Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Nothing specific, though? I mean, how is it different than it was under Reagan or Bush or Bush ii or Clinton? Welfare reform happened over 15 years ago; that hasn't changed. The tax rates are lower than under Reagan. I don't mean generalized conservative talking points. What specifically?
|
Socialism is a catch-all term that incorporates just about every economic attribute other than market forces. There are many forms of socialism--someone in 1924 identified 40 types or subtypes. No doubt it has expanded since then. Some of the major types that you can find on Wikipedia are: utopian socialism, market socialism, state capitalism, democratic socialism, anarchism, leninism, marxism, libertarian socialism, syndicalism . . . etc. Some are quite different, and opposite of some others, but the one thing that I find they all have in common (with the possible exception of anarchism) is the reliance on some form of collectivism as opposed to individualism.
The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon to contrast his utopian doctrine which depended on cooperation as an alternative to individualism. He thought that "the whole of society ought to strive towards the amelioration of the moral and physical existence of the poorest class; society ought to organize itself in the way best adapted for attaining this end."
So, as to what specifically is socialistic about Obama's policies? First, there is a difference between socialistic and socialism. Justplugit didn't say socialism--he said down the road to it, socialistic. That is-- like it and heading toward it. There are, supposedly, 4 types of economic systems--traditional, command, market, and mixed. The traditional is a primitive type of socialism that only exists today in isolated minor societies such as Australian aboriginal and isolated Amazon tribes, though it was, in the past widespread through most societies. Command system is uber socialist as represented most notoriously by the collapsed Soviet systems. Pure market would be individual oriented, freedom from collective or governmental manipulation. Mixed market is supposedly a mixture of free market and some form of socialism. So, in actuallity, there are two types of economic systems--socialism and market economies. And since government is a non-market force that will always impose to some degree on markets for the "common good," it is a collective force, therefore socialistic in nature. That is to say, so long as we will have government, and we always will, there can never be an absolutely free market.
That being said, the difference between Reagan, etc., and Obama would be degree. We have a mixed economy, though it is more free market than most others. The 19th century U.S. laissez faire economy was the closest that major modern economies came to totally free market. The progressive (socialistic) theorists and politicians of the early twentieth century started to instill greater government regulation of the market and the Great Depression brought on massive regulation that was slowly retarded after WWII, but again started to grow in the 1960's with the Great Society policies. What Reagan attempted, and succeeded to a degree, was to slow that socialistic trend and reverse it slightly and temporarily, but, of course, to get his anti-communist maneuvers, he had to give back to the socially minded Democrat Congress, and the socialistic trend began to rise again. So yeah, all the POTUS's you mentioned had socialistic elements, even to a great degree, in their administrations. You mention that all reforms under Obama were to protect consumers from corporate malfeasance. That is the siren call of socialism--governmental protection of the collective people from individual "malfeasance." Obama is continuing, very powerfully, the road to socialism to which jusplugit refers. Most people don't like the word "socialism," but they actually like what it offers. And the "reforms" that are mandated and implemented through and by the various administrative, unelected, regulatory agencies are absolutely socialistic, not free market, not even representative government. And because they are "for the people" there is no hue and cry against them. What is seen is the beneficence of government acting for people in their personal endeavors, but what is not seen is the debilitating effect on the ability of individuals to act for themselves. We fall under the spell of that soft despotism that nobody seems to mind until we begin to realize that our personal life is in control of government which can no longer afford to give us the protection we thought was so desirable, and the opportunities that once abounded have shrunk and we depend even more on the helping hand that softly took our power.
So, the question is: do we want to continue expanding the government's socialistic intrusion into the lives of individuals in order to achieve egalitiarian goals? Do we prefer the motto of the French revolution (which was the driving force and inspiration for the great socialistic upheavals and theories such as Marxism)--"Liberty, EQUALITY, fraternity," or shoud we stick to our American "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? The big difference being in our emphasis on individual life and pursuits as opposed to the leveling egalitarionism of socialism. FDR, our greatest mover toward socialism, made a telling admission in his Four Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom From Want, and Freedom From Fear. The first two freedoms were guaranteed by our Constitution. The last two, Want and Fear, he tried to eliminate with unconstitutional government regulation and agencies which massively, socialistically, expanded government power. The first two were freedoms from government power (negative Constitutional freedoms). The last two were "freedoms" granted by and given by collective government power (positive government grants). So last two were not truly freedoms because they were not actuated by the individual, but imposed by government, thus making the individual dependent on government to attain "freedom" from Want and Fear. Ironically, Want and Fear are two of the greatest motivators for individuals to act. To take away that motivation by providing an elimination of Want and Fear is to take away powerful motivations for the individual to act. It, rather, motivates the individual to more easily become part of collective society to secure his needs. Some form of nationalized, guaranteed health care has been a dream of our socialistic, progressive reformers at least since FDR. Though Obama's health care bill is not ostensibly "government" health care because private insurance companies will be providing the coverage, we have that mixed market intervention operating here. The government is mandating this plan, and mandating that all participate (or pay a fine), and mandating many requirements. The regulation is unprecedented and massive. The mixed market here is more heavily toward the socialistic than the free market. This, as the various regulations and agencies (to supposedly help the consumer) that Obama is fostering all fall under the definition of one of the many forms of socialism. They are not free market. Are they different than past administrations? I perceive them to be more blatantly socialistically transformative than Reagan and even the Bush's (who were not so free market). But to be stuck on who was more socialistic, as if there is little or no difference, distracts from the question of "do we want to continue down the road to socialism?"