The Sliding Scale of Socialism

Socialism; what is it anyway?       

One way socialism can be explained is, the number of total social programs enacted, times the financial costs to taxpayers; the more costs associated with the programs and their total numbers, as a percentage of gross domestic product, the greater the level of socialism.  So it’s a sliding scale depending on how many total social policies the government has enacted.

In simpler terms, the larger the government is, the more taxes are needed to pay for all the social programs and the more socialist your society would be considered. The lesser the number of taxes and social programs, the less socialistic your society would be considered. Many economists suggest, the larger the government and greater costs of the required taxes, the less per capita production there is; which would be an inverse relationship. However, we’re not here to debate the ideologies. We’re here just to understand what the words mean and why.       

Governments usually provide various services that are an expense to society. Although many deem socialism and communism as antonyms, this author prefers to look at socialism as a percentage of the economy where government services and products are provided, to the percentage provided by the private sector productivity. This is not a perfect method, for a variety of reasons, but only as a generality, so it shouldn’t be used to compare such things as the differences in countries.  There are many things that make countries wealthy and there are many things that make countries poor.  If we knew what these were, we would have likely fixed the poor countries already. Lots of theories abound, but they are still theories. Knowing for sure, what is in the best interest of the majority is most often a fool’s errand.            

The primary deference between communism and socialism is private property rights. When there are no private property rights, the government then owns everything, and everyone works for the government, that is communism. Whereas Venezuela, with its private-public partnership, as many called it, is a mixed economic model in economic terms. It is a combination of a robust government sector and a substantive private sector, trying to work in harmony. This is a problem for a number of reasons, as Venezuela is experiencing, but once that is a discussion/debate for another day.    

The bigger the government is without property ownership being held by the State, the more socialistic. As a government ends up with more ownership of the means of production, real estate, businesses, i.e. homes, land, businesses, commercial buildings, and rents are owned by the government, that is communism with everyone would then work for the government. Under socialism, some private property rights are still held in the hands of the Citizens, it’s just that the property and various activities are taxed to pay for the governments costs. The more total taxation as a percentage of total productive output, GDP, the more socialistic your society would be considered.       

As an example, many may not consider prisons and jails to be part of socialism, because it is a needed entity yet the fewer people incarcerated the fewer the government costs would be, thus the less socialism. Of course, the more people you have incarcerated the larger the correction system must be in both size and costs to manage, feed, cloth, shelter and try to reeducate the prisoners.    

The balance between the size of the private sector and the size of government differs within societies with mixed economies, thus it can vary and therefore is a sliding scale.   

Socialism can be visualized in this authors opinion as a sliding scale. With minimal government (libertarianism) to the left and communism, total government to the far right. The Democratic Party would be right of the Republican Party “theoretically”, but in reality, they are very close to one another and much closer today to the far-right communism than to the far-left,  libertarianism. You can of course reverse this chart to show libertarianism to the right and communism to the left but the analysis remains the same. You have to love the use of the phrases “left wing” and “right wing” as they are thrown around in todays MSM and web, as if they are really meaningful, when as you can now understand isn’t.    

This is one of the great misunderstandings as to which political ideology is far right and which one is far left.  As an example, fascism appears to occur when the costs of government get too large in relation to the amount of production or GDP, the gross domestic product as I noted previously. The major fascist nations of Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII all were highly socialistic with high levels of militarism compounding the size and costs of government. To enforce all the taxation as GDP wains from the expansion and costs of the government sector, those in government enforcement become harsher and penalties such as incarcerations and fines stiffer as wages drop and taxes rise. Basically, the government is squeezing the profits out of the private sector to pay for the increased costs of government. Additionally, in the 20thcentury, with the advent of fiat currencies put in place around the world, governments could simply print more money to pay for the additional costs of an expanding government, but this debases the currency without increased productivity causing the devaluation of the currency which results in eventual price inflation, the rising of manufacturing and consumer prices.

Where this author believes government central planners make a huge mistake, is crediting the production by private companies contracting with the government, as part of the GDP calculations, when a bridge, jet fighter and a public school are expenses to society. As an example, if all children were primarily educated via home computers, the costs of building schools could be eliminated. I am not saying this is a good or bad idea, it’s just an example of identifying costs and expenses associated with the government where the physical school itself is built by some private sector construction company, but actually paid for by taxes. Today, we add the costs of building the school as part of the GDP when it is an expense to our society making it appear that our society is more productive than it really is. A society cannot be more prosperous by increasing expenses as our society has done since the 2008 Great Recession, with the cost of the Federal Government alone reaching $6.9 trillion annually with $3 trillion of that being printed with interest charges passed onto the taxpayers. 

To learn some more about it, go to Wikipedia and compare my analysis with theirs. 



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.