Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The "Trump is a lightweight socialist too" proposal

#1
C C Offline
https://theweek.com/articles/936534/trum...than-biden

EXCERPT (Shikha Dalmia): . . . And, of course, President Trump has called Biden a "Trojan horse for socialism." Is he? In one sense, yes. But in that same sense, Trump is too.

Full-blown socialism of course means abolishing private property and putting industry under direct government control. The manufacturing and distribution of goods is nationalized. Government bureaucrats establish production quotas, set prices, and determine consumption, usually via rationing. This is what Vladimir Lenin did to the Soviet economy after the 1918 Bolshevik revolution and the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez did to vast sections of his country almost a century later.

Neither Biden nor Trump are socialists in this robust sense. However, in common parlance{*}, socialism has come to mean an expansive economic role for the government via federal spending on the one hand, and industry mandates and regulations on the other. By this definition, Cato Institute's  tells me, both candidates are socialists, just different versions.

Neither has any compunctions about using massive deficit-spending to boost economic growth. Neither is averse to picking economic winners and losers by helping industries they favor and crippling those they don't via regulations and mandates. Trump, Lincicome notes, has been quite adept at using Uncle Sam to slam industries that hurt his America First agenda — and boost those that help it. Biden, meanwhile, is a typical Democrat who wants to use Big Government to tax rich companies and individuals and pursue a redistributive liberal agenda... (MORE - details)

- - - footnote - - -
{*} Trump’s Take on Trade Sounds Like … Socialism?: [...] Analysts see an uncomfortable truth regarding the president’s stance on trade, where he “behaves more like a state-interventionist than a laissez-faire guy.”

This is an area he actually has something in common with the headline-grabbing freshman firebrand from New York. Democrats are in favor of stronger trade rules to protect U.S. jobs, and this is an area where Trump is more like Ocasio-Cortez than members of his own Republican party.

Of course [...] nobody will argue that Trump’s trade policy equates to the literal definition of socialism, “with its all-encompassing embrace of state planning.” But it does sound a bit like “socialism lite” ... demanding a larger role for the state in managing trade flows and intervening in corporate decisions.

[...] “It’s undoubtable that U.S. trade policy in the last two years has moved toward that type of socialism,’’ says Scott Lincicome, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute and one of the most voluble critics of Trump’s trade policy on social media.

- - -
Atheist Conservative: In common parlance, at least in the West, “socialism” refers to a similar but milder, less oppressive, system of collectivization. West European states were happy to call themselves “socialist’, and saw the self-described “communist” states, chiefly the Soviet Union, as their enemies.

In the Soviet Union, however, “socialism” and “communism” were commonly used interchangeably, as synonyms. In Marxist theory, “communism” is an ideal that will be realized when the state – ie government – has “withered away”. But withering away is not on the agenda of any existing socialist government, nor is likely to be.

In fact, most forms of collectivism can justifiably be called “socialist”. (An exception is Islam.) The collectivist idea is that the society, not the individual, is important, so the citizenry must be organized. The organization must be enforced, whether harshly or temperately. Most self-described “socialist” states consider their rule not only temperate but positively beneficent, while they see “communist” states as cruel and oppressive.

But the word “socialism” cannot bear a connotation of beneficence. Nor does it always imply equality...

- - -
National Catholic Register: Recently in America magazine, there appeared an article titled, “Yes, democratic socialism is compatible with Catholic social teaching.” While it may be exasperating to see pro-socialism columns like these appear again and again, it’s not surprising. As it turns out, the core philosophy we now call “socialism” has been one of the most persistent errors in Church history.

While the word “socialism” only found its way into common parlance in the 19th century, its underlying philosophy dates back several millennia. Though it has taken different forms over time, the constant and most identifiable thread of socialism -- from the ancient Greeks to the present day -- has been the denial of man’s natural law right to private property. Thus, being a great defender of private property rights, the Catholic Church and her saints have found the need to speak out against socialistic theories since her infancy...

Socialism in Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Europe

Socialism in North America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#North_America
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
Deficit spending is not a feature unique to socialism, nor are emergency efforts to boost an economy. Trump has cut domestic regulations while making foreign mandates. He hasn't played favorites between industries, only countries (America first), and conflating the two is transparently dishonest.

State intervention only exists within a state (country), not between states. Trump has not intervened in US industries, only in trade with external countries, as is the role of the federal government. That is not socialism at all.

Marxist theory has never been fully realized (and likely cannot), which is why communist countries all have very top heavy governments, with more socialist ones heading in that same direction. But yes, US prioritization of the individual does appear to be unique in the world. Hence others trying to cram it into their own ignorant little molds.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)