Socialism and Social Democracy

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Here's where you are missing this: it's political, bridge club high weeds explanations don't matter.

Sounds like an interesting class, though

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Politicians make (gasp!) political, not academic points...because that's where the votes are.

...dems have certainly squandered the bovine vote with all this about outlawing cow farting.

If I lived around you I'd go to the class with you.

[Dave Roberts]

Most of the political rhetoric I hear is sound-bite rhetoric with vague terminology that has frightening connotations (like "a massive caravan of Central Americans coming to overwhelm our borders"), undefined labels that again work by fright, not by careful use of all labels, and categorizations that assume untrue things (like all evangelicals are like Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, Jr.). We Americans have lost the ability to do critical thinking because we do not expect to apply what little we do know to what we are hearing. The only news I hear that ever requires thought comes from NPR or the BBC. This is just one of many examples where "socialism and social democracy" are crossed in the popular mindset.

[Sandy]

"Socialism" is a buzz word used by the right initially to attempt to frighten people into voting their way, but lately, to try and keep the base from defecting. Even some of the more extreme examples that they like to trot out, like Maxine Watters or Bernie Sanders, are not "socialists" by definition.

The Republicans have been on their heels with "social democracy" ever since Roosevelt succeeded by using it to jump start the economy and bring it out of the depression. I'm not surprised that Trump made some vague references to universal health care or the infrastructure. He sticks his finger up from time to time and reads the polling data too. Trump tried to take credit for a dip in prescription drug costs and a slowed pace of inflation of the price of medical services (both things due directly to the Affordable Care Act) because this issue does drive votes and the Democrats are beneficiaries of that. Economic stimuluses from government projects work well too, as the one did during the early part of the Obama administration. There's a lot of work that can be done on the infrastructure to sustain a large workforce for a long time. That's the kind of "socialism" Democrats advocate.

[Haruo]

And don't lose sight of Social Darwinism and the Social Gospel.

[Rvaughn]

[Sandy]

From a political perspective, attempting to use the term "socialism" or "socialist" as a negative term implying that it is the same thing as Marxist theory or communism is deceptive and misleading. Anyone with a computer and a high school student's knowledge of economics can figure this out, see what it does and decide for themselves.

Like anything else, there are a lot of variables, different models and no guarantees. In some cases, as mentioned in the quote that Rvaughn cited, state ownership or regulation is necessary to make it work. That seems somewhat Keynesian to me Obviously, the reason the American political right doesn't like it is that it spreads out the wealth, which is not to their advantage. For one thing, it means that labor increases in value as employees can own shares of their company and they get more of the profit. For another, if employees have more money, they are spending more money and that is where you have real economic growth. Theoretically, it neutralizes the effect of big money in politics because it increases the dollar amounts that numerous people can give.

There are some American examples of employee-owned businesses and companies, some that succeeded, a few that failed, but models that show this does work, including one steel company, one of the largest in the company, that was purchased by the labor union, saved 8,000 jobs and was actually competitive in the world market for years. Ultimately, because of the way the directorship of the company was structured, the competition was able to step in and buy pieces of the production plant. But you learn from mistakes.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

China's approach is, I think, at least as "Marxist" as the USSR's was. So I'm not sure how the failure of the USSR "invalidates" a Marxist approach.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

I just don't think the USSR was a Marxist economy. It tried before Stalin came to power, but thereafter I don't think Marx had much input. Cuba and Venezuela don't look particularly Marxist to me, either. That's not to say they don't adulate him. I don't think either major US party is particularly Jeffersonian, for that matter. Trump is a lot like Putin, and the Dems aren't as devoted to the common good, at the oligarchy level anyhow, as they are in their corporate sponsors. And trying to juggle a more heterogeneous "base" than Trump has.