g m g D e s i g n . c o m

An editorial in The Nation predictably promotes socialism as an alternative to capitalism (capitalism being “bad,” apparently).

The commentary uses eloquent phrasing to make it all seem like a good idea. But in the end, the presciption is as follows (last para):

To build on them, we need to organize, with an emphasis on inquiry as part of the practical meaning of solidarity, and engage in conscious collective reflection about the lessons of experiments driven by socialist values–however micro they are and whether or not those involved would call themselves socialists. We should work as if we are part of a global laboratory seeking to produce a grounded theoretical breakthrough, a hybrid new political paradigm.

A concious collective reflection? What the hell are they talking about?

The 20th century is full of efforts at this sort of “grand experiment.” More recently, Venezuela is trying the socialist experiment–and it’ll be lucky for them if Chavez isn’t dictator-for-life of that country. Cuba, the USSR, N Korea, and China tried similar experiments. (The results are in: while China and Russia are still in transition, their living standards have gone up. Cuba and N Korea have awful living standards, despite subsidies/remittances.)

Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries are trying a more mild version of socialism called democratic socialism. Rather than a totalitarian regime and a crappy, inefficient economy, you have a stable democracy, capitalism, and well-funded (but terribly inefficient) social services. Many people–me included–believe that democratic socialist states go way too far. Any service government provides comes with strings attached, be it criminal justice or medical care.

Where to draw the line is up for society to decide. Venezuelan voters decided on socialism (in a rigged election) and could very well lose their freedom and prosperity (though falling oil prices will help them in the long run). In economically advanced countries like the US, the “liberal” voices promoting “managed capitalism” compete with the more conserative voices which, lately, have argued in tandem with libertarians (very minimal government interference).

The right balance isn’t the same in all situations. Russia and China underwent economic reforms, meaning that big state-run institutions were turned over to private hands (Russia did this terribly, China did it OK). Countries like the US built their economies from the ground up, where the idea of small shops turned into shopping malls.

Fundamental to all this is freedom. In a free market system, people are free to charge what they want for the services they provide; they’re free to start a business if they want, quit their job or be fired, etc. It sounds cruel, but it’s the fairest and freest model we have. No government big brother involvement is needed in this model, except minimally and absent micro-management.

But the train can’t move as fast as the caboose, to borrow a Thomas Barnett metaphor. From a US-centric point of view, there are people who can’t (or won’t) adapt to a globalized world. In such a world, people have to be creative, think outside the box, keep their skills sharp, and all those other dot-com punch lines (which turned out to be true). Absent that, you need either political clout (General Motors, most big banks) or you need to be a part of a big voting block (“Joe the skilled tradesman,” union members, etc). Then, you can get away with sloth, stupidity, and mis-management.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 4th, 2009 at 11:35 pm and is filed under Domestic policy, Economic, Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.