Socialism

[The Minsky Moment]

These are the 10 concrete measures proposed in the Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Most these have been implemented  at least partially in modern "capitalist" economies.  2, 8, 9 and 10 have been nearly fully implemented.  3,5,6, and 7 have been partially implemented, in some cases to a significant degree. 

It's common to view Marxism as a failure - it would really be more accurate to say that the reformist wing of Marxism - Bernsteinsim - was an enormous success.

Note that health care is not on there - the notion of health care provision as a vital good did not exist at time; most likely because its benefits were dubious.  I am reminded of the historian Daniel Walker Howe's claim that William Henry Harrison might have survived had he not had access to the best medicine of that time.  Ordinary rest and healing might have saved him, but the courses of bleeding and purging prescribed by the top medical minds of the 1840s finished him off.

[Martinus]

I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

I think Berkut is arguing that "affording it" isn't a function of government tax policy, but the overall productive ability of society itself.  200 years ago the productivity of society as a whole was lower, so attempting to provide a comfortable retirement and health care for everyone wasn't possible without crippling society as a whole, not just a particular government.  At the present time some of this is achievable, but it shouldn't by default be assumed that we can or that it is some fundamental right.

Fundamental rights change over time - noone except for some really crazy Aquinas fanboys argue differently these days. That's why I put it in the context of modern Western civilisation/developed democracy.

[Martinus]

Berk, I understand your point now. 

As an outsider looking in it seems to me there is broad support within the US for certain spending priorities.  Take for example the military.  The disputes in your country relate to social programs over which there is much disagreement.

Where our two countries differ is that in Canada the broad agreement is that certain social policies should be given priority. For example most all Canadians firmly support a single payor health system.  We recognize that it takes a lot of resources to fund it but as a society we are deeply committed to it and we are willing to make other sacrifices to fund it in the form of higher taxation and lower spending in other areas.

Doesnt it all come back to the values each society has as reflected in the priorities it sets for itself through the political process?

I think America is exceptional in that it is probably the only prominent Western-style developed democracy these days in which this is the case. Pretty much all of Europe (including the UK), Canada and Australia agree that what I outlined is considered the priority in public resource spending.

[viper37]

True enough... well, that and when they stopped pushing for revolution and instead bought into the democratic process.

they recognized the use of democracy as a means to achieve their ultimate goal, wich is the same as socialists.

Do you see any difference between NDP and French Socialist Party?  NDP is officially social-democrat according to its leader, at least.

[The Minsky Moment]

Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

[Sheilbh]

Then I'd say that social democracy is not communism with a vote. I'd say that social democracy is an attempt to achieve communist goals* within the framework of a liberal democratic state, with various doses of pragmatic compromise along the way.

Another big difference is conceptual. Communism is about inevitable historic economic forces. Social Democracy rejects that idea and says that the economic forces can be shaped and are subordinate to our political choices.

Capitalism doesn't have to end with class warfare and the inevitable dictatorship of the proletariat. The negatives can be ameliorated in such a way that improves people's lives and reduces tensions between classes making Communism a redundant analysis and silly.

I think America is exceptional in that it is probably the only prominent Western-style developed democracy these days in which this is the case. Pretty much all of Europe (including the UK), Canada and Australia agree that what I outlined is considered the priority in public resource spending.

I think that's right. There's going to be differences in emphasis and delivery in those societies but they're pretty universally held. And my own view is that it's normally more efficient and better for society. I think having a decent minimum pension system allows for consumer spending (unlike having to save money to look after yourself/parents and a huge rate as in China) and, in a good way, erodes family ties allowing more free movement and liberal opportunities.

Similarly I always come out in a bit of a rash when politicians talk about the NHS as the best healthcare system in the world, or as a national treasure. But it does provide a reasonable level of care to everyone, that's free at the point of use, and relatively cheap - for the UK that's a really good blend.

[Sheilbh]

Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

Yeah. And the US as a whole spends double the amount of most Euro countries on healthcare. To me that seems like an enormous drain on other bits of the economy as well as inefficient.

[Admiral Yi]

Capitalism doesn't have to end with class warfare and the inevitable dictatorship of the proletariat. The negatives can be ameliorated in such a way that improves people's lives and reduces tensions between classes making Communism a redundant analysis and silly.

I'm wondering if the entire concept of "class" can be worked into our semantic argument about socialism.

[crazy canuck]

Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

Yeah, that is why I said we had wide agreement here regarding having a single payor system.  Simply saying one is willing to spend money on health care is not all that meaningful.  Everyone is in favour of having access the health care.  The issue is how one creates an efficient and cost effective system.  Which I suppose partly goes to Berkut's point.

[Berkut]

Government spending on the US on health care is broadly in line with Europe and the rest of OECD.  It's just that the results in terms of effective coverage are lower, in part because of lack of administratively forced cost control, and in part because of the idiotically inefficient way the system is structured.

Yeah, that is why I said we had wide agreement here regarding having a single payor system.  Simply saying one is willing to spend money on health care is not all that meaningful.  Everyone is in favour of having access the health care.  The issue is how one creates an efficient and cost effective system.  Which I suppose partly goes to Berkut's point.

That is actually a pretty good point.

I guess perhaps part of my bitch is kind of silly in that my complaint is at least partially a matter of all these "solutions" being evolved systems.

It's not like the US just got up one morning and said "Bully, we have enough excess production to pay for semi-universal health care! Yeah! What's the best way to do that???".

Rather we get a little more ability to have a little more healthcare, so we append it onto some existing system (which was likely never intended to scale in that manner, and may even have been intentionally designed NOT to scale in order to get it sold to begin with), then slap something on again, and again, and again.

There is no doubt that what the US has ended up with is a complete abortion of a system overall.

[Jacob]

There is no doubt that what the US has ended up with is a complete abortion of a system overall.

And given how controversial abortions are, no wonder the system is so messed up.

[MadImmortalMan]

Still, it's generally a good thing in my mind that there are different states trying different things so we can see what experiments work better than others and in what conditions.

[Sheilbh]

Still, it's generally a good thing in my mind that there are different states trying different things so we can see what experiments work better than others and in what conditions.

Yeah. I think a lot of these differences reflect social, cultural values and expectations rather than anything else. There's no perfect system, there's different sets of benefits and costs to all of them.

[Razgovory]

I disagree. Besides "afford to" is a red herring - it's a matter of prioritizing your spending and redistribution of your resources. If you can't "afford" such basic things while being a developed country, this means something is fundamentally wrong with your budget - either you are spending too much on less important things or your income is fucked up, e.g. because your taxes are too low due to your law makers being hostages to special interest groups.

I think Berkut is arguing that "affording it" isn't a function of government tax policy, but the overall productive ability of society itself.  200 years ago the productivity of society as a whole was lower, so attempting to provide a comfortable retirement and health care for everyone wasn't possible without crippling society as a whole, not just a particular government.  At the present time some of this is achievable, but it shouldn't by default be assumed that we can or that it is some fundamental right.

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Societies did try take care of their poor in the early industrial revolution.  Both public and private efforts were made, and they didn't cripple their society.  They weren't always successful by our standards, but even high standards of living in those societies fall short of our expectations these days.

[frunk]

I'm not entirely sure that's true.  Societies did try take care of their poor in the early industrial revolution.  Both public and private efforts were made, and they didn't cripple their society.  They weren't always successful by our standards, but even high standards of living in those societies fall short of our expectations these days.

The programs that they had didn't cripple their societies precisely because their goals were modest, extremely limited and suited to the available resources.  There was no global health system, or even a particularly good health system for anyone.  The concept of retiring didn't really exist except for the physically incapable and the extremely wealthy.  People worked until they couldn't.