‘Socialism” is a word that has vexed thoughtful conservatives since 2008, along with the related terms “Marxist,” “radical,” and the whole nomenclature of leftish extremism. In his painstakingly documented book Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, Stanley Kurtz dwells at great and profitable length on the president’s connections, and his coterie’s connections, with avowedly socialist and radical organizations. Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, and other observers have with varying degrees of rigor pursued related lines of inquiry, locating affinities between Obama’s clique, along with mainstream Democrats more broadly, and the sinister fringe. The Left’s response to these investigations has ranged from the insane (e.g., Lewis Diuguid arguing in the Kansas City Star that “socialist” is a codeword for “black”) to the inane, protesting that “socialist” is being used as a mere smear word, empty of other content. The Left knows whereof it speaks, having spent half of the 20th century describing its critics as “fascists,” with no regard for the meaning of that word. (Goldberg’s deft reversal in Liberal Fascism, reconnecting contemporary progressivism with its pre-war authoritarian models, took away that rhetorical toy and thereby produced a symphony of delicious caterwauling from left-wing critics, one or two of whom may even have read the book.)
“Americans have no clue what socialism is,” declared the noted political philosopher Bill Maher during a seminar with the equally cerebral Larry King. Rep. Anthony Weiner used almost precisely the same words, thundering at a critic: “You don’t know what socialism means.” Conservatives should pay some careful attention to the formal meaning of socialism, because it is vital that we recognize it, understand it — and contain it. While Mr. Kurtz is right to worry about the radicalism of President Obama and his lieutenants, it is not “the untold story of American socialism” that most threatens our nation, but the told story. It is not hidden socialism that presently undermines our institutions, weakens our economy, and fritters away both present and future prosperity, but unhidden socialism. A sharpened definition of socialism, made more precise and reflecting the conditions of the 21st century rather than those of the 19th, is a necessary tool for understanding our current political crisis, and what follows are some notes toward a more relevant definition of socialism.
Advertisement
The current Random House Dictionary definition of “socialism” is serviceable but dated: “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.” (Land? Clearly, this was written back in ye olde days, when real estate was an asset, not a liability.) Political entrepreneurs are no less creatures of innovation than are market entrepreneurs, and so it is necessary to take issue with one conjunction in this definition: It should read “ownership or control” rather than “ownership and control.” As we have seen in the cases of enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it is entirely possible for government economic planners to intervene deeply (and, in this familiar case, catastrophically) in the economy while maintaining private economic forms, such as government-chartered for-profit corporations. The government did not own Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which are nominally private, shareholder-owned corporations; but it most certainly did control them, and created them to implement an economic policy. Likewise, the identification of “the community as a whole” with “the state” is no longer intellectually defensible, the work of the public-choice economists having very thoroughly established that governments do not reliably act on behalf of the communities they purport to represent.
A more complete definition of socialism incorporates two criteria: The first is that socialism entails the public provision of non-public goods. The second is the use of central planning to implement that policy.
Mr. Williamson, just finished the piece in the latest issue of NR...great work.
You write, "If you are worried about socialism, start at the schoolhouse, not the White House." This is to say nothing of the socialist will to promote the "death of God" generated by their snobbish intellectual atheism all in the name of the common good.
So public schools stink because they're socialist?
Were they any less socialist in 1950, when they seemed to be working very, very well? What changed? Did they get more socialist?*
Point #1: consider the values inculcated within today's school population consisting of so many children of single parents, impoverished parents, dual-working parents, etc.
Point #2: consider what a below-average kid had to learn in school in order to become a productive assembly line worker at the Ford plant, able to feed a family of four on a single salary.
*One thing that schools became over the past 50 years is more UNIONIZED. But I don't see this article equating unions and socialism, although I suppose one could shoehorn everything wrong with schools into that argument.
If we're redefining "socialism", as Mr. Williamson's second paragraph appears to suggest, rather than discerning a "true" definition, it seems to me that it would make sense to define it in a manner that's politically useful. The word "socialism" is unpopular, and the public is already half-inclined to view redistributionist policies as socialist, so we should encourage that association as a means of eroding support for redistribution, rather than drawing a narrow definition that leaves out huge swaths of undesirable welfarism.
Consider a system in which the government distributed food vouchers, clothing vouchers, medical vouchers, housing vouchers, etc., to every citizen, and tax rates were at 80%, but the goods and services themselves were supplied by private parties operating in a free market. I think most of us would view that system as "socialist", and I think we should define and use "socialism" in a way that encompasses such a system.
Virtually everyone on the left and the right refers to the Scandinavian countries as "socialist", but my understanding is that most of their "socialism" consists of high taxation and a generous welfare state, not state provision of public goods pursuant to a central plan. How useful is a definition of "socialism" that leaves out Sweden?
This is an excerpt from Kevin's book, but it makes an excellent point about how the definition of socialism has not kept up with the actions of entrepreneurial politicians and bureaucrats who seek to control the economy without doing it explicitly.
Excellent article! All of us need these kinds of expository essays (from both sides). Sadly, it seems that we need to take back our own education. Speaking of which...
Today's MISES DAILY had an article that went to the point about education that Mr. Williamson was making: "The Bourgeouisie's Favorite Form of Socialism," by Stephen Mauzy. Fascinating reading, if a little "in your face" about the things we take for granted. More than that, that we tacitly support. Well done, Mr. Williamson!
The very notion that our monetary system is controlled by the government is socialist. The government has a monopoly on the creation of money, so is it any wonder we have all the problems that we do?
We need to think outside the box. If you look at national currencies (the dollar, the pound, the euro etc.) as corporations with there own currencies and exchange rates, you can begin to understand how we could privatize money.
And, quite franky, we must. Money is too important to be left in the hands of politicians. In a free market, we would not allow the government such power.
Congratulations K.W. on publication of the book, I look forward to reading it. Any serious conversation concerning socialism or the Left in general must include the question, "How far down the rabbit hole does one wish to go?" I look forward to finding how far this book goes.
My next book is in part about privatizing the money supply. I suspect that after the big fiscal crisis hits, we'll have a chance to create much more free, market-oriented institutions. I just hope I can get the book done before the crash comes!
I'm not a political strategist, and I don't tailor my views to help particular political parties or candidates. I have a marginal preference for Republicans over Democrats, ceteris paribus, but ceteris is rarely paribus, and that preference is marginal indeed. I think the bond market will put a damper on U.S. government spending before the GOP gets around to it.
Intellectual honesty and objectivity are certainly defensible and honorable. That said, you're writing in National Review and the PIG series, not the Journal of Economic Theory. NR and the PIG series exist to promote an agenda, one part of which is smaller government, not to provide neutral analysis. And I didn't say anything about Republicans vs. Democrats; I'm talking about using language in a way that could arguably undermine support for redistribution, rather than in a way that's merely analytically neat. That would benefit the GOP only to the extent that the GOP is the vehicle for opposition to redistribution.
In other words, I don't think your definition is wrong or indefensible: I just think that if we're choosing a definition, we may as well choose one that will (arguably) help the ultimate cause of shrinking government.
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Williamson for describing our current trajectory so coherently that even a liberal could understand it. This should be required reading for everyone with a voter registration.
This article is very helpful in explaining how governments attempt to control all aspects of our economy and our lives without actually nationalizing or "owning" private property or the means of production.
Law professors teach that "ownership" is not a simple fixed attribute, but is better understood as a complex bundle of particularized rights that can be transferred, sold, or taken away one at a time. When politicians and bureaucrats write regulations dictating what type or size of light bulbs I can purchase to put in my desk lamp, for example, I still "own" my desk lamp, but a significant measure of control over and usefulness of "my" desk lamp have been taken away from me.
Similarly, I view Obamacare as more pernicious than Britain's nationalized health care system. If UK citizens are unsatisfied with what the NHS provides under its "universal" medical coverage, they can still go out and buy additional private insurance to cover services that the NHS does not provide. ObamaCare, however, by focusing its massive regulatory attention on private health insurance companies, paves the way for even more complete control over health care and the eliminatation of all private decisionmaking. It is important for people to recognize and understand the perniciousness of this kind of indirect governmental control, or all personal liberty will soon be lost.
political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
you are insane....this country, more than ever, is run by a small series of elite moneybrokers. Citibank, Chase, Goldman-Sachs all rule this country, not any liberal left conspiracy as you suggest. The evidence is in the raping of the fair credit act and the bailouts of these huge multinationals by the government, with the blessing of the right and its minions. Stop the noise and understand the true definition..."according to equity and fairness rather than market principles" When you see that in place, then you can cry about socialism. Until then, work to destroy Wall Street and all it stands for, all american Greed.
"ObamaCare, however, by focusing its massive regulatory attention on private health insurance companies, paves the way for even more complete control over health care and the eliminatation of all private decisionmaking."
All countries are ruled by their ruling classes, and our elites are as apt to use socialist channels of action when it suits them as are any other. There's a reason that Goldman Sachs gives 70 percent of its political donations to Democrats: They are positioned to profit from government intervention into the private economy. As they have. As they will.
The upper classes love central planning; they know who will get to do the planning. As Willi Schlamm put it, "The problem with capitalism is capitalists; the problem with socialism is socialism."
I would submit to you that you do not understand your own ideas, or even the basic political facts. Socialism means central planning, and central planning empowers the elites, not the people. Markets empower the people, which is why most Big Business sectors support Democrats today and have for some time. Look at the last several cycles worth of campaign donations.
This is a great article presenting a very good intellectual argument regarding the systemic failures of socialism, but like many others I believe it lacks one element of the problem.
Mr. Williams states, "When The Plan conflicts with the desire to redistribute income or to subsidize the poor and the working class, The Plan always prevails." I believe this is absolutely correct but why?
In these civil arguments, we frequently make the assumption that socialists want to redistribute income, subsidize the poor or otherwise help society. While I can believe that some rank and file socialists do want these things, I believe the evidence shows that most of the leadership only cares about personal wealth and power.
One data point that convinced me of this was a conversation I had with a gentleman from Belarus about 15 or 20 years ago. He related to me that the west always viewed the old Soviet politicians primarily as ... well politicians devoted to communist ideology. Those inside the Soviet Union viewed them more like Al Capone characters bent on nothing but the accumulation of wealth and power. He also relayed to me stories of their mansions along the Danube River that Bill Gates would envy and quite frankly may not have been able to afford. He stated that the wealth of those politicians was unimaginable though largely hidden from the west.
His point is my point. Socialist leaders (whether in the old Soviet Union or in the present day US) are not out to help the people. They are out to appear to help the people, thereby positioning themselves to take as much power and money as they can for themselves and their allies and in return give the people as little as possible. It is the ultimate suckers game.
One need only look at those you call his economic lieutenants (aka his apparatchiks): Geithner, Summers, Orzag, and now William Daley - -socialists all, aren't they?
I guess I am not going to get an answer to my first post, so here's a different question: Why does the market always produce a better result than central planning? Are there not some areas in which central planning might be preferred?
And perhaps someone can explain to me how privatization of money would work in light of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Is there some argument around that provision I haven't heard about? Or are we talking amendment?
Socialism is a "Suckers Game". Just a perfect description.
"But other Americans are much less pleased with their government schools, particularly the poor, non-whites, and those living in inner cities. Black families, in particular, consistently rate their government schools as performing poorly, and their subjective impressions are borne out by empirical data."
It's amazing how many "suckers" support this game.
