Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Everyday Socialism

The discussion on another thread on insurance got me thinking (I know! a dangerous thing) about labels and realities and how society really operates. In addition to insurance, we (Americans) are surrounded by "socialistic" constructs, whether we appreciate or even recognize them. By socialistic, I mean "pooling together for mutual support." Even the TEA Party, although they would be loathe to admit it, is a socialistic outfit.

The Constitution, of course, is explicitly a socialistic document "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..." There are many more specifics included. That is not to assert, however, that many of the founders even recognized the "socialist" nature of many of their pronouncements and aspirations.

I'd like to engage in a discussion about the merits and drawbacks of the social institutions upon which we depend. I don't want to circumscribe the discussion, so I am going to limit my opening, but, I will at least provide some examples of what I am talking about: Social Security (medicaid, medicare), insurance, unions, PACs - to my mind they are all everyday socialistic institutions. What say ye?

I know from hanging out with my frienemies at Greta's, they abhor anything to do with socialism. In fact, one of the monikers is: socialismsucks2

Because Greta allows it, I poke socialismsucks2 in the eye every now and then and tell her to whip out her credit card the next time she needs fire or police services - and above all else I tell her, stay off of the socialist national highway system.

IMO it is highly problematical to even begin to discuss the topic.

As the case with many other discussions of this type, most often people are talking about entirely different things. Terms of discussion are ill defined, and the imputed meaning even shifts during the discussion,

in all of this there is the hidden assumption that concepts have some sort of solid fixed reality.... that there is some sort of defined fixed reality to socialism in the same way there would be if we were talking about the golden gate bridge.

The discussions also take on a sort of binary assumption.... that either you are a socialist or you are not. when in reality every nation in the world has fixed upon some sort of customized hybrid that incorporates various elements of free markets and socialism.

At a base level, living in a family unit incorporates some elements of socialism, Living in a village, city, state, or nation inherently incorporate more socialistic components. And should one care to consider it, many aspects of the early christian church were socialistic in nature

Taken to it's extreme, socialism implies some sort of kibbutz/cooperative arrangement where there is minimal private ownership of much of anything. Most people feel repelled by this structure, but for some people it has worked ok.

Bottom line, the gathering together if "we the people" has some unavoidable socialistic characteristics, Even dear departed Iss finally signed on to the idea that there needs to be some sort of social safety net, Saint Ronald Reagan never mounted a serious challenge to Social Security. George Bush added drug coverage to medicare. And for all the shouting, some version of Obamacare will almost certainly endure.

Labels like Fascist, Socialist, racist, genocide, etc, are more useful to produce an abhorrent reaction than to discuss any substantive debate.

How people feel about the "sharing" that is the basis of all of these institutions depends greatly on which end of the sharing they reside! This is why we see Tea Party members who foam at the mouth when you mention Medicaid, but threaten armed action against any politician who touches their Medicare. Are they confused?

No, this is just how they react emotionally to receiving or having something taken away to be given to somebody else. Their world-view is that of a zero-sum game, so government giving some benefit to somebody else MUST take something from them.

But who do we share with (give to) happily? I see this as a geometry problem: We each have different ideas of who is "me and mine" versus "them". Solipsists and sociopaths draw their "circle of inclusion" around themselves. Extreme conservatives may draw that circle around only their nuclear family. Other people may draw their circle around their neighbors, their town, their state, their country, their race, their religion, their species, "all living beings", etc. in expanding areas as you move to the left on the political scale. Anybody inside your circle is "worthy" of receiving your help. Those outside are "not your problem" (or candidates for the death camps if that is your philosophical bent).

Figure out somebody's radius of inclusion, and you know just about everything about their politics. But this also works in the opposite direction: Most politics is about trying to shrink or enlarge people's radius of inclusion!

That was part of my intent in starting the socialist insurance topic, to try an oblique run at getting under the Socialist meme that was massaged into evilness during the Cold War days. Communism is another perfectly good word, representing a pretty high ideal in the lower case c, that got corrupted as part of a propaganda campaign to rouse folks to fight somebody or other.

The godliness of Capitalism (upper case) is being fought out now, with no fixed meaning for the word itself. We have masticated it many times here on RR, proving beyond climate change (aka a shadow of a doubt) that capitalism is not some religio-philosophico-gummitsystemo thang that can exist in a pure state, yet it continues to be used in modern conversation like a silver cross held up to the Devils of Sharing a Thing or Two for Universal Benefit (aka General Welfare).

But what the Heck, we have to rant about something, don't we? Rantishism... hmmm.

Expanding on piA posting

One of the problems of immigration and multiculturalism is that it strains the bounds of who we consider to be "us"

People are much more comfortable contributing to social programs that they see as benefitting their community. But uncomfortable when the benefits are seen to flow to under serving "others"

As a group I think Mormons are fairly conservative. They would likely strongly oppose socialism. And yet the make large contributions to their church. And the church uses the contributions to provide a strong social safety net for church members. And that is fine for conservative Mormons because it is a socialist program for "us"

Really? We're going to do the socialism thing again? Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are centrally controlled by the state. An insurance industry comprised of privately held companies is a pooling system of legalized gambling, but it is not part of a centrally controlled economic tool. police and fire protection distributed among every little hamlet and village is not centrally controlled and is not a means of production. Interstate highways support economic activity but they are not part of a centrally planned economic system.

This is like the argument that Doug can't tell me what I can post here because the First Amendment guarantees my right to freedom of speech.

Even national defense is not a state controlled, centrally managed means of production. The customer is the government, but the producers are private companies delivering against individually negotiated contracts that more often than not give greater flexibility to the contractor than the customer to decide matters that impact economic impact.

I don't get why we fall into the trap of letting the pseudo conservatives goad us into discussions like this one.

So what is the Word to describe non-profit, socially beneficial large-group actions for promoting the general welfare, that stands shoulder to shoulder with capitalism and socialism?

True Americans have been reluctantly forced to act in concert against the unending assault from unions, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, scientists, environmentalists, the UN and the Coastal Elites trying to deprive True Americans of the fruits of their labor.

There'd be no Conservative groups if not for the need to protect oneself from the Takers.

Eureka, I have it!

The system that lies between Capitalism and Socialism is:

Genwelfarism. It even has Constitutional provenance!

(Sounds German - Issy, gawd rest his soul, would have got off on it...)