Do not confuse socialism with progressive democratic reform within capitalism

 

Do not Confuse Socialism with Progressive Democratic Reform within Capitalism

 I respect a recent writer's thoughtful letter making the case for Bob Stefanowski’s candidacy in the upcoming CT gubernatorial race “to rebuild Connecticut.”  Mr. Sigga refers to the Republican candidate’s web site for a detailed depiction of Mr. Stefanowski’s five-step economic plan, which he does not discuss in his letter.  That is unfortunate, as specific commentary on the candidate’s plan could help illuminate some of the critical economic issues the state faces.  Such a plan could be compared with Mr. Lamont’s multi-pronged approach for enhancing the state’s economic revitalization in light of the broader array set of issues he identifies on his website.  Both candidates house a substantial issues page on their websites that reflects their respective visions for the future and their governmental philosophies.  Gazette readers would be well served if, over the next several weeks, supporters of each candidates would explore the range of issues proposed by them.

 The issue I raise today is the writer's conflation of progressive reform capitalism with socialism as an economic system, which, like capitalism can be embedded in democratic or authoritarian governments.  A simple definition identifies socialism as “an economic system in which goods and services are provided through a central system of cooperative and/or government ownership rather than through competition and a free market system.”  This theory is sharply juxtaposed to laissez-faire capitalism in its purer sense as “an economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.” 

 The modern U.S. economy is neither socialist nor purely capitalistic in the laissez-faire sense of no or minimal governmental regulation.  Rather, it is rooted in a mixed economy in which private and public sectors interact in the effort to build a vital economy while meeting reasonable distributive and regulatory expectations of a large and complex society where private enterprise can meet some but hardly all of public socio-economic challenges of the day.

 This mixed economy in its modern form arose at the end of the 19^th century with the rise of the large corporation and financial sector, the mass production factory system, the explosive growth of a complex, multi-ethnic urban environment, and the need to balance such growth in economic scope with a corresponding expansion of distributive and regulative power within government, balanced by the mediating power of organized labor and the public non-profit sector in establishing a more equitable society.  The modern regulatory state had its roots in the progressive reforms and industrial and environmental regulations of Teddy Roosevelt and the “New Freedom” initiatives of Woodrow Wilson.  Such power grew exponentially in meeting the many economic challenges of World War I, the the Great Depression, and World War II. 

 An important school of contemporary historical analysis depicts the New Deal as having saved capitalism from socialism or class warfare, both of which were authentic possibilities in the turbulent political culture of the 1930s.  At the least, it can be argued that the economic expansion of the state that took place throughout the New Deal and World War II ultimately led to the creation of the post-war consumer economy and the corresponding revitalization of corporate power over all public aspects of American life in the 1950s.  Such expansion of state power was anything but socialism as portrayed in certain conservative circles throughout the twentieth century.  Without such growth, the corporate sector would have exercised a much more extensive unilateral power than it currently enjoys, which would only further threaten the exercise of personal freedom which small government proponents view so essential to the vitality of the Republic.

  Notwithstanding an idealized vision of the creative power of the free enterprise system, a strong presence of the federal government in the operation of the economy extends back to the Washington administration in the economic reforms of this nation’s first Secretary of Treasurer, Alexander Hamilton.  These include the formation of the first national bank, the federal government assumption of the Revolutionary War debt, and governmental assistance in the development of this nation’s manufacturing base.  Such an expansive approach persisted in the 19^th-century Whig vision of Henry Clay, which included a tariff to protect and promote American industry, the second national bank designed to stimulate commerce, and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and related “internal improvements” so essential for the success of a geographically expanding national economy.

 This interventionist view was extended into the newly-formed Republican party under the Lincoln administration which provided the federal government the economic and regulatory power to successfully defeat the Confederacy, to build the nation’s railroads, and protective tariffs to support selective industries.  Teddy Roosevelt incorporated this activist impulse into his progressive reforms within the Republican party at the beginning of the 20^th century that persisted as an important strain within the GOP until the Reagan administration when the party took a sharply right-wing turn.

 Far from a socialist intrusion, such a middle way between unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and complete control of the means of economic production and distribution has been rooted in this nation’s history from the beginning.  One can take issue with any number of reforms that have emerged from this middle way, from the creation of the social security system and Medicare, to the 40-hour work week, child labor laws, a guaranteed minimum wage, environmental food, water and drug regulation, to federal support for healthcare, and a call for the $15-dollar minimum wage.  To link these reforms to “socialism” is a misleading misnomer; rather, they belong within the context of this nation’s progressive reform tradition within capitalism, having its modern roots in the administrations of TR, Wilson, and FDR, and its more extended historical sources in the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton. 

 2018