Socialism: The Best Way To Defend It…

In this article I present what I believe is the most effective way to defend Socialism. Instead of trying to explain how things would be different if we socialized a particular industry, I argue it is much better to explain how things would be different if we privatized an industry that is currently socialist. We begin with the socialist fire fighting companies that can be found in every town in America…

Fire Fighting Services

Sure, we could privatize all of our Fire Departments in America; so what would that look like? Well, it would mean that if you wanted fire-fighting ‘protection’, you’d have to pay some privately-owned for-profit company that would offer those services for a monthly fee. And while you’re at it, you might also want to pay a separate EMT company for their services if the Fire Protection Company you chose does not also provide those services for an extra monthly charge.

There is little doubt that this arrangement would sort of work, at least for those who could afford it. But then you’d discover that even if you are paying for this protection, there is no guarantee that your neighbor will pay for such services herself. (Maybe she just feels ‘lucky’ about such things or finds the protection too expensive, given some other expenses that her household is struggling with).

Why might that be a problem for you? Well, what if your neighbor’s house catches fire one night when you’re away but they cancelled their fire protection plan some months ago? So their house burns to the ground that night, but because the wind was blowing in just the right direction, your house also catches fire, and when you return home the next day, you find that your home also burned to the ground.

Well, it turns out that this is precisely why fire fighting services have long been seen as too important for society to rely on the “free market” to provide for. The private sector alternative has always been there, but everyone of sound mind has realized that this is one shared public need that is too important to leave to ‘free market forces’ and for-profit companies.

Police Services

In an economy that has abandoned government policing agencies in favor of private-sector alternatives, if you want police protection, you’re going to have to select a for-profit police company that has a plan you can afford.

Of course, this would entail certain inconveniences. If for example you found yourself in a scary situation that made you want to Call The Police, the first question you’d be asked is, “What is your account number?” Obviously, the police company would be in business to make money, so they’re not gonna want to waste their time on someone who isn’t one of their customers or who isn’t current in their monthly payments.

Even if they learn quickly from their computers that you are a customer, they’d still need to check to see if the plan you are paying for covers the particular kind of service that you are requesting, because maybe you bought the budget plan, which doesn’t cover every sort of service.

So yeah, that would be inconvenient. But then there are other problems that would arise from private-sector police protection. There would always be an incentive for unscrupulous policing companies to “grift”, i.e., secretly pay a criminal element to create a threat to you, to encourage you to want to buy their services. You know, like The Mafia.

It is precisely these kinds of concerns that has inspired leaders of sound mind since forever to resort to Socialism as the best way to provide police protection to the entire tribe in a way that emphasizes a police officer’s service to the public rather than to his or her personal financial gain.

Why Not Privately-Owned Armies?

Why indeed? Aren’t privately-owned, for-profit organizations always more efficient than Socialist Alternatives? Of course, in order for the efficiencies associated with competitive markets to be realized, there needs to be several firms in the mix competing for market share, right? What could possibly go wrong? Well, think about it…

You’ve got a few different armies, competing with each other for market share. What is going to stop these independent “Warlords” from doing things in secret to ‘stimulate’ demand for what they have to offer (to tribal leaders) only on a larger, more profitable scale? Answer: nothing, because if you have that kind of raw power, who’s gonna step in your way? Everyone is going to want to kiss your ass…or else.

It’s not an accident that all armies in civilized societies are socialist organizations controlled by The State, in effect monopolies in their industry because the public’s best interests are served if/when no rival corporate armies are allowed to exist, eliminating the kind of ‘competition’ that could easily result in civil war.

So once again, National Defense is one of those industries that we’ve long relied upon the Socialist approach as preferable to the free-market for-profit alternative. So does that mean that we should Socialize all industries/markets & put the government in charge of every economic activity? Of course not.

There are clearly a number of industries/markets that The State absolutely should not get directly involved in as a competitive player in the market, e.g., the entertainment industry, the restaurant industry, most commodities markets, and agriculture just to name a few. In most of these industries, there is sufficient competition between the firms that dominate those markets that efficiency is maintained at relatively high levels and customer demand is generally met.

The Infrastructure Industry

Still, there are some industries where it does make sense for us to rely on the Socialist approach. Perhaps the most obvious of these is those construction industries which build & maintain & improve our country’s Infrastructure.

Sure, we could get the government out of the road-building business, and simply let profit-seeking firms build whatever roads they want. Of course, this would entail certain inconveniences, like toll booths every few miles. In this Free Market Paradise, all roads would be private roads, and you’d only be able to use them if you had paid for permission to use them.

Of course, in order for there to be any competition, and to prevent monopoly control over a particular path to a particular destination, there would need to be parallel competing highways, to give us transportation consumers a choice and thus providing the road builders/operators a reason to not charge monopoly prices (see: Big Pharma).

But this would create another, economically significant problem: duplicate roads would be a waste of land + the materials to build them. The same problem arises with sewers lines and power lines and gas lines. Can you imagine the streets being dug up to lay a duplicate sewer line to allow competition in the sewage removal market?

In order for the public to benefit from Free Markets there must be competition where more than one, but preferably several, firms are competing with each other to win your patronage. But competition in these infrastructure markets would require a huge waste of resources. Thus, it has long been recognized that the public will benefit more from a monopoly provider that is not motivated by a desire to maximize its profits, but rather by a desire to optimize the welfare of the tribe we are all members of.

A Mixed Economy

Bernie Sanders is currently running for President as a Democratic Socialist. All this descriptor really means is that he endorses the idea of a “Mixed Economy” in which free markets and entrepreneurs thrive, but wherein we also find certain industries socialized because experience has shown that the needs of the general public are better served by doing so.

To repeat, Senator Sanders does not propose that the entire private sector of the economy be taken over by the government, which is what some of his political opponents will tell you with tears in their eyes. He has, however, singled out a couple of industries in which he realizes that more Socialism would provide substantial benefits to the public that our current free-market approach is not providing, viz. the health insurance and banking industries.

For my extended arguments on why Bernie’s Medicare For All plan is a very good socialistic proposal, you’ll want to go here.

Bernie’s proposal re: the banking industry is that the federal government should provide basic banking services to the public through Post Offices. Notably, he has not called for the elimination of the privately-owned, for-profit banking industry, but has only proposed that the government should become a competitive player in their market.

The government would only be getting involved to provide “plain vanilla” banking services that bankers really aren’t interested in, anyway. Being profit-maximizing institutions, they much prefer to invest themselves in the high-risk/high-return markets that their richest customers are always interested in participating in.

What Sanders has not emphasized with this proposal, but which is nevertheless true, is that if the federal government were to do as he proposes it would give the government another option the next time the privately-owned for-profit banking industry creates another systemic banking crisis with its high-stakes gambles.

Instead of bailing them out again with taxpayer money because they are Too Big To Fail, we could go ahead and let them crash and burn for their economic sins, because the Government’s bank would be there to keep Main Street humming along even while the private banks had ruined themselves once again with their reckless disregard for moral hazard.

So is there a better way to defend Democratic Socialism than this? Let me know in the comments…