PDA

View Full Version : Social Democracy as High-Overhead “Socialism”



Chris
12-29-2012, 12:54 PM
Many time have I argued that socialists abandoned the old tenet of socialism, ownership of the means of production, for management of it and that this is social democracy, or what progressives and liberals today tend to call democracy, the most invidious form of socialism yet invented.

Here is some history.


Around a hundred years ago, guild socialist G.D.H. Cole argued that social democrats had made a major strategic decision not to contest the way property was distributed or production organized under corporate capitalism. Instead, they would limit their agenda to a (partial) equalization of the way the rents on concentrated property, the output of these institutions, was distributed.

One reason was that challenging the actual ownership of property would be politically impossible. But another reason, Cole suggested, was that the original socialist project of attacking the institutional structures of capitalism itself, and putting labor in direct control of the production process, would undermine the power of the managerial and professional classes who made up so much of the social democratic, Fabian and Progressive movements.

Thinkers ranging from Hilaire Belloc to William English Walling argued that such calculations resulted in a grand strategic bargain by which the capitalists were guaranteed some minimum profit and stable oligopoly markets, the managerial-professional classes retained control of the large organizations that dominated society, and the working class was guaranteed job security and a minimum subsistence income. The managerial classes, for all intents and purposes, were coopted into corporate capitalism as Overseers of the Poor.

The social democratic model leaves the basic structure of power intact — and then guarantees everybody access to some minimum package of the output.

@ Social Democracy as High-Overhead “Socialism” (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/12/28/social-democracy-as-high-overhead-socialism/)

I have often pointed to Robert Reich's The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://robertreich.org/post/22542609387) as the modern expression of this.

KC
12-29-2012, 02:11 PM
Many time have I argued that socialists abandoned the old tenet of socialism, ownership of the means of production, for management of it and that this is social democracy, or what progressives and liberals today tend to call democracy, the most invidious form of socialism yet invented.

Here is some history.



@ Social Democracy as High-Overhead “Socialism” (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/12/28/social-democracy-as-high-overhead-socialism/)

I have often pointed to Robert Reich's The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://robertreich.org/post/22542609387) as the modern expression of this.

I think the popularity of social democracy vs. state ownership socialism also has to do with modern societies obsession with commercialism. I mean, most of today's social democrats understand that they won't have their smartphones under a traditional Marxist regime, but they think a managed economy could produce a better world then free individuals could.

Chris
12-29-2012, 04:39 PM
I think the popularity of social democracy vs. state ownership socialism also has to do with modern societies obsession with commercialism. I mean, most of today's social democrats understand that they won't have their smartphones under a traditional Marxist regime, but they think a managed economy could produce a better world then free individuals could.

Indeed, the author suggests it would also "would undermine the power of the managerial and professional classes who made up so much of the social democratic, Fabian and Progressive movements." In short the liberal makers of smartphones like Jobs was, etc etc.

KC
12-29-2012, 04:41 PM
Indeed, the author suggests it would also "would undermine the power of the managerial and professional classes who made up so much of the social democratic, Fabian and Progressive movements." In short the liberal makers of smartphones like Jobs was, etc etc.

Ironically enough, wasn't Jobs more of a social democrat? His politics sure seemed that way.

Chris
12-29-2012, 04:50 PM
Ironically enough, wasn't Jobs more of a social democrat? His politics sure seemed that way.

Yes, indeed, and it was funny when around his death all that came out in anti-liberal gotchas.


Can you expand some on "modern societies obsession with commercialism"? A reliance on what some, like Albert Jay Nock, call economism, as opposed to reliance on itself, on faith, on liberty, on values, etc?

KC
12-29-2012, 06:11 PM
Yes, indeed, and it was funny when around his death all that came out in anti-liberal gotchas.


Can you expand some on "modern societies obsession with commercialism"? A reliance on what some, like Albert Jay Nock, call economism, as opposed to reliance on itself, on faith, on liberty, on values, etc?

You more or less seem to know what I mean. It seems like one of the defining features of our society is the obsession with consumption, beauty, sex, etc. In the past our society was based on consumption, but faith, philosophy and family seem to have been similarly important at one time. Getting the latest and greatest toys is good for the economy, but it's not so great for individuals to be so superficial.

Chris
12-30-2012, 12:39 PM
Related...


But hitting the jackpot generally leads to unhappiness. A famous 1978 study of major lottery winners in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that while the winners experienced an immediate happiness boost right after winning, it didn't last. Within a few months, their happiness levels receded to where they had been before winning. As time passed, they found they were actually less happy than they had been before winning.

Does this suggest that money makes us unhappy? Not at all. There is a huge amount of research showing that money, when earned, has a generally positive association with happiness. The problem is when it is unearned, when raw purchasing power is untethered from hard work and merit. Above basic subsistence, happiness comes not from money per se, but from the value creation it is rewarding.

@ Arthur Brooks: America's Dangerous Powerball Economy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578171444161023374.html?m od=article-outset-box)


In his Dec. 20 op-ed “America’s Dangerous Powerball Economy,” Arthur Brooks quite correctly points out that earned income, indeed earned success generally, affects our happiness very differently than unearned income or success.

I would like to extend his point further with something I’ve told my college students for years.

In general, the creation of wealth is edifying. When only voluntary transactions are permitted, the creation of wealth requires cooperation, and this brings out the best in us.

Piles of wealth, however, tend to be corrupting. The fixed nature of a pile is all about apportionment, not cooperation, and this zero-sum game tends to bring out the worst in us.

It follows directly that no matter how noble the ends, government redistribution (which is hardly voluntary) tends to bring out the worst in us. Rising government redistribution over the past 75 years has produced ample evidence of this point.

We are in this mess because we have allowed our culture to be dominated by those who are bent on spreading the false and self-serving narrative that our economy is a giant zero-sum game.

@ Wealth Creation vs. Wealth Redistribution (http://cafehayek.com/2012/12/wealth-creation-vs-wealth-redistribution.html)