What the Right gets wrong about economics that annoys the shit out of me....

[Berkut]

Socialism != social spending.


They are not even remotely the same thing.


What a society chooses to spend on social programs has nothing to do with whether or not they are "socialist". You could spend zero on social spending with a free market driven economy, or you could spend 75% of your GDP on social spending, and neither would be "socialism".


Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that.


Social spending is about how that stuff is allocated to those who consume it.


There are important argument to be had and policy to decide on around how much of our production should be allocated to social spending. Really, really important discussions. Calling any kind of social spending "socialism" is so fucking stupid I can't even really believe that those crying about it are doing so in good faith to begin with - the US spends about 17% of GDP on social spending. Not as much as many, but more then plenty others. There is no magic point at which social spending becomes "socialism".


The variance in liberal democracies range from a low of around 14% to a high of about 30%. It is a matter of policy and choices made, and has nothing to do with "socialism" - none of the western liberal democracies are "Socialist" in any meaningful sense.




https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm

[Syt]

Did you know that Nazis were lefty socialists? It's right there in the name! National SOCIALISTS!

[PDH]

Socialism != social spending.

Sounds like something a SOCIALIST would say.

[Syt]

Anyways, a lot of people on the right hate handouts .... but only if they go to the "wrong" people.

Just how some proponents of unfettered free markets cry for state help for the economy when something upsets the markets.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Anyways, a lot of people on the right hate handouts .... but only if they go to the "wrong" people.

Just how some proponents of unfettered free markets cry for state help for the economy when something upsets the markets.

The wrong people being the poor and unfortunate of course.

[Josquius]

Strangely the thread title is one I'm in full agreement with but your reasons are the opposite of what I see and disagree with.
What I most commonly see is the idea that the only valid socialism is 100% absolute marxism and that nothing else counts when social programmes are indeed examples of socialism.
No country in the world is 100% capitalist (even Somalia) or 100% socialist. The difference is where you place the slider. And plenty of countries are significantly further down the socialist line than the US.
How money is made is not particularly relevant. Sure, state owned industries are possible. But at the same time turning that effective socialised education system towards creating more small innovative businesses is another way to "do socialism". Internet smart guys always overlook the "Or regulated" part of the dictionary definition.

[Syt]

The wrong people being the poor and unfortunate of course.

The wrong people being the "Other", i.e. anyone different from themselves. "We must first take care of OUR people." (Who that includes will differ widely on person and context, obviously.)

[The Brain]

I try not to spend time on what other people think. You know, for sanity. But not like I always succeed, mind you.

[alfred russel]

Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that.

That is one perspective. Another encompasses people like AOC and Bernie Sanders and a number of center left socialist parties in Europe. Even if you go back to what popular socialist parties were advocating in the early 20th century they were often labor market reforms or social programs that were designed to function in a mixed economy.

[Berkut]

Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.

The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.

Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?

That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?

[alfred russel]

Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.

The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.

Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?

That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?

Doesn't seem so complicated. The word has different meanings depending on the context. North Korea is generally considered a totalitarian communist regime, which is one flavor of socialism.

Here is a sample of initiatives from Eugene Debs socialist platform for president in 1912:

Tax Reform—The adoption of a graduated income tax, the increase of the rates of the present corporation tax and the extension of inheritance taxes......

Minimum Wage—By establishing minimum wage scales.

Direct Election of President—The Election of the President and Vice-President by direct vote of the people.

Social Insurance— ....a general system of insurance by the State of all its members against unemployment and invalidism and a system of compulsory insurance of their workers, without cost to the latter, against industrial diseases, accidents and death.

Also in the platform was woman's suffrage, public ownership of utilities and a shortened work day.

https://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/1912-socialist-platform-good-stuff/

The French have an actual socialist party that has governed France -- presidents Mitterrand and Hollandaise -- it is considered center - left.

[Berkut]

Since we have most of those things now, then I guess the US is in fact socialist.

North Korea is not.

Sure, that definition make perfect sense.

[alfred russel]

Since we have most of those things now, then I guess the US is in fact socialist.

North Korea is not.

Sure, that definition make perfect sense.

Did someone say that North Korea is not socialist?

[Josquius]

Did someone say that North Korea is not socialist?

Pretty sure they don't even claim to be these days.
Socialism for them was always just about the free shit from Russia rather than any deep Marxist belief.
The best analogy for North Korea I've seen is they're basically an imperial Japan remnant state. Fascist to the extreme.

Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.

The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.

Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?

That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?

Well yes. That's just the thing. There's no point of magically becoming socialist and no point of magically becoming liberal.
It is however accurate to say that country a is more socialist than country b or that you think things should be more one way or the other depending on your beliefs.
If you come from a country where 5% tax rates and a brutal dog eat dog setup where the poor can just screw themselves then it's viable for you to call a nation with 40% tax rates and free education and health care socialist. On the other hand a citizen of this Scandinavian country would see themselves as merely normal and only see places like Cuba as socialist.


Another key error I see Internet smart guys making here is confusing the Marxist definition of socialism, a specific transitionary stage in the road to communism, with the general definition.

[Berkut]

Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.

The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.

Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?

That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?

Well yes. That's just the thing. There's no point of magically becoming socialist and no point of magically becoming liberal.
It is however accurate to say that country a is more socialist than country b or that you think things should be more one way or the other depending on your beliefs.
If you come from a country where 5% tax rates and a brutal dog eat dog setup where the poor can just screw themselves then it's viable for you to call a nation with 40% tax rates and free education and health care socialist. On the other hand a citizen of this Scandinavian country would see themselves as merely normal and only see places like Cuba as socialist.


Another key error I see Internet smart guys making here is confusing the Marxist definition of socialism, a specific transitionary stage in the road to communism, with the general definition.

That's the point though - in the example you cite, one of them is wrong ,and the other is right.

Cuba is socialist, and France is not. And it has NOTHING to do with how much they spend on social spending, but rather how they structure their productive capacity.

North Korea probably spends some tiny percent of their GDP on social spending, yet they are clearly a socialist country - because they organize their production on socialist principles.

The USA almost certainly spends vastly more then North Korea on social spending, yet the USA is NOT socialist, rather we are a managed free market economy. If we spend more on social spending, that won't make us become socialists, and if we spend, that won't make us less socialist.

Social spending != socialism.