Political Theory

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

ChroMattic — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:20:55 GMT

Benjamin:

$944 billion to Social Insecurity

Ok, but the majority of social security payments are redistribution. Money taken from earners and given to old people

The majority of military spending is taken from earners and gets thrown into a giant hole in he ground; into bombs which sit in a bunker somewhere, or into paying people to die or get disabilities so they can't produce real wealth in the future.

That's a HUGE fundamental difference.

You pay into social security and eventually you get back something which is less than you put in, but you still get something positive back. You pay into the military, and you get back what? Terrorists? Cops with PTSD? People in wheelchairs?

It's the difference between paying in a dollar and getting $0.70 back and paying in a dollar and getting -$0.30 back.

No you don't. You lose, according to your scenario, 30 cents. You're not gaining, and to think you are is silly. You're not even gaining interest for your money. And there isn't a huge fundamental difference. If you disagree with both on ideological grounds funding them seems equally silly. Although, in my opinions, military expenditures don't even pretend to benefit society, but according to you we're paying the salaries of all those military men. So just exchange "military man" for old people and you get basically the same program.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:20:22 GMT

Socialists are not opposed to military spending. They are opposed to spending on particular wars. If you ask someone who advocates those wars why they do, they will tell you that it is to help people in other parts of the world. In other words, welfare for foreign poor people instead of domestic poor people. Socialism is the problem and the entire problem at that.

Benjamin:
The language impedes understanding...

It does so by design.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

ChroMattic — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:15:46 GMT

Benjamin:

By the way:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

As *I* stated, the military is not a "means of production." Socialism is not a synonym for taxation, though you're welcome to invent your own definitions of words if it makes you happy

Oh, sorry. The military and military installations don't produce security? Then what are we paying them for? And are you saying the military is privately owned? Because if it isn't, that means its publicly owned.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Benjamin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:10:01 GMT

Personally, I'd support well regulated militias and the submarine fleet, I can't think of an argument as to why it would take any more than that to deter aggression by any state against North America.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Benjamin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:06:59 GMT

$944 billion to Social Insecurity

Ok, but the majority of social security payments are redistribution. Money taken from earners and given to old people

The majority of military spending is taken from earners and gets thrown into a giant hole in he ground; into bombs which sit in a bunker somewhere, or into paying people to die or get disabilities so they can't produce real wealth in the future.

That's a HUGE fundamental difference.

You pay into social security and eventually you get back something which is less than you put in, but you still get something positive back. You pay into the military, and you get back what? Terrorists? Cops with PTSD? People in wheelchairs?

It's the difference between paying in a dollar and getting $0.70 back and paying in a dollar and getting -$0.30 back.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

wilderness — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:36:10 GMT

Benjamin:

By the way:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

As *I* stated, the military is not a "means of production." Socialism is not a synonym for taxation, though you're welcome to invent your own definitions of words if it makes you happy

You're trying to pass off that there is no such thing as a military industrial complex. There is. And if you don't want to recognize those terms, the easy way to understand this is the military obviously is a means of production if peace is to be maintained, meaning, if the military was actually used in efforts of self-defense. Also it takes capital and production factors to have a standing army such as the one that the U.S. does, so, the military isn't out in some vacuum world that has no need of food, shelter, and clothing let alone all those tanks, airplanes, and warships. Where does all that metal come from in the first place? I think it's mined out of the earth. I'm not saying the military is purely socialism, but the military is obviously part of the means of production. Call the gov't owning the military interventionalism. It doesn't really matter what you call it, but the military wouldn't be without capital.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Vichy Army — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:33:25 GMT

krazy kaju:

"Socialism" from an economic perspective is the same as "command economy."

In Misesian terminology. But the point is that there is no peculiar claim Mises has to this term. It's fine - I know what he means by it, as I know what he means by 'capitalism'. But, even moreso than 'capitalism', socialism is a word with many other valid connotations outside of 'ownership of capital by the state'.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Mike — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:31:58 GMT

And great; even I managed to convince myself that military spending isn't socialistic then I'd only have to worry about a trillion in government spending as opposed to two trillion.

TWO TRILLION??? when did you write this 1990. Try 4 trillion or 4000 billion or 4,000,000 million

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

krazy kaju — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:27:38 GMT

"Socialism" from an economic perspective is the same as "command economy."

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Benjamin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:25:18 GMT

Misesians could also use the term 'Command economy' or 'state production' for what they call socialist.

Maybe they should. For some socialists, using 'socialism' and 'command economy' as synonyms is directly analogous to socialists using 'capitalist' and 'corporatist.' as synonyms. The language impedes understanding...

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

krazy kaju — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:21:43 GMT

Right, but then the burden of proof falls on you to show exactly how much came in through outside appropriations. Most leftists who throw around the claim that the feds spend most of our money on the military simply overlook "mandatory" spending. The fact of the matter is that over half of the budget consists of mandatory spending and that the majority of mandatory spending is spending on social programs (in fact all of it is, except for interest payments on the national debt). So let's use the 2009 US Federal Budget:
- $944 billion to Social Insecurity
- $408 billion to Medicare
- $224 billion to Medicaid and SCHIP
- $360 billion to Unemployment "Insurance" and "Welfare"

Other social spending includes:
- $70.4 billion to HHS
- $45.4 billion to Dept. of Education
- $20.8 billion to Dept. of Agriculture

So all together, this social spending in FY 2009 amounts to over $2 trillion. According to usgovernmentspending.com, total federal expenditures for 2009 were $3.5 trillion. So even when we include off-budget federal expenditures, we discover that the majority of money goes toward "social" programs.

Two notes:
1. Whereas the budget applies to fiscal years, I'm not sure if the total expenditure charts from usgovernmentspending.com apply to fiscal years or calendar years.
2. The CIA budget is incorporated into the DoD budget. We just don't know what they spend it on. One major criticism of the DoD budget has been how much the CIA and NSA spend compared to other DoD operations, such as the regular armed forces.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Benjamin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:19:13 GMT

It just seems to me that there's a quick and ready way to actually cut Federal spending by about 50%, and that's a left/libertarian alliance against the military budget.

Even if Federal taxation only went down by 40% instead of 50% after eliminating the overseas military (for starters), the remainder going towards more social spending, it seems like an outcome that should be hugely preferable to the status quo for both camps. Way less taxes and a little more social spending at the same time, without additional 'public debt.'

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Vichy Army — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:17:53 GMT

Giant_Joe:

Benjamin:

Well, if you want to use your own wacky definition of socialism, that's fine by me, but please find me a single person who calls themselves a socialist (or even a 'leftist') and publicly supports nearly any U.S. military spending.

Most of those people don't even know what socialism is. I think most of us will just stick to the definitions.

No, the problem is that Mises uses a peculiar definition of socialism which is taken from the Old Left and Classical State Socialists (Saint Simonians, etc.) This peculiar form of State-Socialism does not encompass the whole of the left, especially democratic radicals/maoists. Neither they, nor Mises, have any peculiar 'right' to the term socialism. As it is used in economics, as opposed to as it is used by leftists, one could change either term and get a clearer idea. Most leftists are democratic egalitarians, and could be called that. Misesians could also use the term 'Command economy' or 'state production' for what they call socialist.

Also, in strictly Misesian terms, 'socialism' is not what funds the military. Taxation and hampered market economies are what fund the military. Remember this point: There is no middle-ground between socialism and market economies in Mises. The United States is a market economy - a hampered market economy.

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Benjamin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:13:40 GMT

Here at my college there are TONS of self identified Socialists who support drug laws, probably most of them (though it isn't like I've taken a poll)

Really? What would they say if you tell them that drug laws are most heavily enforced (by far) against the 'proletariat'?

I once saw a map of where the drug laws were enforced where I went to college. Over 1,000 arrests in the majority black/low income neighborhoods, exactly 11 in the college neighborhoods. And let me tell you, it wasn't because the college students weren't buying and selling drugs...

A police officer once told me it's because they don't need warrants to raid public housing projects and poor people tend to deal on street corners rather than in privately owned buildings...

Re: Why Socialism isn't the Problem.

Benjamin — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:05:18 GMT

ah, but kaju, you do realize the Federal government's numbers are rigged?

For example, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are often funded through 'special appropriations,' not the standard DOD budget; clearly military spending is disguised in other forms ( the VA department is not included, interest on the national debt for past military spending is not included, maintenance of nuclear weapons is put under the category of "Department of Energy," quasi military functions such as "counter terrorism" are included under the "Department of Homeland Security," foreign aid distributed to assist military objectives is not included...

The of course there's the CIA, which is fully capable of raising and spending funds outside of the Congressional process.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm