GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Quibbling with Sowell

July 12, 2016 by V the K

Ace quotes Thomas Sowell:

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism. What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favourable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies. The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

I would quibble that what Obama favors is a kind of Socialism, just that he achieves it through regulation rather than confiscation. But the end result is the same… a planned, political economy where political operatives make decisions according to their own prerogatives rather than letting people make decisions for themselves. The hugely expensive politically-driven push to wind and solar power that results in consumers paying more for energy is one example, and the wretched and unpalatable school lunches dictated by the whims of the president’s wife are another. Then there is, of course, Obamacare where the Government decides men should have to pay for women’s gynecological services and the mentally healthy must pay for the genital mutilation of transgendered people because these are voting blocs for the ruling political coalition. Britain’s NHS has politicized and bureaucratized the practice of medicine; Obamacare has achieved the same result with the thin veneer that private bureaucrats, rather than Government ones, administer the program.

If all a company’s decisions are dictated by the Government, the company is de facto socialized. And when the details of running the economy are worked out between corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen, Obama has successfully nationalized the Chicago style of Government.

Filed Under: Economy

Comments

  1. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 12, 2016 at 9:04 am - July 12, 2016

    Here’s the link to Sowell’s original: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist

    Sowell’s point is that, under the traditional definition of “socialism” which requires government ownership of the means of production, Obama should be classified as a fascist.

    Socialism and fascism are both forms of collectivism. Fascism leaves ownership technically in private hands, then negates it (or replaces it with government control in-practice) via regulations and mandates.

    I agree that Obama and Hillary, and anyone in America today who thinks that our overly-large government should be even bigger, is a fascist. But I also agree with the “socialist” label because the traditional definition (focusing on government ownership of stuff) may be too narrow. As Kevin D. Williamson has put it:

    The current Random House Dictionary definition of “socialism” is serviceable but dated: “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”…

    [Dated, because] It should read “ownership -or- control” rather than “ownership -and- control.” As we have seen in the cases of enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it is entirely possible for government economic planners to intervene deeply (and, in this familiar case, catastrophically) in the economy while maintaining private economic forms…

    A more complete definition of socialism incorporates two criteria: The first is that socialism entails the public provision of non-public goods. The second is the use of central planning to implement that policy.

    Emphasis added.

    People call Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc. socialists when people fear to say “fascist” (or don’t know to). I think that, with the updated definition of “socialism” above, both labels fit.

  2. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 12, 2016 at 9:15 am - July 12, 2016

    P.S. Having endorsed your “quibble with Sowell”, I think his whole article is worth reading. Here’s a little more.

    Politically, [Obama/Left fascism] is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies…

    What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us…

    The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends…

    That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.

    The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider…

    That’s a good point, which I have not seen put in quite that way before.

    You can’t reason a left-liberal out of her leftism, because the person’s ego is at stake. Not only “virtue signalling” whereby the person acquires approval or “cheap grace” from others; but also the person’s -inner vision of herself- as a superior being pursuing superior ends.

  3. Ilíon says

    July 12, 2016 at 10:38 am - July 12, 2016

    “If all a company’s decisions are dictated by the Government, the company is de facto socialized [however much it is de jure privately”owned”]. And when the details of running the economy are worked out between corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen, Obama has successfully nationalized the Chicago style of Government.”

    As see National Socialism.

  4. Hanover says

    July 12, 2016 at 11:22 am - July 12, 2016

    Sowell is an intellect, a bit myopic a times.

    People on the right who describe Obama as a Socialist are doing so in a general way, because of the obvious direction of his actions. I would think, calling Obama a Marxist would describe the obvious intent of his agendas. Promoting a system where no one is allowed to do better/excel over another. Fascism can only be seen in the result & as long as industry (Chamber of Commerce) continues to pander to Obama & the Democrats, as insurance for profit.

  5. Heliotrope says

    July 12, 2016 at 11:42 am - July 12, 2016

    Socialism, fascism and communism are generalized concepts which all have shifting ground as a foundation.

    We have long prattled on about representative democracy vs. “pure” democracy, totally free market capitalism vs. regulated capitalism and now Utopian socialism vs. Venezuelan or Norwegian or California style socialism.

    It is never possible to argue the generalized indicators against a restrictive definition.

    So, we have yet another area of discourse bounded by situational escape clauses.

    If socialism were generally positive within a society (as in “socialized security”) we would have the word as a part of our language which indicates an ideal or at positive good.

    But, in spite of all their huffing and puffing and eloquence, Progressives do everything they can to avoid having “socialism” attached to their agenda. Bernie Sanders is a radical socialist compared to Hillary who is an incremental socialist.

  6. Tom says

    July 12, 2016 at 12:19 pm - July 12, 2016

    I would agree with Dr. Sowell that the Progressives are more fascist than socialist. They don’t intend to live in a co-op, or work on a farm or in a factory co-owned by the workers. They see themselves as the intelligentsia, and they want a Soviet-style dictatorship, with the ruling elite class dictating government policy. For the peasants’ own good, of course.

    Robert Heinlein said that there are really only two political philosophies, and that labels like fascist, Nazi, socialist, or communist are just a case of to-may-to, to-mah-to. Either you want to control other people, or you don’t.

  7. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    July 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm - July 12, 2016

    By classical definitions, it’s clearly national socialism. However after the “unpleasantness” of the 1930s and 1940s, the Left achieved a triumph of philosophical jiu-jitsu rebranding National Socialism and Fascism as some “right-wing conservative” pejorative to deflect their own responsibility for it’s left-wing political roots.

    Just as they have whitewashed the National Socialist roots of many of the Islamic Police State political philosophies of the post WW2-era: Nasserism, Ba’athism, the Muslim Brotherhood and other “nationalist” Arab movements like Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO.

  8. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 12, 2016 at 2:01 pm - July 12, 2016

    A good one from Ron Paul last month: http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-fascism-a-bipartisan-affliction.aspx?article=8584066212H11690&redirect=false&contributor=Ron+Paul

    A fascist system, then, is one where private businesses serve politicians and bureaucrats instead of consumers. Does the modern American economy not fit the definition…?

    Fascism benefits big businesses that can afford the cost of complying with government regulations, unlike their smaller competitors….

    Obamacare is an example of fascism that is often mislabeled as socialism. Obamacare did not create a government-run “single payer” system as would exist under socialism. Instead, Obamacare extended government control over health care via mandates, regulations, and subsidies. The most infamous part of Obamacare — the individual mandate — forces individuals to purchase a product from a private industry.

    Again, I would say that “fascist” and “socialist” both apply – if you’re going with the broader Kevin D. Williamson definition of socialism.

    Paul continues:

    Mass surveillance and limits on personal freedom are additional hallmarks of fascist regimes. While there is a movement to “reform” the police state, few want to abolish mass surveillance, civil asset forfeiture, police militarization, and other police-state policies adopted in the name of the wars on terror and drugs…

    RTWT

  9. Ignatius says

    July 12, 2016 at 2:31 pm - July 12, 2016

    Obama has stated repeatedly that a single-payer health care system is the ultimate goal. It’s possible he’s seen the light and realized that other sectors can come under control more efficiently (that is, the process of control — not the sectors themselves) via regulation rather than outright takeover. The choice facing the Left is which system (socialist or fascist) best suits them. Fascism is probably more lucrative.

  10. Craig Smith says

    July 12, 2016 at 8:44 pm - July 12, 2016

    It should be remembered that Thomas Sowell was a socialist in his youth, as many present day Conservatives were, and his definition of socialism was defined then. He sees Obama striving for things other than the socialism he knew as a youth, and therefore shies away from the label. He very clearly agrees VtK and ILoveCapitalism, however, with the detrimental effects his form of economic control would have.

  11. Steve says

    July 13, 2016 at 10:56 am - July 13, 2016

    Obama is a socialist who thinks every American is in the 1% of the world and he is right about that. Living on welfare/dole is better than being a king in sub sahara Africa as evidenced by the last king of Rwanda living on welfare in Virginia getting better free healthcare than you could buy in his homeland.

Categories

Archives