialist adventurers who would base their actions on something as fickle as the politics of the day.

The scientific claim at times determined the political line to a far-reaching degree. It happened more than once that a Marxist party would refrain from supporting some popular uprising or other, because it deemed the time not to be ready, because the social conditions outlined by Marx had not yet been fulfilled. One reason the Mensheviks fell out with Lenin's Bolsheviks in Russia was because the Mensheviks, in laudable if somewhat unwordly loyalty to theory, rejected using the turmoil in the country to attempt some jump straight into socialism; after all, Marxist theory prescribed that after the fall of authoritarian tyranny, there first had to be the phase of bourgeois democracy.

I may be garbling up some details or others; as said, I'm really at least one generation too young to be optimally versed in these matters, and my studies of Russia in 1917 date from over a decade ago by now as well. But bottom line: a main distinction within socialism was between the "scientific" socialism of the Marxists and the utopian socialism of some other currents, which had less patience with necessary historical stages and the like. But of course, it's true - to someone of my generation, especially an American, Marxist tenets such as public ownership of the means of production etc seem utopian enough as it is...

Georgeob1, thanks for the trivia about the Kennedies (and Bushes) - and a rather impressive bit of family history of your own, there!

0 Replies

All political systems, to the degree they rely on coercing individuals, redistributing wealth, and regulating, are socialistic. The differences are in degrees and not in kinds, as can be seen from Hayek's analysis of National Socialist Germany and Democratic Socialist Britain.

0 Replies

Anonymouse wrote:

All political systems, to the degree they rely on coercing individuals, redistributing wealth, and regulating, are socialistic. The differences are in degrees and not in kinds, as can be seen from Hayek's analysis of National Socialist Germany and Democratic Socialist Britain.

That is just word play - a basically meaningless observation. All governments do regulate, coerce individuals, tax and redistribute wealth. It wasn't the state welfare and employment programs that made Nazi Germany evil, and the presence of similar features in the UK or Germany (or the U.S.) of today doesn't make them equivalent to the Nazis.

The evils of totalitarianism arise (in my view) when a government (whatever may be its social and economic policies) attempts to perfect or reshape humanity in a preconceived mold - whether true christian, moslem, zionist, socialist or Aryan man, or a perfect example of political correctitude. An inevitable result is the legal presumption that the state is a fit judge of the overall worth of an individual life (as opposed to a specific, prohibited action). All the other evils follow from that.

The point has already been made here that the aspirations of the Social Democrat movement in Europe did not include such totalitarian features, despite the strong element of socialism in their favored economic policies - and this is demonstrably true.. One can argue (as I do) that the world has not yet seen a real example of the full application of these policies, and there may well be a slippery slope implicit in them that may gravitate towards totalitarianism. However, in the absence of a real demonstration, that is speculation.

It is an observable fact that most of the governments of Western Europe do contain a high measure of these social democrat features, relative to the somewhat rawer form of capitalism practiced in the United States. I prefer the latter and treasure the greater degree of individual freedom it provides, but I certainly don't consider that any of the Western European governments is, or is in proximate danger of becoming, totalitarian.

Both social-economic-policy models can be seen in retrospect as natural developments from prior historical conditions. The differences between them, however, are large enough to create continuing friction between us on matters of international policy, and mutual misunderstanding of the motives and world views on the part of the two populations and their governments.

In addition these differences may well influence the ability of western nations on both sides of the Atlantic (and, with Australia in mind, the Pacific) to cope with and adapt to the new challenges the world presents, including newly emerging competitors and even serious challengers.

All of these are real, meaningful questions that merit our consideration.

0 Replies

Just adding - thanks for response, George! - that the 'National Socialist Workers Party' (NSDAP) had only the word 'socialist' in common with 'socialism'.

0 Replies

Let's re-examine what Adam Smith really said

Quote:

Adam Smith was a moral philosopher who also wrote about political economy. Over the years economics has become a branch of applied mathematics. Smithian moral sentiments were dumped, along with his political economy. His Wealth of Nations adorns the shelves of academe, safely unread by those who should know better. Like his grave just off the High Street in Edinburgh, his legacy is neglected. Worse, it has been purloined.

an interesting little piece, in light of this discussion

edit

and just to clarify - that link heading is the title of the article, not my assessment or commentary

0 Replies

Nimh

Thanks for your brilliant definitions and historical input. You, George and Walter have clarified several murky issues for me. I was totally unaware of the Marxist claim of scientific evolution and their refusal to support some "Utopian" socialist movements as not being the "right time". Can you give me at least one example of this and any others that I might examine.

Thanks rayban

0 Replies

In Russia after 1917 and in Germany in the late '29s and early '30s the Communists or Bolsheviks were the fiercest enemies of the Social Democrats. They saw them as dupes of the capitalists who would at best delay the "inevitable crisis" of capitalism and the revolution towards which they were working. Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" provides a fairly good description of the conflict and many of the details.

0 Replies

George

Your input has been equally brilliant to that of Nimh and thanks for raising the level of discussion from that of quibbling, moronic psychobabble to an actual intellectual discussion.

You pointed out, I think correctly, that none of the European countries is in any danger of evolving into totalitarianism but how about some of the Latin American countries? The first one that comes to mind is Venezuala. It would appear that Chavez has consolidated his power since the attempted Coup and the Attempted recall and is now in the first stages of becoming another Castro......his hero. It appears that he has no intention of relinquishing power but will he be clever enough to cloak his intentions with some form of Socialism to keep "His Peasants" in line or will he merely use "Sovereign Nation" status to gain support of other Thugs in the UN General Assembly to prevent action by the UN or the US?

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

It appears that he has no intention of relinquishing power but will he be clever enough to cloak his intentions with some form of Socialism to keep "His Peasants" in line or will he merely use "Sovereign Nation" status to gain support of other Thugs in the UN General Assembly to prevent action by the UN or the US?

On August 15 2004, 58% voted in favor of Chavez fulfilling the remaining two years of his term, 42% in favor of terminating his presidency immediately - a little bit better than the majority Bush got, when I recall it correctly.

What do you imply with your scenario?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know