Socialismesque?
Posted by Ron Coleman on April 13, 2009
Remember this big-deal post? It got Instalanched and everything, and I was written off by many an otherwise friendly right-winger for it:
Just as we remember it: Socialism, fundamentally, is premised on the non-private ownership of at least some of the means of production. Obviously at best the only argument you can make for Obama-as-socialist, based on the sound bite quoted above, is that he is a “social democrat,” i.e., one who “propose[s] selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs.”
So: What industry did Barack Obama propose to nationalize in his remarks, or in any remarks?
None. He proposed none, and in all probability he never will.
Harry Truman — now there was a socialist. He tried to nationalize the entire steel industry. But what would conservatives give today for a world full of Democrats like Truman?
People, you don’t have to be a socialist to be “dangerous” as a matter of economics, budget, tax policy, or, for that matter, liberty. But if you want healthy economies, balanced budgets, fair taxes — and liberty — you have to know your political economy, and you have to know who is and who isn’t a Red, if only to maintain your own credibility as loyal opposition.
Well, now Instapundit quotes the following from Jonathan Macey, which challenges my premise (not by name) considerably:
To socialize the American economy, it is not necessary to nationalize every business in the United States. All it requires is to put the corporations that control the finances of all of the companies in the economy under government control. And that is what is happening now. . . .
The initial forceful injection of capital into hundreds of financial institutions, however, is another story. It is the first step in an ongoing process to socialize American finance. When this process is complete, every company in the U.S. that needs capital will first have to curry favor with some federal agency or politician. Solid business plans and prospects for growth and profitability will be far less important than diversity plans and political connections.
We’re at the start of an unprecedented foray by the federal government into the governance of private-sector companies. . . .
Is he really describing socialism, though? Or just plain lousy, or maybe even catastrophic, over-regulation of the financial sector?
I don’t see socialism here. Disaster? Tragedy? Whatever. Red October? Not quite. Enlighten me if I’m wrong.
Brian G. said
Uh oh. Here we go again. You couldn’t leave well enough alone, could ya?
jerseylaw said
It’s not me!
Avigdor MBawlmawr said
The corporate state was pioneered in the ’20s by Mussonlini, born to a socialist family and he died a fascist socialist. Instead of class struggle, their is class cooperation, at least that’s the ideology. Ron please read Jonah Goldberg’s ,. So the question is what brand of socialism, broadly conceived, is Obama aiming at? Or perhaps we can just say, statism or collectivism. It is certainly not the U.S. as you and I conceive it to be.
jaymaster said
Sounds more like fascism to me, by the definition that fascist governments control business and industry, without actually “owning” or nationalizing them. Might just be splitting hairs though
The government now has the means to control business via the purse strings, but it doesn’t actually own them outright.
It’s the same tactic the feds have used to effectively control state legislatures for several years now. They simply withhold federal funds until certain pseudo-mandated laws are enacted within the state.
Some examples off the top of my head are withholding federal highway funds until states lowered speed limits, then withholding more highway funds until they lowered their drunk driving threshold to 0.08%, then withholding more highway funds until they enacted mandatory seat belt laws, etc., etc…..
And do I hear “Cap and Trade” anyone???
Brian G. said
Seriously, Ron. Don’t you know Socialism is so passe. Fascism is all the rage now!
It’s amazing how many Americans have a complete lack of historical understanding which allows such ludicrous charges to be thrown about willy-nilly.
As Harold Meyerson pointed out in his excellent op-ed yesterday, such tactics may in fact be causing the opposite intended effect: http://tinyurl.com/d7dvz3
Bob Miller said
Brian G. is too important to actually address the topic and details under discussion in his own words with his own logic. We should all know that whatever offends Brian is ludicrous.