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
Corrected my autocorrect error, but you got the gist of it already.
I do agree that it’s worth the effort to clarify terms. I don’t think there’s enough value in comparing what Democratic Socialists want to what Pol Pot wanted. If we do, we’ve failed to answer the question of what is wrong with being like Denmark. We need to have good arguments ready for that instead of scaring them with fire and brimstone. I also agree that most, if not all, brands of socialism carry dangerous flaws that lead to disaster. Yet I see even some of the more influential people out there still using the fire and brimstone card. We need to do better than that to reach people better. Some of the items listed above were quite good, let’s try to use them more.
Privately, I do buy into the fire and brimstone version. As far as I’m concerned, the only thing keeping those systems from getting more virulent in Europe is due to our cozy little military agreement with them. I don’t even refer to the money they save by not paying the 2%. I’m talking about how, if they act up, we’ll drive on over and box their ears.
Ugh, physician heal thyself. I don’t know the math on this but does it even out for them, i.e., could they get the same amount of tax revenue of the reversed the personal and corporate rates?
These are small countries.
Sweden’s population is 10 million, or the size of Georgia.
Denmark’s population is 5.8 million, or the size of Maryland.
Norway’s population is 5.3 million, or the size of Minnesota.
So at the very least, even if you pretended it would work, you would want to implement this Socialism experiment at the state level. I mean, you don’t expect it to scale by a factor of 50 and have a hope of working, right? And the US Constitution is designed for that — the 10th Amendment says that the spec’d out things happen at the federal level and everything else is at the state level.
This will generally end the argument as states can’t print money, and nobody has the energy to convert to Socialism 50 times, and the failures would show along the way. And it’s much more difficult to get a Socialist governor than a Socialist congressman or senator.
(And if Romney hadn’t slept through 2008, he could have used this argument against Obamacare and won easily.)
The link above does a pretty good job of explaining it.
But more importantly, a low corporate tax rate is a strong argument against the countries being considered Socialist.
Yes. I think of them as high-tax, high-social welfare democracies. Their regulatory environments are generally congenial for business.
And Sweden’s workers generate, on average, $7,000/worker more in foreign trade than ours do. It’s easier to be a little high-tax/high-benefit enclave if you can sell nice cars to big capitalist nations.
But, like all Lefists, Democratic Socialists in America are living in the past. Both Sweden and Denmark have moved markedly towards markets in recent years*, and that has nothing at all to do with the Muslim influx, and everything to do with economic reality. (Norway, being full of vile Norwegians, is a special case, and being a petro state is still coasting on the money the rest of Europe gives them to drive their precious Saabs, Volvos, SEATs, Citroens, and Peugeots. Their reckoning will come.)
*Sources? We don’t need no stinking sources! Okay, I know there are sources, ’cause I’ve read ’em, but I’m up too late, and have drunk tee many martwoinis (actually beers) to find them at this late hour. But they’re out there, and if pressed tomorrow I’ll find them.
Sweden enjoyed the freest economy in the world until it became among the wealthiest, then adopted wildly generous social programs. It still has a less intrusive state than the US. All of the Nordics are among the most homogenous countries on earth and all are smaller than many of our states so they can reach consensus on most collective goods. As that changes with immigration it’s breaking down. The idea that the US, the most diverse and largest economy on earth could reach a consensus on any centralized collective good is absurd. Any country as large and diverse as the US could not adopt Democratic socialism as it would rapidly drift toward totalitarianism. Indeed we are already seeing it.
The company I work for has a facility in Denmark. I have spent a lot of time there. I don’t want to live like them.
Few of those in favor of a socialist system, like Denmark’s, talk about the costs. Dans pay about 55% income tax. Not just the rich, everyone. They also pay a VAT tax of over 20% on everything they buy. Some goods which the government is trying to discourage have even higher taxes on them. The tax on cars in 180%. So if a car costs $30,000, you pay $84,000. At one of our engineering conferences, we had some competitions. The winning team members all won laptops. One person on the winning team was from Denmark. She declined the prize, because she couldn’t afford to pay the taxes on it.
I have visited the homes of the upper management in Denmark. In the U.S. people in their positions live in very large homes, in very nice neighborhoods, with 3 or 4 car garages. In Denmark, they live in, what we would consider to be small Duplexes, with a single car carport. BTW, they are paying zero principle mortgages on these homes. Which means all of the mortgage payments go toward interest. They never pay principle and will never own their home. Want to go out to eat. Bring your company credit card. You can’t afford it.
No thanks, to living like Denmark. It’s not for me.
Also, what is the defense budget in those places? It’s easy to have all the social welfare when you have daddy USA protecting you.
What’s becoming weirdly obvious is that too many are rallying around her too quickly and she is clearly dumb as a door nail when it comes to anything substantial including past history. It sounds like she is reading a script to me…
Yes, she has a facile glibness about her — a patina of fashionable platitudes layered over a natural tendency that I suspect is as self-righteously thuggish and brutal as the worst young despotic true believers. I don’t know why she makes me think of Mao’s murderous students or that dreamboat of a butcher Che, but she does.
If Henry had said the stated the (utopian) goals of socialism fly in the face of human nature, I would agree. Or, if he had said, “socialism exploits the worst of human nature to gain adherents,” I would have agreed 100%.
… 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).
Amen.
A republic protects the minority. I democracy does not. A lynch mob is a democracy, as is 4 wolves and an lamb deciding what is for dinner. John Adams called it, “Tyranny of the Majority”.
In a republic, we elect people who are supposed to think about all sides and govern based on the laws we the people have consented to. That is, the Constitution. They are not supposed to govern based on the emotions of the majority.
Aha!! Another fake environmentalist who doesn’t really believe global warming is a threat.
Wow Pony – not too many average Americans realize this is the scene in Denmark. This is socialism and it’s not understood in its mildest or more severe terms by many in the US. Please do a post even if its short to this understanding….
a) They built up their national wealth before they went socialist. Then they spent that wealth on socialist programs. Now that the wealth’s running out, they’re cutting back on the socialism.
b) It’s easier to put society before the individual (one fundamental definition of socialism) when that society is ethnically, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous. The less individualized a country’s individuals are to begin with, the easier it is for them to feel solidarity with the group. In other words, “national socialism”.
That’s an interesting idea, and worth thinking about.
Funny how many different perspectives there are on the why socialism doesn’t work theme — probably all correct.
The only point vis a vis socialism and human nature that I wanted to make was this: In order to work as its enthusiasts think it will, socialism would require that we have natures different from what they are. That’s why it never does work as its advocates say it will.
I really like how you have pointed out how a typically average resident of these places lives. If it is individual liberty at all, it is a form of fenced-in liberty. Perhaps individuals in a crowded world will each need to choose what fences they are willing to live with. But some choice in the matter should always exist. The open borders approach and the surrender of national sovereignty to some global or regional governing body, maybe not even elected to represent the people, does not provide the choices a free people should have. I have always suspected Israel has similar kinds of restrictions, and maybe more, than these Scandinavian countries.
Some things also worth noting regarding the “success” of socialism in Scandinavia:
1) Taxing Lars to give to Sven is more palatable in a country that is culturally and ethnically homogeneous. One of the unfortunate side-effects of diversity is conflict. So, it’s much more difficult to convince people in a diverse country to hand over their wealth to someone who may have a completely different set of values. “Hey, Lars! I heard that your a white-as-ice, euro-centered atheist with a family heritage tied into this slab of ice for the past 500 years! Me too!”
2) Scandinavians have very little “purchasing power”, meaning that their salaries may be higher but the immense cost of the socialist bureaucracy raises the cost of living so much that their money isn’t doing them much good. American teachers like to point out how much Swedish teachers make, but that salary is only so high because it reflects the absurd cost of living.
3) The very poor in Scandinavia do better than our very poor, but outside of that bottom 10% Americans have far more wealth. Plus, as Americans, have the benefit of social and economic mobility.
4) The socialist healthcare system in Scandinavia (and Canada), flawed as they are, can only stay afloat because of the innovations of the American for profit healthcare system.
You bring up a good point (bolded, above), and one rarely mentioned. When we think of the trade-offs of living in a boutique European socialist democracy (or whatever we call it), we tend to think of material and lifestyle compromises — smaller houses, smaller cars, higher taxes, more expensive consumer goods. We rarely speak of freedom, of having choices, as a thing of intrinsic value — and that risk, a lack of easy security, is the coin with which we buy it.
Only one flaw in your post. Under the Code of Conduct, patents are bad and should only be referred to in a negative light.
That’s a feature, not a bug. Nothing offends a “democratic socialist” more than public displays of wealth. If you keep your wealthy status private they tend to leave you alone. Look at how much they lionize Warren Buffet.
Nut.
Back when I was a libertarian I actually used to argue against patents and copyrights.
I was even more obnoxious then than I am now.
Generosity and honesty in debate require that we address our opponents’ best ideas, and not only their worst.
Communism is objectively evil, as are many habits of “socialism” fans in the West today: suppression of speech, demonization of opponents and their positions, selective application of rights, praise of dictators, lawless judicial activism, etc. Despite any respectable alternatives, the Left in the US and elsewhere is brutal and dangerous.
That said, it is common and respectable, though mistaken, to believe (1) that our inherent moral responsibilities to each other as fellow citizens / human beings are only possible or most sensibly fulfilled through government, (2) that government officials are generally trustworthy, knowledgable, wise, and responsible, (3) that irresponsible government can be easily reined in, (4) that the same model of government can work well for every people, (5) that the alternatives — like capitalism, constitutionalism, indirect representation, and common law — are worse, (6) that the same models and methods are feasible at any scale, (7) that Obama/Clinton/Sanders/Sharpton are nice people because NBC/ABC/CNN/BBC tell me so, and so on.
The Plymouth Colony started with socialism for its first year and it was a disaster without authoritarianism or tyranny. If Bradford hadn’t made the change to assign each family a plot of land for them to farm on their own and for their own benefit they would have all starved the next year.
Tim Worstall had a good point about scale. It’s not the size of the population, but how you break it into administrative districts. Health care, for example, is run by counties in the Nordics (roughly 10K persons per). This means it is possible to know the administrator and–more importantly–where he drinks on Friday night. If he makes your life miserable, you have the option of returning the favor. It keeps his eye on the ball.
This, plus a free market, an efficient bureaucracy, and a reasonable system of taxation makes Nordic “socialism” work IMHO. The US has never really seen the latter two (and you could quibble about the first). Doubtful it ever will; the American Left just doesn’t have the right instincts. In fact my battle-cry is: Make the California DMV 90% less soul-crushing, socialistas, and we can talk.
I spent a week in the Netherlands about 15 years ago. I didn’t rent a car, it was February, and my B&B was about a mile from the office, so I walked. The second day, a couple of the guys from the office actually saw me during their commute and gave me a ride. Not only did the drive take at least as long as walking, the guys spent the whole drive complaining that the only cars available were tiny hatchbacks, and that the roads were artificially narrow to encourage everyone to ride bikes, and made their 12 km commute (7 mile Awesome) take nearly 45 minutes.