I found Mark Luedtke’s interpretation of the past 30 years of US economic policy dangerously creative–perhaps even “deadly”, and his use of historical examples irresponsible and sophist.
Luedtke’s imprecise use of terminology in regards to the “state”, “corporations”, “those in power” etcetera, in addition to his creative use of terms like “regulation” (for example used in place of where, in historical context, one might expect the word “deregulation”; the defining factor of late 20th century US economic policy starting in the 70′s) creates the illusion of a sensible argument against socialism. However, at a closer glance it is a sneaky attempt to revise history.
The definitions of socialism and the socialist state that Luedtke utilizes are either contradictory or vague: first he notes that according to economist Mise “Under socialism all the means of production are the property of the community,” then later equates the socialist state with “a totalitarian group or party”, and further more claims that “socialism is government control of the means of production. It’s also institutionalized theft.”
In regards to “regulation”:
“US governments gained control of the means of production by corporatizing every sector of the economy via regulation. They have institutionalized theft on a scale unprecedented in history. This socialism is the root of America’s economic problems.”
Yet the capitalism he waves nostalgic about, “an economy without government intervention” never existed in the United States. Industries like transportation, communication, and utilities were highly regulated by the state until free-market government’s like the Thatcher and Reagan adopted more laissez-faire policies hoping order to increase prosperity and profits by allowing private companies to do whatever it took maximize their returns. These deregulatory policies continued for three decades, and much of the time created unprecedented economic prosperity–although the sustainability of these policies and their role in the current economic crisis is debatable–what goes up must come down?
Traditionally, the term deregulation, (coined in the early 70′s) signifies the reduction of govt. power w/in an industry and corporatize is to convert a state run enterprise into an independent one-sometimes in stages -thus the “corporatization” of any sector of the economy is a function of DEregulation–that is unless you subscribe to the view that the State=Corporations=The Man, in which case “socialism” might not seem like such a bad alternative.

Canadian HealthCare Must See http://youtu.be/VQFX32Ed7ZQ

Mark does eventually go on to address the more modern “soft socialist” systems, or democratic socialist systems, like those in Canada and Sweden, that Rana primarily and properly focuses on. But he fails to notice that these countries have not “moved toward capitalism over time” because they’ve never been purely socialist to begin with. What these countries have done right is continually adjust and restructure the balance of providing social welfare in times of need with that of allowing freedom of their own capitalist markets. Both countries have their own stock markets and both continually fluctuate regulation to meet their economic needs. If one economic sector is struggling, give it some room to breathe. Once it recovers, stabilize it with certain types of regulation. It prevents the dramatic highs and lows and drastic income inequality we experience here.

Deregulation made sense in the early 80s when our economy was struggling, however, our refusal to add on regulation during periods of subsequent economic growth has led to the many unfortunate situations we currently face. We as a country have adhered to a policy of rigid deregulation for over 30 years now, creating spikes of growth that culminated in this current mess. What we need is a system of flexibility that recognizes the benefits of continually examining the markets, locating areas where there needs to be growth and others that need to be stabilized. Like Rana I believe what we need is something akin to democratic socialism.

There’s a lot more I’d love to discuss on this topic, the role of the military in our society (why doesn’t Canada have the enemies we do?), health insurance vs. health care (why do we think it’s ok for rich old people to live forever while the poor suffer?), govt provided services, the non-compassionate capitalism currently practiced in the US (worldwide 1 person eats so how many go hungry?), etc… but DCP isn’t paying me like these folks. But when a writer states that “For centuries the US was largely a capitalist country” (last I checked we are just shy of 2.5 centuries) but also says our country has become increasingly socialist for the last 100 years I see some issues of embellishment and misdirection. I mean which are we? A country of centuries old capitalist tradition, or a country that has been both capitalist and socialist for nearly half of our existence… and one that might improve itself by recognizing the honest flexibility of its own station?