Socialism in Politics

[MarcoTheBee]

I've been lurking on these forums for quite a while, I need some clarification on some things.

In american politics, socialism is kind of like a boogieman figure and a lot of times, the concept of "big government" is decried as socialist. Things like universal healthcare, more funding for public works projects and welfare programs are also called "socialist" Is this true. If not, what exactly are "big government programs" like corporation bailouts and economic stimulus packages.
Also, are countries like sweden and norway actually socialist? Many american liberals call it that, but is it really that? If it's not actually called socialism what is that kind of government called.

Can the more knowledgeable members on here tell me why that's wrong (or right, if that is right?)?

[Sabot Cat]

Hello there and thanks for your questions, which I'll try to answer. :)


In american politics, socialism is kind of like a boogieman figure and a lot of times, the concept of "big government" is decried as socialist. Things like universal healthcare, more funding for public works projects and welfare programs are also called "socialist" Is this true.

It's not true, as socialism is the condition that exists when the working class, the group that all exploited laborers belong to, don't have to sell their labor to employers in order to survive, but instead, they have complete control of their workplaces. This has a wide variety of political ramification and necessary conditions that are expressed in the political philosophy of socialism.


If not, what exactly are "big government programs" like corporation bailouts and economic stimulus packages.

They are a way for capitalists, exercising their power through bought-and-paid-for government surrogates, to cope with the systemic crises of their socioeconomic system or shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. Sometimes these reforms, like the aforementioned welfare or universal health care, are meant to placate the working class so they don't attempt to wrest control of their workplaces and labor from their employers. For an example of a politician explicitly trying to adopt reforms to quell revolutionary sentiment from the workers, I recommend you look into the policies of one Otto von Bismarck, the German Chancellor from 1871 to 1890 who is infamous for his Machiavellian machinations. When you realize the reason or class character of these reforms, it should not be surprising to learn that Bismarck is credited with the both creating the first welfare state and for carrying out the first explicitly anti-socialist laws.


Also, are countries like sweden and norway actually socialist? Many american liberals call it that, but is it really that? If it's not actually called socialism what is that kind of government called.

Well socialism is more of a way of organizing the resources of a society altogether, encompassing government and economy.

Nations like Sweden and Norway have policies more palatable to most, and are models of the heights of liberalism. However, the highest peak of liberalism is still just a valley in socialism, as the workers in these countries don't actually control their workplaces, and are still required to sell their labor for the profit of the capitalists, making it a capitalist system.

I hope this was helpful to you. :)

[Blake's Baby]

Norway and Sweden are both monarchies. That really should be a major clue to the fact that they are very very far from socialism.

But, you're right, that political discourse in the US is so bizarre that people seriously claim that there is something 'socialist' about constitutional monarchies.

[Red Son]

Every time someone on FOX decries Obama's policies as 'socialist', a pixie vomits blood (and a lot of people get the wrong impression of what socialism is...but as they watch FOX fuck 'em, they're a lost cause anyway).

[adipocere12]

Ugh this all reminds me of this http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/

Obama is a socialist because his politics read a little like the Party of European Socialists.

Cringeworthy stuff.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In american politics, socialism is kind of like a boogieman figure and a lot of times, the concept of "big government" is decried as socialist. Things like universal healthcare, more funding for public works projects and welfare programs are also called "socialist" Is this true.

Well, no.

Socialism is the movement for the overthrow of the bourgeois state and the socialisation of the means of production; alternately, socialism is the classless, stateless society in which the means of production are controlled by the entire society (here I must disagree with SC; workers' control over "their own" workplaces is possible under capitalism, and a democratically managed capitalism is the same old crap in slightly shinier packaging).


If not, what exactly are "big government programs" like corporation bailouts and economic stimulus packages.

Efforts by the bourgeois state to save capitalism from the stupidity of the bourgeoisie.


Also, are countries like sweden and norway actually socialist? Many american liberals call it that, but is it really that? If it's not actually called socialism what is that kind of government called.

No, Sweden and Norway are not socialist. Nor are they what the socialist movement is aiming for (although I've noticed a lot of Americal leftists have a hilariously rosy view of these countries, ignoring things like former sterilisation programmes, unemployment, racism, imperialism etc.). They are bourgeois democracies, the same as the US. The fact that "the public sector" has more of a role in these states than in the US is the difference between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum for us.

[Igor]

ignoring things like former sterilisation programmesslightly ot but for trans people in some nordic countries we're talking current sterilisation programmes

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

slightly ot but for trans people in some nordic countries we're talking current sterilisation programmes

Good point. This is unfortunately quite common, but that just underlines that "the Nordic countries" are bog-standard bourgeois states instead of the near-heavens on Earth that the liberals portray them as.

[DemosRevolt]

In The United States, more taxes and government programmes= socialism.

[Chomskyan]

Socialism is workers control, if the Gub'nent does anything to that end, it's socialist. If it doesn't, it's not. Venezuela, Cuba, China etc. all may have began with workers control, but they are not managed that way today, so they lack socialism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Socialism is workers control, if the Gub'nent does anything to that end, it's socialist. If it doesn't, it's not. Venezuela, Cuba, China etc. all may have began with workers control, but they are not managed that way today, so they lack socialism.

So there was socialism in Argentina in the wake of the economic crisis. What a dreary and miserable thing socialism must be.

[DOOM]

Norway and Sweden are both monarchies. That really should be a major clue to the fact that they are very very far from socialism.


Constitutional monarchies aren't exactly monarchies in the traditional sense.
It's not exactly the way most states are organized but it's perfectly working out with capitalism. So I'm not quite sure how the fact that the nordic states are pseudo-monarchist bourgeois states makes them far away from achieving socialism in relation to let's say France.

[DOOM]

So there was socialism in Argentina in the wake of the economic crisis. What a dreary and miserable thing socialism must be.

Haven't you read liberaldaskapitalrehash? Co-ops are the shit!

Honestly, I'm still wondering how people fall for "socialist" aesthetics.

[MarcoTheBee]

Ok what about the presence of government, I Know that socialism can be with or without government, the latter being referred to as anarcho-socialism, but isn't anarcho socialism communism? Which leads into my next question. When you bring up socialism to many Americans regardless of their political affiliations, they often talk about how communism has never existed or can't exist, is this true also? And if say in the future, The united States split up into different factions or nations, and I know this is wishful thinking, but a section of the former US was taken control by various leftists who wanted to have a social economic system, would there or would there not be a government.

[MarcoTheBee]

sorry for the double post, but I also wanted to ask, is it true that during the Spanish revolution, 30% of the farmers in Catalonia chose NOT to collectivize their land? It has to do with this post trust me

[Blake's Baby]

Constitutional monarchies aren't exactly monarchies in the traditional sense...

Are you DOOM that used to be on LibCom? I can't remember where you're from. Not the UK?

I'm aware that the European monarchies are hardly Louis XIV's absolutism, but they are still real.


... It's not exactly the way most states are organized but it's perfectly working out with capitalism. So I'm not quite sure how the fact that the nordic states are pseudo-monarchist bourgeois states makes them far away from achieving socialism in relation to let's say France.

Do you think that France is closer to socialism than Norway? Or the other way round? Or are they in pretty much the same place?

Is contitutional monarchy at all compatible with socialism? If it isn't, why shouldn't the presence of a monarchial system (even if it is constitutional) be an indicator that a state is no-where near a socialist society?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ok what about the presence of government, I Know that socialism can be with or without government, the latter being referred to as anarcho-socialism, but isn't anarcho socialism communism? Which leads into my next question. When you bring up socialism to many Americans regardless of their political affiliations, they often talk about how communism has never existed or can't exist, is this true also? And if say in the future, The united States split up into different factions or nations, and I know this is wishful thinking, but a section of the former US was taken control by various leftists who wanted to have a social economic system, would there or would there not be a government.

Well, no, there is no government in socialism, as socialism is a stateless society. (Unless of course you're a Marxist-Leninist and think socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which case you're talking about something else.) Marxists and anarchists agree on that point - and saying "anarcho-socialist" is redundant; it's a neologism invented by people that think "anarcho-capitalism" has anything to do with anarchism. At the same time Marxists uphold the necessity of a transitional workers' state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, before socialism.

After the revolution, there is a proletarian government administering the workers' state; when the global tasks of the revolution are complete, the state and the government wither away.

[DemosRevolt]

Well, no, there is no government in socialism, as socialism is a stateless society. (Unless of course you're a Marxist-Leninist and think socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which case you're talking about something else.) Marxists and anarchists agree on that point - and saying "anarcho-socialist" is redundant; it's a neologism invented by people that think "anarcho-capitalism" has anything to do with anarchism. At the same time Marxists uphold the necessity of a transitional workers' state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, before socialism.

After the revolution, there is a proletarian government administering the workers' state; when the global tasks of the revolution are complete, the state and the government wither away.

I always thought that that was the process towards Communism, after a revolution, socialism would be instilled where the workers controlled the economy and the government, however it was overseen by a government. Then later, the workers would progress to a stateless society. I know that communism has other qualities such as abolition of private property, but is the stateless aspect exist in both socialism and communism?

[DOOM]

Are you DOOM that used to be on LibCom? I can't remember where you're from. Not the UK?

I'm aware that the European monarchies are hardly Louis XIV's absolutism, but they are still real.


Do you think that France is closer to socialism than Norway? Or the other way round? Or are they in pretty much the same place?

Is contitutional monarchy at all compatible with socialism? If it isn't, why shouldn't the presence of a monarchial system (even if it is constitutional) be an indicator that a state is no-where near a socialist society?

No, I'm from Switzerland.
I believe that they're both at the same step of achieving socialism - capitalism dying. Consitutional monarchy is just as antithetical to Socialism as liberal democracy. It's the fact that humans have to subjugate themselves to their rulers that makes it incompatible to socialism, not the fact that you don't choose your leaders. And even if, the arrangement of the state doesn't affect the progress towards socialism at all, as the royals today are pretty much insignificant and more of a tourist attraction than an actually significant political force (as royals per se, their position as bourgeois is indeed very important).

[Blake's Baby]

No, I'm from Switzerland.
I believe that they're both at the same step of achieving socialism - capitalism dying. Consitutional monarchy is just as antithetical to Socialism as liberal democracy. It's the fact that humans have to subjugate themselves to their rulers that makes it incompatible to socialism, not the fact that you don't choose your leaders...

So, the fact that there is a monarch is a determinant that the state in question is a very long way from socialism. I didn't say that Norway was further than the US (or Switzerland); I said that the fact tha monarchy existed showed that it was no where near being socialist. Do you disagree?


... And even if, the arrangement of the state doesn't affect the progress towards socialism at all, as the royals today are pretty much insignificant and more of a tourist attraction than an actually significant political force (as royals per se, their position as bourgeois is indeed very important).

I presume you're not following the stories that have rumbling on in the UK for a while now about how the Royal Family has been secretly interfering in policy decisions for decades.