Online users
???: MessageBartb: Message???: MessageBartb: Post

What kind of communist drivel IS this? Any plan that runs afoul of natural law (and in this case, economic law) CANNOT succeed.
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE

01/11/2018, 15:09:46

Author Profile Mail author Edit

The dawn of American socialism

The ideological roots of Israel's troubles
Ryan Cooper

The Russian revolution was the most utopian left-wing
project in history, and it was a cataclysmic disaster. When the Soviet
Union collapsed in 1991, many Western observers concluded that the old
Marxist dream was dead forever.

But they spoke too soon. History
is not over, and with the absence of any Soviet competition, Western
capitalist countries and especially the United States have become
hideously unequal, misery-ridden, and economically stagnant. In many
ways, socialists in the early 21st century stand just about where they
were in the early 20th century: politically marginalized, but leveling
an economic critique that becomes more convincing with each passing

I have previously covered the two major schools of thought on the American left: the Brandeisians, who would reform American capitalism with anti-trust policy and regulated competition; and the social democrats,
who would reform it by jacking up taxes to create an enormously more
generous welfare state. There is substantial overlap between these
groups, and indeed they are more complementary than in direct conflict.

by contrast, stand somewhat apart from both groups. They are not so
much united around the traditional socialist objective of collective
ownership of the means of production as in pushing the political
boundaries leftwards far beyond their current limits, either in Europe
or America.

Socialists have as yet few truly high-profile
adherents. America's most left-wing politician in the top ranks, Bernie
Sanders, self-identifies as a "democratic socialist," but in practice he
is much more concerned with bringing America up to the top standard of
the developed world rather than leapfrogging past it. In his speeches
and writings, the fact that America is the "richest country in the
world" and yet fails to achieve a European standard of decency is a
constant refrain.

Socialists aim higher than this. Instead of
merely building out a Europe-style welfare state, they would make it the
most generous on Earth. Where it makes sense, they would directly build
and own things like housing. And instead of merely taxing capital, they
would bring a considerable portion of the national wealth under direct
democratic control.

For the first time since the 1930s, socialists
have some real political traction at least in terms of grassroots
enthusiasm. Their first objective, as Jacobin's Bhaskar Sunkara and Democratic Socialists of America's Joseph Schwartz argue,
is helping organize and strengthen left-wing movements. DSA and other
socialists groups have grown explosively over the past two years, but
are still quite small. Mass organizing above all, helping workers
build unions that have deep political commitments and aren't just out
for self-protection is a critical task if socialists are ever going to
exert real influence.

But what would they do with that power?

health care policy: Many have pointed to the fact the America spends
more than any other country on health care, and receives mediocre
results for all that spending. Socialists have been advancing the
argument that not only should an American health-care system match the
developed world standard, it should set a new benchmark for the best
system in the world.

As physician Adam Gaffney argues,
an American Medicare-for-all system ought to aim for the most generous
treatment standard one which completely divorces the quality of care
from the socio-economic position of the sick person. Therefore, there
should be no cost-sharing of any kind at the point of service (no
co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles), and universal accessibility to
the most expensive quality treatments, paid for with progressive
taxation. (These sort of arguments are probably part of why Bernie
Sanders' Medicare-for-all proposal was so generous.)

Given the
fact that America spends something like twice the OECD average on health
care, this ought to be possible. It would entail profound and highly
disruptive reform of the system, but the money is there.

consider another socialist proposal: Building out or improving
state-owned enterprises. Many countries have a state-operated airline or
rail network, which generally perform decently. While neglected and
underfunded Amtrak needs work, European state-owned rail generally
performs far better and is much, much cheaper to ride than
privatized British rail. Indeed, European state companies have long been
snatching up all sorts of British contracts, to run them for easy profits.

case for state enterprises in certain areas is actually fairly strong
even on ordinary economic grounds, reflecting the fact that certain
functions might be economically viable on a national basis, but not on
an individual corporate one. A national post office or rail service
might require a subsidy to remain in business, but they increase the
overall national productivity and wealth so as to easily "pay for
itself" through a strengthened tax base. Even Sanders, however, does not
focus much on building out a portfolio of state enterprises.

potential socialist objective is a return to public housing. Residents
of cities like New York are strangled with high rents, but new private
construction is slow, and generally on the luxury market. Liberal ideas
like "inclusive zoning," where developers are required to include a few
affordable units, are too small to make much difference. Rent control
also helps, but does not create new capacity.

What cities like New
York need is a ton of decent new apartments at a reasonable price.
Socialists would attack the problem head-on by directly building them on
public land. They would be modest, but in contrast to the traditional
practice of a sharp means test for public housing, they would be open to
a wide socioeconomic spectrum, and priced accordingly.

This would
accomplish several objectives. First, it would drastically expand the
housing stock while creating new socio-economically-integrated
neighborhoods no more projects with heavily concentrated poverty.
Second, cities generally own a good deal of land, and can borrow
relatively cheaply, so financing wouldn't be a problem. Third, because
there would be non-poor people occupying the majority of the units and
paying something closer to market-rate rents, the investment would pay
for itself indeed, in tighter rental markets it would quickly become a
huge revenue source. Fourth, it would take some pressure off the
private market, and help keep rents down there as well.

Bernie Sanders does support much public action on housing, but that does not include directly building and owning housing for the masses.

what about the heart of capitalism, private companies? An evolution of
the traditional socialist priorities on this question is what might be
called "sovereign wealth fund socialism," whereby the government scoops
up ownership of a broad swathe of the economy by simply buying lots of
stock. Owners of capital receive income from that ownership which
generally hovers at around one-third of the entire national income, a
very large amount.

A sovereign wealth fund would allow the
government to capture some of that money, and use it to the country's
benefit. Either you could simply kick it back out to the population, or
spend it on public works without needing to raise taxes, or whatever
goodies you want.

For an example of how this works, albeit on a
small scale, you need only look to the 49th state. Funded by oil
revenue, Alaska's wealth fund has about $55 billion in assets, and pays
out a yearly dividend to every Alaskan; in 2016 the figure was $1,022.

conservatives and liberals are certain to raise the objection that a
national sovereign wealth fund on the scale envisioned by socialists
would destroy the competition that pushes economic growth forward. It's
also a major disagreement with the Brandeisians, who believe that
businesses should be kept in private hands to maximize freedom. And
Bernie Sanders virtually never mentions the idea one way or the other.

That's really the eternal criticism of socialism: that it diminishes freedom.

Yet of all countries in existence, Norway has gone perhaps the furthest in the world
towards the overall vision of socialism I've outlined, and it's not
notably un-free. Some 35 percent of its workers are employed directly by
the government, and 70 percent of its workers are unionized. It has
state-owned enterprises whose total value adds up to 88 percent of GDP
(as compared to 0.4 percent in the U.S.). Most notably, Norway has
considerable oil reserves, and has used them to build up a tremendous
sovereign wealth fund, which owns about $950 billion in assets among
them about 1.3 percent of all the listed equities in the world.

Contrary to the red-baiting of The New York Times' Bret Stephens, who insists that anything even slightly socialistic is a short route to Soviet gulags,
Norway is not a totalitarian hellscape. On the contrary, it's one of
the most decent, free societies on the planet, and was ranked the happiest country on the globe by the United Nations in 2017 rather remarkable especially given how cold and dark the place is much of the year.

Sanders and his fellow social democrats generally say that America
ought to be able to reach Denmark's standard (which is somewhat less
socialist than Norway). But the full-throated socialists would insist on
going past it, and even exceeding Norway's high-water mark.

In 1994, probably the historical low tide of socialism since the mid-19th century, Ralph Miliband defined it
with two fundamental principles: "democratization far beyond anything
which capitalist democracy can afford; and egalitarianism, that is to
say the radical attenuation of immense inequalities of every kind which
is are part of capitalist democracy."

That is the future utopia
that socialists are striving for not some gray Soviet drudgery, but a
thoroughly free and democratic world where the fruits of economic
technology are as widely shared as possible. A place where people can,
for the most part, do whatever they have reason to value. To somewhat misuse John Maynard Keynes, in such a future,
"We shall honor those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the
day virtuously and well, the delightful people who are capable of taking
direct enjoyment in things, the lilies of the field who toil not,
neither do they spin."

It ought to be possible. America remains
the keystone of the global economy: its economy is much larger than any
other country's, and the U.S. government has much more strategic
leverage over global capital markets meaning less exposure to
international currency fluctuations and less risk of sparking capital
flight. We ought to be able to direct a considerably greater share of
the economic product to democratic ends than a small European country
and set a new standard for the most decent, egalitarian country on the
planet, without sacrificing the productivity or technology that we
currently have.

If the Brandeisians and the social democrats
achieve some measure of success in the next few years, how much further
to press things will be a natural question. I say you might as well try
especially given the wretched performance of American neoliberalism
over the past generation.

Let us experiment boldly, and see how perfect we can make this union.

This is the final article in a four-part series on the future of the American left. You can read the first article here, the second here, and the third here.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message