This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The New York Times And Socialism
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada
The New York Times and Socialism
In lieu of the election of Socialist President Francois Hollande and a Socialist Party collision as the majority in France’s Parliament, the New York Times recently asked “what does it mean to be a Socialist these days, anyway?” According to The Grey Lady, socialism today is “certainly nothing radical” and simply meant the “the emancipation of the working class and its transformation into the middle class” during its heyday. Essentially the article categorizes the contemporary socialist as one who is a rigorous defender of the welfare state. The piece quotes French journalist Bernard-Henri Levy as saying “European socialists are essentially like American Democrats.” It even accuses center-right political parties in the West of being quite comfortable with socialism’s accomplishments.
So is the New York Times correct? Is socialism just a boogeyman evoked by the “fringes” to scare the public into questioning the morality and efficiency of the welfare state?
Going by the New York Times definition, socialism is just another word for social democracy. But of course the word socialism never really referred to just welfare entitlements. Properly defined, socialism is a society where the complete means of production and distribution of goods are solely in the hands of the state. It is also a system defined by the absence of private property. According to famed socialist and author Robert Heilbroner
If tradition cannot, and the market system should not, underpin the socialist order, we are left with some form of command as the necessary means for securing its continuance and adaptation. Indeed, that is what planning means…
The factories and stores and farms and shops of a socialist socioeconomic formation must be coordinated…and this coordination must entail obedience to a central plan.
If capitalism and private property are the natural state of free men, socialism is the violent overthrow of liberty. Outlawing of private property and free enterprise is no easy task. It requires a large amount of enforcement to see to it that nobody trades without the state’s permission. And it is because of its oppressive nature that it is only through totalitarian dictatorship can socialism be fully realized. Economist George Reisman explains
In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers.
The New York Times paints socialism as a different picture. The push for “democratic Marxism,” as the paper calls it, was responsible for creating a vibrant middle class with measures such as progressive taxation and a welfare safety net. “Socialism and social democracy today are about a society with more solidarity, more protection of people, more egalitarianism” is how once-student revolt leader, now bureaucrat in the European Parliament Daniel Cohn-Bendit describes it.
No doubt these descriptions make for good political rhetoric. State officials love nothing more than convincing the public they have brought them a standard of living beyond their wildest imagination. Yet these claims are also completely false. Government produces nothing; it can only redistribute using its implicit threat of violence. Welfare transfer payments can’t be provided unless the private sector has produced wealth prior to confiscatory legislation. Just as production must always precede consumption, government can’t rob Peter to pay Paul if Peter doesn’t first have something to steal. No matter how hard they try, politicians can’t create a free lunch. They can only order the citizenry around with the trigger of a gun.
This truth doesn’t fit well with the NYT’s favorable view of socialism. The famously left-leaning newspaper never baulks at the chance to champion the newest scheme in government intervention. Where the paper really misses the mark on actual socialism is the fact that it can’t work and is bound to fail. True worldwide socialism will never create a worker’s paradise; just misery for all.
To proponents of incessant government control and regulation, such a statement is nonsense; even sacrilegious. But in 1922 in his book “Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis,” Ludwig von Mises not only explained why a market economy with private property is superior to socialism, he refuted the socialist doctrine beyond anything the movement could even begin to disprove. Socialists at the time had no answer for Mises’ critique. The same holds true for socialists today.
What was Mises’ devastating theory? It’s actually quite simple. Under a market economy, economic calculation is able to take place as long as there is private property and a pricing system. Since prices act as signals between producers and consumers, they provide the basis for the rational distribution of resources. Producers can’t fulfill the desires of consumers if they can’t calculate input costs and revenue. Without the possibility of profit, what motive is there for producing in the first place? Or as Hans-Herman Hoppe summarizes:
If there is no private property in land and other production factors (everything is owned by one agent), then, by definition, there can also be no market prices for them. Hence, economic calculation, i.e. the comparison, in light of current prices, of anticipated revenue, and expected cost expressed in terms of a common medium of exchange—money— (permitting cardinal accounting operations), is literally impossible. There can be no “economizing” under socialism. Socialism is instead “planned chaos.”
So precise was Mises’ theory that when the Soviet Union finally collapsed, Robert Heilbroner would go on to write in an article for the New Yorker entitled “Reflections: After Communism” that “socialism has been a great tragedy this century” and “no one expected collapse.” After decades of denying Mises’ refutation of socialism, he was finally forced to admit “that Mises was right.”
To the working man, pure socialism only results in a state of destitution. It is by no means the “emancipation of the working class.” It is a system of top-down enforcement where the masses are treated as cogs in need of fine tuning. Socialism gained traction only because leading intellectuals saw it as a possible utopia and did their best to convince the ruling establishment of its merits. “Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement” as F.A. Hayek put it. It has always been an economics system favored by those elitists who hoped to find themselves crowned as central planners.
The New York Times article ends by quoting Marc-Oliver Padis, editor of the academic journal Esprit, who asks “Is socialism really more than pragmatism?” The answer is no. Even in its moderated European form, the socialist sees the state as the answer for all of society’s questions. He values violence over peace; compulsory over voluntary, slavery over freedom, and submission over dignity. As long as France continues down the road to socialism, its economic future is in grave danger. Judging by the amount of wealthy businessmen who have begun to flee France in favor of London, it would seem that people in the end generally feel entitled to the sweat of their brow. As Mises never tired of pointing out,
A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.
»
- 22481 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I believe in Eastwood-ism
http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab30/16bitninja/ClintEastwood_MyLawn.jpg
Property rights are human rights .... after all ! The LAW of property rights protects our LAWns !
Thanks, Tyler, for throwing us some red meat once in a while !
Socialism is a spoiled, rotten child like Ruprecht .... should be fitted with the genital cuff !
Ummm...meat.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/13/12876364765...
Let's not get hung up on the use of terms and words. The real question is whether a welfare state can ever stop growing without destroying or at least curtailing the incentive for productive forces to even exist.
Budget deficits are a form of welfare state and to be honest with you i think that while a welfare state is to SOME degree deirable, its growth must not outpace the productive capacity of the system as it is currently doing.
The real question is whether capitalism ends up in an oligarchy, with corporations controlling our legislature to the benefit of the elite.
I think American democrats have slowly morphed into Euro socialists over the last 2 decades or so. As Europe comes to realization that their brand of socialism is a aboslute failure, perhaps the democrats in US will adjust their goals. But probably not, and it will be business as usual.
And our crony capitalism is such a success. The best and the brightest learn to game the system for their own benefit, fleecing the sheeple.
You obviously haven't been to Germany lately. Free education, health care, and good retirement benefits. Trains run on time, they're building solar farms all over the place, new plants and factories all over the place. They kept their manufacturing base in Germany, and as a result, are now supporting some of the other countries in Europe which won't last long. But they are VERY SUCCESSFUL economically and yet have solid social programs that help everyone. So you are wrong. Quite frankly, it's people like you, spreading darkness and lies, instead of honest information and light, that are the problem.
(Sorry for my English)
Yes, Germany is all that but at the expenses of most of the other Eurozone's countries, which are struggling with the fuck***g Euro that makes them a lot less competitive, governments without the possibility of handling the most important macroeconomic tools to drive their countries' economies, bankster ruling things.
So here we are, looking at Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and so many others falling apart with their Central Banks owned by a bunch of banksters, owning the ECB, being the ECB in the hands of these criminals (among others, the Deutsche Bank), gamblers playing derivatives and other "creative" games in spite of the very life of milions.
And the media, sh*t, the media! Shame on journalists, selling their skills to serve the corporate élite. And politicians, shame on most of them too, just mercenaries.
The World is such a mess and we've read all the theory, we're supposed to be able to do better but I believe we aren't there yet. Moving forward to the next step in civilization will be needed otherwise we'll keep going around into the same shit over and over again killing each other in a milion ways by action or omission.
Socialism is a boon for the politcal and media elite which of course is why the NY Times and Limousine Liberals love the ideaology. It also allow them to take care of all those poor slobs who are obviously too stupid to care or think or decide for themselves. Thank you Dear Leader for your wisdom.
Too stupid to not have been born into the 1% and too unwilling to accept that dead end jobs that don't pay a living wage are the American Dream.
Spoken like a true Christian... I mean Facist.
Socialism is one step on the path to communism. Anyone speaking of socialism being not radical is an ass and not to be trusted.
Such nuanced critical thinking is difficult to grasp for all but the wisest of sheeple.
http://savejersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/559298_365282756876865_315847768_n.jpg
Anyone on this blog who thinks anything is going to get better with Romney in the White House is surely high on crack. If you concede, which many of you do, that Wall Street and the banks rule the world; and you concede, which many of you do, that the corruption in the financial system is out of control, then what-the-fuck makes you think things are going to get any better with a Republican in office? The big surprise and disappointment with Obama is that he has been such a wimp about prosecuting financial fraud, when finding it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. But he, like all the others, is owned by the banks, so it’s not really so surprising. But he sure did talk a good game.
But don't give me your delusional, ideological, third-grade bullshit that things will get better with a Republican administration. They won't. Since Republicans hate government (unless it's giving them money and making them and their friends rich), and love free markets (i.e., few laws and little control), things will only get worse, as they always have under a Republican administration, because human greed is allowed to run rampant (ex. stock market crash of 1929; world-wide financial collapse in 2008).
The fact of the matter is, the U.S. and the bankers (working together and in secret), are locked in a struggle to maintain the supremacy of the U.S. dollar. They are locked in this struggle, and are manipulating the markets, the value of the dollar, and the interest rates in order to 1) protect their own enormous wealth, 2) protect the economic system they own that provides them with their enormous wealth (which would include, as a secondary benefit, protecting the U.S. financial system, which indirectly protects all of us to some degree). So we beat on, boats against the tide...
romney is for the NRA
he is being painted wrongly by obami as the past governor in a welfare-socialist massachusetts state -- romney got the fuck out because he cound't stand the hypocrisy -- he gave the ultra-liberal democratic congress what they wanted in their 'POS' HealthCare Bill [ain't worth blowing your nose with today].
bain is no different than every corporation in america today. you are paying 39%+/+ tax,... for what?
he's going to lower the rate, and get rid of 'the bernak'
if obama get's another 4 years we'll all be living in FEMA Camps!
jmo
So Obama sucks. So does Romney. Sorry the NRA doesn't rate as one of the pressing issues for me, what with all the corruption being exposed in the financial industry and the loss of civil liberties in the name of the continuing war on terror, and the increasing number of under/unemployed forced to live with despair.
So the next head of the Central Bank is going to make things all better? All we need to do is replace the Bernank? How hopey changey.
Wait...if you can clarify:
Are you saying Romney WASN'T the governor of Massachusetts?
"In lieu of the election of Socialist President Francois Hollande and a Socialist Party collision as the majority in France’s Parliament, the New York Times recently asked ... "
"In lieu of" means "in place of" or "instead of".
What is this sentence supposed to mean ?
And did the author mean "coalition", not "collision"?
???
"in lieu of" = "in light of" = "benighted"
"collision" = "elision" = "derision"
And that's about as much as you'll get out of that "article" = "particle"
Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
This a few years before she was elected after being prompted to run for the office of prime minister because of the bankruptcy of the UK caused by socialism and rampant marxism within trade unions (think car workers, train drivers and miners).
Want to play a game?
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/07/13/12/polands-communist-monopoly...
heh, very good. as with subsequent stories here on china. you just have to believe that people will not stop producing goods during a financial crisis based on the racketeering that goes for banking these days. staggers me that the US has fraudie and funny (chit, there i go again) freddie and fannie, to act as banks and engages in racketeering at the federal level to support the banks.
Unfortunately these are faux debates with topics set up in a very biased way. There is ALWAYS going to be socialism - Markets aprticipants love farm subsidies and energy subsidies (Corporate socialism) but hate Food Stamps (socialism that benefits the poor in a society). Given 25 billion dollars - would you allocate it to Subsidizing Large corporate farms when grain prices are already so high or would you feed the hungry?
Half the food stamp recipients are conniving children who must be trying to "work the system"
I prefer taking care of the 15 million unemployed because if someone is poor and desperate (because there are no social safety nets) they will Rob and Steal (from people like me) and some will go to Jail - a cost which I have to pay for anyhow. It costs 25K+ per year to house an inmate - SNAP Benefits (aka Food Stamps) are 6K/yr for a family of 3!
A co-worker as a child immigrated with his parents from Russia. He is in love with the Communist system. He very much believes in it (despite my saying he's never truly lived in the system and neither have I for that matter), but his belief is that it the Soviet system failed because of external factors. He further beliees that the System WILL work nowadays, with better technology and algorithms for systems of production control... and if something messes up, they should tweak the algorithm. Then his belief is essentially a democratic system where groups of people will determine the local leaders and so on and on - and each level is accountable to those below. His other argument was that the educational system and employment is much better, everybody was able to participate.
Granted Socialism and Communism in the real world implementation is much different from what is in theory.
But, in the end ALL systems no matter what they are, are run by people and as such fall prey to our human tendancies and constrains us by the architects of the systems. Nothing is perfect.
The author takes a very narrow minded view of Socialism. The only person that is free of socialism may be the hermit in his cave. The minute he starts interacting with another human being, socialism enters the picture.
When a man and a woman get married or just live with each other socialism exists and more so when children are born.
Government with all it's entities, a religious group, a sports team, or a community is socialism.
Socialism existed even before the merchant class ascended to the thrones of power, before the Church was so powerful, and before kings and emperors.
The corporate and political fascists almost destroyed our economy and guess who came riding to the rescue. You got it!--Socialism.
You can never run from socialism, you can't hide from socialism, so intermigle same with capitalism and you have a winning combination.
No socialism means the death of Capitalism at the hand of the Capitalist.
you are confusing socialism (and communism probably) with the multi-faceted possibilities in life. Socialism involves the few taking from the many and misallocating resources because of corruption or stupidity. Individuals can change behaviour; socialism is a poltiical system can only exist (stealing from the poor (taxes and crony capitalism) with other peoples money, removing the chance for individuals to make their own mistakes and move on..with life.
Igor Shafarevich's "The Socialist Phenomenon" and "Socialism in our Past and Future" should be required reading.
Shit! Reading the comments one can see how much confusion is out there. Althusser's ISA and Corporate Mass Media Division work perfectly, so far.
I wouldn't touch this argument with your dick.
"Is socialism just a boogeyman evoked by the “fringes” to scare the public into questioning the morality and efficiency of the welfare state?"
Efficiency and welfare state are two terms that I would never expect to see in the same sentence.
As for socialism itself, all I can say is; Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Peronist Argentina, the Communist Warsaw Pact countries, post war/pre Thatcher Britain, present day Greece/Spain/Portugal/Ireland/Cyprus/Italy/France.
I know I must have missed a few. But if there is a thread running through the above list, it is that Socialism es Muerte. :)
I stopped reading after the first sentence told me that a NYT article took the place of Hollande. "In lieu" means "in place of."
Thank you, Tyler, for this post. On similar thinking, Luigi Zingales gets it right when he says that the current state of management capitalism -- as opposed to shareholder capitalism -- is a step toward socialism because of how it vests control with an elite responsive more to political control than to economic control. "Political analysis replaces credit risk analysis." Page 90.
John Bogle says much of the same thing in "Battle for the Soul of Capitalism" on owners' capitalism's superiority over managers' capitalism.
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-People-Recapturing-American-Prosperity/...
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Soul-Capitalism-John-Bogle/dp/0300109903
all glory to the soviet
The Jordan 13 Shoes was developed by Hatfield and also released while February 1990. Obviously the actually retro by using Air jordan shoes is very difficult to satisfy the needs connected with fans regarding Jordan 1 Shoes or boots Brand. Air jordan shoes was going back for particule picked out and they advised the particular Bulls to yet a new supplementary NBA accomplishment. Basically alongside nothing altered as well as the elimination around the cover supra boots and shoes, as properly because jumpman had been now throughout the aspect of Jordan 60?s TWENTY Shoes Great discounts operating shoe; additionally this date 1985-2003 have been place .Of course,we also offer:Michael Kors Satchel Outlet Handbags,Michael Kors Factory,Cheap Supra Shoes, Justin Bieber Shoes,Nike Shox R4 ,Air Max 2012, Coach Outlet Online,Michael Kors Watches Outlet,Michael Kors Beford.