At least someone has come clean!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/10/lawrence_odonnell_explains_socialist_comment.html
Interesting, a few points:
1) He's right that today's liberals shouldn't call themselves 'Progressives'. They have very little in common with classical Progressives. 2) Obviously, in a Misesian sense, none of these people are socialists. 3) Every mainstream political and media figure is basically a leftist democrat of some sort or another. Glenn Beck included.
Obviously, in a Misesian sense, none of these people are socialists.
Remind me of the Misesian sense of socialists.
They are Certainly Corporatists/Facists, or National Socialists in the sense that Government directs all business actons.
"Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism." - Bureaucracy, Mises
Interventionism is still a market economy as long as there are capital markets. Merceantalism, interventionism, welfarism, etc. are not socialist. They're just distortive.
No it doesn't, and no they don't. They're social engineers and reformist managers. Their plans do, naturally, tend to ruin the economy but they do not intend to totally socialize it.
Typical emotional rant from a bleeding heart leftist. He places himself on some arbitrary moral pedestal where his policies are aimed at "taming" what he calls "cruel capitalism." There were no facts in his rant, no theory, and it turns out that the "cruel capitalists" were right: medicare and medicaid are 50+ trillion dollars in the hole, they are responsible for the rapid acceleration in the prices of medical goods, and they have completely distorted the medical market in adverse ways.
Either way, it's a decent strategy from the left. They understand that the term socialist has very negative connotations in America; they lost the intellectual debate in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, so they began calling themselves "liberals" in order to conceal their true positions (completely altering the meaning of the term). Republicans have scored major points simply by correctly calling modern-day liberals socialists, and this is obviously a problematic condition for the left, which they wish to remedy. They wants to make the term socialism okay again by associating it with well-intentioned but poorly-reasoned economic policies.
Of course, Mises and others have demonstrated that this "middle way," this quasi-socialist-capitalist system, is just as untenable as total socialism (communism) in the long run. It is defined by perpetual inflationism, volatile business cycle activity, continuous deterioration of real wages and savings, perpetual warfare, extreme progressive income taxation distorting incentives and retarding capital accumulation (investment), corruption, etc, etc... If only the altruistic socialists familiarized themselves with economics...
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Well except for glowing praise of the 'good socalist' policies of teh US...he's actually right. America has enacted a number of socialist policies(Medicare, Social Security, etc) and nobody on the left or right wants to change that.
I actually wish more people would acknowldge this...
Interventionism is not socialism. Even the Marxists knew that, so did Mises. It bugs me when people conflate the two.
Democracy + interventionism is a pretty good way of ensuring that you will be socialist one day, however. It's the thin end of the wedge.
I agree somewhat. Socialist states are actually pretty rare, and usually don't remain so for long. But democracy definitely tends towards cascading interventionism.
*boinks loon left* Back to factory!
*boinks loon left* Back to france!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Interventionism cannot be considered as an economic system destined to stay. It is a method for the transformation of capitalism into socialism by a series of successive steps.
That's not what history shows. There have only ever been a handful of socialist states, but endless legions of interventionist states. What they do is go back and forth, regulate and deregulate; stop enforcing some things and start doing other things. Interventionism, far from being some temporary state of affairs, covers pretty much all of human civilization.
He is referring to ideology, the ideology of interventionism. Of course, in the real world, ideologies compete and co-exist and policies enacted and repealed ebb and flow as result. the ebbing is not a result of interventionist ideology but its opposite.
Well, sure, but that makes it almost trivial. It's just restating that interventionist measures don't work.
yes. but its so trivial that interventionists need it explaining to them.. hey your program doesnt work, and if adopted and persisted with would conclude in socialism... which doesn't work
You forget the Mises lecture - Middle of the Road Leads to Socialism.
4. How Price Control Leads to Socialism The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more. This, or course, is contrary to the intentions of the government. It wanted to make it easier for some people to buy more milk. But, as an outcome of its interference, the supply available drops. The measure proves abortive from the very point of view of the government and the groups it was eager to favor. It brings about a state of affairs, which again, from the point of view of the government, is even less desirable than the previous state of affairs which it was designed to improve. Now, the government is faced with an alternative. It can abrogate its decree and refrain from any further endeavors to control the price of milk. But if it insists upon its intention to keep the price of milk below the rate the unhampered market would have determined and wants nonetheless to avoid a drop in the supply of milk, it must try to eliminate the causes that render the marginal producers’ business unremunerative. It must add to the first decree concerning only the price of milk a second decree fixing the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk at such a low rate that the marginal producers of milk will no longer suffer losses and will therefore abstain from restricting output. But then the same story repeats itself on a remoter plane. The supply of the factors of production required for the production of milk drops, and again the government is back where it started. If it does not want to admit defeat and to abstain from any meddling with prices, it must push further and fix the prices of those factors of production which are needed for the production of the factors necessary for the production of milk. Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing step by step the prices of all consumers’ goods and of all factors of production, both human, i.e., labor, and material, and to order every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of industry can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and from this obligation to produce those quantities which the government wants to see produced. If some branches were to be left free out of regard for the fact that they produce only goods qualified as non-vital or even as luxuries, capital and labor would tend to flow into them and the result would be a drop in the supply of those goods, the prices of which government has fixed precisely because it considers them as indispensable for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses. But when this state of all-round control of business is attained, there can no longer be any question of a market economy. No longer do the citizens by their buying and abstention from buying determine what should be produced and how. The power to decide these matters has devolved upon the government. This is no longer capitalism; it is all-round planning by the government, it is socialism.
4. How Price Control Leads to Socialism
The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more.
This, or course, is contrary to the intentions of the government. It wanted to make it easier for some people to buy more milk. But, as an outcome of its interference, the supply available drops. The measure proves abortive from the very point of view of the government and the groups it was eager to favor. It brings about a state of affairs, which again, from the point of view of the government, is even less desirable than the previous state of affairs which it was designed to improve.
Now, the government is faced with an alternative. It can abrogate its decree and refrain from any further endeavors to control the price of milk. But if it insists upon its intention to keep the price of milk below the rate the unhampered market would have determined and wants nonetheless to avoid a drop in the supply of milk, it must try to eliminate the causes that render the marginal producers’ business unremunerative.
It must add to the first decree concerning only the price of milk a second decree fixing the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk at such a low rate that the marginal producers of milk will no longer suffer losses and will therefore abstain from restricting output. But then the same story repeats itself on a remoter plane. The supply of the factors of production required for the production of milk drops, and again the government is back where it started. If it does not want to admit defeat and to abstain from any meddling with prices, it must push further and fix the prices of those factors of production which are needed for the production of the factors necessary for the production of milk. Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing step by step the prices of all consumers’ goods and of all factors of production, both human, i.e., labor, and material, and to order every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages.
No branch of industry can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and from this obligation to produce those quantities which the government wants to see produced. If some branches were to be left free out of regard for the fact that they produce only goods qualified as non-vital or even as luxuries, capital and labor would tend to flow into them and the result would be a drop in the supply of those goods, the prices of which government has fixed precisely because it considers them as indispensable for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses. But when this state of all-round control of business is attained, there can no longer be any question of a market economy. No longer do the citizens by their buying and abstention from buying determine what should be produced and how.
The power to decide these matters has devolved upon the government. This is no longer capitalism; it is all-round planning by the government, it is socialism.
You Continue
Really? They Don't intend to totally Socialise it?
Consider NAZI Germany.
When the State directs all aspect of private affairs - it is de facto socialism.
Again From Reisman
The news media are in the process of creating a great new historical myth. This is the myth that our present financial crisis is the result of economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism. The attempt to place the blame on laissez faire is readily confirmed by a Google search under the terms "crisis + laissez faire." On the first page of the results that come up, or in the web entries to which those results refer, statements of the following kind appear: "The mortgage crisis is laissez-faire gone wrong." "Sarkozy [Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France] said 'laissez-faire' economics, 'self-regulation' and the view that 'the all-powerful market' always knows best are finished." "'America's laissez-faire ideology, as practiced during the subprime crisis, was as simplistic as it was dangerous,' chipped in Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister." "Paulson brings laissez-faire approach on financial crisis…." "It's au revoir to the days of laissez faire."[1] Recent articles in The New York Times provide further confirmation. Thus, one article declares, "The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal…."[2] Another article tells us, "For 30 years, the nation's political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules."[3] In a third article, a pair of reporters assert, "Since 1997, Mr. Brown [the British Prime Minister] has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party's embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation. The laissez-faire approach encouraged the country's banks to expand internationally and chase returns in areas far afield of their core mission of attracting deposits."[4] Thus even Great Britain is described as having a "laissez-faire approach." The mentality displayed in these statements is so completely and utterly at odds with the actual meaning of laissez faire that it would be capable of describing the economic policy of the old Soviet Union as one of laissez faire in its last decades. By its logic, that is how it would have to describe the policy of Brezhnev and his successors of allowing workers on collective farms to cultivate plots of land of up to one acre in size on their own account and sell the produce in farmers' markets in Soviet cities. According to the logic of the media, that too would be "laissez faire" — at least compared to the time of Stalin.
The news media are in the process of creating a great new historical myth. This is the myth that our present financial crisis is the result of economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism.
The attempt to place the blame on laissez faire is readily confirmed by a Google search under the terms "crisis + laissez faire." On the first page of the results that come up, or in the web entries to which those results refer, statements of the following kind appear:
"The mortgage crisis is laissez-faire gone wrong."
"Sarkozy [Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France] said 'laissez-faire' economics, 'self-regulation' and the view that 'the all-powerful market' always knows best are finished."
"'America's laissez-faire ideology, as practiced during the subprime crisis, was as simplistic as it was dangerous,' chipped in Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister."
"Paulson brings laissez-faire approach on financial crisis…."
"It's au revoir to the days of laissez faire."[1]
Recent articles in The New York Times provide further confirmation. Thus, one article declares, "The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal…."[2] Another article tells us, "For 30 years, the nation's political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules."[3] In a third article, a pair of reporters assert, "Since 1997, Mr. Brown [the British Prime Minister] has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party's embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation. The laissez-faire approach encouraged the country's banks to expand internationally and chase returns in areas far afield of their core mission of attracting deposits."[4] Thus even Great Britain is described as having a "laissez-faire approach."
The mentality displayed in these statements is so completely and utterly at odds with the actual meaning of laissez faire that it would be capable of describing the economic policy of the old Soviet Union as one of laissez faire in its last decades. By its logic, that is how it would have to describe the policy of Brezhnev and his successors of allowing workers on collective farms to cultivate plots of land of up to one acre in size on their own account and sell the produce in farmers' markets in Soviet cities. According to the logic of the media, that too would be "laissez faire" — at least compared to the time of Stalin.
Which leads to socialism.
I'll agree with you on that point.
People generally like to concern themselves with other peoples business.
That being said - in most of the curent "Interventionist" western countries - the minimum amount of tax that we pay amounts to 50% of ones total salary - that is worse than serfdom.
From Mises.org
Socialism of the German pattern. An economic system completely planned and controlled by the government while retaining many of the labels and nominal forms of capitalism. A form of socialism (q.v.) which retains the appearance and terminology of the market economy while in fact private ownership of the means of production, real buying and selling, and real market prices, wages and interest rates no longer exist because all production activities and product allocations are directed and controlled by government orders which all participants are bound to obey unconditionally. This form of socialism was put into operation in Germany during the Nazi regime (1933-1945) but collapsed with the German defeat in World War II. The German term is Zwangswirtschaft (q.v.), a compulsory economic system. See "Nazi."
HA. 323-25,474,691,717-18,758-59,764; OG. 56-58, 203-06; PF. 4-5, 24-25, 75-78; S. 529, 584.
It's far less nominally popular now than it was in the 20th century. However, people are less aware of the nature of their own ideas now due to the matrix created by political schooling. There are much more people now with much stronger beliefs in subjects they don't understand. Every other 16 year old now thinks that he know everything. All he really knows is what the matrix feeds him.
Right, I've read Mises' Socialism as well as Human Action. However, the NSDAP model of socialism is socialism precisely because it was not interventionist. By lacking a capital market, it ceases to be a market economy and just becomes a charade.
I think of socialism as a condition in which businesses don't have control over their labor.
What does that even mean?
Anyways, however you want to define it, for Austrian purposes socialism is state ownership of capital. It is only this form of socialism which is socialism for the purposes of economic analysis. All other pseudo-socialisms, such as mutualism or leftist interventionism, are not socialistic so long as a capital market remains.
Edmund Carlyle:What does that even mean? Anyways, however you want to define it, for Austrian purposes socialism is state ownership of capital. It is only this form of socialism which is socialism for the purposes of economic analysis. All other pseudo-socialisms, such as mutualism or leftist interventionism, are not socialistic so long as a capital market remains.
Socialists are all about freedom of the labor class from the bourgeoise. It doesn't necessarily require state intervention. That, specifically, is state socialism. But not all socialists are state socialists. Gandhi was an anarcho-socialist.
Gandhi was an anarcho-socialist.
You mean, insane?
I mean: good at heart, weak at mind.
A well intentioned lunatic can be a thousand times more dangerous than a thug in possession of his rational faculties. A gangster can be deterred by threats, the lunatic is spurred on by them.
Having a flawed world-view is not the same as lunacy. And of course we all know how well-intentioned Hitler was. He wanted to advance humanity.
But the same thing can be said about any revolution. It can easily be diverted to something based not on its tenets, but the egos of its followers. As Eric Hoffer said, "A religious movement may develop into a social revolution or a nationalist movement; a social revolution, into militant nationalism or a religious movement; a nationalist movement into a social revolution or a religious movement."