KurtFF8
13th August 2010, 14:49
So I was just thinking about the current framework of what counts for "socialism" these days. The bar is of course quite low (any sort of government interference in the marketplace is socialism according to the most extreme redefinition). But there is of course the more classical misdefinition of socialism of: any sort of nationalization is socialist. This definition of course goes all the way back to the late 1800s.
I was thinking about those who support "that kind of socialism" i.e. more left wing Social Democracy. It seems to me that the support of nationalization of services like Health Care, state provided Day Care, mail, education, etc. all tend to have a common theme: they are services provided to the public. Thus those who call for it (the supporters of Social Democracy can often be those in the middle classes) are essentially demanding more services within the context of the capitalist framework.
Now I often say "if you're going to 'do capitalism' it should be done with heavy nationalization and a welfare state" because economically it works better and helps the more marginalized in society (although I obviously think these are band-aids of a broken system). But:
The idea that the state should just provide services and not "creep into production" in terms of nationalization seems to be to be quite a bourgeois notion. This "version" of nationalization obviously ignores the source of power relations in society and leaves completely in tact the relations of production that give rise to inequality.
So I feel that while there are some who may be closer to "real socialists" than most by calling for some sense of nationalization (they obviously don't have a phobia of it), they are still quite entrenched in bourgeois ideology. This is why Marxists tend to be quite frustrated with the Keynesian project: it tried to move around class relations and tinker with them instead of really dealing with them or transforming them.
So the point or "conclusion" seems to be that when calls for nationalization are focused only on services and ignore production are still quite "trapped" in bourgeois ideology. And when these calls come from the middle class, it's further a sign of bourgeois ideology when it takes on the tone of entitlement to greater access to wealth.
I was thinking about those who support "that kind of socialism" i.e. more left wing Social Democracy. It seems to me that the support of nationalization of services like Health Care, state provided Day Care, mail, education, etc. all tend to have a common theme: they are services provided to the public. Thus those who call for it (the supporters of Social Democracy can often be those in the middle classes) are essentially demanding more services within the context of the capitalist framework.
Now I often say "if you're going to 'do capitalism' it should be done with heavy nationalization and a welfare state" because economically it works better and helps the more marginalized in society (although I obviously think these are band-aids of a broken system). But:
The idea that the state should just provide services and not "creep into production" in terms of nationalization seems to be to be quite a bourgeois notion. This "version" of nationalization obviously ignores the source of power relations in society and leaves completely in tact the relations of production that give rise to inequality.
So I feel that while there are some who may be closer to "real socialists" than most by calling for some sense of nationalization (they obviously don't have a phobia of it), they are still quite entrenched in bourgeois ideology. This is why Marxists tend to be quite frustrated with the Keynesian project: it tried to move around class relations and tinker with them instead of really dealing with them or transforming them.
So the point or "conclusion" seems to be that when calls for nationalization are focused only on services and ignore production are still quite "trapped" in bourgeois ideology. And when these calls come from the middle class, it's further a sign of bourgeois ideology when it takes on the tone of entitlement to greater access to wealth.