Socialism is not the same as a MIXED Economy

[kennetha]

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2019, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Contrary to what some apparently under-informed and historically under-educated Sanders supporters, and also way too many Republicans, seem to want you to think, it is simply not true that wherever any social goods are provided by the government, rather than the market, one has "socialism."

A MIXED economy employs both market mechanisms and non-market mechanism to distribute various goods.

If you look around the world, mixed economies come in a wide variety, and vary in the degree of their dependence on market mechanisms vs non-market mechanisms. Mixed economies also involve greater and lesser degrees of regulation of the market and greater or less degree of taxation, with tax schemes being more or less broadly based, and more or less progressive or regressive, from nation to nation.

Like most developed democracies in the world, the US has a mixed economy. It has a great deal of private, rather than collective ownership of the "means of production" but also various social welfare programs, run by governments at various levels, that are not driven by market forces alone.

The mixed economy was one of the greatest advances in political economy of 20th century. It is NOT a form of socialism. It is, in fact, a way to PRESERVE the core of capitalism, while simultaneously giving capitalism a human face. It thus is a way of SAVING capitalism and REDUCING the lure of socialism.

European Social Democratic Parties would bristle at the idea of being called Democratic Socialists. They are often in fact, bitter opponents of Democratic socialism.

Democratic Socialism is, as its name and history implies, about the democratic ownership and control of the "means of production." It tends toward, for example, the nationalization of various industries, the abolition or seizure of private property. The Soviet Union was socialist, but very much ANTI-Democratic. Democratic Socialists are definitely NOT Soviet Style totalitarians to be sure, but they are SOCIALIST. They are opposed to capitalism. Democratic Socialist parties of days gone by were bitterly opposed to Soviet Style totalitarianism, not because of its socialism, but because it was so anti-democratic. Huge debates took place over many years among various socialist movements.

The Democratic Party of America has never been a SOCIALIST party, but it has a lot in common with European Social Democratic Parties.

Bernie Sanders obfuscates these distinctions, seemingly on purpose. Perhaps because he knows that Socialism, whether of the discredited Soviet variety or of the much more palatable Democratic variety, would be a hard sell in the US.

The Republicans also obfuscate these distinctions, because they seem to want a pure, laissez fare form of Capitalism that eviscerates the welfare state in the apparent belief that the Mixed Economy was a terrible idea all along and just the leading edge of true Socialism

Personally I reject both the obfuscation of Sanders and the obfuscation of the Republicans. I am a proud democrat. What would be called a Social Democrat in Europe. I fully believe in the Mixed Economy, as the democratic party has almost always done.

The trick is not to abolish capitalism but to harness its creative (and destructive) potential while simultaneously use the instruments of the Mixed Economy .. the greatest innovation in political economy of the 20th Century .. to give capitalism a human face. That means achieving the right mix of market and non-market distribution schemes, that means regulating markets in a way that keeps them open and competitive, rather than dominated by monopolies, that means a tax system that both incentivizes investment and innovation but also spreads the benefits thereof to the populace at large.

This is what the Democratic Party has long stood for. And even when that party most resembled the Social Democratic Parties of Europe, Bernie was still on the side of Democratic Socialism. Wonder why that is? Cause he is not a European style Social Democrat nor an American style Democrat, but a true blue Democratic Socialist. Or so it seems to me.

[brooklynite]

1. You'll never convince them...

[Sherman A1]

2. Nice insult to Some fellow Democrats

Getting off to a good start with the division thing.

[kennetha]

4. I'm afraid I don't see the "insult."

[Sherman A1]

5. Then we see it

much, much differently.

[kennetha]

7. you could try explaining yourself

And I will try to respond.

[Sherman A1]

8. From the OP

Contrary to what some apparently under-informed and historically under-educated Sanders supporters

[kennetha]

9. That's just a plain fact.

It's as if they think they can reinvent the meaning of words to suit their current political purposes. Sanders himself was blathering on about "Socialism" in a completely ahistorical way that basically tries to reinvent the word to soften its true historical connotations and too many of his supporters are taken in by this. It's as if they think that the democratic party of FDR and LBJ was a "socialist" party and as if they think that the social democratic parties of Europe are "socialist" too. But nothing could be further from the truth.

[Sherman A1]

12. It is fact only in Your Opinion

and absolutely Nothing More. No matter who the nominee is for the general election those under-informed and historically under-educated Sanders supporter might just come in handy in November of 2020.

Your post is divisive and nothing more than your opinion.

[emulatorloo]

16. I doubt any Sanders supporter would help Trump win in 2020 because a DU'er said something "mean"

Anonymous people on the Internet have been mean to me, yet that doesn’t change my policy goals, my values convictions, my core beliefs.

[kennetha]

18. how, exactly, is pointing out that a mixed economy is not ipso facto "socialism" divisive?

[shanny]

28. I understand your confusion.

Why Bernie ever calls/called himself a socialist is beyond me. Since he isn't and never has been. Despite what anyone hears on Fux (and they called Obama a socialist, for dawg's sake). Nope. Bernie is a social democrat.

Many of us are aware of that. Some--like you?--are not. Some, sad to say, are willfully "not."

I remember an old (sad) joke about Obama: he demonstrates his ability to walk on water and the RWers shriek about how he can't swim. It was ODS, or Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Seems to me there is an awful lot of a similar syndrome around here. I don't get it.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

45. I'm told BS is "authentic." He tells me he's a "Democratic Socialist."

I think he's telling the truth. I do not think he's a Social Democrat, or he's say so.

Surely the man knows the difference.

[applegrove]

3. When there is market failure then government delivers the service/product better.

https://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfailure/

"SNIP....

Market Failure

Definition of Market Failure This occurs when there is an inefficient allocation of resources in a free market. Market failure can occur due to a variety of reasons, such as monopoly (higher prices and less output), negative externalities (over-consumed) and public goods (usually not provided in a free market)

Types of market failure:

Positive externalities – Goods/services which give benefit to a third party, e.g. less congestion from cycling

Negative externalities – Goods/services which impose cost on a third party, e.g. cancer from passive smoking

Merit goods – People underestimate the benefit of good, e.g. education

Demerit goods – People underestimate the costs of good, e.g. smoking

Public Goods – Goods which are non-rival and non-excludable – e.g. police, national defence.

Monopoly Power – when a firm controls the market and can set higher prices.

Inequality – unfair distribution of resources in free market

Factor Immobility – E.g. geographical / occupational immobility

Agriculture – Agriculture is often subject to market failure – due to volatile prices and externalities.

Information failure – where there is a lack of information to make an informed choice.

Principal-agent problem – Two agents with different objectives and information asymmetries

 .....SNIP"

[kennetha]

6. Mixed economies need to exist in part because

(a) Markets are imperfect and often unjust: That's what the Republicans seem not to get.

(b) Governments are not innovative and risk taking and cannot satisfy all human needs or desires: that's what the Socialists seem not to get.

Mixed economies allow for the possibility that we can get the best of both worlds. But it is always a balancing act.

[applegrove]

10. Mixed market economies are everywhere in the world except for North Korea.

[kennetha]

19. Even the Chinese have gotten wise on that score.

Like I said, the Mixed Economy is the greatest innovation in political-economy of the 20th Century.

[shanny]

30. assuming the balance is right.

or are you saying all mixed economies are the same?

[kennetha]

34. Not at all

Striking the right balance is really politically difficult. There are always those who want more government and those who want less.

But I think there is potential even there. In a well-functioning two party state, you are likely to have a relatively more "Statist" party and a relatively more "market-oriented" party and they are going to compete over where the balance should be struck. If both parties are realist, driven by information, accept feedback, sometimes the market oriented party will have the better solution, sometimes the statist party will. But if each is willing to learn, admit when they are wrong, adjust, etc, that is my view of democratic politics within the context of a mixed economy at its best. I would want to live neither in a one party "marketist" dominated state nor a one party "statist" dominated state.

Unfortunately, our own marketist party (aka the Republicans) has gone almost completely insane, completely fantasy based, rather than fact based.

[applegrove]

11. Values of the country are about equity and/or efficiency. Government

is not always best at delivering efficiency. So when the markets can deliver they should be left to. Except in healthcare where government or single payer deliver efficiency better than the private insurance industry. Or education where teachers should be paid like it is a calling.

[sfwriter]

31. Governments are not innovative and risk taking

That sounds like a right wing over generalization. TVA, The Manhattan Project, D-day, and the moon landing say otherwise.

[kennetha]

14. nah. do a little research

Here is a little bit for starters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/10/12/introduction-to-19th-century-socialism/

I could go on and on.

What is true is that in recent years socialists have become more open to the possible role of markets, but even the current socialist international remains deeply suspicious of markets.

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31

[kennetha]

17. you mean like this:

socialism[soh-shuh-liz-uh m]

EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR socialism ON THESAURUS.COM
noun

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[kennetha]

21. huh?

Democratic Socialists don't reject SOCIALISM.

They came to exist because they rejected the Soviet style VANGUARDISM. The Marxist-Leninist vanguard, claimed to be "democratic" but they were democratic in name only. Division among socialists, started early on, and continued throughout the 20th century.

The democratic socialists wanted a more authentically democratic form of socialism. But they definitely wanted socialism, that is they wanted the democratic ownership and controls of the means of production. They thought that the Bolshevik model of socialism just replaced private property with the rigid totalitarian control of a bureaucratic state apparatus that was beyond the reach of true democratic control. They were certainly right about that.

Whether a truly DEMOCRATIC socialism is still possible, well that's a different question.

[sfwriter]

33. Exactly

No nation on earth would fit the ops definition strictly. The Nordic countries would be surprised to hear that their social democrats were secretly capitalists when they built an economy that expanded labor control and the welfare state.

Domestically, this would discount American socialist movements in the new left that have become part of the Democratic coalition. All you hippies, war protesters and aging Black Panthers who were organized by socialists haven’t understood what you were doing apparently.

Calling for socialism and accepting reforms is a LONG understood strategy very different than demanding incrementalism and settling for scraps or a desperate rear-guard to the status quo. The labor unions decline seems to track with the vilification of the word Socialist.

[haele]

22. Words matter indeed, especially in English. Democratic Socialism does not equal Social Democracy.

Despite what the likes of Nina Turner and other modern idealistic purists and populists think. There is an established definition for both; they aren't terms that sprang out of some millennial ideological catchphrase.

They are two distinct theories on how government should interact with the people.
In the term Democratic Socialism, Socialism is the subject, Democratic is the adjective. Democratic Socialism is Socialism that is determined through the Democratic process; i.e., the People (however the Democratic Socialist country defines citizens) vote on how their country's Socialism is practiced.

It's never really been seen in practice for any length of time before it turns into anarchy as overall governance and the various social ideological cliques that form (because we are all emotional, reactionary humans) start a competition on which resources are more important and which type of citizen is considered more deserving (to each according to his/her needs, after all). Though as a side, California's Proposition system to place mandatory fiduciary responsibilities on the state budget via annual ballot measures comes very close to the spirit of Democratic Socialism. And that's not necessarily been a good thing for the state over the years...

Likewise, in the term Social Democracy, Democracy is the subject, Social is the adjective. Social Democracy is a Democracy (of any form - whether monarchical or presidential administration plus a parliament, our own constitutional Republic, etc..) in which Social concerns take priority, and typically a strong safety net along with the protection of Civil Rights develops.

It's important to note that Democratic Socialism as defined historically is not what FDR espoused during his New Deal and is not what is on the Democratic Party's primary plank nor is it the part of the governance behind economic powerhouse that Keynes theorized and implemented, and is not the basis of the Northern EU economic policies. They all proposed or labeled their policies Social Democracy.
So if I seem skeptical of people who call themselves Democratic Socialists, remember, I live in California, where the People have done a lot of stupid, harmful things to the state budget and cost of living through otherwise well-meaning ballot measures in the name of some wealthy Carpetbagger or Populist's pet program or bete noir.

Haele

[kennetha]

23. K&R

[GulfCoast66]

24. Excellent post. And true.

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2019, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

For some reason Democratic Socialism has become the word many on the left use replacing Progressive in many cases. The title De Jour.

The problem is that progressive has no defined meaning.

Socialism and socialist do have a defined meaning that most people in the world understand to be the collective ownership of the means of production.

If you do not believe in the collective ownership of the means of production then you are not a socialist, Democratic or otherwise. Healthcare, roads, schools, minimum wage etc are not means of production. They do not create wealth and the government control of those sectors is social democracy.

If your goal is to make the US more like Western Europe, as is mine, you are not a socialist and do not want Socialism. Western Europe is made up of prosperous capitalist nations with social democratic principles.

I am vociferous opposed to socialism as are most democrats and Americans.

[kennetha]

25. K&R

[JonLP24]

27. A Democratic Socialist was the original chair of the Progressive Caucas

I don't have to name who that was.

[GulfCoast66]

32. Read up on the progressive movement. It has an ugly history.

That well predates the modern usage of the word.

I certainly don’t think modern progressives are like previous generations that went by that label. But at least here in the south it is still remembered and is why many of us want no part of the title.

Call me a liberal or more accurately a social democrat.

Well, first of call me a member of the Democratic Party!

If you do take the time to read about early progressive, especially during the Woodrow Wilson era, you will gain insight into the reason that some on the left wanting to stop talking about, so called, Identity politics causes some of us pause. Especially since the term Identity Politics was a right wing term to mean civil rights, or in the way the right intended it, black people.

[JonLP24]

36. I'm talking about the term progressive from 1991 to now

I'm no fan of Woodrow Wilson he is responsible for those laws we used to target whistleblowers that was originally used liberally by J Edgar Hoover to go after lefties.

I don't know why some Sanders supporters talk about identity politics. When I think of identity politics I think about what's getting people killed in Ukraine. I don't think you'll see me bringing up identity politics but I don't hold the politician I support responsible for that. I first heard of the term identity politics when I was studying Ukraine prior to the election. Russian identity, Russian language, nationalism.

I was defending Obama's immigration stance when it came to SB1070 which was introduced by my former state Senator Russell Pearce. There were a lot of conservative leaning members or trolls that not only backed SB1070 but some doubted it was written by racists. One poster wrote that Scalia wrote a beautiful dissent. There was a lot of debate but progressives that used to post here were against the SB1070 as well as most people here in general but I tend to find Conservative Democrats like stop and frisk Bloomberg more problematic when it comes to discrimination issues.

I've been here at the board during a lot of changes. I remember people here that took the side of Zimmerman or most police shootings up until around Michael Brown there were racist under the radar trolls that weren't particularly partisan Obama critics or supporters but they would show up to rip him on immigration. Myself I have been consistent on these issues but I consider anti racism a non partisan issue that should be agreed on by all people in politics but unfortunately even civil rights is a left vs right.

[GulfCoast66]

39. Excellent post. But the title of progressive is very dicey in the south.

Read about what Wilson did in regards to re-segregating the federal workforce and gave license to the southern democrats(who are now republicans) to go full on racial oppression. Especially after WW1 with blacks who experienced better treatment in Europe and were ready to fight for equality here.

Or Huey Long and his followers in my home state of Louisiana who loved progressive government as long as it was for the white man. My family has a long and generally losing history of fights against them. And we are well off white folks.

I well know most people who call themselves progressives have no knowledge of the history of this and in general fairness should not be linked to it. But some of us have family history as regards the movement. Hell, they thawarted FDR. Kept him from extending Social Security to African Americans.

To pharaprase Faulkner, in the south history is not really history. When we heard Sanders supporters and Sanders himself decrying Identity Politics, which we know is right wing code, our spider senses went into overdrive. We’ve heard that shit before.

[JonLP24]

26. I'm a Sanders supporter and back Keynesian economics

I believe Democratic Socialists best support that. You are right the right definitely want laissez faire and we give tax breaks all the time. In the early days of Keynesian economics there was a very high tax on the wealthy.

[GulfCoast66]

35. I am not posting to insult you or get into a fight.

But words have fixed meanings. In the title Democratic Socialist, socialist is the noun. But socialist do not support Keynesian economics. I do, but am no socialist as most democrats are not.

Why use a inaccurate term to self described? Especially when the title reflects a system that does not work? And admit to something you(in the general sense, I don’t know how you Identity) are not? I can’t understand it.

Now, I personally believe that some of the very prominent users of that name are, indeed socialist. Don’t hate them, just disagree. And wish they would just tell us their goal is public ownership of the means of production. But, hell, I may well be incorrect.

We all know a lot of the fighting over the term is just thinly disguised fighting over personalities. But the term is just not accurate unless you truly are a socialist.

These threads over the past several months have been some of the most interesting in my 3 years at DU. Few personal attacks and good discussion.

[JonLP24]

37. Socialists will probably tell you most Democratic Socialists are liberals

I've been homeless and starving in this country but it was the socialism side of the mixed economy that saved me. I back Sanders for many reasons but one of the major ones is to protect the VA my life depends on it.

[GulfCoast66]

40. And I hope your benefits are expanded under our next president.

But that is not socialism. The is social democracy and doing the right thing.

We should insure Universal Healthcare, as stated in our last Platform. But that is not socialism.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

46. The VA isn't socialism.

It is a social program for our Veterans paid for by wealth from a capitalist economy.

[JonLP24]

47. Everything is in Democratic Socialist countries

There is some form of capitalism but they support government in key areas instead of a for profit health care system.

[Caliman73]

38. Actually, words do not have fixed meanings in all cases.

Take the words Idiot, Imbecile, Retarded. Those words had clinical meanings in their day. They were clinical terms that were used to describe what is now called "intellectual disability". Which means a person who has scored below 75 on a standardized IQ test and has deficits in functional ability which may include communication, money management, academics, and functional adaptation.

Socialism is a range of ideologies that typically share in the support of more collective ownership of the means of production, but it is a very flexible range.

Remember that the Democratic Party was the party of states rights until Franklin Roosevelt advocated for more centralized control over the economy. Words change as their use in society changes.

I actually agree with your point about Democratic Socialism v. Social Democrat however a great many people do use the terms interchangeably, correct or not.

Here is an interesting article:

https://quillette.com/2018/12/26/democratic-socialism-or-social-democracy/

[GulfCoast66]

43. Interesting article. But your history is wrong.

Even before the Reagan realignment and FDR, Democrats favored a stronger government. You can’t read the history of Woodrow Wilson and his incredibly power grab and racist policies and believe democrats favored small government.

Democrats in the south loved the new deal as long as it was for white folks.

It was Calvin Colidge, republican President in the 20s who famously and still revered by republicans today who said ‘the business of America is Business’. And Democrats disagreed.

Even the split in their party when Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent was about government control. The republicans monied based hated him for busting monopolies.

Support for civil rights change our party. Not support for an active government.

As to the point of this thread. If our goal is to change the meaning of the word socialist in society then full speed ahead to failure.

My goal is to elect a Democratic President. They only people arguing about the meaning of the word Socialist are on the left. And calling ourselves socialist when we are not is a sure fire way to keep us out of the White House.

[Farmer-Rick]

29. All economies are mixed

Some are just more mixed up than others.

The Southern slavery economy worked very well with capitalism. Many feudal economies revitalized their markets by implementing capitalist systems. The East India Tea company/corporation comes to mind.

Slavery and feudalism also worked well together.

In each, traditional markets were running well alongside the main or predominate economy of feudalism, slavery, capitalism or forms of socialism.

There never are pure economies, they are always mixed up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. It does frost me when folks say FDR was a socialist.

He saved capitalism from itself.

[kennetha]

42. exactly

thereby reducing the lure of socialism, which was gaining steam in the 30's as capitalist economies around the world collapsed.

It's like some folks just want to pretend that history starts.... NOW.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Or they will say The New Deal didn't pull us out of the Depression.

Maybe so . WW ll was the greatest deficit spending program the world has ever seen. And anyway, Americans would have looked for far right or far left solutions to twenty five percent unemployment.