RE: Social Security, terminology

[Charudatt <charu@iced.com>]

Sanjeev Sabhlok[SMTP:sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu] wrote:
>
>> >
>> >The USA, by virtue of having a social security system, is a
>> capitalistic
>> >country, and not even remotely a socialistic country . . .

<<in sarcastic mode>>
>I must be really off my rockers, now, if at the end of 20 years of
>studyinig economics and things like that, I mistake the US to be a
>capitalist country. I am sorry, but the US is a socialist nation and
the
>USSR was a capitalist one. Pardon my error of definition. Must have
been
>sleeping when I wrote that one... 

 (to me) Your argument seems to run as follows:

1. The US is a capitalist nation, therefore any state sponsored action
is a manifestation of capitalism. Thus social security is a result of
capitalism and a capitalistic institution.

If I were to accept the type of reasoning in 1. I could argue:
The USSR was a communist empire, any state sponsored action was a
manifestation of communism, thus space exploration (the launch of
sputnik) was a manifestation of communism. 
Corollary: The US space program is a manifestation of evil, godless
communism. 

You could substitute "publicly funded education" for "space program" if
you see "space program" as purely technical vs. something political
(it's not), but the reasoning is equally un-supportable.

>According to you, one should have social security systems in China? A
>nation where the state guarantees employment and care to everyone (in
>theory)? What need can they possibly have of these safety nets when
>everyone is taken care of on the basis of their needs?

2. 	Conversely, you argue above, if we accept that social security
is a socialistic institution, then it must be present in all societies
claiming to be socialistic.

If I were to accept the logic of 2. I could argue:
Unregulated markets are a manifestation of capitalism. The US is a
capitalist country. Thus the markets must be completely un-regulated. 

I think this past exchange is again a strong argument for dropping the
use of these meaningless terms, and for using an entire country as a
reference model.

Is the US socialist or capitalist? It doesn't matter and I couldn't care
less, these semantics gain us nothing and railing against the "straw
man" of socialism in the Indian system, or exalting American capitalism
as some kind of gold standard, IMO is a waste of time. I would prefer to
analyze and suggest solutions independent of any ideology or "system"
under which they originate- if they work and are just we should promote
them regardless of any meaningless label (like "socialist" or
"capitalist") that someone might attach to a program.



That said, to respond to specific points- in most political analysis,
social security is considered to be socialistic in that it is a
government sponsored centrally planned redistribution of wealth. All
"conservatives" such as the denizens of the heritage foundation, the
cato institute, or the Rutherford, or Hoover institutes have always
railed against it as an interference in the operation of a free market,
and they are right in that a free market would not support creation of
social security, where is the return on capital?. Social security was
created under FDR as part of the New Deal during the depression and even
then free marketeers reviled it as charity, a give away, market
interference, and all other kinds of evil things. GAO studies have held
repeatedly that the greatest reduction of poverty over that past 60
years can be attributed to social security. Despite being ideologically
anathema to "conservative" US politicians, they don't dare touch it
because it is hugely popular because of it's results, even though it is
socialistic.

>
>While agreeing that some terms might have become meaningless due to
>misinterpretation, I am of the view that capitalism is still the best
term
>to describe free market economies which are working hard to prevent the
>pitfalls of free markets without killing free enterprise.
>
And I reiterate- I don't know what the term capitalism means. To you it
seems to include creation of state supported, centrally planned programs
like social security and unemployment insurance. I suggest you do a
quick survey of say 10 people (not books) and find out how many people
agree on this definition, or even come up with the same definition. I
maintain that such vague concepts only serve to reduce the clarity of
what we are saying.

>Socialism still remains the best term to describe centrally planned
>economies where all resources are allocated centrally and everyone is
paid
>equally based on need and not on their marginal product.
>
I don't know what socialism means any more than I know what capitalism
means. If you can support the word being dropped from the constitution,
it shouldn't be so hard to drop it from this discussion.

A "devil" (such as "capitalism", "bourgeois values", "socialism",
"counter-revolution") that is the universal explanation for all ills and
the root of all evil, IMO,  has no place in reasoned discourse (though
such a concept is most useful in religious arguments, where no one is
allowed to ask questions).

-Charu




>But so long as you and I agree with where we are going (toward free
>enterprise, social safety nets, high education, urbanization,
>privatization, etc.), I can live with all interpretations of the word
>capitalism or socialism and I would then say, let India be more
socialist,
>if you please! As that old man with a beard said, "What's in a name ?
..."
>
>Well, back to business. Today I had this tremendous experience of
another
>of my old school friends (from Timpany School, Vizag) locating me over
the
>internet! What a way to make one's day!
>
>Sanjeev
>
>***********************************************************************
****
>
>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Charudatt wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This is the strangest definition of capitalism I have ever seen. Are
>> things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and federal disaster
>> relief also affirmations of capitalism?
>> 
>> I am reminded of a rather perceptive quote by the depression era
>> politician Huey Long "If communism ever comes to America it will be
>> called Americanism".
>> 
>> If this is not a good argument for dropping the use of meaningless
>> terminology such as "socialism" or "capitalism" I don't know what is.
>> 
>> -Charu