Obama and socialism

[Dominick]

Of the faults that Obama has or may have, a socialist he is not.

I understand that the term is used for his proposed policies as they are left of the policies of the previous administration, but those were so far to the right (economically, not politically, that is. Bush was no fascist), that pretty much anything would be to the left of that.

But actual socialism is much more than government policy. It is deeply grafted upon a plethora of midfield organizations that are neither private nor public -which, incidentally, is a false dichotomy if these terms are used as exhaustive possibilities- but collective. They are neither under control of the government nor of that of private corporations, but under the control of their own members. Those include, but are not limited to, workers' organizations, agricultural cooperations, medical associations, hospitals, care centers for the elderly, the very young, the physically and/or mentally disabled, administrative health care centers, job agencies, cultural organizations of every breed, and so on, yes even banks (*).

Without these organizations, actual socialism would not, and could not exist. They are its core, not a byproduct. And their political representation emerges from these organizations, not the other way around. Mushy as it may sound, they did emerge from among 'the people', mostly in the 19th century.

As far as I can tell, the USA doesn't have a similar network, except in embryonic or corrupted versions (such as the teamsters). Thus, in conclusion, Americans don't need to worry about Obama-socialism. America can't become socialist because it doesn't have the framework for it.

* One such bank is the Dutch Rabobank. They

are economically succesful
did not have exorbitant management bonuses
are hardly affected by the credit crumble

Food for thought ....

[Michael]

Of the faults that Obama has or may have, a socialist he is not.

I understand that the term is used for his proposed policies as they are left of the policies of the previous administration, but those were so far to the right (economically, not politically, that is. Bush was no fascist), that pretty much anything would be to the left of that.

But actual socialism is much more than government policy. It is deeply grafted upon a plethora of midfield organizations that are neither private nor public -which, incidentally, is a false dichotomy if these terms are used as exhaustive possibilities- but collective. They are neither under control of the government nor of that of private corporations, but under the control of their own members. Those include, but are not limited to, workers' organizations, agricultural cooperations, medical associations, hospitals, care centers for the elderly, the very young, the physically and/or mentally disabled, administrative health care centers, job agencies, cultural organizations of every breed, and so on, yes even banks (*).

Without these organizations, actual socialism would not, and could not exist. They are its core, not a byproduct. And their political representation emerges from these organizations, not the other way around. Mushy as it may sound, they did emerge from among 'the people', mostly in the 19th century.

As far as I can tell, the USA doesn't have a similar network, except in embryonic or corrupted versions (such as the teamsters). Thus, in conclusion, Americans don't need to worry about Obama-socialism. America can't become socialist because it doesn't have the framework for it.

* One such bank is the Dutch Rabobank. They

are economically succesful
did not have exorbitant management bonuses
are hardly affected by the credit crumble

Food for thought ....
You are apparently overlooking the key government 'enabler' function here that is apparently always required to 'drive' socialist policies.

Yes the USA, Canada and UK are filled with such 'non-government, non-private' organizations. Heck, I'd bet that "co-op" banking and agriculture collectives were created here in NA.

The diffrence is that there is no government ordered mandate that forces private companies and/or government bodies to acknowledge or deal with them. That is what is necessary for socialism and that's what Europe has and USA doesn't - government ordered mandates for non-governmental bodies.

And to be honest, that's one of the features of socialism that I dislike the most - that's the "authoritarian" side of socialism - government making market decisions - or forcing people to abide by government marketing decisions. I don't like government involvement in the marketplace other than the role of 'cop'.

For example, sector-wide union bargaining REQUIRES a government mandate. You won't see any of that in North America because government mandates are seen for exactly what they are - a key component of socialist authoritarianism and thus steadfastly opposed by the political right and the political center.

In other words, socialism is only possible when it is ordered/mandated by the government.

[Dominick]

You are apparently overlooking the key government 'enabler' function here that is apparently always required to 'drive' socialist policies.

Yes the USA, Canada and UK are filled with such 'non-government, non-private' organizations. Heck, I'd bet that "co-op" banking and agriculture collectives were created here in NA.

The diffrence is that there is no government ordered mandate that forces private companies and/or government bodies to acknowledge or deal with them. That is what is necessary for socialism and that's what Europe has and USA doesn't - government ordered mandates for non-governmental bodies.

And to be honest, that's one of the features of socialism that I dislike the most - that's the "authoritarian" side of socialism - government making market decisions - or forcing people to abide by government marketing decisions. I don't like government involvement in the marketplace other than the role of 'cop'.

For example, sector-wide union bargaining REQUIRES a government mandate. You won't see any of that in North America because government mandates are seen for exactly what they are - a key component of socialist authoritarianism and thus steadfastly opposed by the political right and the political center.

In other words, socialism is only possible when it is ordered/mandated by the government.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong on this. You're describing the socialism of Eastern Europe, not at all that of Western Europe. There was no 'enabler' in countries that never had a socialist government. All these organizations have emerged under absolutist monarchies, under arch-Catholic governments, under aristocratic governments, under classical liberal governments.

There still is no such enabler. For instance, the government doesn't meddle in the wage bargaining between the bodies that represent the company owners and the unions. That is entirely and exlusively decided by these bodies themselves. Only in rare instances when these don't reach an agreement after weeks or months the government issues a mediator, whom has to be neutral anyway in order to achieve a result.

The private corporations that deal with section-wide union bargaining do so because of the power these unions have to shut down their enterprises through strikes, not because the government says so. In fact, governments tend to dislike and try to oppose the right to strike. But actually denying that right was done only in Nazi-Germany, Mussolini-Italy and Franco-Spain and is today only advocated by the extreme right.

Similarly, nothing or nobody forces anyone to deal with Rabobank. It doesn't have goverment participation, nor government issued managers, nor does it benefit from governement prescribed exceptionalism. It functions in the same market under the same conditions as any privately owned bank. And especially these days, more succesfully so.

Socialism in Western Europe is in origin bottom-up self-organization, it is vehemently not top-down authoritarian socialism.

PS could you give an example of such an organization in NA ? A substantial one ?

[Michael]

PS could you give an example of such an organization in NA ? A substantial one ?
Check out "co-op" banking or credit unions. There are literally thousands of them.

I'll be researching your assertion regarding sector-wide bargaining. I'm betting that there is a government mandate enabling that particular process - usually well hidden underneath, but it is always there. There ALWAYS is government enabling laws behind ALL political-economic activity.

Now I have no trouble admitting that capitalism benefits from massive amounts of government enabling. I find it funny that you cannot recognize the same in socialism (that you NEED to ideological deny this).