Socialism and the Means of Production

Gallup just released a poll regarding modern perspectives on socialism. (link) One question allowed respondents to mention government ownership of the means of production. Implications in a minute, first some math.

To "What is your understanding of the term Socialism," 24% of one group and 16% of the other had no opinion. If both groups are equally represented, 20% had no opinion.

Of the 80%, about 1/4 mentioned "government ownership or control, government ownership of utilities, everything controlled by the government, state control of business." To me, that is a stunningly high result. I honestly had no idea that anyone connected "state control of business" to socialism anymore, I thought the masters had long dissolved that kind of talk from the modern lexicon.

A foundational difference between Canada and the US is that US utility providers are primarily private companies, and in Canada, its all owned by the Crown. Having lived in both, I cannot say that to the consumer, the results are very different. Prices are similar, a bit higher in Canada, but so is everything. Proportionally they're pretty close. Or, if there is a cost savings to the consumer for socialized utilities, its not very obvious. Neither is particularly faster, better, or cheaper.

Also, of the four descriptions listed, only one actually mentioned utilities. The other three describe control of ethereal concepts. What is state control of business? Do they perceive socialism to involve the government telling us when and where to shoot photography gigs? Or is it just some businesses?

If the government of Venezuela is planning to control the oil extraction and gasoline production, the shipping and retail, then use the money to finance healthcare and education, then that is a model I can actually understand. I can't get my head to a place where government ever decides when I should shoot photographs, but I can comprehend utility providers being owned by the state.

If Trotskyism is the nanny state watching and protecting me from myself, then Stalinism or Maoism can be government managing critical means of production, like MLRS of the late 30's. No private industry would have taken the initiative to build foundries in the Urals then mass produce rocket launchers, and without those, the Soviets would have never won the war.

One doesn't necessarily include the other, currently the US government could internalize all circuit board production for all sides of the military without necessarily monitoring my emails. It is entirely possible for a company in northern california to be bought out by the government then refocused on critical infrastructure. The Canadian government created an oil company to compete with the likes of Exxon and Shell, many Canadians freely choose Petro-Canada for their services today. It is government owned, its profits feed their healthcare, and its almost surprising that BP can survive what could be a near monopoly of ideological monopoly. What makes Canadians buy Saudi oil? No idea. I'd stop if I could. In California, we have no clue where the crude begins.

Government control of a monopoly is traditionally rife with nepotism and always becomes a bloated bureaucracy of over reach and enforcement. For instance, the building department. Here in Mendocino, we can apply for a building permit at the county office, only. There is no competition. They have 15 staff and still send the big projects to Sacramento for the primary and obligatory check. Their posted fee is non-negotiable, and there is no alternative. Similar to the water board. On our little construction project we paid for the municipal government over $30K to turn a valve, this after we paid for all the new pipes that they will use for free. (We explored drilling a well, but they have total control over the aquifer too, and fees would be similar, if we would ever be approved.) A local lawyer paid over $40K to keep a pond that was build in the 1860's.

Is there are critical systems best controlled by government, I wonder which layer of government is best suited? I can believe that if national defence is important, that it would best be controlled by the feds. My perspectives on a well armed militia being what they are, I struggle to believe that it is a reason to justify a federal state, but I can appreciate how others may disagree. So for them, maybe the circuitry of fighter jets should be entirely made by government employees so as to prevent hacks through foreign supplied parts.

If the means of production for off shore-oil were controlled on a county level, the coast line of Louisiana would resemble downtown Scottsdale, while Shreveport would be even more deplorable. If managed on a state level, property in Mississippi would be priced quite differently than land just across the line.

I don't want compulsory government, I'd rather see the people of Louisiana choose their oil management team by free competition, and the people of Alabama vote to join their neighbours. If the greedy bastards of LA say no, then Alabama can put tariffs on any oil passing through their regions.

Locally made electronic industries can be protected with tariffs on any electronic made by someone not earning a living wage. If the Chinese can force their people to work for $2/hr, then I want to tax that product to the point where its competitive with a local equivalent.

Trotskyism to me regards the state driving public perception towards some predetermined place. It is not about listening to popular sentiments, its trying to create ideology that wouldn't normally exist. To cultivate the minds of the masses such that they espouse specific doctrine requires control of the education system, control of the media for sure, and a quiet group with unprecedented determination. As though ultra elites know what is best for the masses and for-the-people will deliver to us some utopian trajectory.

No Socialist will advocate forever expanding government largess, no one supports that. Prevention of nepotistic probability is seemingly a topic all can engage, it seems like something I can now discuss with Democrat® faithful. While its clearly not a modern sound bite, at least in the California construction industry, its something that affects all my peers.

What are the solutions to such issues? I don't know, and probably neither does anyone else. What am you willing to try? What ideas do you think are worth a shot? while I'd love to see competition in the building department, maybe Land Titles on a public record seems a pretty obvious point of entry. Is anyone actually opposed to that? If they pull it off in Maryland, then we'll see? In the meantime, maybe we can put the local city's books on the public record. We could probably learn something valuable about anyone opposing that.

all photos by me ©ramsayphotography2018