Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Socialism, American-Style

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 108 posts

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#11

Post by calibraxis »

kristopolous wrote: post #7

State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's usin…

He's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he has to phrase his message in certain ways to get published in NYT.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#12

Post by twblalock »

kristopolous wrote: post #7

State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's usin…

Most of the examples in the article are about state-owned, state-operated enterprises, such as sovereign wealth funds, utilities, oil and mineral extraction, etc.

In fact, I could not find any example of "putting a state-run monopoly in private hands" anywhere in the article. Did you even read it?

> According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called "Socialism".

That's quite a strawman there. He never argued anything remotely like that.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#13

Post by trentmb »

calibraxis wrote: post #11
kristopolous wrote: post #7

State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's usin…

He's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he has to phrase his message in certain ways to get published in NYT.

They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#14

Post by eru »

msoad wrote: post #10

San Francisco rent control policy is another example of weird and conflicting policies in the U.S. I can't believe a policy like that is in place in the United States!

They also have minimum wage in the US.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#15

Post by trentmb »

_delirium wrote: post #4

Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either di…

What are the impacts on immigration policy under Georgism?

What are the impacts of Georgism on immigration policy?

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#16

Post by [deleted] »

twblalock wrote: post #12
kristopolous wrote: post #7

State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's usin…

Most of the examples in the article are about state-owned, state-operated enterprises, such as sovereign wealth funds, utilities, oil and mineral extraction, etc. In fact, I could not find any example of "putting a state-run monopoly in private hands" anywhere in the article. Did you even read it? > According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to se…

[deleted]

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#17

Post by kristopolous »

trentmb wrote: post #13
calibraxis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he has to phrase his message in certain ways to get published in NYT.

They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.

I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#18

Post by baddox »

kristopolous wrote: post #7

State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No... This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's usin…

I don't see a very significant distinction between "a state-run monopoly in private hands" and "a state-run monopoly in state-run hands." Each person is still an individual, after all, with "private" incentives. Whether their title is technically a government job is irrelevant, as long as their money is coming from government either directly (from the government budget) or indirectly (thanks to a government-enforced monopoly).

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#19

Post by twblalock »

trentmb wrote: post #13
calibraxis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he has to phrase his message in certain ways to get published in NYT.

They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.

Actually, socialism is a broad enough term to encompass state ownership as well as worker ownership or control. That's true in academia as well as in non-academic discourse. State ownership of major industries, without worker control, often accomplished through nationalization of pre-existing industries, has been a characteristic policy of socialist political parties and governments throughout the 20th century. For example, almost every major industry in the UK was nationalized in the 1940s, and such action was labeled as socialism by both its proponents and opponents. Under this most prevalent usage of the term, state ownership of an electrical utility or a sovereign wealth fund certainly qualifies.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#20

Post by twblalock »

kristopolous wrote: post #17
trentmb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.

I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.

Were you under the impression that the author intends to stigmatize anything, or believes that socialism is a bad thing? He is clearly in favor of public ownership.
Post reply on HN