Welcome friends!
I must apologize for the breakdown in my scheduling the last few weeks. It’s been a little crazy around here and I’m not just talking about President Trump and the Republican Party. So let’s make up for lost time and dive right in shall we? What caught my eye this week was an amusing online comment about wealthy American “socialists” who live in gated communities and high rises not caring that immigrants and “black” people are taking jobs from hapless “white” people. Always fun to read these sorts of posts if one can get past the fractured syntax and inventive spelling because it’s a little window into how other people see the world and by other people I mean in this instance people one might not otherwise engage in conversation in everyday life. Ah yes the beauty of the internet. Bringing people together, right? Of course I’m not entirely sure if I was connecting with a semi-literate American redneck or a professional Russian troll still learning the English language but anyway they seem to get along quite well these days so doesn’t really matter much to me. I am on the other hand always interested in how conservatives use and understand others (such as Russian trolls for example) to use the term “socialism.” It occurred to me although all conservatives are trained from early childhood to despise “socialists” with a passion verging on clinical paranoia they quite often display certain socialistic tendencies themselves. Ironic. Anyway, I thought I’d say a few words about that this week.
When American conservatives excoriate domestic “socialists” what they have in mind is what you and I might call liberal / progressive democrats who support social programs designed to help struggling people. I’m sure we all understand the haughty Ayn Randian elitist conservatives who despise that sort of thing on the principle if struggling people are destined to die they should get on with it and reduce the surplus population. That type of conservative has been common both here and abroad for a very long time most likely from at least the time of the ancient pharaohs. I talk about those conservatives often enough but they’re not really the focus of this post. No, there’s another species of conservative in the USA that is more of the economically struggling salt of the earth “populist” variety. It’s a running joke of course the latter group of conservatives finds common cause with the former group because the former group clearly views the latter group as little more than a mildly amusing species of vermin they need to play with in the name of political expediency until they manage to sufficiently shrink and neutralize democratic government to render such distasteful interactions unnecessary. It may seem superficially curious these struggling working class conservatives would have such a rabid hatred of the people who have their best interests at heart. Some of these conservatives are convinced liberal “socialists” are only concerned about struggling immigrants and racial minorities and funneling resources to them in particular. Humorous of course because although there may be a few programs specifically tailored to immigrants and racial minorities most of the programs under consideration are means tested programs available to all. Others are convinced the reason some people are struggling is that liberal “socialists” are trying to help them and if we just got rid of the programs designed to deal with these social problems the problems themselves would evaporate. Also rather comical because historically of course the social problems predate the programs designed to address them and there is no reason at all to suppose something has changed in the interim that would prevent them reappearing if we no longer attempt to address them. But that’s the story fed to them by the traditional conservative elite that has never seen the need to deal with social problems or I suppose more accurately has always refused even to acknowledge social problems as such and that’s the story they’re going with.
The funny thing about recent developments of course is conservatives of the struggling salt of the earth variety have re-discovered their own version of socialism in the guise of former presidential advisor Mr. Bannon’s pet project “economic nationalism.” Many conservatives seem to be struggling to recognize this agenda for what it is. So let’s just set the record straight.
The non-socialist traditional conservative elitist response to white working class Americans losing their jobs is a big shrug of the shoulders. So what? What happens to you or your family is none of our concern. We’re not your nannies. If you lose out in the modern competitive economy that’s your problem not ours. If insufficient jobs are available on the free market then it’s right and fitting you not have a job. You should just go someplace and die. Did an immigrant take your job? So what? You competed and the immigrant was either willing to work for less or had some other advantage. Did some sort of minority take your job? So what? No one is entitled to a job. The non-socialist approach is open borders, free movement of labor, free markets both domestically and internationally, and whatever happens happens.
What one may call the traditional liberal brand of “socialism” is to have the same sort of free market for labor and goods and services traditional conservatives embrace but to acknowledge and attempt to address the rather obvious distributional issues associated with that approach by coming up with programs to help people who may be losing out or temporarily struggling. We’re talking about help for people having trouble finding a job. Help with education. Help with housing or food if necessary. The most drastic option is probably spending tax dollars to generate jobs that would otherwise not be forthcoming on the market. As many people have pointed out these fixes aren’t the same as dumping money down a hole in the ground as many traditional conservatives might suggest. When we find a way to get money to struggling people they spend it, consumer demand increases, and the economy inevitably grows. People are a lot happier as well and that has to count for something.
The new / old “economic nationalism” implicitly acknowledges the drawbacks of the free market but instead of allowing it to function and trying to fix problems after they appear it attempts to manipulate the conditions surrounding the market to head off potential problems. Examples of this approach would be laws to buy only products made in America (regardless of whether those products are the best or the cheapest) or to prevent companies relocating to other countries (despite the potential competitive advantages of doing so) or to prevent companies from automating or using labor saving technology (despite the potential cost savings). Depending on the “society” this form of socialism is meant to address it might involve preventing people immigrating or I suppose even ensuring members of some ethnic or racial groups get certain jobs, etc. As any traditional conservative or liberal will tell you these types of market restrictions and manipulations come at a cost. One may be unable to get the cheapest or most qualified worker. One may lose out relative to foreign competitors. The problems are in the same category as those associated with other more common market manipulations like minimum wage laws and union contracts. However, this rigging of the market approach is one way to keep everyone or at least some people in the game. Nothing is free in this world including trying to help struggling people. And to the extent we’re getting money to struggling people we may at least still get the consumer demand effect. My point in this post is not to adjudicate which type of socialism works best or makes the most sense. It’s simply to point out they’re both forms of what is essentially socialism. They’re both predicated on the proposition we should care what happens to other people in our “society” however we choose to define it. We should care if our neighbor has a job. We should care if people can afford housing. Other people matter.
Now if one is truly opposed to socialism that’s fine with me. Everyone is free to hold his or her own opinion on the matter. I tend to think what happens to other people in our society is important. Other people should have jobs and a way to make a living. We need to keep thinking and working until we have a system that does that. But that’s just me. If one supports one type of socialism over another that’s also fine with me. As I just explained I’m not entirely sure what would work best myself. But you know what I really can’t abide? Someone who rants on and on about the evils of socialism from one side of his or her mouth all the while promoting a form of socialism out the other side. We’re not going to get anywhere at that rate. Can we at least agree to try to talk sensibly about these issues?
