Tom Geoghegan (in Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?) defends the advantages of the European model of social democracy against the American neoliberal model. No doubt the usual suspects on the Right feel compelled to defend the honor of the American cowboy capitalism that’s prevailed since 1980 or so, as a meaningful approximation to the “free markets” they’re always going on about.
Those of us on the free market Left, of course, will point out that what the talking heads at CNBC and the Wall Street Journal editorial page call the “free market” is anything but.
But Geoghegan does a pretty good job of advancing that argument himself. His remarks at several places in the book suggest that American neoliberal capitalism is not only statist, but that — measured even in terms of the sheer size and cost of government — it’s just as statist as German social democracy.
For example, Americans are taxed about four-fifths as much as western Europeans. So do we have a social safety net, or social amenities like public transit or single-payer healthcare, on four-fifths the scale the Germans enjoy them?
Geoghegan is also impolite enough to notice that what passes as “free market reform” in the United States doesn’t involve actually reducing government spending or intervention in the economy. Nope — it just means taxing the public the same amount or more and then giving the money to crony capitalists. So instead of using tax money to fund a state-run prison system, you use it to pay Wackenhut on sweetheart terms which Wackenhut’s lobbyists had a big part in arranging.
Medicare and Medicaid actually pay more per capita for the half or so of total healthcare costs funded by the government than western European governments pay for the entire cost of a single-payer system. But it’s not “socialized medicine” as long as delivery of service is in the hands of a technically “private” corporation, even if the corporation’s still getting most of its money at the taxpayer teat.
Because that’s what “privatization” means, to the typical “free market” wonk at Heritage or AEI: Instead of taxing the public to organize a public service through government bureaucrats who operate as a legal monopoly, you tax the public and hire a private company to perform the service. A private company which — thanks to no-bid contracts and all sorts of legal protections — usually operates as a monopoly and has the same outrageous cost-maximizing incentives as a “defense” contractor or public utility. And the tax burden may well actually be greater, because rather than just paying a bunch of white collar civil servants with GS classifications, you’ve got to pay white collar corporate drones — plus the cowboy CEO’s salary and the shareholder dividends. Taxpayer-funded either way, but with “free market reform” you get two layers of parasites instead of just the one. Woo-hoo!
See, it’s only “socialism” if you give the money to poor folks. If you give the money to corporations, that’s “pro-business.” And “pro-business,” of course, means “free market.”
Look, I’m not a social democrat or a welfare statist. If you’re looking for someone to promote the German model in the U.S., it ain’t me. But if you call yourself a libertarian, don’t try to kid anybody that the American system is less statist than the German one just because more of the welfare queens wear three-piece suits. And don’t kid yourself that, given equal levels of statism, most Americans wouldn’t prefer the kind where they have guaranteed healthcare and six-week vacations. Come on, I would — after all, if we’re choosing between equal levels of statism, of course I’ll take the one that weighs less heavily on my own neck.
What I’d really rather have is less statism (i.e., none at all) and more freedom. But if you claim to be selling freedom, here’s a little marketing tip: Offer something that’s more attractive to the customer, not less. And a system where the state robs us to benefit the Fortune 500 instead of single moms and the unemployed really isn’t more attractive. Unless, of course, you’re one of the people running a Fortune 500 corporation. Good luck if you see that as the libertarian base.
Translations for this article:
- Spanish, El Neoliberalismo: Todos los Impuestos de la Socialdemocracia Sin Ninguno de los Beneficios.
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, Neoliberalism: All Taxes of Social Democracy, None of the Fun, Urban Tulsa Weekly, 01/12/11
- Kevin Carson, Neoliberalism: All Taxes of Social Democracy, None of the Fun, Seoul, Republic of Korea Times, 01/04/11
When I am talking to progressives I know about the Medical Insurance Company Income Guarantee Act of 2010, they always laugh at the Tea Party folks for call it socialism. When I tell them that they are correct, the recent legislation, and trends in the United States for many decades, are more akin to fascism than than they are to socialism, the progressives just look at me funny.
My recent post A Conservative Representative of the Ruling Class
Well said, we need to call it like it really is, not as we like to pretend it is. The really scary thing about all the so called privatization of what should be public, ie prisons is that law enforcement officers at least take an oat of office. I was arrested numerous times at the Nevada Test Site, much rather have been in the hands of the Nye County deputy sheriffs that the Wackenhuts. "But if you call yourself a libertarian, don’t try to kid anybody that the American system is less statist than the German one just because more of the welfare queens wear three-piece suits"
Amen! No true libertarian can stomach this phony tax-funded "privatization" – left economists have it right, when they note that these schemes "privatize profits and socialize risks."
Geoghegan's book gives left-libertarians a great opportunity stake out our position on the ideological landscape. I've written about here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/whos…
Well done, Kevin!
My recent post Choose Your Statism
Medicare is certainly a nightmare, but I would not necessarily say that it's only purpose is wealth distribution to big corporations. Medicare keeps the senior set involved in the game. I can tell you that when iI hear about how often my grandparents go to the doctor and the treatments they are getting when I have not been in like 4 years it makes my eyes pop. This keeps seniors of both parties totally involved. They receive a HUGE subsidy from younger working people that they will fight tooth and nail to keep.
> if we’re choosing between equal levels of statism, of course I’ll take the one that weighs less heavily on my own neck.
I think this is the calculation most people make. I see the point, but I think that if we take this position too far potentially anything could be justified. After all, bailing out big corps keeps people in their jobs. Right? Even if it does not, people could perceive that it does, the same way they could mistakenly think that they will be "guaranteed" health care, when all they will really be guaranteed is access to a waiting list.
Neototalitarianism: In old school totalitarianism, the government was a small minority, and in neototalitarianism, the government includes a near majority (government employees, corporate-government mergers, union-government employees, multi-generational government handout dependents, etc.) to achieve drastic wealth and power for the extreme minority, a small ruler network. I observe presently there are several regional international ruler networks, probably North America-Europe-Japan, FUSSR, China, etc. The ones I'm not as sure about are South America, India, Pacific Islands, etc. No doubt all the above are coordinating.
In my opinion, this analysis, though not anarchistic, would add greatly to Kevin's Synthesis. I learned a lot from it anyhow.
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/from-marx-to-go…
We haven't had capitalism for decades. We have been running between socialism and mercantilism. I don't think many conservatives – and especially libertarians – use the term "free market" as a pretense to what we have now. I think most use it as a term to describe what we hope to once again attain after having these monstrosities in our economy for so long.
There is a great easy to understand argument here: tax funded privatization. Everyone understands what that means, and neither left nor right like it at all. Government and employer assisted "tax funded privatization" is not making anyone healthier or saving any consumer money.
Well said! As i mentioed on another blog, we think of ourselves as more capitalistic and less statist ,since we spend tax payer money on sports stadiums instead of hospitals.
Also worth mentioning is Federal Government mandates. Someof these madates fall on State and Local Governments.And others fall on privately owned businesses. Some Americans pride themselves on us not having a nationalised Health Care system to the same degree that the UK does.But in now all companies in America that have over 50 employees , have to give health insurance to thier workers.
The American Government often uses these madates to get privately owned companies to pay for things that the Federal Government wants,but cant afford. The Federal Government often subcontracts out its form of statism