A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

socialism

Fox & Class Warfare

by Leave a Comment

Warren Buffett speaking to a group of students...
Image via Wikipedia

Warren Buffett’s article created quite a frenzy with the fine folks at Fox. They were, of course, already rather riled up by Obama and the idea that a member of the billionaire class (which seems especially beloved to them) would dare suggest that the rich contribute slightly more of their income.

Oddly enough, Buffett was accused of being a socialist. This term seems to function for certain conservatives as the term “racist” functions for certain liberals. That is, it is thrown around without a proper understanding of what the term actually means. Socialism, in the classic sense, is government control of the means of production. Advocating that the very rich pay marginally more in taxes is no more socialism than being critical of Obama’s health care plan is racism. Now, if Buffett advocated handing over the entire economic system to the state, then he would be a socialist. Likewise, if someone rages against Obama’s health care plan because Obama is black, then that person would be a racist. While terms have some flexibility, if they are bend beyond their limits then they become meaningless noise.

The usual talking point of class warfare was also used. This is, obviously enough, hyperbole. Advocating that billionaires pay a bit more in taxes so as to bring them more in line with the rates most people pay is hardly an act of warfare. While people do throw around the term “war” (as in “war on X”) with little restraint, “warfare” indicates something beyond a mere suggestion of a minor tax change. Warfare is a much more extreme sort of thing. If Buffett had advocated taking a great deal or even everything from the rich or putting them up against the wall, then that would be class warfare. Crying “class warfare” over such minor things robs the phrase of its significance. After all, if a minor tax change is warfare, how will we describe a situation in which the lower classes rise up to overthrow the rich? This sort of abuse of language does cross the political boundaries. As noted above, some folks on the left apply the term “racism” to things that are not, in fact, racism.  If people use their big guns to shoot at mosquitoes, they will be out of ammunition when the lion shows up.

Buffett was also apparently accused of demonizing the rich. Buffett clearly did no such thing.  In fact, he is rather positive about his fellows:

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

That hardly seems like demonizing. Interestingly enough, the fine folks at Fox have demonized teachers, the poor, welfare recipients and others. Of course, demonizing is not just a tool of the right. Folks on the left also like to slap the horns on their opponents. However, this sort of demonizing is unfair and can lead to especially nasty versions of the straw man fallacy. Lest I be accused of demonizing the folks at Fox, simply watch them in action and compare what, for example, was said about the less well off to reality.

Speaking about the less well off, the fine folks at Fox seem very concerned that the bottom 50% of Americans don’t pay enough taxes. These are the folks whose collective wealth adds up to 2.5% of our national wealth. In an interesting coincidence, if the state took half of their stuff, this would be about the same as what the wealthy would pay if their taxes were restored to the Clinton era levels. Squeezing the poor, as Fox seemed to suggest, hardly seems like it would be an effective (or just) approach. However, protecting the privileged classes while squeezing the poor has a long tradition behind it. Of course, this sort of unbalanced economy leads towards real class warfare-something we could avoid by ensuring that the class disparities do not become unbearable.

I will no doubt be accused of being a socialist for wanting to prevent America from falling victim to country destroying class disparities. However, I am not advocating that the state take over the economy. Rather, I am advocating that the burden of maintaining the country be shared more fairly and that America should not follow in the steps of the states that collapsed due to unbearable economic injustice. In a nice bit of irony, the sort of approach that seems to be advocated by Fox seems calculated to create actual class warfare.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Socialism & Democracy

by Leave a Comment

While socialism comes in many forms, one classic form involves ownership of the means of production by the workers. In the classic capitalist model, the means of production are not owned by the workers but rather by the capitalists.

This form of socialism began creeping into the United States with the advent of the stock market. In theory, workers could buy stock in the companies they worked for, thus becoming part of the owning class. This blurs the line between worker and owner, just as it starts to blur the line between socialism and capitalism.

Obviously, there is a considerable difference between a full socialist system and one in which workers can buy stocks in companies they work for. After all, owning a few shares of a company is rather different than being an owner in the classic sense.

While socialism is often presented as a great evil in the United States, the idea of a worker owning a business is held out as a great good. A small business in which the employees are also owners can be seen as a socialist enterprise, yet is something praised by conservatives who are against socialism.

Interestingly, the idea of workers having meaningful ownership seems to be consistent with (or perhaps even required by) democracy. In a democracy, each citizen is part of the nation and has a say in how things will go (at the very least, each citizen can vote). In contrast, the classic business model is completely undemocratic: the owner is like a king or feudal lord. He rules from on high and the employees serve at his discretion and usually do not have any meaningful say in the decision making.  In contrast, worker owned businesses would seem to be democratic: business of the people, by the people and for the people.

Of course, it might be argued that the conditions in business are such that a democracy would be ineffective or inappropriate. After all, a business has to make quick decisions and voting would slow things down to much. Also, effective business choices require people who know the big picture and can make the tough choices that are needed for the business to succeed. Allowing the employees to get involved would interfere with this. Also, the employees would tend to vote for things like shorter hours, better working conditions, better pay, maternity leave, and better safety. These would cut into profits for the people who really matter, the top executives.

Interestingly, these same sort of arguments can (and have) been made against democratic forms of government. Likewise, arguments for democracy can be modified slightly to serve as arguments for worker ownership and control of business.

Does Obama Have a Socialist Agenda?

by Leave a Comment

Karl Marx (1818 – 1883)
Image via Wikipedia

Obama has often been accused of being a socialist and has sometimes been accused of having a socialist agenda. I thought I would take a few moments to sort this out a bit.

The classic form of socialism is an economic system in which the state controls and owns the means of production. In more modern terms, the state would own and control the economic entities of the nation. This is, of course, consistent with private ownership of personal items.

Economic socialism is, of course, consistent with many political systems ranging from democracy to totalitarianism.  After all, there could very well be direct voting by the people while the state owns and controls the economic entities.

There is a tendency to confuse socialism with totalitarianism. Under totalitarianism, the state has complete (total) control over all aspects of  life. Obviously, complete totalitarianism would also be socialist in character, since the state controls everything and thus controls the economy. But, this does not entail that all socialist states would be totalitarian (the fact that All Ss are Ps does not entail that all Ps are Ss). Not surprisingly, some folks accuse Obama of also having a totalitarian agenda, but that is a subject for another time.

There is also a tendency to take almost anything the state does as socialism. These cases typically involve the state using tax revenue to provide public goods. For example, Social Security is often cast as socialist because of this.

Getting back to the main point, does Obama have a socialist agenda?

Under the definition of classic socialism, clearly not. Obama’s actions seem to point towards a clear desire to keep the economic system in private hands. Obviously, folks will point towards GM as an example of his socialism. True, the state did take control of GM. However, the plan is for GM to eventually be private again. In this case, the state is acting like a corporation-providing cash in return for control.

It might be argued that Obama as a socialist agenda under a very broad definition of socialism: he wants to expand state power and use the tax payers’ money t0 fund social programs. Under this definition he would be a socialist. But, of course, every government would also be socialist. In this case, the charge of socialism would be as meaningful as accusing Obama of being a politician or a human being. After all a charge that applies to everyone really cannot be a special problem for anyone. So, Obama is a socialist on this view. So was Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes.

But, one may ask, what about his secret agenda? Well, if it is secret…how do you know he has it?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Obama & The Left

by Leave a Comment

Obama is being attacked from both the right and the left. The right is attacking because they think he is going to transform America into a liberal land of socialism, government health care, expanded abortion rights, and gay marriage. The left is attacking him because they think he won’t transform America into a liberal land of socialism, government health care, expanded abortion rights, and gay marriage.

Because Obama is taking a fairly moderate approach, the left wing folks are rather upset by his failure to be the liberal savior they envisioned. While some of their criticism is well founded, the folks on the extreme left need to keep in mind that Obama is not their President, but the President of the United States. He has to govern the whole country and has to be aware of the legitimate needs and concerns of all the people, not just the folks on the far left.

As an analogy, I’ll use my own experience as a professor. I teach at a state university and my classes do not have any pre-requisites. As such, a class might have a student who has just been accepted to Harvard law school and a student who barely passed high school and who is now taking remedial math and english to get up to speed. While I could teach the class in a way that is aimed entirely at the future Harvard student, that would not take into account the legitimate needs of the other students. Likewise, making my class into a remedial high school class would help the other student, but would hardly be good for everyone else in the class.  Since I am the professor for the whole class and not just the two extreme students, I have to teach to the middle. The price for this is that the class will be somewhat disappointing for the future Harvard student while being rather tough for the remedial student. But, I have to do what is best for the class as a whole.

Likewise, Obama cannot give the left everything they crave. After all, it is not just their country. While the folks on the left think they are right and that justice requires that they get their way, the reality is that all the other people cannot be ignored. They have concerns and rights as well. And, of course, there is the practical matter of getting people to go along-and this often requires compromise.

Naturally, there are matters on which there should not be compromise. But, most of politics is open to such compromise and, in fact, requires it. While the folks on the left should argue for what they value (as the folks on the right should), they should also temper their complaints and criticisms.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

GM

by 8 Comments

GM logo
Image via Wikipedia

In a bit of a flashback, the government bailed out GM to the tune of about $20 billion dollars. Despite shoveling this much cash into the dying company, it still died. Or rather died a financial death on the form of bankruptcy. Now the state owes 60% of GM, a company that has a rather impressive negative net worth. Or unworth, to borrow a bit from the notion of the undead. Of course, that is something of an apt term-just as the undead are formerly living beings that continue to move around after death, GM is a formerly profitable company that continues to move around after its financial death.

While people are calling GM “Government Motors” and getting fired up with rhetoric about socialism, I am going to bypass all that for now. Instead, I’ll do a bit of math.

The logic behind dumping about $20 billion into GM was that it would help save jobs and save the economy. Now, if we just took $20 billion and hired people at $40,000 a year, we could hire 500,000 people for one year. Or hire 50,000 for ten years. Or, …well, you can do the math. Alternatively, we could have put that money into starting up new businesses and, in all probability, created many viable new companies that would hire people.

While I do believe that the state has an obligation to protect the citizens, this should be done in an effective manner. That is, the action taken should get the most for our tax dollars. This has clearly not been the case with the Bush and Obama administrations’ handling of the crisis.

But the money wasn’t spent that way. Rather it was spent to try to save GM, which failed anyway. Of course, the folks in the government are trying to put a positive spin on it: GM will shed its bad components and re-emerge as a leaner and profitable company. However, this is something of a serious gamble. GM’s track record has been one of more or less unrelenting failure and bad decisions for years. Pouring money into a company with that sort of track record seems to be a rather bad risk. If GM fails to arise like a phoenix from its ashes, then we (the taxpayers) will be, to use the technical term, screwed once again.

But, suppose that GM does rise out of the ashes like a mighty fire bird? What will that do for the taxpayers? Will we get a slice of the profits? Will we each get a new car? Will we sell off GM for a small percentage of its worth to some friend of who ever happens to be in office when that happens? Whatever might be said now, we have to wonder what we will get out of this. The more cynical might say “screwed again.” Perhaps.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why Socialism is Bad

by Leave a Comment

With the government bailout and the charges of socialism being thrown at Obama, there has been a great deal of discussion about socialism. Given that America lives under the delusion that we are a free-market, capitalist country, it is hardly surprising that socialism is seen as bad. Naturally, this view is correct.

Socialism can be seen as bad in the same sense that oxygen is bad. While this might seem and odd thing to say, it actually fits quite well. Like oxygen, a little socialism is a good thing and enables us to survive. Just imagine what it would be like without the state providing social services, police, military, law and so on. It would be Hobbes’ state of nature. Like oxygen, a lot of socialism is a bad thing. Just as breathing pure oxygen would be very bad, living in pure socialism would be rather bad as well. After all, under pure socialism, the state would own all capital, business and such.

Now, this would not be bad just because of state ownership. The state owns the police, the military and so on but we do not say that these are bad because of that. The problem lies with the fact that complete state ownership would be a monopoly of the worst sort.

History has shown that private monopolies are bad and it seems safe to infer that a complete state monopoly would be at least as bad-and even worse because it would be a universal monopoly. Competition, as the free market folks say, is beneficial and encourages better products, technological advancement and so on. Monopolies tend to encourage inferior products, stagnation and so on.

Of course, a pure free market is bad as well-it leads to private monopolies and chaos. To use an analogy, imagine a “free-market “football game with no referees and no rules. While the “best” team would win, the game would be horrific (but no doubt would have amazing viewership numbers). Or, imagine if instead of having police, we relied on a “free market” approach to crime prevention: people would just sort out their problems on their own, perhaps by hiring private security and gunmen to take care of things. That would, of course, be chaos.

Thus, socialism is bad. But so is oxygen.

%d bloggers like this: