Socialism and Property
(Part 5 of the essay)
The Specter of Socialism
Conservatives will by this point have doubtless called out the specter of socialism. (63) As a political philosophy / system, socialism is properly contrasted with liberalism (both classical and welfare). Socialism "takes equality to be the basic ideal and justifies coercive institutions insofar as they promote equality." (64) Setting aside all the subsidization that occurs for both the super rich and the merely middle class, the actual possibility of socialism within the American schema seems quite remote. (65)
Of course, different people mean different things by ‘socialism’. Media and voters on the Right seem to believe that any “redistribution of wealth” (such as direct aid to the poor, public healthcare or health insurance, or “programs” of one kind or another) -- that is, pretty much anything that raises their net tax burden -- counts as socialism. (66) By such lights I count as a “socialist.”
Groups on the Left use ‘socialism’ in ways that make it unclear -- to me, at least -- what they’re really seeking. Here’s how the Democratic Socialists of America describe their aims (in part):
Conservatives will by this point have doubtless called out the specter of socialism. (63) As a political philosophy / system, socialism is properly contrasted with liberalism (both classical and welfare). Socialism "takes equality to be the basic ideal and justifies coercive institutions insofar as they promote equality." (64) Setting aside all the subsidization that occurs for both the super rich and the merely middle class, the actual possibility of socialism within the American schema seems quite remote. (65)
Of course, different people mean different things by ‘socialism’. Media and voters on the Right seem to believe that any “redistribution of wealth” (such as direct aid to the poor, public healthcare or health insurance, or “programs” of one kind or another) -- that is, pretty much anything that raises their net tax burden -- counts as socialism. (66) By such lights I count as a “socialist.”
Groups on the Left use ‘socialism’ in ways that make it unclear -- to me, at least -- what they’re really seeking. Here’s how the Democratic Socialists of America describe their aims (in part):
|
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.... Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect... Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned... (67)
|
If the DSA really wants to abolish private property or do away with private business, they don’t say that here -- unless the phrase “the economy and society should be run democratically” is somehow “code” for that. To my reading, the text reads as a call for justice in the economic sphere, for reining in laissez-faire capitalism, for greater participation by citizens in the economy and in government, and for deeper social solidarity -- rather than socialism per se. A non-socialist Liberal such as I could get behind these things.
Actual socialism -- as opposed to the straw man put up by the Right -- can come in different flavors. (68) Some forms advocate central planning, some reliance on the market, some a mix. Some place power actually with the people, some with key groups (e.g., unions or collectives), some almost entirely with the state. The degree of communal ownership of property can vary. There are godless manifestations (e.g., Marxism-Leninism) and also religious ones. The driving idea behind socialism -- as noted earlier with the “liberal societal impulse” -- is equality. (69),(70)
Socialism is primarily an economic theory (or, family of theories) and is best understood by way of contrast to capitalism, its main rival. It is of course societies that have economies, not the other way round. Consequently, the real world implications -- financially but especially socially -- of a given economic system are immense.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy helpfully identifies the following features as being constitutive of a capitalist economic system:
To “achieve” socialism the following changes must be made to the above:
Granted, this “unpacking” of capitalism and socialism is a technical one. Yet precision is important. By these lights, what the Right in this country calls “socialism” is not, while what the Progressive Left calls “socialism” is hazy. It is worth stating this unequivocally: America is in no danger of becoming socialist in any meaningful sense of the notion. It is risible to suggest otherwise.
Actual socialism -- as opposed to the straw man put up by the Right -- can come in different flavors. (68) Some forms advocate central planning, some reliance on the market, some a mix. Some place power actually with the people, some with key groups (e.g., unions or collectives), some almost entirely with the state. The degree of communal ownership of property can vary. There are godless manifestations (e.g., Marxism-Leninism) and also religious ones. The driving idea behind socialism -- as noted earlier with the “liberal societal impulse” -- is equality. (69),(70)
Socialism is primarily an economic theory (or, family of theories) and is best understood by way of contrast to capitalism, its main rival. It is of course societies that have economies, not the other way round. Consequently, the real world implications -- financially but especially socially -- of a given economic system are immense.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy helpfully identifies the following features as being constitutive of a capitalist economic system:
- The bulk of the means of production is privately owned and controlled. (71)
- People legally own their labor power. [...]
- Markets are the main mechanism allocating inputs and outputs of production and determining how societies’ productive surplus is used, including whether and how it is consumed or invested.
- There is a class division between capitalists and workers, involving specific relations (e.g., whether of bargaining, conflict, or subordination) between those classes, and shaping the labor market, the firm, and the broader political process.
- Production is primarily oriented to capital accumulation (i.e., economic production is primarily oriented to profit rather than to the satisfaction of human needs). (72)
To “achieve” socialism the following changes must be made to the above:
- (1) must be replaced with (1*): “The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.”
- (2) remains in both systems.
- (3) may or may not remain, depending on whether central planning is thought essential.
- (4) drops away, essentially by definition.
- (5) is “converted” such that the primary orientation is satisfying human needs. (73)
Granted, this “unpacking” of capitalism and socialism is a technical one. Yet precision is important. By these lights, what the Right in this country calls “socialism” is not, while what the Progressive Left calls “socialism” is hazy. It is worth stating this unequivocally: America is in no danger of becoming socialist in any meaningful sense of the notion. It is risible to suggest otherwise.
Private Property
Why does socialism feature so prominently in Conservatives’ nightmares? A large reason is that central to the American mythos is our defeat of godless Communism in the twentieth century. Another reason is our hyper-individualism. A third reason is that owning things has been part of the American project from the beginning.
A charitable interpretation of this latter impulse finds its intellectual justification in classical liberalism.
Why does socialism feature so prominently in Conservatives’ nightmares? A large reason is that central to the American mythos is our defeat of godless Communism in the twentieth century. Another reason is our hyper-individualism. A third reason is that owning things has been part of the American project from the beginning.
A charitable interpretation of this latter impulse finds its intellectual justification in classical liberalism.
|
For classical liberals ... liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life -- including employing her labor and her capital -- as she sees fit. (74)
|
Indeed, as a Liberal -- like most of my fellows -- I wholeheartedly endorse strong property rights, seeing them as necessary to both individual and societal flourishing. So too do I (and we) support a robust version of the capitalist model. Beyond just practical workability in a modern economy, a capitalist approach is unparalleled in its ability to match personal initiative with economic reward, to allocate resources efficiently via well-run markets, and to grow the economic commonwealth.
But there is a massive difference between capitalism and private property as concepts versus their implementation as matters of practical policy. When Progressives decry “capitalism,” the actual target of their ire is, I would argue, capitalism gone amok -- that is, truly laissez-faire (from the French, literally, “allow to do”) capitalism. There is simply no reason -- beyond hard-set ideologies -- why a robustly progressive social safety program would be incompatible with an economy basically arranged along capitalist lines.
Let us turn now, in the Final Part of the essay, to some practical considerations as to what solidarity -- love in the context of modern society -- might involve.
But there is a massive difference between capitalism and private property as concepts versus their implementation as matters of practical policy. When Progressives decry “capitalism,” the actual target of their ire is, I would argue, capitalism gone amok -- that is, truly laissez-faire (from the French, literally, “allow to do”) capitalism. There is simply no reason -- beyond hard-set ideologies -- why a robustly progressive social safety program would be incompatible with an economy basically arranged along capitalist lines.
Let us turn now, in the Final Part of the essay, to some practical considerations as to what solidarity -- love in the context of modern society -- might involve.
Footnotes:
(63) Or, as my late father would put it: “Someone has got to pay for all that stuff!”
I don’t see a need to prove that Conservatives fear socialism. It is the bogeyman raised over and over and over again on the Right. Maybe thoughtful Conservatives versus the more populist ones aren’t bothered by it. But the facts on the ground -- as evinced by rank-and-file Republicans, their Party, and their media ecosystem -- say that socialism is the ghost Conservatives fear the most.
(64) This picks up the CDP’s taxonomy of political systems (“political philosophy”). The taxonomy does seem to run into the sand a bit, however. It appears to set liberalism, communitarianism (actually, Hegelian collectivism), and socialism as exclusive disjuncts -- which doesn’t make sense. Individualism (the assumption of liberalism) and collectivism are exclusive disjuncts; while socialism is rightly contrasted to liberalism insofar as each is concerned with the justification of coercive institutions per se. Because socialism concerns equality, it ends up being primarily about the economy -- i.e., the state’s control of the means of production and its divvying up equally the output of such. Liberals like Hayek (rightly in my mind) argue that collectivism and socialism are mutually entailing; in fact, two sides of the same coin. The issue of course is that these come in degrees, which makes hard and fast judgments difficult.
(65) Such subsidization occurs via the tax system (examples: for mortgages; for charitable contributions; for marriage and children; for business debt; for private health insurance; and for the various carve-outs found by lobbyists), not to mention our now once-a-decade bailouts (both corporate and familial).
(66) For some reason programs like subsidized healthcare for Baby Boomers (Medicare) don’t meet with this opprobrium.
(67) https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/ The need for greater clarity on what ‘socialism’ actually means to the Progressive Left in America is acute. Otherwise all groups Left of Center in America will be tarred with the socialist brush -- as is currently happening. To me, dropping the ‘socialist’ moniker altogether would be ideal.
(68) I am relying on the entry “Socialism” in the SEP in what follows.
(69) Though Marxism is of course a kind of socialism, Marxism as a philosophical, economic, and political theory and agenda is distinct from, and far more ambitious than, socialism simpliciter. Marx had an entire critique of the capitalist system and of liberalism itself, as well as an entire worldview to offer in replacement. Marxism is “communitarian” in the Hegelian (collectivist) sense noted earlier. On the other hand, while socialism does distinguish classes (e.g., workers versus owners) to say that it necessarily entails “class warfare” (or whatever) is false. Nor is it true that socialism necessarily obviates private property.
(70) Three important variants of socialism are communism, democratic socialism, and social democracy. Sheri Berman, in an article in Foreign Policy, provides an excellent overview and assessment of these, especially as to how each understands the interplay between capitalism as an economic system and democracy as a fundamental societal norm. Berman defines social democracy as “a variant of socialism distinguished by a conviction that democracy makes it both possible and desirable to take advantage of capitalism’s upsides while addressing its downsides by regulating markets and implementing social policies that insulate citizens from those markets’ most destabilizing and destructive consequences.” That said, I find it hard to see, speaking precisely, how this is socialism per se -- at least in terms of the parameters of this essay. It seems indistinguishable from well-regulated welfare liberalism. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/15/social-democracy-save-world-again-socialism/)
(71) Here is a good definition of ‘means of production’ by Christine Serva: “The means of production of a society include all of the physical elements, aside from human beings, that go into producing goods and services, including the natural resources, machines, tools, offices, computers, and means of distribution, such as stores and the internet.” https://study.com/academy/lesson/means-of-production-in-sociology-definition-lesson-quiz.html
The means of production are divided into two categories: the instruments of labor (factories, infrastructure, tools) and the subjects of labor (raw materials, natural resources). The means of production are also called capital goods. Together with land and labor, they comprise the “primary factors of production” (aka, producer goods). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
I believe that this terminology is due to Marx. I assume modern economists would draw the categories in different ways. The basic ideas still appear relevant.
(72) Adapted from the “socialism” entry in SEP. Italics in the original. Actually, the SEP says that capitalist systems always have (1) through (3); that (4) is “typically present” when the former are; and that (5) “is also typically seen as arising” when (1) through (3) are. I assume that nearly all modern, capitalist societies include all five of these.
(73) Ibid.
(74) SEP, “liberalism.”
Images:
"Red Roses." Image by Oberholster Venita from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/illustrations/red-rose-vintage-botanical-flower-1646027/
Red roses have been a symbol of socialism.
"Fence." Image by MichaelGaida from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/landscape-nature-clouds-tree-rest-3911460/
Original 12/25/20.
(63) Or, as my late father would put it: “Someone has got to pay for all that stuff!”
I don’t see a need to prove that Conservatives fear socialism. It is the bogeyman raised over and over and over again on the Right. Maybe thoughtful Conservatives versus the more populist ones aren’t bothered by it. But the facts on the ground -- as evinced by rank-and-file Republicans, their Party, and their media ecosystem -- say that socialism is the ghost Conservatives fear the most.
(64) This picks up the CDP’s taxonomy of political systems (“political philosophy”). The taxonomy does seem to run into the sand a bit, however. It appears to set liberalism, communitarianism (actually, Hegelian collectivism), and socialism as exclusive disjuncts -- which doesn’t make sense. Individualism (the assumption of liberalism) and collectivism are exclusive disjuncts; while socialism is rightly contrasted to liberalism insofar as each is concerned with the justification of coercive institutions per se. Because socialism concerns equality, it ends up being primarily about the economy -- i.e., the state’s control of the means of production and its divvying up equally the output of such. Liberals like Hayek (rightly in my mind) argue that collectivism and socialism are mutually entailing; in fact, two sides of the same coin. The issue of course is that these come in degrees, which makes hard and fast judgments difficult.
(65) Such subsidization occurs via the tax system (examples: for mortgages; for charitable contributions; for marriage and children; for business debt; for private health insurance; and for the various carve-outs found by lobbyists), not to mention our now once-a-decade bailouts (both corporate and familial).
(66) For some reason programs like subsidized healthcare for Baby Boomers (Medicare) don’t meet with this opprobrium.
(67) https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/ The need for greater clarity on what ‘socialism’ actually means to the Progressive Left in America is acute. Otherwise all groups Left of Center in America will be tarred with the socialist brush -- as is currently happening. To me, dropping the ‘socialist’ moniker altogether would be ideal.
(68) I am relying on the entry “Socialism” in the SEP in what follows.
(69) Though Marxism is of course a kind of socialism, Marxism as a philosophical, economic, and political theory and agenda is distinct from, and far more ambitious than, socialism simpliciter. Marx had an entire critique of the capitalist system and of liberalism itself, as well as an entire worldview to offer in replacement. Marxism is “communitarian” in the Hegelian (collectivist) sense noted earlier. On the other hand, while socialism does distinguish classes (e.g., workers versus owners) to say that it necessarily entails “class warfare” (or whatever) is false. Nor is it true that socialism necessarily obviates private property.
(70) Three important variants of socialism are communism, democratic socialism, and social democracy. Sheri Berman, in an article in Foreign Policy, provides an excellent overview and assessment of these, especially as to how each understands the interplay between capitalism as an economic system and democracy as a fundamental societal norm. Berman defines social democracy as “a variant of socialism distinguished by a conviction that democracy makes it both possible and desirable to take advantage of capitalism’s upsides while addressing its downsides by regulating markets and implementing social policies that insulate citizens from those markets’ most destabilizing and destructive consequences.” That said, I find it hard to see, speaking precisely, how this is socialism per se -- at least in terms of the parameters of this essay. It seems indistinguishable from well-regulated welfare liberalism. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/15/social-democracy-save-world-again-socialism/)
(71) Here is a good definition of ‘means of production’ by Christine Serva: “The means of production of a society include all of the physical elements, aside from human beings, that go into producing goods and services, including the natural resources, machines, tools, offices, computers, and means of distribution, such as stores and the internet.” https://study.com/academy/lesson/means-of-production-in-sociology-definition-lesson-quiz.html
The means of production are divided into two categories: the instruments of labor (factories, infrastructure, tools) and the subjects of labor (raw materials, natural resources). The means of production are also called capital goods. Together with land and labor, they comprise the “primary factors of production” (aka, producer goods). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
I believe that this terminology is due to Marx. I assume modern economists would draw the categories in different ways. The basic ideas still appear relevant.
(72) Adapted from the “socialism” entry in SEP. Italics in the original. Actually, the SEP says that capitalist systems always have (1) through (3); that (4) is “typically present” when the former are; and that (5) “is also typically seen as arising” when (1) through (3) are. I assume that nearly all modern, capitalist societies include all five of these.
(73) Ibid.
(74) SEP, “liberalism.”
Images:
"Red Roses." Image by Oberholster Venita from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/illustrations/red-rose-vintage-botanical-flower-1646027/
Red roses have been a symbol of socialism.
"Fence." Image by MichaelGaida from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/landscape-nature-clouds-tree-rest-3911460/
Original 12/25/20.