Sunday, July 8, 2007

WHY NOT SOCIALISM?


"Socialism is a form of government that cannibalizes it's own assets."

I wish I could take credit for that quote, but the truth is; I heard it somewhere and can't remember where. Where ever it came from, I remembered it because I agreed with it. Socialism is not a revenue generating machine, but rather a way of redistributing wealth that already exists into the lower economic ranks where it will be consumed. Without the reintroduction of more wealth, it will simply slowly eat itself. Socialism is defined by Webster as; "A social system in which the producers (workers) possess both the political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." I would expand on that a little to include the fact that Socialism is the expansion of government into the role of protector, there to take care of your basic needs such as education, employment, and health care for better or worse.
With the release of Michael Moore's new movie, "SICKO", many Americans are now taking a second look at our system of government and wondering if an infusion of socialistic ideas could help us better serve the needs of the people. In this piece I'm going to review the idea of a more socialist U.S. and let you know which parts I feel are worth considering, and which are not.

The idea of Socialism has been around for a very long time in various forms. Most all were based on the idea that a caste-type system, or any system that has people of various social standings, is fundamentally wrong. Christian Socialism, for example, bases it's socialist beliefs in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus saw all men and women as equals and therefore, they believe, any system that values or empowers one person over another is fundamentally un-Christian.

I remember my first thoughts about the inequity of social standing coming from my Dad. He was a committed Walter Reuther Socialist. He believed that the real power of our country was rooted in the working man, not in the elites that ran the corporations. I can still hear him lecturing me on the evils of allowing the powerful to forget who does the real work around here. He's probably the reason I find myself so often siding with Labor and Unions and why I like to view myself as a fighter for the average Joe.
Without a doubt, the socialist movement of the 50's and '60's is a big reason that so many people here in Michigan prospered through their Unions. The empowerment of the labor class helped people like my Dad to live better lives, get better retirement, better working conditions, and a larger slice of the pie. So why the quote at the top of the page? Because just like what eventually happened to the auto workers here in Michigan, socialism proved that it kills the goose that lays the golden egg.

Here's where Socialism goes wrong. Let's say we are all collective farmers. We are each given 40 acres to farm and a tractor with implements. I'm a hard working and responsible farmer who takes care of his land and tractor but I live next door to a farmer who is neither responsible nor hard working. Despite our differences in effort, we are both viewed the same and rewarded for our efforts the same. Soon I notice that my neighbor has a new tractor because he didn't take care of his old one, that his house is kept up by the government because he refuses to do the work. Basically I realize that in order for us to remain equal in our possessions the government is rewarding him for being lazy while doing nothing for me because I take care of myself. No system can work that elevates those that do the least. It sucks the ambition out of the rest of us. Why try hard if the results are the same? This is the fundamental flaw of Socialism.

Another problem with Socialism as I see it is that it is parasitic in nature. Most Socialist countries spend a small fraction of their GDP on defense. The reason? They count on someone else defending them, like the U.S. defends Canada. If all the Socialist Countries in the world had to provide their own security, they would either have to abandon most of their programs or would be overrun by some far more aggressive country. Socialism is also parasitic in medicine. They rely heavily on drugs and procedures invented by Capitalistic countries. Once the Research and Development is done and the patents expire, they start mass producing generics for far cheaper than the companies that invented them. Without incentive (profit) to do all that R&D, advances in medicine would be badly crippled.

But what of the other aspects of Socialism? Some of them have merit. First among them for me is the idea of equal education. Part of the problem with Capitalism as practiced here in the U.S. is that our education system doesn't promote the most capable among us, it just maintains the status quo. Wealthier people are more likely to go to good schools and to go to good Universities. We don't promote our best and brightest among all of us, just the best among the already privileged. At the very least, every child should know that he has an equal chance to become anything he is willing to work hard to become. It saddens me to think that we may lose the person who could cure Cancer simply because they could not afford College or came from a low-rated school.

Second is access to health care. I honestly believe that no one could watch a child die of a disease due to his parent's lack of coverage while the child in the next bed with the same problem lives and still think that our system is not broken. I see too many jars in Party Stores with little children's faces on them begging for a bone marrow transplant, I hear far too many sad stories to stand by and take it any longer. I will be an advocate for Universal Coverage for at least catastrophic illness until the day I die or until it finally happens. It doesn't have to be Socialized Medicine, in fact, I think that it shouldn't be, but the idea of covering everyone is an idea who's time has come.

As we look around the world for good examples of where we want to be in taking care of the least among us, let us be careful. America allows people to dream, to believe that one day they too can be successful. Let's not destroy that dream because our system is in need of repair. Hard work should be rewarded, ambition and talent nurtured. The only thing that our system needs is fairer opportunity to succeed and the security of knowing that one unfortunate health event won't ruin your life. What we don't need is equal distribution of wealth or privilege and the killing off of the spirit of doing your best. If we can stay focused, we can fix these things without turning our country inside out. Why not Socialism? Because when your the most prosperous country on Earth, with the ability to cure all your own problems, you don't start following less prosperous countries with bigger problems. H.C.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi H.C. :)

Your piece should have been titled: "WHY NOT COMMUNISM?"

Labor, education...

Which are a few of the 10 planks of The Communist Manifesto.
Where all states support all 10.

Remember when the mainstream media used to bash Republicrats all the time? Rememeber?
They made of Dan Quayle constantly for misspelling words.
Now, today we have the wooden dummy - Bush, calling America a Democracy, and the mainstream media also calls America a
Democracy.
Hmmmmm, I live in a friggin' Republic with a Replublican form of government as AUTHORIZED by The Constitution.
Literally 95% of the media is owned by a handful of corporations.
And they are owned - in the prison sense - by the Federal Government, which is owned in the same sense by The Federal Reseve Bankers and the Bank of China and others.

Folks, (NO)! Your master.

Rod Ryker...
The horrors of government manifested on the minority,
are the warnings of tyranny to the majority.

TABOR said...

Sounds like there are aspects of Socialism that could make our country amazing. However we'll always have the dregs of society that don't want to pull their weight and piggy-back on the accomplishments of others. In fact, our welfare system seems to be rooted in socialism. I think that is one of the biggest attrocities in our government. Why the hell do we reward laziness? Why the hell do we let illegal immigrants exploit us like this?

The H.C. said...

Hey Rod,
I hope you didn't misconstrue my feelings toward equal education or labor empowerment...let me clarify. In communism, the government would own the school system and standardize all the curriculum and funding, that's not what I'm talking about. I have no problem with private ownership as long as the results give everyone an even chance. (With emphasis on CHANCE.) On Labor: In Communism business is owned by the Government and the people work for the government for wages set by the government... and that, I'm totally against, as I am a free marketeer. I do believe it is the right of the people to organize as a group to get the best contract possible and it is not free market for the government to intervene on behalf of business to obstruct that right. (With respect to Taft-Hartley) In business, it is the employer that has all the power. Such as undo influence through government. Allowing collective bargaining strenghtens labor's ability to negotiate. Unions are a good idea if the process is done in good faith by both parties just as a balance of powers is necessary for government to answer to their people. I really don't think either of those ideas put me in with the communists, but if I misunderstood you I apologize. As for the rest of your statements, I don't disagree, so I'll just say "well said". Thanks as always for your imput.

heiresschild said...

you couldn't remember where you heard the quote from. it was from me.

heiresschild said...

just a little humor for your first day back at work.

Anonymous said...

Hi H.C. :)

I didn't mean you support Communism, I just meant that your examples of Socialism are actually Communism.

Not to hijack your blog, but if anyone is interested in a copy of the Communist Manifesto and point by point comparison's between those 10 planks and the laws of The U.S., e-mail me:
rod_ryker2000@yahoo.com

Sorry H.C., I know I'm bad... ;)

Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.

The H.C. said...

Thanks Heiress,
It did give me a badly needed laugh... I've been a little too serious lately.

The H.C. said...

HIJACKER!!HIJACKER!!! Where's the damn Federal Marshalls when I need them! (J.K.) No harm, No foul, Rod. Anything that helps educate people is O.K. by me. Strange that you accuse me of communistic ideas though.....when your the one handing out copies of the Communist Manifesto.

Anonymous said...

Its always been my view that all types of government are essentially living experiments. Absolutely no form of democracy/socialism/etc. is exactly like its predecessor. In essence, we & 'they' all learn from our/their previous mistakes (typically, but of course not always).
The "laziness factor" flaw of socialism/communism that you pointed out could, off the top of my head, be countered/offset by a government set quota (which I would be surprised by if any modern-day communist government didn't adhere to by @ the very least some extent nowadays), depending on the industry/profession. While I'm sure there could very well exist other alternatives, my point is duel-headed. 1) No government will every be "perfect". Never, ever, ever. 2) Any government "A" that existed before, can exist today as a government "AB". China is a wonderful example. Sure you could argue that their government is in "transition", but hell...shouldn't all of ours be?

Andre said...

The biggest problem with socialism is not with the ideology itself. I mean, a system which embraces a collective ownership of industry and protects people from the social and economic ills of personal avarice sounds good to me. The problem that people have with socialism is that it doesn't protect people's greed (which we all know is what fuels this country).

People LOVE to cite the "one person works his ass off while the other person loofs around" example. But I think that a reasonable practice of socialism ensures that everyone pulls their weight in order to maintain a 'good and comfortable' standard of living; rather than encouraging people to go above and beyond in pursuit of individual greed. Instead of using "the more, the merrier" as it's calling card, socialism's motto would be "This is juuuuust right."

What makes capitalism so successful (if you call screwing the poor so your stock can go up a few points "successful") is that incentive is the driving force behind people's efforts. Since free market enterprises live and die by that creed, it makes sense that socialism will never be accepted.

The H.C. said...

Hey Nic,
You make several good points here. All governments are it transition in some way, which is why I can never be a Strict Constitutionalist. (although I favor Amendments for change) I think that sometimes people are a little too-"That's Socialism" or "That's Communism" when considering what direction our country should go in. I'm willing to consider anything that will improve the country overall. Also, not everything thing is holy just because you attach the word "Capitalist" to it. China is a good example of a country that is in transition, but given it's track record on a variety of human rights it's still in the lower rankings for me.

The H.C. said...

Hey Dre,
As I said in the piece, Socialism is parasitic in nature because it depends so much on other countries to protect it so that it can devote so much of it's resources to it's people. It would be a good idea, much like gun control, if it existed in a perfect world where everyone was committed to the same idea. Unfortunately, in the real world, you have to consider the evil.

Andre said...

"It would be a good idea, much like gun control, if it existed in a perfect world where everyone was committed to the same idea. Unfortunately, in the real world, you have to consider the evil."

*Wondering how this same idea doesn't apply to Capitalism*

The H.C. said...

Hey Dre,
I guess the major difference is that Socialist countries are pretty much disengaged in the problems with agressive military regimes in the world. (Include the U.S. as aggressive if you want.) The U.S., China, Russia, Japan, and the U.K. spend the bulk of the world's money on defense, site;http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp They are also the ones most engaged in world problems, such as Darfur, Iraq, and North Korea. The assumption that Countries would be better off Socialist is pretty much only an Domestic argument. That the world would be better off if the major countries went Socialist works on the idea that military threat or intervention is unnecessary as dictorial or expansionist countries can be dealt with through embargos or diplomacy. There is NO evidence that works without any military threat.Liberal leaning people have way too much faith in dictators to deal in good faith, history proves the opposite. Like gun control, which for some reason believes that controlling those that obey the law will somehow have an effect on those that don't, Socialism believes that dealing in good faith will effect those that don't. Capitalism doesn't suffer that problem as it leaves open the option of military intervention. Since Socialist countries spend so much less on military, to leave the more aggressive countries with the greater military strength is a recipe for disaster. What I meant by my statement is that if all countries devoted the bulk of their resources to social domestic issues instead of military like the Socialist ones then it wouldn't be a problem keeping the bad ones in line. I hope that cleared it up.