TNR - Liberalism v. Socialism - Is Obama Too Liberal, And Not Socialist Enough?

[Median Democrat]

Here is an interesting article discussing Obama's views, as well as efforts by Republicans and the mainstream media to brand his policies as socialism. This article does a good job of distinguishing liberalism from socialism, and arguing that Obama's policies are actually liberal and opposed to socialism. However, this raises the question of whether this is a good thing. Should Obama abandom liberalism and embrace more socialist ideals and pursue an equality of situation, rather than a mere equality of opportunity?

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=e050da85-7d49-46da-80fc-d9168c0faec7

/snip

The word "liberal" was first used in its modern political sense in 1812, when Spaniards wrote a new constitution liberating themselves from monarchical rule. As it happens, the word "socialism" originated in roughly the same period; it came into existence to describe the utopian ideas of the British reformer Robert Owen. Such timing suggests two possibilities: Either the fates of liberalism and socialism are so interlinked that one is all but synonymous with the other--or the two are actually competitors developed to meet similar conditions, in which case victory for one marks the defeat of the other.

These days, one could be forgiven for believing that the former conclusion is correct. It was not so long ago that conservatives were equating liberalism with fascism; today, they have executed a 180-degree swing in order to argue that liberalism is actually synonymous with socialism. "Americans," proclaimed Republican Senator Jim DeMint at the recent meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, "have gotten a glimpse of the big-government plans of Obama and the Democrats and are ready to stand up, speak out, and, yes, even to take to the streets to stop America's slide into socialism." But it isn't just the right that has worked itself into a frenzy; on the question of whether we are approaching a new age of socialism, there seems to be remarkable political consensus. In recent weeks, the covers of National Review ("OUR SOCIALIST FUTURE"), The Nation ("REINVENTING CAPITALISM, REIMAGINING SOCIALISM"), and Newsweek ("WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW") have--respectively--lamented, heralded, and observed the coming rise of socialism.

But all these commentators--right, left, and middle--may want to take a deep breath. We aren't headed for an era of socialism at all, since socialism is not a natural outgrowth of liberalism. Liberalism is a political philosophy that seeks to extend personal autonomy to as many people as possible, if necessary through positive government action; socialism, by contrast, seeks as much equality as possible, even if doing so curtails individual liberty. These are differences of kind, not degree-- differences that have historically placed the two philosophies in direct competition. Today, socialism is on the decline, in large part because liberalism has lately been on the rise. And, if Barack Obama's version of liberalism succeeds, socialism will be even less popular than it already is.

/snip

[msongs]

1. obama is a "new democrat" nt

[Median Democrat]

4. I Think He Is A Quintessential Liberal

Which is quite the opposite from a socialist. I also think that many DUers hate capitalism, and would prefer socialism, which does place them at odds with actual liberals.

[firedupdem]

2. Obama can't be labeled. He's that good. n/t

[Laelth]

3. "the two are actually competitors developed to meet similar conditions"

"the two are actually competitors developed to meet similar conditions, in which case victory for one marks the defeat of the other"

I believe that description is correct. And I believe Obama is a liberal, and I am thankful for that. I am not a socialist.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Political Heretic]

5. define socialism

[denem]

6. Collective - read Government, control of the means of production.

Fascism - read corporate fusion of capital and state

Totalitarianism- executive, legislative, judicial and economic power in one set of hands: One people, one regime, one employer, one law.

[Political Heretic]

7. BZZZZT.

That would be communism.

[denem]

9. No communism = one party representing the collective will.

[Political Heretic]

10. Heh noooooo.... communism, communism is central (state) control of the means of production.

Compare that to the many democratic socialist countries in Europe where the means of production are not all centrally controlled

[Median Democrat]

8. Wikpedia Defines "Socialism" and "Liberalism" As Follows...

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation."

"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,and a transparent system of government."

[Political Heretic]

11. "Public OR State" -- those are not not synonymous.

Wikipedia is.... as most people do.... conflating "Communism" and "Socialism."

Unfortunately, "socialism" doesn't have one fixed intractable definition. To define socialism you need to (at least in part) look at the countries which identify themselves as some kind of socialist.

Public ownership and STATE ownership are not the same thing. And example of public ownership would be an employee owned business, or the workers who are farming the land owning the land and its product. State ownership, obviously is central planning from a political authority.

These two are vastly different.

[Median Democrat]

12. So, I Guess You Could Say That Publicly Traded Corporations Are Socialistic?

Since the public owns shares of the corporations stock? Indeed, if socialism has no fixed definition, would it be fair for me to call our current form of government socialist and that corporations are actually a form of public ownership, because members of the public own them through stock ownership?

[Political Heretic]

14. You are absolutely right.

We have corporate socialism in our current system, and have for a very long time. The results have been, well... shitty for 80% of America. In the 30 years since real full-fledge corporate socialism took hold, wages decoupled with productivity of the first time in the 20th century, real wages for the middle class have stagnated, real wages for the working poor have actually gone down, while income for those in the very top bracket as exponentially skyrocketed. We now have the highest income inequality of any industrialized nation in the world.

Further:
http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2009/03/we-are-losing-america-right-before-our.html


I would suggest that not corporate socialism, but worker socialism in which not the state but the people have direct control over the means of production would be desirable. Public policy that focuses on strong power for labor would be preferable - with social welfare to empower and protect working America (that would be health care, education, and social services - which is a kind of socialism) and which encourages employee owned businesses and labor unions. The federal government should be decoupled from Wall Street and should again become responsible "referees" of the business game, setting strict rules through the mechanism of regulation on how big businesses can play.

We had policies that were closer to this prior to the mid 1970s, and the result was a huge post-WWII period of extreme economic expansion, declining poverty, rising wages for all, etc.

[Median Democrat]

15. Well, Are You Saying That Republicans Are Right That We Just Need Less Government Intervention?

If your premise is right, that we actually have socialism, but directed to support corporations, then why is the rational respnose more socialism, but directed at workers?

Isn't the answer that perhaps socialism should be rejected? Your arguments would seem to support a more libertarian model of less government intervenion in which the free market is unfettered, rather than helped or restrained by the government?

In other words, your argument is very similar to Republicans saying that we just need more tax cuts. You say that we are socialist, but we need more socialism, but "a worker socialism in which not the state but the people have direct control over the means of production would be desirable." Aren't you asking for even more capitalism with a free market where market participants, not the government, control the means of production?

What is the difference between your argument, and right wing rhetoric about how George Bush's failure is that he abandoned "conservative" principles and the free market? Afterall, socialism has no fixed definition. Perhaps your socialism, and a right winger's description of a free market, are not that different.

[Political Heretic]

16. Answer:

Because part the government's role should be to enforce rules and regulations that guarantee the majority of Americans certain ownership rights, certain social and economic rights, and certain things from the pubic commons. It should not be left to an "invisible hand" or "change."

This is the exact opposite of far-right market ideology, which suggest that their be no rules enforced on a privileged few who currently own most of the business and have almost all the wealth. The one role far-righters envision for government is physical security, i.e. military and police.

You're pushing a line of questioning that all stems from a faulty basis. You think you know what "socialism" is and that its a dirty word. The reality is every society has some elements of its governance that are collective oriented and other elements that are not. This is what I mean when I say that there's no clear one "socialism." European democracies are democracies for example, and also include many socially oriented policies that serve their people far better than ours do. They have a lot of blended terms, inluding "Social Democratic Parties" social democracy and the like.

A socialist democracy in the united states would be one in which businesses were tightly regulated by a government that was barred from receiving financial compensation from business, in which taxes were truly progressive and revenue spent in the public interest - guaranteed health care, quality public primary and secondary education, and the like, in which labor unions were guaranteed and supported.

And we can be pretty sure that this model works because every other industrialized nation (or at least the OEC 20) have been kicking our ass in a whole bunch of categories that I consider to be critical indicators of the health and well being of a society...

[Jennicut]

13. One is economic and the other is political

Obama is a liberal capitalist, not a liberal socialist imo.