Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Democratic Socialism: An Unscientific Observation
I think right-wingers like me can be forgiven for hearing the phrase “democratic socialism” and immediately thinking of mass starvation, genocide, and scores of millions of casualties in horrific autocratic regimes. That is, after all, the legacy of collectivism in the 20th century — something you probably didn’t learn in school if you’re under 50 since it doesn’t seem to be taught anymore.
On the other hand, there’s some plausibility to the progressive complaint that socialism can exist in other forms, and that the democratic part of democratic socialism tempers — or perhaps obviates entirely — the need for the brutality and authoritarianism we associate with socialism’s application.
Enthusiasts of democratic socialism inevitably point to Denmark and Sweden as examples of socialism done right, though a reasonable debate could be had as to whether these countries more accurately represent socialism or merely capitalism operating in a high-tax, high-social-service economy.
I think there are a variety of arguments against trying to implement the Danish or Swedish models (of whatever it is they have) in America — or of implementing any kind of socialism, for that matter. Socialism is a moral hazard, it impoverishes people, it weakens economies, and it flies in the face of human nature; at its limit, it kills people.
But Denmark and Sweden are, by most accounts, pretty nice places. So the “what about Denmark and Sweden” question needs to be addressed. There are undoubtedly a variety of ways to approach that if you believe, as I do, that socialism is a bad idea.
One criticism I would level against socialist countries (of whatever stripe) is that the profit motive, so central to capitalism, is the great driver of innovation. We invent stuff. I did some quick and dirty number crunching (again, nothing scientific here) of the number of US patents issued to entities in various countries over a ten-year period, from 2006-2015.
Taiwan stood out with 413 total patents per 100,000 population over those ten years. The United States had 374; Japan 367.
Sweden got 191, and Denmark a mere 138 — well below Canada, that hotbed of innovation, at 153.
Israel and South Korea, with 251 and 242, respectively, both did better than Sweden and Denmark. In general, the hyper-regulated quasi-welfare states of Europe don’t fare well.
So as long as we defend them and invent their stuff, I guess the high-social-services model is pretty nice.
Published in Economics
The problem is American university leftists. They will allow only the most brutal kind of socialism.
Henry, I’ve been hoping that someone would post something on socialism, in particular as it applies to the Scandinavian countries. I hope we’ll have some interesting and informative responses.
I look up “socialism” on Google occasionally, where I find that it means a system of government that controls the means of production (I guess that means factories) and the distribution of its products.
But that doesn’t tell me what I want to know. That’s why I’m hoping that Ricocheters will fill in the blanks.
Kent, I think it’s time — if only for our own credibility — that we start identifying the various species of collectivism and central planning and cataloguing their assorted failings.
I don’t expect the typical proponent of socialism to care: I don’t think they know very much about anything, have much common sense, or really know what they’re saying when they say “socialism.”
But the other people in the room are listening, and we owe it to our cause to make as much sense as possible when we talk, if only to demonstrate that our opponents don’t.
Here’s a way to start. Ask the socialism enthusiast: “do you really mean socialism, or do you mean democratic socialism? Or do you mean a social democracy? Or do you mean fascism — state control of private industry?”
Then you can add that they’re all bad, but bad in different ways, so you’d like to know which one they’re talking about.
Of course, then we have to be prepared to talk about each.
Europeans call their center-left parties “social democrats”, and that describes most of them better than “democratic socialist”. (BTW, fond as I am of Israelis, that country is a lot closer to being a hyper-regulated quasi-welfare state than France, Germany or the UK). These are mixed economies without any grand pretense of eventually being un-mixed, that is, communist. The Swedes made the welfare state work; their culture used to be self-disciplined enough to discourage moral hazard, i.e., slacking off. They never tried to kill off business. They weren’t stupid.
Venezuela was stupid.
Gary, it would be interesting to research (or, more accurately, to read the research about, as doing it really isn’t my thing) the correlation between various details of regulation, taxation, etc., and different markers of economic performance.
Israel, for example, has few mandated paid days off compared to the European countries; a quick and casual scan of the ordered list of mandated days off by country places the low-innovation European countries near the top of the list, with the most mandated days off. In comparison, the highly innovative countries tend toward the bottom, with the fewest mandated days off.
The United States is one of only a tiny number — half a dozen or so — that have no mandated days off.
I love this country.
I’ve been to Sweden, and I’ve been to Denmark several times. I didn’t live there or anything. Just a tourist. But I saw enough to know that I have no special hankering to live in either country. Oh, there’s a lot of natural beauty, and living in Copenhagen or Stockholm is probably no worse than living in Manhattan – but I wouldn’t want to live there either. Lefties just seem to love the idea of a place where you can’t afford anything but a 600 square foot studio apartment and must spend two hours a day on mass transit. And they always have – even long before they had made up the nonsense of “carbon footprints” and such. I guess it’s because it’s really egalitarian, or something, because everyone lives that way. (Actually, in Sweden they don’t. The Swedish 1% lives pretty well.) Personally, though, I prefer a house with a yard and a two-car garage.
The thing the left doesn’t like to think about, though, is that both Sweden and Denmark put the lie to the left’s belief that racial “diversity” is inherently valuable. But as Muslim immigrants pour into those countries we will get a chance to test that belief against reality as well. Let’s find out if Sweden and Denmark remain examples of leftist paradises once they have a lot of neighborhoods where the police are afraid to go.
I would be concerned that the Democratic part would be One Man, One Vote, Once.
There are so many lies in leftism, it’s difficult to know where to start. But, for American leftists, I’ve decided they don’t want immigrants from Central and South America because they’re brown. They want them because they’re socialists. That they’re brown socialists is just an opportunity for rich, white lefties to racially preen.
Denmark, where my oldest lived for two years and to which he still returns regularly as a consultant, is learning this. It’s illegal,to bring Muslims in and they have banned veils.
No, no, no; that’s just getting stuck in wordplay.
Go to the definitive source. Go to the Democratic Socialists of America web site and check it out. They’re pretty clear about where they stand.
I will also point out that the DSA sponsors the Marxism Today Podcast, which can be entertaining if you find train wrecks amusing.
I disagree with this 100%. I think socialism appeals to base human nature on multiple levels: the innate desire to be taken care of and avoid risk — to return to Egypt (Exodus) and to clamor for a king (1 Samuel); the tendency to pride, greed, envy, and covetousness. Secular socialism makes people worse, and not just economically.
The West, generally, and America in particular, overcame the worst of human nature through sovereignty of the people and separation of powers. Socialism of any form reverses those things.
We need to clear up what socialism is (immoral and destructive) and we need to explain (over and over and over…) that we are not a democracy (mob rule), we are a republic (representative rule with the consent of the governed). Prager recently read an article in the LA Times wherein the author described Trump as a “minority president in a majority rule country.” Another lefty lie.
We have our work cut out for us.
This deserves a longer response than I have time to give right now. I like it because you and I “disagree 100%,” and yet we are both still firmly on the same side on the matter of socialism. That makes it a very friendly debate.
Socialism is contrary to human nature in that it only works if people are saintly self-sacrificing altruists willing to work their tails off for the benefit of the collective. If people are other than that — and they are — then it tends toward sloth, corruption, famine, despotism, and death.
Agreed.
But, that’s what capitalism is — altruism in the service of self-interest, which just so happens to benefit the “common” good. I work my tail off to produce something you’re willing to pay for and we both win. It is cooperative, not coercive, as is socialism.
I always find opposition to “profit” incredibly irrational. When Jesus said, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul,” it presupposes that “profit” is a good!
Democratic Socialism or is it Socialist Democracy? Funny thing with adjectives. When I was growing up in one of the satellite “Worker Paradises,” socialist was used a lot to modify otherwise normal things. Sometime this would become a mouthful… But many of us were pretty sure that the compound structure usually meant the opposite of what the noun meant all by itself. The joke went something like this:
– “Define Socialist Democracy!
– “Well! It is is neither socialist nor a democracy!
@henryracette and @westernchauvinist, I think you are saying the same thing (which I agree with, also). I understood Henry to be saying that the outworking of socialism is against human nature; but the Left’s desire for it is very much congruent with human nature?
Am I right, or am I wrong?
Not sure. I think a lot of the desire for socialism is based in pride (you will be as gods) and the temptation to power. Leftists always accuse religious righties of wanting to “impose” our morality on others, when that is precisely what they want! Ocasio-Cortez has said the way to finance her socialist dreams — other than
eatingtaxing corporations and the eeeviiil rich — is to impose a carbon tax. I want her to be free to write her checks to the US Treasury. She wants to force me to do it!I agree that socialism doesn’t work because of fallen human nature, but it definitely appeals to the worst of human nature.
It’s like “social justice.” It’s no longer related to justice.
Not quite, my friend. Capitalism is apparent altruism as an incidental side-effect of self-interest. One needn’t be in any way altruistic to be successful as a capitalist and to benefit one’s neighbors in the process. That is, of course, the beauty of capitalism: it’s principle unintended consequence is the enrichment of others.
In contrast, socialism requires that we be altruists or it eventually falters and fails or impoverishes us.
It’s not altruism if you don’t have a choice. It’s slavery.
Close to right, in the sense that people want as much stuff as possible with as little effort as possible. They don’t actually want socialism, per se, nor capitalism. They want free stuff. Socialism just looks, to the ignorant, like a low-effort short-cut to stuff. Capitalism works better, because it provides a mechanism that allows our desire for stuff to ultimately benefit others.
I think everyone here understands this. We’re just saying much the same thing in different ways.
Dan Bongino has a three-part report on Scandinavian countries. See part1 part2 part3
The world has been battling the idea of socialism (the deadliest idea humans ever had) for nearly 100 years. Socialism seems to have widespread appeal, but what do advocates see that they like? I’ve ranked what I think people are thinking:
1) the rich are to be punished. everyone is thus “equal”. (Bernie Sanders)
2) choice/freedom is scary and government making all the choices is like a blanket (generation snowflake)
3) America is bad and must be punished (Michelle Obama)
4) most people are dumb and need government guidance (Barrack Obama)
5) this is a chance for me to make things better and be properly rewarded/honored (Hillary Clinton)
6) all the people of the globe should unite in supporting their betters (George Soros)
Very nice.
Not sure about the latest rising star, the hyphenated young lady in NYC. She might require a seventh bullet point, perhaps something with a Che theme….
Not so much.
Un grupo de mujeres, tanto musulmanas como no musulmanas, ha anunciado que cuando llegue el 1 de agosto, día en que entrará en vigor la ley que prohíbe lucir en público el velo islámico en Dinamarca, desafiarán la norma jurídica haciendo uso del ‘niqab’
Don, I appreciate our point. But here’s the practical battle that I think we face.
Self-identified advocates of so-called democratic socialism and those flirting with the idea have Sweden and Denmark in mind, so pointing to something else and trying to tell them that that is what they stand for doesn’t work — and shouldn’t. Rather, you have to engage the idea they’re carrying around in their head, not the phrase they happen to be using and that some other bunch of nutjobs happens to be using as well.
And it really isn’t wordplay. Socialism is bad, full stop. But you aren’t going to convince these young people that their ideas are going to lead to famine and genocide — like Classic Socialism did. They’re pushing New Socialism, and you have to engage the practical problems of a quasi-socialist hyper-regulated welfare state.
If we pretend it’s the same thing under a different name, we aren’t credible and we won’t convince people.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an actual member of the Democratic Socialists of America, so that’s a lot more than flirting.
Perhaps you’re not referring to her, but to other people who use the words “democratic” and “socialism” near each other.
But she’s the one they’re voting for.
Tee hee hee, you said bullet and Che in the same sentence.
In case anyone missed this :
“Bullet point.” Yes, I thought that was appropriate.
Oh, okay, for that…
Just point out that the corporate tax rate for Sweden is 22%, Denmark is 24.5%, Norway is 27%, and the US (until very recently) 39%. Sounds like the opposite of socialist.
Vladimir “Former Soviet Citizen” Jaffe often points out that wordplay is used to create confusion between “social” and “socialism”.