A Shining Star of Acadamia

I read an article yesterday in the Chicago Sun Times entitled We Are Not Heading To Socialism. The article was written by a professor from UNC-Wilmington and is a perfect example of why education funding needs to be cut. I like to do this from time to time and its been awhile, so allow me break down this article paragraph by paragraph. But first, let's employ the help of Merriam-Webster for a definition of socialism:

so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Now that we have that defined, lets begin.

We're not heading to socialism
Helping failing industries a long way from Uncle Sam taking over

March 2, 2009
BY ROBERT BRENT TOPLIN

Socialism has become our new scare word. It is not yet the major bugaboo that communism became during the Cold War or terrorism became after 9/11, but this "ism" has been getting a lot of nervous attention of late. Some politicians warn that the government's stimulus package and aid to financial institutions could put the country on a road to socialism.

Well, I'd definitely agree with "some politicians" on that sentiment. We are closer to socialism today than we were even 6 months ago.

But current efforts by American leaders to intervene in the troubled economy have nothing to do with socialism. We need a better term that succinctly characterizes Washington's efforts to rescue troubled American businesses.

Nothing to do with socialism? Even if Obama and the other libs had the greatest intentions in the world, it doesn't change the fact that when the government comes in and takes control of businesses, that is, by definition, socialism.

In the days since Obama took the oath of office, pundits on the right have amplified this theme. Broadcaster Sean Hannity characterized Obama's stimulus package as "the European Socialist Act of 2009." Some conservatives expressed worry that the U.S. government took a stake in the financial institutions it aided. They warned that Democrats aim to nationalize banks. A few detected socialist goals in legislation that limits the bonuses of top executives at companies receiving TARP funds.

Think about that for a second. The government is limiting executive pay. You can hem and haw all you want that they don't need to make millions of dollars, and maybe that is true, but it is money that their shareholders and board of directors approved. Therefore, it is THEIR money. The fact the government mandated that they can no longer take it is a huge leap over the bounds of private property ownership. And of course, the unintended consequence is NYC is going to get hurt the most. 40,000 of NYC's 9 million residents pay 60% of the taxes in that city. What happens now that those 40,000 people have their incomes cut by factors of 10?!?!

The leading socialists of earlier American history, such as Daniel De Leon and Eugene Debs, would be surprised to hear that the emergency measures advocated by Obama and leaders in Congress constitute socialism. De Leon and Debs differed vigorously on details but agreed on essentials. Capitalism, said Debs, was a "monstrous system." As socialists, they wanted to make the government owner and manager of some of the great corporations. Socialists aimed to nationalize large businesses, because they judged capitalism exploitive. They believed socialism would provide better treatment of workers and fairer distribution of society's goods.

Maybe I'm missing something, but he appears to be arguing against himself here. He's describing socialism, which is exactly what the government is doing right now as they consider nationalizing banks.

Today's advocates of strong federal action do not share that enthusiasm for replacing capitalism with socialism. They understand that the free enterprise system is vastly superior to one based on state-run industries. And they are not enthusiastic about investing public funds in failing businesses to give them temporary protection from a meltdown.

He's back to intentions, which are irrelevant. No where in the definition of socialism is it described that one's intent is the key to making it a reality.

Obama, the Democrats and some Republicans agreed to let the government take a financial stake in AIG, auto companies, and troubled banks as well as a larger commitment to Fannie Mae because those institutions were teetering. Eventually, some banks may need to be nationalized (temporarily) so that collapse can be prevented, toxic assets can be removed from their balance sheets, and depositors are protected.

Why should collapse be prevented? True capitalism punishes businesses when they make mistakes. AIG is getting another $30 billion as of yesterday, which makes it the first business in history to fail 4 times. Apparently all the liberals who adhere to evolutionary theory and "survival of the fittest" don't feel that it applies to businesses. The reason the DOW is down over 2700 since Nov 4th is because the government is prolonging the crises by propping up bad companies.

Leaders in Washington are pouring public money into troubled institutions to save them for capitalism, not to transform them into socialist enterprises. When the crisis passes and, hopefully, these organizations become solvent again, government leaders will happily free Uncle Sam from the financial commitments. Leaders in Washington are not happy with an arrangement that socializes losses and privatizes profits, but they see no alternative in the crisis.

Again, this all looks and sounds good, but its just not true. I ask anyone to show me a single example of a program, department, or agency that has been created by the United States government and given the "temporary" tag that is no longer in existence today.

Since "socialism" fails to identify the government's controversial initiatives, how can those actions best be characterized? Revival of an old concept, Welfare Capitalism, can throw light on the situation. In the past, historians employed this term to identify a capitalist society that offers welfare programs for its citizens, and they used it, also, to describe businesses that provide welfare-like services to their employees. In a related way, this term suggests the main idea behind current measures.

Washington's rescue efforts are providing welfare for businesses. The federal government is assisting huge corporations so that they can avoid collapse, much like the government sometimes helps individuals who confront a temporary economic crisis. Leaders in Washington certainly do not wish to keep AIG, Citicorp, and General Motors on the dole. They want these organizations to take full responsibility for their affairs once they "find a job" -- that is, return to profitability.

Let's recognize the new situation for what it is: Welfare Capitalism. Americans are not happy about the program's huge cost, and they are disgusted that some of the business titans whose actions contributed to the financial mess may benefit if the rescue works. But Americans remain committed to the free enterprise system, and most of them understand that in an emergency government has an important role to play in saving capitalism from its excesses.

Typical of a liberal to try and redefine terms when they know their ideas are losing traction with the populace. Babies become fetuses. Global warming becomes climate change. And now apparently socialism becomes "Welfare Capitalism." But look on the bright side, this guy is teaching our future generation!!! I was delighted to see that this guy was absolutely shredded by all the comments on the article. Apparently there are still some people out their who have a brain.