||| FROM DAVID KOBRIN |||
As a boy it was right for me to fantasize, to imagine possibilities, to think grandly about what I might become.
Now, my goal is to be realistic; to be right sized; to see myself as neither less nor more than I am. The present is my time to understand what is happening around me as it is, rather than as what I most want, or most fear.
So it’s especially disturbing to hear false stories about the United States that are strongly held, even so fiercely believed that their adherents are willing to die to protect us from a threat that, in fact, doesn’t exist.
A striking example for me of such a belief is that our nation’s economic system, free-market capitalism, based on competition, is now under threat from those who want to replace it with “socialism.” From this perspective, in the United States our economic system depends on decisions that individual entrepreneurs and individual consumers make about what to produce and what to purchase. It is largely free from government intervention. The government doesn’t decide what products are made, or how many, or in what variety, or how much they will cost, or who must buy them.
But is this an accurate description of our nation today? Is the United States strictly a free-market capitalist economic system, rather than an economy controlled by the government? Many people do feel this way. What I see is much more complex than the simple dichotomy of either “capitalism” or “socialism”. The reality I see is an economic system that is generally competitive markets when times are good; and increased government control and intervention when difficulties arise.
A closer look reveals that “free markets” are not — have never been— perfect. In fact, in many situations free-market organization fails. During those difficult times, we the people expect government to step in and help small businesses and families in financial trouble.
In the past year, for example, the United States government spent almost three trillion dollars to support businesses, corporations, and, to a lesser extent, wage earners, from the economic downturn that threatens us now. It provided direct cash payments, made forgivable loans, lowered interest rates, and revised other regulations to ease the burdens of the troubled economy. In the past year (as it did 12 years earlier during that economic crisis) smaller business and larger corporations — including banks, airlines, auto manufacturers, farmers, oil and gas companies — have been saved from crippling losses, or even bankruptcy by government economic decisions.
I want to be explicit that I’m not arguing the question capitalism vs. socialism; or even whether governments ought to step in with grants, loans, price supports, and new regulations when our economy tanks. What I am saying — with open eyes, I believe —is that the United States clearly has a mixed system with both capitalist and socialist elements. We are not either/or.
Why pretend differently? Why think it is a “fight to the death” to save our nation from government’s role in the economy when we already benefit from government support, control, and intervention — as needed?
I think the questions we should be asking are:
- When is government intervention appropriate?
- What form should government intervention take?
These are difficult questions. They cannot be answered with “yes” or “no” responses. But we must start by asking those general questions, using specific, actual examples, case by case.
As for myself, I don’t want to live in a dream world that creates consistency when there is none.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
“Socialism is often defined as welfare, it’s NOT that. Welfare is welfare. Welfare means implementing policies for the good of social benefits or members of the society who benefit.”
“Socialism” is workers-owning and controlling the means of production based on liberty, equality, and democratic principles. It’s democracy brought to the workplace. That’s what it is on it’s core. If you don’t have workers owning and controlling the means of production you don’t have socialism. There IS SUCH A THING as Free-market socialism. That’s a complete no government no interference in markets way of trading what workers own and produce. However socialism typically does not honor markets like a god, but rather implements policies designed for the good of all working class people.”
“What socialism is NOT is state-ownership of the means of production. That’s totalitarianism, or precursors to totalitarianism. In socialism if workers own the means of production that means you can’t have the state directing your production. Rather that is TOTALITARIANISM. North Korea, the Soviet Union, were all totalitarian states.” Roland Piageet
Excellent analysis Mr. Johnson and a very good starting point for informed discussion.
What Mr. Kobrin cites as a recent example is Keynesian Intervention which has nothing to do with ownership of production, but offsets the effects of government orders that impact the market.
Market Demand, i.e. what consumers want, is the essential driver of a healthy economy. But PNA to me.
David correctly points out that labels like “capitalism” and “socialism” aren’t very explicit, and therefore often amount to name calling. Ditto “totalitarianism”, and “nationalism”, etc. Any serious discussion would require a common understanding of what such terms mean, and all their many nuances, so that everyone could clearly understand what is being said. But we don’t have that common understanding, so those terms are often confused or misused. Michael labels state ownership of means of production “totalitarianism”. Yes, many totalitarian governments own means of production (the Saudi royal family owns their oil industry). But when Britain’s socialists nationalized their coal industry, that didn’t make Britain “totalitarian” as I understand that word. And when Russia privatized their energy industry, they did not become less “totalitarian” – they remained “authoritarian”.
I would bet that two Political Science graduate students from different universities would use all these terms a bit differently, reflecting the different understandings of each university community. The meanings of these terms have become muddled. So I can tell you with a straight face that I wouldn’t want a socialist government, but my Medicare is a great government program. (And I thank the future generations who will pay for it.)