Pew Research finds that sixty percent of Americans respond negatively to “socialism.” It is clear why President Obama must avoid that label. Words are important. Political candidates who control the language of political discourse win elections.
Most of our elites would certainly not entertain the question: “Is Obama a Socialist?” Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets, they say. Polite circles ignore such goofiness.
As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd. The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context.
By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?
By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.
to read the rest
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2012
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Why the Chinese Communists Are So Scared (Is It Time to Wither Away?)
Marx and Engels wrote that the state would wither away after the Communists Party accomplished its tasks. The Chinese Communist Party fears that someone may ask: “Is it time for us to wither away?”
The threat of a Jasmine Revolution scared the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communists reacted to fear of contagion from the Arab Spring by stepping up repression, but their concerns have deeper and more permanent roots.
China is much different from the Arab Spring countries. Its economy is booming. Real incomes are rising. China is less corrupt, and people believe central authorities are relatively honest. China is said to be run by a competent government that deftly avoided the world financial crisis and created growth.
So why are the Chinese Communists so fearful? Why are informal church services, poets, film makers, artists, and nationalists of any stripe suppressed with extreme brutality? Why does every demonstration, no matter how small, strike fear into the hearts of authorities?
Why do not the Chinese Communists, with their record of achievements, feel secure?
Answer: The Chinese Communist Party no longer has a claim to legitimacy. It has no real purpose other than to keep itself in power. It is that simple.
The preamble to the Chinese Constitution illustrates the quandary: It tells of the glorious victory of the heroic Chinese Communist Party in 1949, fighting with long odds against the imperialists, the revanchists, and the nationalists to set the Chinese people on the “socialist road guided by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong thought.”
After the glorious victory, the Communist Party’s role was to lead the “continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat … to achieve great victories both in socialist revolution and socialist construction.” Without the Communist Party’s leadership, the battle “between the socialist road and the capitalist road” could still be lost. The Party’s role was not limited to politics. It was needed to secure economic victory by “practicing economic planning on the basis of socialist public ownership.”
Without the Communist Party firm hand, hard-fought political and economic achievements were at risk, or so it was said.
The 1975 Constitution makes the case: The Communist Party is legitimate because the people and the party are one, and daunting task lie ahead. As Article 2 states: “The working class exercises leadership over the state through its vanguard, the Communist Party of China.”
This heroic narrative loses its glow in the haze of the constitutional amendments from 1982 to 2004, which were required by the reality of Chinese reforms.
China now aims for “socialist modernization.” Instead of “continuous revolution,” the Party advances society “along the road of Chinese-style socialism… persists in reform, improves socialist institutions, develops a socialist market economy, advances socialist democracy, improves the socialist legal system and turns China into a powerful and prosperous socialist country.” The state no longer plans the economy because "the state has put into practice a socialist market economy.” The State is reduced to “formulating economic laws, improving macro adjustment and control” like any other conventional state.
In effect, the “New deal” is that the Chinese Communist Party offers the people growth and prosperity if they refrain from asking the “withering away” question.
As the Communist Party loses its raison de etre, it is increasingly threatened by the constitutional guarantees of “freedom of speech, correspondence, the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration and the freedom to strike, and enjoy freedom to believe in religion and freedom not to believe in religion and to propagate atheism.”
If people are free to gather, criticize, and express opinions, they may ask: “Why do we even need the Communist Party? If we are allowed to vote, why is there only one slate of candidates?
The asking of such questions has dire consequences. “The exercise by citizens of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.” Private correspondence can be censored according to the “needs of state security.” Citizens can complain about officials “but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited.”
Notice that virtually any exercise of constitutional rights can be deemed “contrary to the interests of the state or the needs of state security.” Dissidents cannot judge the consequences of their acts, although they know the reaction will be negative.
In 2012, a new majority of the Communist Party Politburo will be chosen from among leaders who were not alive in 1949. The contenders must understand that the Communist Party dictatorship has lost its reason for being. The “Maoists” will argue that China must regain its revolutionary fervor. It must return to a “pure” socialist road. The “Reformers” may decide that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not longer appropriate for a society of private ownership, foreign investment, and an integrated world economy.
How they decide will have a stunning impact on the world in which we live.
The threat of a Jasmine Revolution scared the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communists reacted to fear of contagion from the Arab Spring by stepping up repression, but their concerns have deeper and more permanent roots.
China is much different from the Arab Spring countries. Its economy is booming. Real incomes are rising. China is less corrupt, and people believe central authorities are relatively honest. China is said to be run by a competent government that deftly avoided the world financial crisis and created growth.
So why are the Chinese Communists so fearful? Why are informal church services, poets, film makers, artists, and nationalists of any stripe suppressed with extreme brutality? Why does every demonstration, no matter how small, strike fear into the hearts of authorities?
Why do not the Chinese Communists, with their record of achievements, feel secure?
Answer: The Chinese Communist Party no longer has a claim to legitimacy. It has no real purpose other than to keep itself in power. It is that simple.
The preamble to the Chinese Constitution illustrates the quandary: It tells of the glorious victory of the heroic Chinese Communist Party in 1949, fighting with long odds against the imperialists, the revanchists, and the nationalists to set the Chinese people on the “socialist road guided by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong thought.”
After the glorious victory, the Communist Party’s role was to lead the “continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat … to achieve great victories both in socialist revolution and socialist construction.” Without the Communist Party’s leadership, the battle “between the socialist road and the capitalist road” could still be lost. The Party’s role was not limited to politics. It was needed to secure economic victory by “practicing economic planning on the basis of socialist public ownership.”
Without the Communist Party firm hand, hard-fought political and economic achievements were at risk, or so it was said.
The 1975 Constitution makes the case: The Communist Party is legitimate because the people and the party are one, and daunting task lie ahead. As Article 2 states: “The working class exercises leadership over the state through its vanguard, the Communist Party of China.”
This heroic narrative loses its glow in the haze of the constitutional amendments from 1982 to 2004, which were required by the reality of Chinese reforms.
China now aims for “socialist modernization.” Instead of “continuous revolution,” the Party advances society “along the road of Chinese-style socialism… persists in reform, improves socialist institutions, develops a socialist market economy, advances socialist democracy, improves the socialist legal system and turns China into a powerful and prosperous socialist country.” The state no longer plans the economy because "the state has put into practice a socialist market economy.” The State is reduced to “formulating economic laws, improving macro adjustment and control” like any other conventional state.
In effect, the “New deal” is that the Chinese Communist Party offers the people growth and prosperity if they refrain from asking the “withering away” question.
As the Communist Party loses its raison de etre, it is increasingly threatened by the constitutional guarantees of “freedom of speech, correspondence, the press, assembly, association, procession, demonstration and the freedom to strike, and enjoy freedom to believe in religion and freedom not to believe in religion and to propagate atheism.”
If people are free to gather, criticize, and express opinions, they may ask: “Why do we even need the Communist Party? If we are allowed to vote, why is there only one slate of candidates?
The asking of such questions has dire consequences. “The exercise by citizens of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.” Private correspondence can be censored according to the “needs of state security.” Citizens can complain about officials “but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited.”
Notice that virtually any exercise of constitutional rights can be deemed “contrary to the interests of the state or the needs of state security.” Dissidents cannot judge the consequences of their acts, although they know the reaction will be negative.
In 2012, a new majority of the Communist Party Politburo will be chosen from among leaders who were not alive in 1949. The contenders must understand that the Communist Party dictatorship has lost its reason for being. The “Maoists” will argue that China must regain its revolutionary fervor. It must return to a “pure” socialist road. The “Reformers” may decide that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not longer appropriate for a society of private ownership, foreign investment, and an integrated world economy.
How they decide will have a stunning impact on the world in which we live.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Power to Regulate Is the Power to Destroy: Three Political Appointees versus 547,461 Shareholders (NLRB vs. Boeing)
Corporation-haters want you to believe big corporations are run in the interests of greedy executives. This is wrong: U.S. corporations align the interests of executives with their bosses, the shareholders. If executives do not act in the interests of shareholders, they will be gone and rather quickly.
The National Labor Relations Board, comprised of three political appointees, has just ruled Boeing’s new $1 billion South Carolina plant illegal because it was chosen to “retaliate” against organized labor. Boeing claims it chose South Carolina, which happens to be a right to work state, for a large number of reasons. One was the need to assure steady production of its new 787 Dreamliner without the threat of strike.
Boeing’s management would not base such a major investment decision on the desire for “retaliation.” It decides on the basis of what serves the interests of its 547,461 shareholders.
Well, even if that is true, are not Boeing’s 547,461 shareholders greedy fat cats. Why should we feel sorry if their investment goes sour?
The top 20 shareholders of Boeing are all investment funds, like Vanguard, CREF, and T. Rowe Price. The largest of them owns 2.1 percent. The 20th largest, Fidelity Blue Chip, owns one quarter of one percent. These are not “fat cats” but investment and retirement funds managing the savings of ordinary people. Among its individual shareholders, there may be “rich” investors, but there are many more ordinary people just trying to get by. All of them are harmed by the NLRB, which does not take its interests into consideration.
John Marshall, Chief Justice from 1801-1835, famously declared “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” Marshall clearly understood the corollary: “The power to regulate is also the power to destroy.” Marshall’s court -- "as a mighty instrument for the protection of the rights of private property" -- consistently held the line against government regulation of private business.
The constitutional protection of private property broke in 1877 with a ruling that businesses “affected with the public interest” can be regulated by the state. Now thousands of federal and state regulators, such as the NLRB, routinely intervene in the affairs of private business, acting, as they claim “in the public interest.”
Is the NLRB ruling in the public interest? If it stands, Boeing will have to write off its $1 billion investment. It cannot meet its orders for the 787, which is already three years behind schedule. South Carolina workers who thought they had a Boeing job do not. The interests of its more than half million shareholders are damaged. Boeing, our premier manufacturing exporter, can lose its competitive battle with European Airbus Industrie. A wiser Boeing then builds its next plant in China, and pundits, who openly welcome the NLRB decision, bemoan the decline of U.S. manufacturing.
Boeing’s only recourse right now may be to throw money at Congress and the President. Maybe they can rein in their NLRB for the right price.
If the NLRB ruling is in the public interest, someone must benefit. The beneficiaries are clear: The couple of thousand union members and their leaders at Boeing’s Washington state plant. They have received their reward for political support of the administration. The country has lost.
Yes, the power to regulate is the power to destroy (and no one can do much about it).
The National Labor Relations Board, comprised of three political appointees, has just ruled Boeing’s new $1 billion South Carolina plant illegal because it was chosen to “retaliate” against organized labor. Boeing claims it chose South Carolina, which happens to be a right to work state, for a large number of reasons. One was the need to assure steady production of its new 787 Dreamliner without the threat of strike.
Boeing’s management would not base such a major investment decision on the desire for “retaliation.” It decides on the basis of what serves the interests of its 547,461 shareholders.
Well, even if that is true, are not Boeing’s 547,461 shareholders greedy fat cats. Why should we feel sorry if their investment goes sour?
The top 20 shareholders of Boeing are all investment funds, like Vanguard, CREF, and T. Rowe Price. The largest of them owns 2.1 percent. The 20th largest, Fidelity Blue Chip, owns one quarter of one percent. These are not “fat cats” but investment and retirement funds managing the savings of ordinary people. Among its individual shareholders, there may be “rich” investors, but there are many more ordinary people just trying to get by. All of them are harmed by the NLRB, which does not take its interests into consideration.
John Marshall, Chief Justice from 1801-1835, famously declared “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” Marshall clearly understood the corollary: “The power to regulate is also the power to destroy.” Marshall’s court -- "as a mighty instrument for the protection of the rights of private property" -- consistently held the line against government regulation of private business.
The constitutional protection of private property broke in 1877 with a ruling that businesses “affected with the public interest” can be regulated by the state. Now thousands of federal and state regulators, such as the NLRB, routinely intervene in the affairs of private business, acting, as they claim “in the public interest.”
Is the NLRB ruling in the public interest? If it stands, Boeing will have to write off its $1 billion investment. It cannot meet its orders for the 787, which is already three years behind schedule. South Carolina workers who thought they had a Boeing job do not. The interests of its more than half million shareholders are damaged. Boeing, our premier manufacturing exporter, can lose its competitive battle with European Airbus Industrie. A wiser Boeing then builds its next plant in China, and pundits, who openly welcome the NLRB decision, bemoan the decline of U.S. manufacturing.
Boeing’s only recourse right now may be to throw money at Congress and the President. Maybe they can rein in their NLRB for the right price.
If the NLRB ruling is in the public interest, someone must benefit. The beneficiaries are clear: The couple of thousand union members and their leaders at Boeing’s Washington state plant. They have received their reward for political support of the administration. The country has lost.
Yes, the power to regulate is the power to destroy (and no one can do much about it).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)