Socialism is a very bad concept. It deserves mockery rather than respect.
But that’s true of all statist ideologies.
Last year, as part of a column on the collapse of the Soviet Empire, I put together a statism spectrum showing the degree to which various nations allow economic liberty.
I thought this effort was useful because it shows, for instance, that the United States, France, and Hong Kong are all on the right side, but that there are nonetheless obvious differences in the amount of economic freedom for those three jurisdictions. Likewise, it’s not good to be Mexico, China, or North Korea, but there are degrees of statism and it’s worse to be farther to the left.
Speaking of left, not all advocates of bigger government are the same. So earlier this year I created another spectrum showing that there are various strains of statism, especially among true believers.
The value of this spectrum is that it shows the differences between totalitarians, genuine socialists, and run-of-the-mill hard-core leftists like Bernie Sanders.
And both of these spectrums were implicit in my interview yesterday about Venezuela. I pointed out that Venezuela technically isn’t socialist, but also suggested that doesn’t matter because the country is definitely on the wrong part of the statism spectrum.
And Venezuela definitely is proof that being on the wrong side of the spectrum is a recipe for collapse (or, in the case of North Korea, a recipe for never getting off the ground in the first place).
Since we’re discussing statism, let’s close with some really good news. Matt Yglesias of Vox likes big government. A lot. But he’s also capable of dispassionately analyzing what works and doesn’t work for his side. And he writes that “socialism” is a bad word for those who want to expand the size and scope of government.
Bernie Sanders refers to his ideology — which I would characterize as social democracy or even just welfare state liberalism — as democratic socialism, a politically loaded term that seems to imply policy commitments Sanders hasn’t made to things like government ownership of major industries. …the socialist branding seems to have offered Sanders some upside…earning him enthusiastic support from a number of politically engaged people who seem to really be socialists… Against this, though, one has to weigh the reality that socialism is really unpopular in the United States.
How unpopular? Yglesias shares some new polling data from Gallup.
This is great news. Not only is socialism unpopular, but it ranks below the federal government (which traditionally gets low marks from the American people). And the supposed Sanders revolution hasn’t even translated into a relative improvement. This poisonous ideology is actually slightly more unpopular than it was in 2010 and 2012.
Here’s what Yglesias wrote about these numbers.
Any form of left-of-center politics in the United States, frankly, is going to have a problem with the fact that “the federal government” is viewed so much less favorably than cuddly targets like “small business,” “entrepreneurs,” and “free enterprise.” Even big business does better than the federal government. And both big business and capitalism do far better than socialism.
As I said, this is excellent news.
A few closing thoughts.
- First, Yglesias and I don’t agree on very much (he’s referred to me as insane and irrational), but we both think that a socialist is someone who believes in government ownership of the means of production, not simply someone who believes in bigger government.
- Second, the Gallup data reinforces what I wrote back in April about “free enterprise” being a much more appealing term than “capitalism.”
The bottom line is that economic liberty works while left-wing ideologies (all based on coercion) don’t work, so let’s use whatever words are most capable of disseminating this valuable message.
[…] But I’m also embarrassed for myself. I repeatedly try to make the argument for limited government, but Milbank’s accidental case for libertarianism may be more persuasive than anything I’ve ever written. […]
[…] need to develop something similar about socialism. Based on the statism spectrum, it could be something like “socialism deprives and absolute socialism deprives […]
we are being victimized by propagandists… and that victimization goes way beyond “spin”… it’s important that people understand how they are being manipulated by the hard left… and what the potential consequences of that manipulation are…
” Mussolini was a socialist, as was Adolf Hitler’s “National Socialist” (NAZI) party. The concept that they were “far right” came about through a re-framing of political spectrums done under the Marxist Frankfurt School, which looked only at the ideas of nationalism versus internationalism to separate their systems from the full body of socialism (a necessary move for the survival of socialism, since its association with Hitler’s National Socialists would have been devastating to socialist movements during the denazification movement after World War II).
Yet, using this tactic, legacy news outlets have convinced their followers to interpret “MAGA” hats as “symbols” of hate. Conservatives are seen as being “symbols” of “fascism” and are targeted for violence by leftist radical groups like Antifa. It’s a “guilty by association” concept—only the propagandists pulling the strings are fabricating what the symbolic “associations” are.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-media-propagandists-create-symbolic-meaning_2931367.html
[…] Indeed, most of them would be closer to the United States than to France on this statism spectrum. […]
[…] algunos años, creé un “espectro de estatismo” para mostrar cómo difieren los países al considerar la libertad económica total […]
[…] few years ago, I created a “statism spectrum” to show how countries differ when looking at total economic freedom (fiscal policy, […]
[…] few years ago, I created a “statism spectrum” to show how countries differ when looking at total economic freedom (fiscal policy, […]
[…] few years ago, I created a “statism spectrum” to show how countries differ when looking at total economic freedom (fiscal policy, trade […]
[…] few years ago, I created a “statism spectrum” to show how countries differ when looking at total economic freedom (fiscal policy, trade […]
[…] few years ago, I created a “statism spectrum” to show how countries differ when looking at total economic freedom (fiscal policy, trade […]
[…] few years ago, I created a “statism spectrum” to show how countries differ when looking at total economic freedom (fiscal policy, trade […]
[…] few years ago, I created a “statism spectrum” to show how countries differ when looking at total economic freedom (fiscal policy, trade […]
[…] The good news is that socialism isn’t very popular in the United States, particularly compared to free […]
coercion ideologies are evil… and produce societies that are over governed… lack innovation and are incapable of reaching their full human potential… sadly… the fight ahead will be with radicalized statists hell bent on restricting personal and economic freedom… and creating a government that controls every aspect of our day-to-day lives… the radical transformation of America has already begun…
reach out and touch it… feel the Bern…
perhaps the most frightening element of this “transformation” is the potential for violence… statist operatives… funded by misguided kooks… and energized by identity politics… will hurt people… and provide a distraction for terrorists…
it could get very ugly………..
[…] The Fight against Socialism and other Forms of Statism […]
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
diogenesnj
While I agree with most of what you have to say, I would add that a capitalist operates within the rules as given (maybe just on the edge), or uses political influence to favor himself or disadvantage his competition.
This is not because he is a rotten person, but rather a realist in a corrupt world.
I disagree with you that free enterprise and capitalism are the same thing. Capitalism, embodied in a public stock market and various private mechanisms for both debt and equity, enables free enterprise, but the “free” part of free enterprise refers to the lack of barriers (legal and social) to engaging in business. Access to money is only one of many potential barriers. Ask a would-be entrepreneur in India, for example. There was a rather telling article in the WSJ recently from the dean of Harvard Business School, who happens to be of Indian ancestry.
Capitalism has a bad name because 99% of the people walking down the street have no idea how it works. They don’t know the entire purpose of the secondary stock market, the one everybody talks about muttering darkly about “hedge funds”, is to support the liquidity to allow public offerings, the real mechanism by which money finds new ideas and vice versa.
Over the years I’ve come to realize (and accept) that anybody far left, be they Socialist, Communist, Maoist, etc. are people that I consider to be enemies. They’ve come to symbolize everything this country isn’t and should never be. One of these days things are going to come to a head and it’ll be either one side or the other that takes the reins… I’m glad I’m on the side that’s armed with something other that a stupid protest sign.
Socialists try to avoid the fact that Nazi – the common abbreviation for German Dictator Adolf Hitler’s party – is actually the abbreviation for the “NAtional soZIalistische deutsche arbeiter partei” – the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
This suggests that Nazi sympathisers are actually left wing, not right wing as many socialists claim. Yet more left wing counter-factual propaganda…
I must say, Dan Mitchell’s articles are the perfect counter to what has been happening in this nation. They are good against both the bullshit that’s been happening during the last 30 years and also as an excellent warning against what the current crop of presidential candidates may be wanting to if when they gain control of the Eagle Throne.
As a libertarian for trump, I’m especially wary of what nightmares nationalist populism may bring about in this country if my own candidate wins. This article applies well to all three candidates.
Dan Mitchell FTW.
Sent from my iPad
>