Newt Gingrich writes in the Washington Post today to defend his assertion that Obama is a socialist. He cites several examples of the President’s big-government agenda, which are excerpted below. These are all examples of bad policy, to be sure, but other than the student loan takeover, these are all examples of fascism rather than socialism. Socialism, technically speaking, is government ownership of the means of production. Fascism, by contrast, involves government control and direction of resources, but cloaked by a system of nominal private ownership.
Calling Obama a fascist, however, is counterproductive. Other than a few economists and historians, people don’t understand that fascism developed (with Mussolini perhaps being the best example) as a social/economic system. Instead, most people associate it with Hitler’s lunatic ideas on matters such as race and militarism. That’s why I prefer to call Obama a statist or a corporatist. Those words accurately describe his governing philosophy without creating the distractions caused by calling him a socialist or fascist.
Creating czar positions to micromanage industry reflects the type of hubris of centralized government that Friedrich von Hayek and George Orwell warned against. How can a White House “executive compensation czar” know enough to set salaries in multiple companies for many different people? Having a pay dictatorship for one part of the country sets the pattern for government to claim the right to set pay for everyone. If that isn’t socialism, what word would describe it?
Violating 200 years of bankruptcy precedent to take money from bondholders and investors in the auto industry to pay off union allies is rather an anti-market intervention.
Proposing that the government (through the Environmental Protection Agency or some sort of carbon-trading scheme) micromanage carbon output is proposing that the government be able to control the entire U.S. economy. Look at the proposals for government micromanagement in the 1,428-page Waxman-Markey energy tax bill. (I stopped reading when I got to the section regulating Jacuzzis on Page 442.) If government regulates every aspect of our use of power, it has regulated every aspect of our lives. What is that if not socialism?
Nationalizing student loans so that they are a bureaucratic monopoly. This will surely lead to fraud on the scale we see in Medicare and Medicaid, from which more than $70 billion per year is stolen.
Expanding government mortgage intervention to 90 percent of the housing market.
[…] are people who want government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Sort of like Cuba, North Korea, or the […]
[…] are people who want government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Sort of like Cuba, North Korea, or the former Soviet […]
[…] close with a serious comment, socialism is an economic system based on misguided policies such as government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Communism is a political system based on dictatorship and […]
[…] fascism was different than traditional socialism in that the goal was to have the government control the economy, but not […]
[…] fascism was different than traditional socialism in that the goal was to have the government control the economy, but not […]
[…] For those seeking more economic analysis, Marx advocated for the pure version of socialism, meaning government ownership of the means of production (state factories, collective […]
[…] For those seeking more economic analysis, Marx advocated for the pure version of socialism, meaning government ownership of the means of production (state factories, collective […]
[…] For those seeking more economic analysis, Marx advocated for the pure version of socialism, meaning government ownership of the means of production (state factories, collective […]
[…] socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) is an utter failure and is almost nonexistent today (only […]
[…] we’re using the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls), there’s no difference. At least with regards to […]
[…] For those seeking more economic analysis, Marx advocated for the pure version of socialism, meaning government ownership of the means of production (state factories, collective […]
Llevo tiempo buscando un monopoly de calidad y a un fantastico coste, me he cruzado con esta web especializada en juegos de mesa esta, que os da la sensacion?
[…] For those seeking more economic analysis, Marx advocated for the pure version of socialism, meaning government ownership of the means of production (state factories, collective […]
[…] For those seeking more economic analysis, Marx advocated for the pure version of socialism, meaning government ownership of the means of production (state factories, collective […]
[…] Two years ago, I explained that socialism is an economic failure, regardless of how it is defined. […]
[…] Two years ago, I explained that socialism is an economic failure, regardless of how it is defined. […]
[…] Si lees el artículo, tiene una definición torturada del socialismo democrático. Una de sus variables es la propiedad del gobierno, que normalmente sería un dato razonable a incluir. […]
[…] we’re looking at the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) or the casual definition of socialism (punitive tax rates, […]
[…] technical definition of socialism is an economic system based on government ownership, central planning, and price […]
[…] otras palabras, quiere el socialismo real (es decir, la propiedad del gobierno). Y eso presumiblemente significa que también apoya la planificación central y el control de […]
[…] a menudo señalo que hay una diferencia entre la forma en que los economistas lo definen (propiedad del gobierno, planificación central y control de precios) y la forma en que la gente normal lo define […]
[…] explains that Nordic nations are not socialist. As I’ve also pointed out, there’s no government ownership, central planning, and price controls in nations such as Sweden and […]
[…] school – including Hayek – to explain why that approach (genuine socialism, meaning government ownership, central planning, and price controls) was doomed to […]
[…] a menudo señalo que hay una diferencia entre la forma en que los economistas lo definen (propiedad del gobierno, planificación central y control de precios) y la forma en que la gente normal lo define (muchos […]
[…] an economic perspective, socialism and communism are the same. They’re both based on government ownership, central planning, and price […]
[…] about socialism, I often point out that there’s a difference between how economists define it (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) and how normal people define it (lots of taxes, […]
[…] about socialism, I often point out that there’s a difference between how economists define it (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) and how normal people define it (lots of taxes, […]
[…] la diferencia entre la definición técnica de socialismo (propiedad del gobierno, planificación central, controles de precios) y la definición cotidiana […]
[…] socialism, I often point out that there’s a difference between how economists define it (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) and how normal people define it (lots of taxes, […]
[…] Indeed, it’s never been socialist. By world standards, there’s basically no history of government ownership, central planning, or price […]
[…] written many times about people on the left not understanding the real definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls), so this next meme appealed to […]
[…] technical definition of socialism is outright government ownership and control of business (along with other policies such as central planning and price […]
[…] of a free market economy.” Does this imply the technical meaning of socialism, involving government ownership, central planning, and price controls? If so, then world history suggests the correct […]
[…] no idea whether he still wants government ownership and control of the means of production (i.e., pure socialism with state-run factories, collective farms, etc). I also don’t know whether his past support […]
[…] of a free market economy.” Does this imply the technical meaning of socialism, involving government ownership, central planning, and price controls? If so, then world history suggests the correct answer is […]
[…] the difference between the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, price controls) and the everyday definition (lots of redistribution), I’m […]
[…] socialist calculation debate – As I’ve repeatedly noted, genuine socialism involves government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Economists from the Austrian school, such as Mises, were […]
[…] Or, if we want to be more accurate (since he presumably didn’t have any views about government ownership, central planning, or price controls), he wasn’t a […]
[…] a big problem with that claim. The Nordic nations don’t have any of the policies – government ownership, central planning, or price controls – that are characteristics of a socialist […]
[…] people, when they talk about socialism, are referring to government ownership, central planning, and price […]
[…] As an economist, I prefer the latter approach, which is why I’ve pushed back (though not necessarily in a favorable way) against those who called Obama a socialist. […]
[…] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez actually understand that socialism is an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, augmented by central planning, and price […]
[…] part, I wanted to show that genuine socialists, with their advocacy of government ownership, central planning, and price controls, aren’t really the same as other leftists (and […]
[…] really have a firm understanding of socialism. Many of them don’t realize it implies government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Heck, some of them probably think the market-oriented […]
[…] pointed out in 2015 that he’s not even true to his socialist ideology. Rather than promoting government ownership, central planning, and price controls, he has behaved like a conventional left-wing politician. […]
[…] Party is an unreconstructed hard-core socialist. A real socialist who would move the country toward government ownership, central planning and price […]
[…] other words, he wants real socialism — i.e., government ownership. And that presumably means he also supports central planning and price […]
[…] different phrases, he needs actual socialism — i.e., government ownership. And that presumably means he additionally helps central planning and price […]
[…] other words, he wants real socialism — i.e., government ownership. And that presumably means he also supports central planning and price […]
[…] other words, he wants real socialism (i.e., government ownership). And that presumably means he also supports central planning and price […]
[…] people still adhere to the technical definition, which means government ownership, central planning, and price controls. While others assume that socialism is high tax rates and […]
[…] Denmark is not a socialist country. As I wrote, “There’s plenty of bad policy, but no government ownership, no central planning, and no price […]
[…] At least not if we use the technical definition. There’s plenty of bad policy, but no government ownership, no central planning, and no price […]
[…] the way, the Chinese system of collective farms was an example of hardcore socialism – i.e., government ownership and […]
[…] the way, the Chinese system of collective farms was an example of hardcore socialism – i.e., government ownership and […]
[…] as Muravchik notes, those nations aren’t technically socialist (i.e., they don’t have government ownership, central planning, price […]
[…] Under Soviet rule, Czechoslovakia was genuine socialism (i.e., government ownership, central planning, price controls), which obviously is more damaging than what many people think […]
[…] the difference between the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, price controls) and the everyday definition (lots […]
[…] the difference between the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, price controls) and the everyday definition (lots of redistribution), I’m […]
[…] countries don’t actually practice socialism since there is no government ownership of the means of production, no central planning, and no government-dictated […]
[…] prefer the technical definition, which involves government ownership of the means of production, central planning, and government-dictated prices. But most people […]
[…] other words, those nations are not socialist (government ownership), they’re not fascist (government control), and they’re not even […]
[…] an economic system for a nation, socialism is a miserable failure. Especially real socialism (government ownership of the means of productions, government-dictated prices, […]
[…] Krugman reconoce que Dinamarca no es realmente socialista. En cambio, simplemente tiene un gran Estado de […]
[…] As an economist, I prefer the latter approach, which is why I’ve pushed back (though not necessarily in a favorable way) against those who called Obama a socialist…. […]
[…] As an economist, I prefer the latter approach, which is why I’ve pushed back (though not necessarily in a favorable way) against those who called Obama a socialist. […]
[…] As an economist, I prefer the latter approach. Which is why I’ve pushed back (though not necessarily in a favorable way) against those who called Obama a socialist. […]
[…] Krugman acknowledges that Denmark isn’t really socialist. Instead, it simply has a big welfare […]
[…] Krugman acknowledges that Denmark isn’t really socialist. Instead, it simply has a big welfare […]
[…] Krugman acknowledges that Denmark isn’t really socialist. Instead, it simply has a big welfare […]
[…] Krugman acknowledges that Denmark isn’t really socialist. Instead, it simply has a big welfare […]
I believe you and Newt are both correct. Obama is a socialist at heart, but he understood he could not pass true socialist reforms, so he compromised with fascist-like legislature. Like any good Marxist, he knows stepping stones are required (i.e. democracy to socialism to communism to the end-goal of a stateless society [in theory]). Republics won’t convert to communism overnight and vice-versa. Thus, Newt is correct to define Obama’s goals as socialist, but you’d be correct that the actual laws/policies (those passed) may be labeled as fascist.
With this being said, fascism is a kissing cousin of socialism. Fascists, like National Socialists (Nazi), hated free-markets (based on capitalism), and both Fascist and Nazi parties originated their economic/social policies around Marxism. (Hitler’s National Socialist Party was almost called, more simply, Socialist Party during the debate of the party name.)
It’s very easy to entangle oneself with all these different nuances and flavors of Marxism…Stalinism, Leninism, Stalin-Leninist Communism, Anarcho-communism, Revolutionary Socialism, Maoism, Fascism, Socialism, Neo-Socialism, and the list goes on and on and on. They all revolve around the same general principles, and differ only in details, ever so slightly.
As you said, it’s best to avoid these debates on terms/definitions, especially with Marxists, or you’ll argue into infinity as to which definition is more correct; and they’ll never, ever, agree!
Good article….wish I read this years earlier!
[…] Krugman acknowledges that Denmark isn’t really socialist. Instead, it simply has a big welfare […]
[…] of socialism and pointed out that Bernie Sanders isn’t really a socialist. At least if we use the technical definition of that unsavory form of […]
[…] I remarked in this brief interview with Melissa Francis, the technical definition of socialism involves government ownership and control over the “means of production.” In other […]
[…] of democratic socialism. One of his variables is government ownership, which normally would be a reasonable piece of data to […]
[…] of democratic socialism. One of his variables is government ownership, which normally would be a reasonable piece of data to […]
[…] that a non-trivial number of voters favor this failed form of statism. …Socialism has a technical definition involving government ownership of the means of production and central planning of the economy. But […]
[…] has a technical definition involving government ownership of the means of production and central planning of the […]
[…] tempted to say that statism is sort of like a cult. Proponents of socialism and other big-government ideologies have a dogmatic zeal that blinds them to […]
[…] tempted to say that statism is sort of like a cult. Proponents of socialism and other big-government ideologies have a dogmatic zeal that blinds them to […]
[…] tempted to say that statism is sort of like a cult. Proponents of socialism and other big-government ideologies have a dogmatic zeal that blinds them to […]
[…] tempted to say that statism is sort of like a cult. Proponents of socialism and other big-government ideologies have a dogmatic zeal that blinds them to […]
[…] tempted to say that statism is sort of like a cult. Proponents of socialism and other big-government ideologies have a dogmatic zeal that blinds them to […]
[…] such as whether they even understand that socialism – at least in theory – involves government ownership and operation of the means of production. Such as the United Kingdom in the post-WWII […]
[…] for those that want to get technical, I even have several columns explaining that the pure version of socialism involves government ownership of the means of production […]
[…] for those that want to get technical, I even have several columns explaining that the pure version of socialism involves government ownership of the means of production […]
[…] between socialism and capitalism, I start by noting that socialism technically is different from Obama-style big-government redistributionism and […]
[…] that Bernie Sanders isn’t even a real socialist, at least if we’re relying on the technical economic definition of having the government own the means of […]
[…] between socialism and capitalism, I start by noting that socialism technically is different from Obama-style big-government redistributionism and […]
[…] between socialism and capitalism, I start by noting that socialism technically is different from Obama-style big-government redistributionism and […]
[…] reality, Sanders is like Obama. You can call him a statist, a corporatist, or even (as Tom Sowell correctly notes) a […]
[…] whether you use the right definition (government ownership of the means of production) or the sloppy definition (a redistributive welfare […]
[…] whether you use the right definition (government ownership of the means of production) or the sloppy definition (a redistributive welfare […]
Thank you for the clarifier about socialism vs. fascism! I’ve been using those terms wrong for some time, it seems.
[…] theory is based on government ownership of the means of production. This is why I’ve been in the strange position of defending Obama when some folks have used the S word to describe […]
[…] I’ve commented several times on the debate over whether Obama is a socialist, but that’s hardly a topic that lends itself […]
[…] Or maybe you’ll get a nit-picking answer, sort of like when I explained that Obama technically isn’t a socialist. […]
[…] even though I’ve explained that Obama technically isn’t a socialist, this next image is quite […]
[…] Forget the debate over whether Obama is a socialist. […]
[…] Forget the debate over whether Obama is a socialist. […]
[…] I’ve previously explained that he’s a run-of-the-mill statist, not a socialist. Though if you want a specific term of opprobrium, then it’s accurate to call him a corporatist. […]
[…] I’ve argued that Obama’s not a socialist. […]
[…] I’ve argued that Obama’s not a socialist. […]
[…] already provided my two cents on the underlying theory of Obamanomics, and I agree that socialism is not the right […]
[…] couple of years ago, Newt Gingrich accused Obama of being a socialist, causing some squawking and grousing about incivility from the more sensitive types in […]
[…] couple of years ago, Newt Gingrich accused Obama of being a socialist, causing some squawking and grousing about incivility from the more sensitive types in […]
[…] couple of years ago, Newt Gingrich accused Obama of being a socialist, causing some squawking and grousing about incivility from the more sensitive types in […]
[…] couple of years ago, Newt Gingrich accused Obama of being a socialist, causing some squawking and grousing about incivility from the more sensitive types in […]
[…] libertarian Cato Institute, says there are other words for Obama’s expansion of government (he thinks “fascism” is a fair term or perhaps statist), but that it’s not accurate to call it socialism. Daniel N. […]
[…] the way, I can’t resist being pedantic and re-explaining that socialism is not the same as redistributionism. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] is an appropriate point for the disclaimer that Obama is not a socialist, which technically requires government ownership of the means of production. As I’ve […]
OOmingmak,
Your definition of fascism that you presented applies equally to the current adminstration that you attribute towards its opponents.
If you read Mr Mitchell’s comments, you would have seen that he does not prefer to call Obama a fascist anyway…he is contributing to civil discourse by encouraging us to use more accurate words like statist or corportist.
Did you even read the article for did you just skim it and jump to conclusions?
[…] basically agree with Alter. As I explained two years ago, a true socialist wants “government ownership of the means of production.” To be sure, […]
A parting note. Disagree with Obama all you want – that’s legitimate and healthy. Just learn to use accurate and intelligent terms instead of contributing to the ongoing decline in America’s capacity to conduct civil and intelligent discourse.
Uh… excuse me, but clearly you haven’t the slightest idea what fascism is – which describes a political behavior rather than economic policies.
Robert Paxton, in his seminal book “The Anatomy of Fascism”, defined it as:
“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
So, in other words, your use of the term is a massive fail. In no way do any of Obama’s policies fit this description to any rational human being. On the other hand, there is a political movement in America that does resemble this “militant nationalism”, and here’s a hint: they are very prominent in the media and don’t vote Democrat.
Not to be insulting, but if you had written this essay in a high school civics class, you’d get an F.
Under that definition of fascism, every modern president back to ar least Reagan is a fascist. Nixon implemented price controls & policies to prop up American industry.
[…] you make references to Nazis or fascism (indeed, I’ve made this point in previous posts about whether Obama is a socialist). Here’s an excerpt for those who want to know more about the story. The billionaire Blackstone […]
[…] you make references to Nazis or fascism (indeed, I’ve made this point in previous posts about whether Obama is a socialist). Here’s an excerpt for those who want to know more about the story. The billionaire […]
[…] commented on this issue twice, remarking that Obama technically is a fascist, but that it is much better to call him a statist or corporatist. But there is the tricky issue of whether a word should be defined by experts (to the extent […]
“Calling Obama a fascist, however, is counterproductive.” I don’t think it matters much what you label him. Though I must admit I personally prefer the label crony capitalist.
Sadly the majority of the public doesn’t understand the difference between any of the ideologies, save communism. I think we need to do a better job of educating the public. Our public education system is certainly not doing so. Or at least are changing the definitions. A great example is most people are being taught Hitler was a right wing extremist.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
[…] 25, 2010 by Dan Mitchell I got some interesting feedback about my pseudo-defense of Obama against the accusation that he is a socialist. It was a faux defense because my goal was simply to […]
I love calling Obama a corporatist precisely because that DOES conjure up images of the Left’s Bogeyman. Want to see your lefty friends get all twisted up in a knot? Call Obama a corporatist. It’s fun!
(Then, of course, proceed to educate them about precisely what you mean)
I completely agree, Dan.
I held a lively discussion some time back on the drift of our government. Most insisted that we were becoming a Socialist satrap, when I asserted that we had entered the realm of Facism, I received major blowback.
This is not a term most Americans can swallow, too much European emotional baggage is associated with the word. And, frankly speaking, most of our citizens don’t have the education to grasp the differences.
Most GOP conservatives abhor the labels of statist or corporatist in equal measure, distrusting the libertarian associations that come to mind when those words surface in any discussion. Speaking of anything other than the big socialist boogie man tweaks their boxed in political viewpoint three ways to Sunday.
Player conservatives are fiercely determined to paint the current administration and its lapdog Congress in comfortable adversarial terms that mean absolutely nothing, but win hearts and big dollars to preserve their running legislative hypocrisy.
Cheers, Mr. Mitchell. I do believe you have the heart and the wisdom of a natural born king.
The problem with “corporatist” is that, by dint of mere phonetic resemblance, people take that as referring to “rule by corporations”, the Left’s standard bogeyman.
The irony of it is that what Mussolini originally was referring to, was the structuring of society into groups by industry and occupation, what in those days were called guilds and which is closer to what we now know as unions.
I’ve had a similar problem with people calling Obama “socialist;” it’s an imprecise use of words with precise meanings, and the imprecision hurts efforts to focus opposition to what he and the statist Democrats are doing. In the long run, however, whether Obama is a “progressive,” “fascist,” “corporatist,” or socialist is less important that the large and still growing realization that what he wants to do will do terrible harm to the nation. It’s that vague sense of “I can’t name it, but I don’t like it” that we have to count on to guide voters on election day and after.
Dan,
Did you see this of mine? http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/is-obama-a-socialist/