Karl Marx was a nut. He thought that his socialist utopia would require no government.
Everyone would be so happy and so nice that government wouldn’t be necessary. His vision for communism (based on “communes”) never came to pass. Every nation that embraced the Communist brand devolved into dictatorship. Government became all powerful rather than withering away. Some people equate socialism with communism. You can spend time debating definitions, but for the purposes of this column, please join me in treating socialism as an economic model that competes with capitalism. As such, socialism becomes wealth distribution by government while a capitalist economy lets “the market” spread the wealth. Under socialism, investment comes from government — capitalism raises money for enterprises privately by way of markets. communism=dictatorship and communism=bad. communism<>socialism (<> means not equal. We former math teachers can’t help ourselves.)
Yes—and the column largely argues against itself. Epstein’s conclusion is unobjectionable: markets need rules and society needs a safety net. But he reaches it by defining “socialism” so broadly that virtually any government activity qualifies.
The strongest points:
* China became richer when it introduced markets, private enterprise and economic incentives. That supports the capitalist side of his argument.
* Russia’s kleptocracy is not “socialism.” Putin distributing wealth among oligarchs is authoritarian corruption, not public ownership for the common good.
* His 35 percent figure is misleading. The Bureau of Economic Analysis says government consumption and investment account for about 17 percent of GDP. Broader spending figures include transfer payments, which are not government production and cannot simply be labeled “the socialist share” of the economy. BEA
* The DSA policies he mentions are not Republican inventions. DSA materials advocate universal rent control, publicly owned housing and free education through college; its published platform materials have also called for abolishing the Senate and cutting police budgets toward zero. Those are legitimate subjects for concern, not imaginary “boogeymen.” Current DSA program and 2021 platform document
* “Nice stuff” is not governing. The unanswered questions are always: who pays, what incentives are changed, what authority does government acquire, and what happens when the policy fails?
I would answer the column along these lines:
George Epstein’s column demonstrates what happens when “socialism” is defined so broadly that the word loses nearly all meaning. If Social Security, Medicare, Trump Accounts, property taxes, public investment and food inspection all count as socialism, then the argument has simply been defined away. A capitalist society can have public institutions and a social safety net without becoming socialist.
Several of George’s own examples undermine his case. China grew dramatically richer after introducing markets, private enterprise and economic incentives. That is an argument for capitalism, not socialism. Russia is not socialist because Putin and his oligarchs control its wealth. That is kleptocracy—government corruption enriching a privileged few.
Nor does government spending prove that a corresponding share of the economy is “socialist.” Government consumption and investment account for roughly 17 percent of GDP, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Larger spending totals include transfer payments such as Social Security, which are not government production.
George is also too quick to dismiss legitimate concerns about the Democratic Socialists of America as Republican name-calling. The DSA itself advocates universal rent control, publicly owned housing, free college and government-provided health care. Its published platform materials have called for abolishing the Senate and cutting police budgets toward zero. Those positions are not boogeymen invented by opponents. They are policy choices with enormous constitutional, economic and public-safety consequences.
George calls many of the promised benefits “nice stuff.” Of course they sound nice. The harder questions are who pays, whether the programs are sustainable, what incentives they destroy and how much authority government acquires along the way. Here in New Hampshire, we know that every attractive promise eventually arrives as somebody’s property-tax bill.
Nearly everyone supports some combination of markets, public services and a safety net. Saying we need “the right mix” is not an answer. It is where the real debate begins—and precisely where George’s column ends.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(1) comment
Yes—and the column largely argues against itself. Epstein’s conclusion is unobjectionable: markets need rules and society needs a safety net. But he reaches it by defining “socialism” so broadly that virtually any government activity qualifies.
The strongest points:
* China became richer when it introduced markets, private enterprise and economic incentives. That supports the capitalist side of his argument.
* Russia’s kleptocracy is not “socialism.” Putin distributing wealth among oligarchs is authoritarian corruption, not public ownership for the common good.
* His 35 percent figure is misleading. The Bureau of Economic Analysis says government consumption and investment account for about 17 percent of GDP. Broader spending figures include transfer payments, which are not government production and cannot simply be labeled “the socialist share” of the economy. BEA
* The DSA policies he mentions are not Republican inventions. DSA materials advocate universal rent control, publicly owned housing and free education through college; its published platform materials have also called for abolishing the Senate and cutting police budgets toward zero. Those are legitimate subjects for concern, not imaginary “boogeymen.” Current DSA program and 2021 platform document
* “Nice stuff” is not governing. The unanswered questions are always: who pays, what incentives are changed, what authority does government acquire, and what happens when the policy fails?
I would answer the column along these lines:
George Epstein’s column demonstrates what happens when “socialism” is defined so broadly that the word loses nearly all meaning. If Social Security, Medicare, Trump Accounts, property taxes, public investment and food inspection all count as socialism, then the argument has simply been defined away. A capitalist society can have public institutions and a social safety net without becoming socialist.
Several of George’s own examples undermine his case. China grew dramatically richer after introducing markets, private enterprise and economic incentives. That is an argument for capitalism, not socialism. Russia is not socialist because Putin and his oligarchs control its wealth. That is kleptocracy—government corruption enriching a privileged few.
Nor does government spending prove that a corresponding share of the economy is “socialist.” Government consumption and investment account for roughly 17 percent of GDP, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Larger spending totals include transfer payments such as Social Security, which are not government production.
George is also too quick to dismiss legitimate concerns about the Democratic Socialists of America as Republican name-calling. The DSA itself advocates universal rent control, publicly owned housing, free college and government-provided health care. Its published platform materials have called for abolishing the Senate and cutting police budgets toward zero. Those positions are not boogeymen invented by opponents. They are policy choices with enormous constitutional, economic and public-safety consequences.
George calls many of the promised benefits “nice stuff.” Of course they sound nice. The harder questions are who pays, whether the programs are sustainable, what incentives they destroy and how much authority government acquires along the way. Here in New Hampshire, we know that every attractive promise eventually arrives as somebody’s property-tax bill.
Nearly everyone supports some combination of markets, public services and a safety net. Saying we need “the right mix” is not an answer. It is where the real debate begins—and precisely where George’s column ends.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.