While pundits and politicians are shrieking that the health care reform bill is socialism, they have it wrong. Or right, if you want to look at it in a mirror. That is to say, the health care reform bill is an inverted form of socialism, as is much of what the government does.
Being something of an expert on social & political philosophy, I can assure you that what I am claiming is true. Of course, perhaps I should be reluctant to claim expertise-after all, what real American believes an expert?
In any case, back to my point. Classic socialism, in it simplest form, is when the state owns and controls the means of production. In more modern terms, the state owns and controls businesses, industry and finance so that there is no private ownership of these economic entities. Yes, you can still own your own toothbrush under socialism-just not the corporation that produces, distributes and sells it.
In the case of the current government, it is not the state that owns and controls the economic entities. Rather, they seem to exert a rather strong control and ownership over the government. This might be dubbed “inverted socialism” (or “business as usual”). On obvious example is the finance sector. While people have cried out that the state has taken over GM, the finance folks are still firmly in control as shown by the fact that we bailed them out, that nothing significant is being done to fix the financial system’s flaws, and the fact that it is still business as usual.
Even the health care reform bill is inverse socialism. Many of the big players in the medical industry (hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and even the insurance companies) got on board and backed the bill. The reason was not, of course, altruism. Rather, these industries stand to make a killing under the new law. Wall Street has shown its view of the matter: health stocks are very healthy. Also, jobs in the medical fields are expected to grow significantly. Even the insurance companies will do well-after all, there is a legal mandate compelling Americans to buy their products.
So, why do the pundits and Republicans continue to scream about socialism? Perhaps they are ignorant of the facts. Maybe they have a different definition for the term. For example, they might thing that “socialism” means “getting the government to pay for things.” If so, they would be right-the government is definitely handing out major money to the “private” sector.
Perhaps they are merely playing a political game. Perhaps they are angry because they are not getting as much sweet lobbying as they would like. In any case, they are quite wrong in their charges of socialism. Unless, of course, they really mean inverted socialism.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
You are essentially correct in your assertion that Obama’s regime is not classically Socialist in methodology. This is why I refer to them as neo-Socialists.
In point of fact, the Obama regime’s goal is fundamentally Socialist but much of their methodology is classic Fascism ala Mussolini’s Italy.
But you can’t call them Fascists without being labeled a wing-nut and possibly, given the recent shift in government policies, being arrested by some variety of federal enforcer.
How are your defining “neo-socialist”? What are Obama’s socialist goals? To ensure that the big banks and finance companies remain profitable?
The essence of socialism is found in the statement:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
What is prompting cries of socialism is that the government is more and more deciding what we need, and personal freedom is correspondingly being reduced.
I guess a more accurate diagnosis would be hyper-paternalism.
We should look at what studies on over-parenting have found. I truly believe we would find the exact same thing occuring in states.
See my 3/10 5:37PM url#1
The url has nothing to do with over-parenting. Just showing what’s happening at the small state level.VT: Population 608k. I’m guessing that a none-too-close inspection of local governments would find some(likely fewer) instances of waste.
Face it. A larger population is going to require more government. More government will likely bring with it more waste. The alternative? Reduce national gov’t for 300 million people to a late 18th century level designed for 4 million. Really? Eliminate government completely? Whackos would like that for a few minutes. Until someone with a bigger arms collection came along.
Or put aside the hell-fire ideological ‘principles’ that are impeding economic and social progress in this country. Sit down and talk about the real needs of a 21st century government in light of the obvious differences that exist between 21st century America as it is and 18th century America as it was. Or is that too civilized a notion?
What do those studies show?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620793
While over-anxious parenting may make us feel better in the short-term, says Carducci, there are long-term consequences. Over-anxious parents raise emotionally fragile kids — kids who can’t stand on their own. They don’t know how to make sound decisions and they aren’t equipped to deal with failure and frustration.
“Frustration tolerance is the best predictor of self-esteem,” notes Carducci. When a child can endure failing, pick himself up and carry on, he gains strength and confidence. When he knows he’s done something on his own -– whether he succeeds or fails — he’ll be proud of his effort.
http://earlychildhoodmichigan.org/articles/6-05/Phelan5-05.htm
“Now don’t get too loud at the party and be sure to take turns and remember to thank Mrs. Johnson and be nice to the other children and…” The message as received: “You’re a social imbecile.” Overparenting is the opposite of one of a parent’s most fundamental jobs: fostering self-esteem by encouraging independence and autonomy.
Organisms stop evolving when they edge too far away from a chaotic state. That is: We need the impetus of potential danger to spur us to greater achievement.
It isn’t hyper yet. All states are by nature paternalistic. After all, they tell us what to do, order us about and make demands of us. It is a matter of degrees.
Rome was not built in a day, nor destroyed in a day. Even if Obama wanted to make a socialist state out of the us, he would fail utterly if he came in a had the government seize control of all production assets.
He doesn’t seem to understand that incentive drives the economy, though.
Tell Boehner Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day. In Boehnerworld Apocalypse arrived immediately upon the signing of health care legislation.Unless, as is his wont, he’s revised his history since then.
I thought it was Armageddon, not Apocalypse.
In modern usage, especially in literature, films and music, the term has become synonymous with any cataclysmic event. Variants have been coined such as “Snowmageddon” to describe a serious snow storm; U.S. President Barack Obama used this term for the blizzard that hit the U.S. capital in February 2010. (Wikipedia)
You’re right, of course. J. Boehner said “Armageddon”. In my defense, it’s difficult to avoid being confused amidst the barrage of apocalyptic rhetoric.
“Whatever those Commie, Socialist, Marxist pigs propose will destroy America as “we” know it”. Do I have that right? A cataclysm by any other name is a catastrophe is the apocalypse is Armageddon. It’s also what’s happens from the top to the bottom of the long slide down the slippery slope where George Will says “all politics takes place.” That’s all politics–left and right.
As expected, John followed the word Armageddon with the statement “this bill will ruin our country.” I’m willing to bet that if the country is ever ruined, it won’t be by health care reform. The failure will more likely be the result of the seemingly innate American inability at local, state and national levels to control itself and (2)gain some control over (not stop) the inevitable forward movement of society .
(1)The VT legislature, predominantly Dem (I’m willing to acknowledge party responsibility, since we know both sides do this kind of thing)., just set aside 150k for salamander crossings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36146887/ns/us_news/
(2)http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/04/the-collapse-of-complex-business-models/
Incentive? Which incentives? I thought greed drove the economy (into the ground).
Well where’s the incentive to do the right thing when your greed should have destroyed you, but we bailed you out?
It reminds me of the kids in school who get in trouble and the the parents only reply is: “Not my Johnny.”
What Johnny really needed was a slap upside the head.
What if “underparenting” got you to a point where you had to be bailed out to survive? What if just plain good parenting–reasonable rules, reasonably applied–would have avoided the problem entirely?
And who cares what we call it?
“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt.”~ John Adams
To those two Tainter would add complexity, leading to inflexibility and resistance to necessary simplification/downsizing),leading to the fall.
complexity = too many rules
More than too many rules:
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/04/the-collapse-of-complex-business-models/
“Tainter looked at several societies that gradually arrived at a level of remarkable sophistication then suddenly collapsed: the Romans, the Lowlands Maya, the inhabitants of Chaco canyon. Every one of those groups had rich traditions, complex social structures, advanced technology, but despite their sophistication, they collapsed, impoverishing and scattering their citizens and leaving little but future archeological sites as evidence of previous greatness. Tainter asked himself whether there was some explanation common to these sudden dissolutions.
The answer he arrived at was that they hadn’t collapsed despite their cultural sophistication, they’d collapsed because of it. Subject to violent compression, Tainter’s story goes like this: a group of people, through a combination of social organization and environmental luck, finds itself with a surplus of resources. Managing this surplus makes society more complex—agriculture rewards mathematical skill, granaries require new forms of construction, and so on. “The answer he arrived at was that they hadn’t collapsed despite their cultural sophistication, they’d collapsed because of it.”
How does Tainter define complexity? Could it not be overspecialization as explained by Buckminster Fuller?
Good question. How does Fuller define complexity?
https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/users/jastallins/public_htm/courses/complexity/readings/Tainter.pdf
From what little I’ve read, Tainter doesn’t define the word, so much as he describes the roles of complexity. In this article he focuses on social complexity, writing that it “both enhances and undermines stability.”
One of his most effective examples here is the case of the cost of developing penicillin and the huge reward that came from that initial expenditure. He then mentions current developments that are much much more expensive to achieve yet provide much smaller gains in terms of life span, etc. He attributes this to ever-increasing complexity.
As I understand it, and this may be oversimplification, Tainter would say that there’s a tipping point where increased complexity outruns marginal return. At this point, on a societal level, society will self-destruct unless it can deal intelligently with the complexities.
Me thinks he protests too much.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/obamas-17-minute-2500-word-res.html
“While people have cried out that the state has taken over GM, the finance folks are still firmly in control as shown by the fact that we bailed them out,”…..yet the president of the United States can fire the head honcho at GM? Where did this power come from if GM had it all and was not controlled by the government?
I suspect the power came from the fact that the government used taxpayer money to save GM. I think that was a less than ideal plan.
If a president can take any steps necessary to protect the nation in time of war (torture, etc)can he take necessary temporary(emph.) steps to protect the country from financial meltdown without being labeled a socialist?