Socialism, Europe, and "big government"

[Cosplay]

The conceptions that European nations (in general, welfare states that have many government-provided services) are socialist-leaning and that socialism automatically means big government are things I hear thrown around all too often.

For the accusation of a socialist Europe, I've always thought of welfare and universal health care alone as missing the point of socialism's aim of the working class taking control over the means of production. A friend of mine tried to explain to me that the welfare state feeds into the "collectivist attitude of socialism", but that argument seems too flimsy an explanaiton.

On the idea of socialism equalling big government, it seems to me that most people raise the Soviet bloc and China as proof of this (nevermind the fact that many people may know nothing of history before making this connection). It's really gotten to the point that the word "socialist" has become just as deprived of deeper meaning as the word "fascist".

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing what other people think of this, especially the Marxist-Leninists on "big government". ;)

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:14 am
The conceptions that European nations (in general, welfare states that have many government-provided services) are socialist-leaning and that socialism automatically means big government are things I hear thrown around all too often.

For the accusation of a socialist Europe, I've always thought of welfare and universal health care alone as missing the point of socialism's aim of the working class taking control over the means of production. A friend of mine tried to explain to me that the welfare state feeds into the "collectivist attitude of socialism", but that argument seems too flimsy an explanaiton.

On the idea of socialism equalling big government, it seems to me that most people raise the Soviet bloc and China as proof of this (nevermind the fact that many people may know nothing of history before making this connection). It's really gotten to the point that the word "socialist" has become just as deprived of deeper meaning as the word "fascist".

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing what other people think of this, especially the Marxist-Leninists on "big government". ;)
The welfare state is in fact the capitalist way in "buying off" the working class. They were created after the second world war under the following circumstances:
1. Intensified class struggle: as always class struggle is a good leverage in forcing improvements.
2. The Soviet Union: after WW2 the Stalinist bloc had reached its peek in influence. Fearing that the western working classes would want a revolution, the ruling classes (especially in Western Europe) gave in and created vast welfare states. Of course the SU wasn't a healthy socialist society at all, but nevertheless it pointed out the potential of what a planned economy can do, it was therefore an example and source of inspiration of the working class worldwide for a long time.
3. The economic boom from 1950-1975: the longest economic boom in capitalist history was a direct result of the devastation of Europe and Japan after WW2. This is important because it points out how the capitalists financed the welfare state: by giving out breadcrumbs of the huge profits of the time.

After the oil crises in the seventies however, the economic boom came to an abrupt end. And thusly also the source of money to finance the welfare state from came to an end. This resulted in politicians returning to their usual politics of attacking the working class once more, the policies that we now call "neoliberalism", and started tearing down these welfare states. Firstly with little steps, but after the collapse of the SU in 1991 all breaks went loose...

Now what about a socialist/communist society?
Communism is defined as a stateless society. Did doesn't per se mean that you don't have any centralised organisation, but refers to an organisation of class oppression. In socialism (the "lower stage of communism", a transitionary state between capitalism and communism) however, you still have such a mechanism, but instead of the capitalist class it will be the working class (= vast majority of the population) that'll be in power, resulting in a direct democracy.

In this society private ownership over the means of production (= economy) is abolished, it is controlled and checked up with democratically, as are the profits that are created. These billions and billions are then used at will to improve society: provide free and good healthcare, education, public transportation, etc.

So, does this include a "big government"? Yes and no. No, because we're talking about a direct democracy, the old bourgeois state apparatus has been abolished. Yes, because this doesn't mean that there is no organisation. In fact, society is highly organised. This organisation happens in what I would call a "recursive federative council democracy", more commonly known as a soviet democracy, meaning: companies and neighbourhoods are run directly by the people that work and live there, on a citywide level representatives are chosen that can be removed at any time by the people that chose him and only earn a normal workers wage. Above this level co-operation happens on the basis of logic and need. The macro-economic plan for example is defined on a world scale, but is implemented far more in detail on a local level. That kind of thing.

I hope you get the picture.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's really gotten to the point that the word "socialist" has become just as deprived of deeper meaning as the word "fascist".

Which is entirely sad considering the two are opposing ideologies. Socialism has been substituted for collectivism thanks to the clever work of politicians and corporate media outlets. It's our job to show the people that socialism is actually quite more liberating than other opposing ideologies, not just from the work place but also the State. Q-collective's post was wonderful. In conversations I describe myself as a "classical libertarian" because I'm sickened that in contemporary politics a "libertarian" is someone who wants to exchange hands from the politicians to the boss.

The welfare state is just a mixture of market capitalism and state capitalism. The teachers, mailmen, and civil servants aren't in control; the organizations they take part in are. An actual "mixed" economy, if one could ever exist, would have public workers' councils and recognize the absurdity in private land ownership.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The ironic part in all of this is that the current Russian bureaucracy is larger in absolute numbers than the old Soviet bureaucracy (just to comment further on the Russian situation). Just say this when addressing a mainstreamer who cites the Soviet example.

Historically, one should also consider some of problems Lenin himself had at the time of NEP. I read somewhere that, during his absence, Sovnarkom had increased its membership, and when he found out about this, he was p***** (ie, he felt that fewer commissariats could do the same job).

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:14 am
socialism automatically means big government are things I hear thrown around all too often.
I get it all the time from the online right wingers and the spoiled brats.

I posted a debate against some people about Ron Paul and the issue of communism came up....well I'll just take the quote that'll sum it all up:


You say you want to get rid of the state. But then you support communism. Communism is the biggest expansion of the state that you can get. So your arguement of getting rid of the state and replacing it with communism makes no sense.

That sums it all up^^^ They don't know that communism means a classless and STATELESS society where the means of production are in the hands of workers.

The whole debate here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74591

[Cosplay]

Yes, I'm so tired of all that Ron Paul garbage. At first, I thought nothing more of him rather than a libertarian-esque candidate that the Alex Jones crowd worshipped, but the more I learn about his "underground" popularity, the more worried I become :(

Sometimes, I wish he wasn't as behind in the polls, because that only gives ammunition for the conspiracy theorists!