Harry's Place

Sarah Palin just presided a huge redistribution of wealth when she signed an energy “rebate” of $1,200 for every man, woman and child in Alaska

That’s not “redistribution of wealth”, that’s returning stolen goods.

Alaska has been giving checks to its residents as long as I remember, depending on the budget and the price of oil. If it’s redistriubution, who is it being taken from? And to whom is it gieven? Millionaires and janitors all recieve the same amount, as far as I know.

That is to say, not exactly “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged.” We can only speculate on the impact of the Orwell and Steinbeck books on the young Sarah Palin.

You have an exceeding stilted view of conservatives, Gene. Empathy does not automatically lead a person into the Americans for Democratic Action program.

It’s not socialism unless you’re stealing. Palin doesn’t support stealing, therefore she’s not a socialist. Your point about her negotiations with the oil companies is hard core free market — mutual benefit and self interest. Perhaps it’s not so much that Palin’s a socialist, but that you’re actually a free marketer. Embrace it!

It’s not socialism unless you’re stealing.

Genius. You win at teh internets, Annoying Old Guy. Really you do.

Good post Gene and good on you for pointing out the huge difference (at least for me) between the puritanical and purging socialism pontificated by boilerplate vanguardist trots, leninists, maoists, etc. and their fellow travellers and the democratic socialism of people like Orwell, and I would add Tommy Douglas among others.

That said, I agree with Mesquito as well that political conservatism doesn’t necessarily proscribe empathy for the most disadvantaged stratas in society. And good on those political conservatives that really do empathize with the most disadvantaged.

I am with Morgoth – if you take state assets and distribute it equally to the citizens, that is not socialism. In fact that is anti-socialism, as it reduces collectivisation. And such distribution can also weaken social democracy, if it takes away from assistance to the poor.

Nothing in the article accuses Palin of expropriation or nationalization of the assets in the first place.

I think G*** is “economically” confused. Very typical for the “left” intelligentsia who think capital has no cost and goods are essentially produced by bureaucrats who write/rewrite the rules.

I agree with the posters who said that Palin’s actions are not socialism. The state of Alaska simply returns money to citizens. This action could hardly be labeled socialism.

if you take state assets and distribute it equally to the citizens, that is not socialism. In fact that is anti-socialism, as it reduces collectivisation.

By that logic, the social democrats in Saskatchewan who were the first in Canada to bring universal (not class based) and portable medicare to the people of Saskatchewan weren’t really social democrats.

And such distribution can also weaken social democracy, if it takes away from assistance to the poor.

But is there any evidence that this energy rebate curtailed, or reduced assistance to the poor in Alaska?

Nothing in the article accuses Palin of expropriation or nationalization of the assets in the first place.

As far as nationalization goes social democracy is not equivalent to Soviet or Maoist, or even Das Kapital Communism and doesn’t demand that all means of production be held by the Communist party and as far as expropriation goes right and left wing governments reserve the power to expropriate property.

Gene

does Sarah Palin
- stand for the abolition of classes and the state?
- want a society by based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by the whole community?
- does Palin want a society without commodity production, wage labour, profits and money?
- does Palin want a society of free access to goods and services?

No to all questions of course. Palin is not a socialist.

As per usual, any old loon gets dubbed a socialist….

Lbnaz – there is a category difference between socialism and social democracy. The Saskatchewan social democrats did not become socialsts by instituting universal health care.

Never did I claim that Palin reduced assistance to the poor. The observation was that if key social programs are cut, then that would go against social democracy.

In Canada, you have the socialists masquerading as social democrats, and winning votes by that method. The British Columbian NDP, once in power instituted a wealth tax – which is certainly socialistic. However socialism requires the wholesale abolition of private means of production.

No pro-Obama threads yet? Is the Messiah not delivering?

Knock Palin for the flimsiest of contrived excuses. Next it will be “Well at least Obama has only killed a fly (as far as we know)”.

I wonder if Palin would have turned out to be the terrorists friend.

What Palin is doing is not socialism.

Compare Palin with Norway.. Norway is using the money to invest in a wealth fund. Its for the Norwegians own good. Stop them becoming lazy by living like kings. Thats socialist.

Palin.. Is giving the money to the people. They can decide on the services and products they want.

I think this article shows that the author has little understanding of so called right wing politics.

Interesting article, Gene.
spgb gray – you know, I used to live in a society just like that you describe above. It was called ‘a kibbutz’ and there was no class system, no ownership of property, no wages, collective decision making, equal distribution of goods, equal opportunities and a ’shop’ open 24/7 where you just walked in and took whatever you needed.
It worked great, until the population rose above 27 or so…

Gene, you should get a prize for winding up the wingnuts if nothing else.

It will be a laugh when they pick Palin as their candidate next time and she gets a beating that will make Barry Goldwater look good.

In your guts you know she’s nuts

All red-blooded men love Sarah Palin, Gene’s no exception. I don’t see how she could be worse than the Obama with his rounds of golf, ignorance, dithering and disconnect from everything that doesn’t concern him personally.

Gene, you should get a prize for winding up the wingnuts if nothing else.

This wingneut is hardly wound up. He’s more amused with how Gene detects “socialism” in Palin’s administration of a decades-old, decidedly unsocialistic, Alaska program, and her fondness for a book by Steinbeck.

If Alaskans were socialist, they would have used the public surplus to purchase the fishing and tourism industries and run them into the ground in the name of The People.

She’s certainly authoritarian and mysogenist enough to be a “leftist”, that’s for sure. All she has to do is suck up to the fucking Taliban and the British left would fucking love her.

If Palin were really a socialist there would be a shortage of snow in Alaska…

Sounds like Lefty Liberals desperately trying to take the sting out of Obama’s ‘a socialist’ taunts by trying to claim… er actually Republicans are really Socialists too….even the demon Sarah Palin….Obama can’t be so terrible after all.

Hitler was a socialist…..so was Stalin. Hmmmm, Obama must be Hitler then if we’re linking by association.

badnewswade: Absolutely, but in that case, they’d have to refer to Palin as a “political strong woman”.

C’mon Gene. Politicians of all political stripes love to hand money to voters, particularly just before an election is timed.

My late mother absolutely loathed John Diefenbacher, a Conservative, who was Prime in Canada, on and off, between 1957 and 1963 (lots of minority governments through that period), for distributing money to farmers just before an election call.

I’m sure Albertans would be amused to be told that they are a bunch of socialists because a Conservative provincial premier established the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund back in 1976 to hold and invest 30% of the royalties collected from non-renewable resources.

New royalties ceased to be diverted to the fund in 1987, but the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust continues to generate a great deal of revenue for the province. Currently, there’s $70 billion CDN under fund management.

Palin is a ‘list’, popu-.

Socialism is socialism. But when “conservatives” practice it, their supporters (and even their opponents) don’t recognize it.

In your guts you know she’s nuts

America will never endure more than 4 years of Obama. It’s only a few months since his big ‘outreach’ speech in Cairo, and yet we’ve just undergone another “kaboom”. His administration is so utterly clueless and so destined to fail that conservatives really don’t need to badmouth him. Just give it a little more time and Obama will become a full-blown national embarrassment.

“Oh yes he can!”

Do you know what a Constitution is?
Do you know that Palin didn’t write Alaska’s?

Should she be like both Obama and Bush… Just ignore it?

I wouldn’t make this argument if I were you. It proves:

A. You don’t understand that Socialism isn’t merely handing out checks (resource revenue sharing) but rather, instilling “services” and mandates (i.e. 5 year prison sentences for not paying for gov. healthcare) by the FEDERAL government.

B. It points out clearly that Palin respects the Constitution unlike Barack Obama (i.e. 5 year prison sentences for not paying for gov. healthcare) as she also did when she upheld AK benefits to same-sex couples… She cited the AK Constitution there too.

Try again, lefty

@mesquito & the rest

If you read the quote, it says that state ownership of resources allows this rebate to exist instead of private ownership of resources like Texas. So, I think oil companies are taxed for “leasing” the oil or something like that.

Basically this money IS taken from somebody: petroleum companies. It is a redistribution scheme, given to any person that has lived in Alaska for more than a year (And from what I’m reading some Alaskans are resentful of these outsiders mooching).

Based on “sensationalist” use of the word socialism, this would count.

Try again, lefty

OK, righty. Palin wasn’t exactly forced to carry out this provision of the Alaskan constitution kicking and screaming. Judging from her remarks to Gourevitch, it’s something she quite approves of.

I think texas most land is in private ownership..

Alaska most land is not.

Main difference.

So they charge the oil companies the going rate for drilling for oil on land owned by the state.

The money is then distributed back to the citizens.

The wholly incorrect assumption upon which you are basing this piece Gene is that hoary old Socialist myth that caring about one’s fellow person must lead inexorably towards a socialist outlook.For many it does not, especially those who then see that history teaches us that the best way to improve the socio- economic status of the majority is to give them the right opportunities to help themselves make a better life, not simply rob from Peter to give to Paul.

The wholly incorrect assumption upon which you are basing this piece Gene is that hoary old Socialist myth that caring about one’s fellow person must lead inexorably towards a socialist outlook.

Wrong. I’m basing it on real, existing polices carried out by the real, existing governor of Alaska at the time.

“I was highly critical of Palin during the campaign, I quite admired this aspect of her governorship. She got far less credit for it than she deserved”

No Shit Sherlock; the fact that the US media conducted a vicious campaign against Palin, and Hillary for that matter, should be a source of shame. However, as the majority of the nations newspapers, and many newschannels, will be bankrupt in two years they are having pay back.
You know that one can oppose socialize without being a complete cunt don’t you? You know that the vast majority of the people on the right are nice, intelligent people. You do know that politicians are supposed to live up to their oaths and do the best thing they can for their voters.

But the extrapolation that you are making from that long standing policy on distributing the state’s resource income and one of many books that that Governor read as a child is nothing more than an assumption as I said above.

Palin a socialist?

Man, I’ve seen some whack job libs try to stretch things, but OMG!

The Alaska Constitution sets up all Alaskans, not the state, as owners of the natural resources. In practice, both the people and the state share in the proceeds. In fact, this is why Alaska has no income tax or statewide sales tax.

If we didn’t have left wing loons, we could take Alaska’s model, and fund the federal government with little or no taxes at all.

It is now known that America has more energy resources, oil, natural gas, and coal than any other nation. But nutbags and flat earthers who believe in “global warming” who are destroying the nation’s economy.

Obama just “loaned” Brazil $10 billion of our tax payer dollars so they can drill off their coast for oil, and yet we can’t drill off our own?

Of course, Obama’s puppet master George Soros bought controlling interest in Brazilian oil giant Petrobas three days before Obama’s generous “loan.”

We send between $700 billion and $1 trillion a year overseas buying oil. Much of our oil and natural gas reserves are on federal land. Can you imagine how great our economy would be if there were an extra $1 dollars floating around in America, and taxes were lowered by that amount?

Maybe President Palin will implement that after she is sworn in on January 20, 2013.

Quote From Gene:

“OK, righty. Palin wasn’t exactly forced to carry out this provision of the Alaskan constitution kicking and screaming. Judging from her remarks to Gourevitch, it’s something she quite approves of.”

Let me restate what Gene says here: “Palin wasn’t exactly forced to carry out this provision of the Alaskan constitution kicking and screaming.”

I’m at a loss for words here. One either follows the Constitution, or they don’t.

This is the problem with our nation’s leaders. They have stopped following the Constitution for about a century. Most certainly since Teddy Roosevelt, and absolutely since Franklin Roosevelt.

When you are elected, you are elected to uphold the Constitution, in fact, you swear an oath you will.

I think it’s quite Obvious that Gene doesn’t understand the facts at all. Or the law, or the situation.

On thing about Palin, she is a strict constitutionalist. She’s proven that over, and over.

As Ronald Reagan would say: “Well, it’s not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it’s just they know so much that isn’t so.”

Let me try again, Gary. Palin did not consider enforcement of this provision of the constitution a difficult, perhaps unpleasant, but necessary duty. She enthusiastically supports the principle embedded in the provision.

Ronald Reagan was influenced by Harold Bell Wright’s “That Printer of Udall’s.” Does that make him a socialist too?

How is this socialism?

This is what is done in Kuwait also. Are they also socialists?

This is a rebate from the state as it balances energy revenues.

Most of Alaska is owned by the US Federal govt, with citizens not even allowed to build on some of it. Therefore if companies extract non-renewable resources from these lands, it makes sense for them to “pay rent” to Alaskans, who dont have control of so much land within its borders. As people have pointed out, Palin didnt invent this.

However, she did cut the budget during her administration instead of seeking to enlarge the bureaucracy. Always counter-intuitive for politicians, who naturally seek more and more power over more and more people. That is the opposite of socialist.

What is Palin reading now? She was recently photographed at an event with mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” on her lap.

“Let me try again, Gary. Palin did not consider enforcement of this provision of the constitution a difficult, perhaps unpleasant, but necessary duty. She enthusiastically supports the principle embedded in the provision.”

When Bush sent out checks under his tax cuts, was that also “socialism”?

Try a thought experiment, folks: if Barack Obama (or liberal Democratic bogeyman of your choice) had spoken so favorably about the collective ownership of resources, and had advocated that part of the profits of oil and gas companies be distributed to every American, how many of you would not accuse him of being a socialist?

(And yes, I know many of you already have accused him. But pretend you hadn’t yet.)

I would accuse him, for two reasons:

1) Obama would be talking about stealing private resources and making them collectively owned (as he did state to Joe the Plumber). Palin, in contrast, has never advocated theft.

2) Palin’s has in no way “advocated that part of the profits of oil and gas companies be distributed to every American”. Again, that would be stealing (which is where you always end up when you talk about socialism in the real world). The Alaskan government distributes rents and fees, voluntarily paid by oil and gas companies, to the owners of the properties for which the rent is paid. That you can’t see the difference between paying rent to a landlord and having your pocket picked says much about you.

I think Gene is the token socialist here on Harry’s Place. Like those token hijabis on CBC state television in Canada.

But he is utterly economically challenged. Like when he says “some conservatives” are closet socialists.

He is really trying to say that some right-wingers are socialists – which is correct – such as in national-socialists and Islamists (BTW Islam is a socialist doctrine, even though it allows for limited private ownership. Zakat is a 2.5% annual wealth tax “revealed” (wink wink) by Mohammed – no wonder leftist love Islam, because it is relgious-socialist and collective, and leftists believe incorrectly that once Islam is established, the leftist will take over and jettison god – keep on dreamin).

So Gene is correct about national-socialism and fascism as being socialist doctrines – but he confuses that with conservatism because he cant figure the economics.

Well, Gene doesn’t know the difference between expenses (what oil and gas pay Alaska) and profits (what Gene’s putative Obama plan would confiscate) so yeah, that’s probably right.

Once again, I notice how “socialism” is banded about by people without any definition (or understanding) of the term.

“Socialism is socialism” says Gene, which is -erm – deeply profound….
Hamid thinks the Nazi state was socialism and then goes on to say Political Islam (”Islamism”) is socialism too! All very confusing, and politically confused people, eh?

Socialism is
- the abolition of classes and the state
- a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by the whole community
- a society without commodity production, wage labour, profits and money
- a society of free access to goods and services

Neither Palin, Nazis, Islamists, Social Democrats, Leninists, etc stand for these things. And for a good reason – they are not socialists.

“Socialism is socialism. But when “conservatives” practice it, their supporters (and even their opponents) don’t recognize it.”

This thread and “That” above is the most banal excuse for a lack of anything positive to write about Mr Obama I have seen to date, anywhere.

Just admit it American Lefties and you picked the wrong guy for the job.

European sycophantic lefties will turn on this “good reader” quicker than you can say ‘TelePrompTer’. Just you see.

Socialism is
- the abolition of classes and the state
- a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by the whole community
- a society without commodity production, wage labour, profits and money
- a society of free access to goods and services

You must be joking – democratic control? The commissar who decides who gets the goods and what to price it is going to submit to elections and be accountable? This is pure idealism that will not last more than a fortnight. Idealism is cheap but deadly.

Islam has all of the above BTW, including classless society – study the life of the murderer Mohammad, and he would be the first socialist. Of course “democratic control” that you claim is BS, and neither did Mohammad pretend to that. Interest is haram. All medium to large enterprises are owned by the mosque (70% of Iran’s economy is run by the mosques or the Revolutionary Islamic Guard).

The Nazi state was socialistic with its comandeering of the means of production – not necessarily fruity socialism as espoused by the idealistic left, but nevertheless socialistic to its core.

Well, Gene doesn’t know the difference between expenses (what oil and gas pay Alaska) and profits (what Gene’s putative Obama plan would confiscate) so yeah, that’s probably right.

Expenses that would otherwise be profits if the companies didn’t have to pay them to Alaska.

Hamid

I wrote an answer but it seems to have been lost in the ether. I shall try again!

A fundamental socialist principle is that capitalist society can only be abolished via a democratic revolution. “The emancipation of the working class is the work of the working class itself.” The vote/franchise is highly regarded by socialists/communists. The only reason Marx spoke of violent revolution was because the vast majority were denied the vote and socialist parties were outlawed.

I notice you do not compare the programmes of Hitler or eg Hizb-ut-tahrir with the definition of socialism I gave above. Please do so, and point out where socialism and these groups are one and the same, if you want to come with a serious rebuttal.

Expenses that would otherwise be profits if the companies didn’t have to pay them to Alaska.

That applies just as well to wages paid to workers by the companies. So, you’re saying that we’re already living in a socialist economy, where companies distribute their profits to the workers?

spgb gray;

What are the elections about, if the state has been abolished? How are the positions to which people are elected in your definition not the state?

Beyond that, I think Hamid does a good job of responding to you.

“Expenses that would otherwise be profits if the companies didn’t have to pay them to Alaska”

Ok. Lets help Gene out here.

There are two kinds of resource management models used in the US and Canada.
One is based on royalties (practiced mostly in Canada and the NW States like Alaska) and the other being the corporate ownership model.

Under the royalties scheme, the explorers do not own the land (or may own the land but not the resources on it or under it), or the resources under the ground but are allowed to explore and extract it in exchange for paying a royalty to the owner of the land (or sea).

Alaska is a new state and was purchased from Russia by the USA, leaving much of the state under government ownership. Once Alaska became a state, it managed to take control of much but not all of its territory. There are still huge Federal lands within Alaska. ANWAR is the one on the news often as Palin and others are advocating to exploring it while the Feds are protecting it as a wildlife sanctuary.
Alaska was not explored or exploited (in a resource sense) by corporations before becoming a state like other states like Wyoming, Colorado etc.

So mining and lumber companies who operate in Alaska do not own the lands they operate from but are allowed to extract the resources in exchange for these fees which transfer back to the owners of the state, the citizens. This is the Alaska constitution.
This is not socialism. It is like paying rent to a landlord who happens to be the citizenry of the state.
Kinda like a building owned by a Trust and its suites being rented out to tenants and rents being paid back from the trust to its members.

I grant this much to Gene. He is onto something about Palin.
Palin is, in many ways, modeling her drive to the WH on Obama.
She is shaping up to be another “movement candidate”. A new phenomenon in the US which, until Obama was governed by “consensus” candidates. Obama’s people realized that prior to building the consensus, a successful movement can build up enough energy and exposure of a candidate.
Palin is following in similar footsteps. She is now the de facto new movement candidate. A reality which’ irony cannot be escaped given that every action produces a counter reaction.
This of course being a principle of chemistry but creeping in slowly to politics.
Otherwise Palin is just the perfect anti-Obama.
2012 may turn out to be a super interesting season just because of this.

There’s another, IMHO rather important, reason this isn’t socialism: neither of the parts of “From each according to ability, to each according to need” are in force here.

If it were socialism, the state would collect all that money, and keep it. It would then spend it on stuff (perhaps handing out some according to need), rather than paying it out to all citizens equally.

Pretty obvious if you’re not trying to score petty political points.