Socialism and its roots

"The modern political marxist communist movement was created when the social democratic parties of Europe split between their rightist and leftist tendencies during World War I. The leftists, led internationally by Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, to distinguish their brand of socialism from the "reformist" social democrats, were called "communists". However, after Luxemburg's and Liebknecht's murders the term communist became generally associated solely with the parties and organisations following Lenin, along with their various derivations, such as Stalinism or Maoism.

There is a considerable variety of views among self-identified communists. However, Marxism and Leninism, schools of communism associated with Karl Marx and of Vladimir Lenin respectively, have the distinction of having been a major force in world politics since the early 20th century. Class struggle plays a central role in Marxism. This theory views the formation of communism as the culmination of the class struggle between the capitalist class, the owners of most of the capital and the working class. Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional state which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."  wiki on "Varieties of Socialism"

"The French Revolution was preceded and influenced by the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose Social Contract famously began: "Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains".^[39] Rousseau is credited with influencing socialist thought, but it was François-Noël Babeuf, and his Conspiracy of Equals, who is credited with providing a model for left-wing and communist movements of the 19th century."  wiki on "History of Socialism"

------------

SST has been besieged in recent days by socialist agitprop people evidently seeking to waste as much of my time as possible.  They are obvious provocateurs and I do not publish most of their scribbles and will not.  I have no intention of EVER providing a propaganda platform for them.

I am somewhat surprised to learn from your comments how many SST regulars are sympathetic to socialist goals and proposed measures in society and government, but your opinions are your opinions.

I am dismayed that some of you claim that it is "not helpful" to equate socialism to communism.  I don't think I have equated the two.  Perhaps those who think I have done that can provide a citation.  If you do, I will deal with it.

OTOH, it is my opinion that any attempt to claim that most forms of socialism are not related to the communist variety of socialism are deluded or uninformed.  There have been forms of socialism that were not related to the movement's Marxist history.  The Baath Party in Iraq was one such but the great majority of socialist parties have their roots in Marxist analyses or history.

IMO this is a subject worth discussing.  Those who make serious comments rather than propaganda statements will have their comments posted.  pl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism 

Comments

[John Minehan]

Well, the freight lines are private. Passenger rail is largely nationalized under AmTrak.

Prior to the 1980s, you really could say we were moving towards a "mixed economy" here, but we have largely reversed course since. More "socialized" things like AmTrak are hard to get rid of, but the general trend is away from things like that.

The "Great Recession" brought some of that back (the bank bail-outs and the Forc & Chrysler bail-outs) but I think people get the fact that those things are not really workable.

As Heinlein and Milton Friedman both said, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

[John Minehan]

Would they be offering the Medicare rates or would it wind up being more like the Medicaid fee schedule in practice?

Twenty years ago, Medicare was cash-flow for the average practice, the rates were low but payment was net 45 days on a "clean claim."

For about the last ten years that has been less true and more docs either don't par or close their practices to new Medicare patients.

i suspect this will go nowhere, but time will tell.

[Harry]

A big subject.

Some brief observations. I have views that one might characterize as socialist. The key one is that I do not think that incomes as determined by the free market reflect marginal contribution to social welfare. In fact I would argue that most incomes are determined by a combination of anti-competitive practices (trade associations, cartels, and monopolies or monopsonies) or reflect pure economic rents - meaning they are unnecessary to encourage the economic activity associated with it. For example land rents.

I can see that without price signals, marginal economic activity may not take place. But I would argue that many features of our current supposedly free market are not integral to well-functioning capitalist systems.

I dont believe that substantial amounts of wealth should be inherited. I think that private property should be at least partially subordinated to the interests of the collective. We do this in war time. Why not, if the situation suggests in, in peace time.

Individuals contribute to society in many ways. They have a stake in society when they serve its military for example. Are these people adequately compensated and looked after by the existing system.

And what if productivity of capital continues to increase. If productive activity requires increasingly little human labour, would that mean that unemployed people should starve.

All economic systems should be judged by how they serve society in general. If they outcomes are poor then the system is poor. There is no natural order, save that we make ourselves.

All, of course, in my humble opinion.

[Mightypeon]

Concerning the pros and Cons of socialism, I daresay that it is the same as the difference between a medicine and a poison. It mostly depends on the dosage and the means of application (application by slow evolutionary process is good, application by Soviet Bajonett is not).

Historically speaking, Capitalism worked pretty when its ruling classes where scared of some non capitalists, and thus kept the exploitation of those under them somewhat limited. One does not get this "sane capitalism" without someone scaring the capitalists into essentially sanity.

I mean, look at the military industrial complex of the united states. The capitalists running it have completely messed up everything. You have essentially one factory left that can build artillery, and apparently zero that can build new Abrams tanks on US soil (there are some that can refit tanks though). If the US capitalists felt under any kind of threat, they would not do something that stupid. The whole situation with "lets outsource everything to China" is similar. This was incredibly shortsighted rank stupidity, and it is not coincidence that it happened for real after the Soviet Unions collapse.

[Eliot]

Barbara Ann,

“Envy yes, but I think this in turn often stems from rootless insecurity, fear caused by feelings of inadequate self-sufficiency (of all kinds) and a resentment of those more at home in their culture and the world.”

More at home, that feels true.

Thank you,

Eliot

[John Minehan]

'[F}ederal law that requires hospitals to treat the indigent starting at the emergency room . . . ."

The "Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act" ("EMTALA") requires a hospital (essentially something with an Emergency Room, a community hospital or Academic Medical center but not an ambulatory surgical center or other independent diagnostic & treatment facility) to "stabilize" indigent patients.

In order not to die of uncompensated care, these houses have learned to manage "diversions" and to define "stabilize" very carefully.

It is a real question, worthy of detailed empirical study, if hospitals actually gave more care to the generally indigent BEFORE EMTALA passed.

[John Minehan]

Have you seen if he is dual-eligible for Medicaid? Unfortunately, it sounds like he is too young for EPIC coverage. (It seems like OMH should sponsor something like EPIC, or dual-eligibility should be routine.)

[John Minehan]

Also, Lasik https://offers.tlcvision.com/promo/?did=GS4XY&eventid=7003&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=General+-+Restructure&utm_content=Lasik+-+Surgery+-+General+-+Exact&utm_term=lasik+eye+surgery&kclid=407ac732-778c-4c84-abaa-a4b16a6b7675&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInamKsuO-4wIVBZyzCh2AKQgHEAAYAiAAEgIhBfD_BwE . . . . for the most part, it can also be used for some ocular cancers which treatment is covered.

[John Minehan]

I think you can make a fairly strong empirical argument that there would be no big business without big government, that excessive regulations create barriers to entry that reduces competition enough to make bloated organizations economically functional, which they would not be if they had to deal with a lot of more nimble competition.

The problem is that after you have made your nut, you don't want to hear about Schumpeterian "Creative Destruction."