State Socialism and Democratic Socialism are not the same
thing, a reality which most Republicans are fond of overlooking. I saw a recent
post referring to “failed” socialist countries. As I reflected on that, I
realized that ignorance, not stupidity, is in operation here, aided by
intentional Far Right propaganda.
Among those nation states which practice Democratic Socialism
to varying degrees, Norway, Sweden and Finland, and to some extent, Denmark,
come to mind. None are “failed” or “failing.”
On the other hand, In Venezuela, where State Socialism has been forced upon
a population without their consent, it is failing, and has failed. Obviously, there
is a difference and it needs exploration and explanation.
State Socialism is Communism, that is, state ownership of
everything with essentially no private property. State socialism is operative
in Cuba, China and North Korea, and currently Venezuela. It has failed in Venezuela
and has resulted in serious economic poverty and food shortages in North Korea.
Cubans, it can be argued, are better off under Communism than under the US
sponsored dictatorship that preceded it. China, while maintaining a nominally Communist
system, has moved closer to capitalist theory with regard to industry and
technology.
The formerly Communist
Soviet Union, now broken up, has spun off various economic models. Some, the Baltic
states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, are market (capitalist) economies. Russia
formerly under the control of the party leadership is now an oligarchy
(Oligarchy def: “Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests
with a small number of people. These people may be distinguished by nobility,
wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious, political, or military
control.” For many Russians not “connected,”
life is little better than under communism, which is the theoretical opposite of
Oligarchy, simply because the rich and powerful still control government policy
and the means of production.
Socialism as it was tried (briefly) in the UK flirted
with national ownership of heavy industry, airlines, coal, Public utilities, auto
companies, etc. while maintaining an entitled elite, a monarchy, and private
property and small business. This is still the case to a degree, due to the
relatively small area, in such instances as power plants, etc. It failed,
however in the auto industry and was largely abandoned. British Airways was
formed in 1974 when the UK's two government owned airlines, the British Oversea
Airways Corporation and British European Airways were joined together. It is
now one of the largest private companies in the United Kingdom.
One exception, still
working, however, is the UK National Health Service, which delivers health care
more economically and, in many cases, now, faster than the US. Drug prices are
lower and health care consumer satisfaction surveys of all OECD (Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries and the USA constantly place
the UK far higher than the US. On a cost
per capita basis, as of 2016, the UK National Health service delivered better
care annually, (based on consumer surveys) for $4192 USD than the US did for $9892.
In fact, the next closest national cost
per annum was Switzerland, at 20 percent less. Switzerland requires every citizen
to purchase health care insurance (Gee just like “Obamacare”, huh?) In plain speak,
the US spends 17.9% of GDP on health care (all sources, public, private,
employer provided) with worse consumer outcomes than the UK does with 8.9% of GDP!
Why lower
costs? Several reasons all related to
Democratic Socialist concepts. First: There is one payer, eliminating the levels
and multiple layers of billing. Second: since providers are paid the same for
specific services, there is no layered fee schedule and no high end “traps” for
the uninsured (since no one is). Third: The National Health Service negotiates
drug costs with pharma companies. Currently, US Drug costs are 20% of Government Medicare
spending. This means, as an easy example, that even after a Medicare patient with
Part D drug coverage picks up their Epi-pen 2 pack, the cost billed (their co-pay, and Medicare) will be about $600. Meanwhile, the VA pays $182. In simple
fact, Medicare, under current law, pays about three times as much as the drug manufacturer
sells the exact same drug to the VA for and to insurance companies who negotiate
much lower prices price. Back to the 20% of cost figure for drugs as Medicare
spending. If all drug costs were negotiated down by the same amount as the Epi-pen
“difference” ($178 vs $600) the reduction in Medicare spending would be about
13 percent! In 2017 that would have meant a $91 billion savings!
Would anyone even suggest
that when Mitch McConnell blames “entitlements” (including Medicare and
Medicaid) for the deficit, that making Big Pharma act even a little responsibly
enters his mind? Single payer national health care would make a tremendous difference
in the Government’s health care expenditures. It would also require Congress to
get Big Pharma’s hands out of their pockets, while all it would do the drug
industry is reduce their obscene (25-30% net) profits to those more like other
US industries (5-8% net). We already have “socialized medicine” – Medicare/Medicaid.
Allowing it to be extended to all, along with taking about half as much in
taxes as the average family now pays out of pocket, would fund it.
Democratic Socialists don’t believe in and have never suggested “nationalizing” heavy industry, or even the power grid. No one has suggested that private property or business ownership should be done away with. No one has suggested that your own initiative should be stifled or that you shouldn’t be allowed to accomplish all of which you are capable.
What democratic
Socialists have said is that totally unregulated financial markets lead or
have led to such events as the Great Depression, the 2008 Great recession, and,
in fact the other US economic “panics” as they were called earlier, all
triggered by unrestrained manipulation of financial
products/services/commodities. Who suffers? Why, it’s the same people who have allowed
themselves to be conned into believing that what’s good for business is always
good for America. Ask those who lost their homes in 2008-2011 due to “tranches”
of high-risk mortgages being bundled as “real money” and sold to equally complicit
financial managers who handled pension plans and retirement funds. And yet, and
yet, three former Bear Stearns execs are now in positions of influence within
the Trump administration.
In like manner, consumer protection
legislation and financial market oversight such as Dodd-Frank is being continually
weakened in favor of those who can profit by “looser” restraints on their
dealings. Sadly, many MAGA hat wearers are the prime subjects of such predatory
credit and lending practices, enhanced by Trump sponsored deregulation.
In what must be
the most disconnected illogic of all time, many who support Trump become violent
when they hear the word socialism, even though in the areas where Democratic Socialists
have the most concerns, they would be the beneficiaries protected from encroaching
oligarchy and lessening protection of their rights.
So, what have we learned (hopefully)? (see below chart as a reference)
Socialism as an absolute has many problems, and some just about
as bad as unregulated free market Capitalism. At the extremes, the results are
very similar, reduction of private property for most citizens, extreme
concentration of power, either by Party control of the government or the influence
of concentrated wealth (Oligarchy)accomplishing the same thing. Somewhere
towards the middle of the spectrum is a balance of both systems which protects
human rights while allowing the results of effort to improve the condition of
those who produce it. While Democratic Socialism can’t and shouldn’t address all
issues, there are specific areas like the general welfare and health of
citizens and the right to adequate compensation for their labor that can and
should be addressed in a truly free, representatively democratic society.
No comments:
Post a Comment