|
Socialism has become the favorite curse word of the right in the U.S. these days, filling in where communist! used to go. I would venture to guess that most people don’t have a good idea what socialism means, but they think it is wrong, anyway. We have socialized medicine in this country for veterans and the aged and very poor and those programs, for the most part, are working as intended (more on that later). But, we don’t have and aren’t going to have, no matter what the Democrats do, a socialized state. It makes for a good talking point and it keeps a certain element of fear circulating, so why not just throw it out there as a charge, anyway?
Does anyone ever stop to ask: just what is so bad about socialism? What is so horrid about living in countries where most people don’t have to fear falling into deep poverty, where college tuition is included in the educational opportunities, where retirement is provided for with enough income, at a reasonably younger age, so that older people don[‘t live in doubt about their next meal? What is so bad with all of that?
This topic is too large for a full discussion here, but there are a number of clear disadvantages to social guarantees provided for by the government. Like most Americans, I would never favor the imposition of a full socialist style state any more than I would want a government that has no concern about its people and never does anything to help those who would otherwise be crushed by the economic system. Socialism has been well tried, it works fairly well and I want nothing to do with the idea that we should be entirely like the Europeans. (The right wing politicians use “European socialism” as a kind of catch phrase, but that is not my intention here. I don’t mean to put down Europeans, per se, I just don’t want to be like them or their society.)
One of the biggest problems with full socialism is that it turns everyone but the very rich into de facto wards of the state. That means, you have to continually looking to what the state does to improve your life. I don’t like that idea. I don’t like the thought that I have to march in the streets every few years to fight with the government to increase benefits or avoid cutting programs. Further, I don’t trust the government to divide up the prime benefits of a wealthy society on a fair basis. Conversely, however, I know that a pure capitalist society cannot divide those benefits fairly, either, but I would rather take my chances with doing some things on my own. Yes, I’d rather lose out with a chance to control my own fate that little or no chance at all.
Socialism would also mean, to me, that much of the opportunities of a more free wheeling society would disappear. People would only get jobs and other opportunities for advancement if they met the most strict guidelines and rules. In a society run by rules, someone who does something that doesn’t conform to the rule is often looked down upon as a misfit. Here, misfits like Ted Turner get to start a news channel that affects the whole
 world.
The right would argue that social welfare removes a big incentive for people to work and improve themselves. If you don’t fear for your future, do you really need to work hard? Looking at Europe, however, it doesn’t seem that they are doing so badly. People work there, bridges (including great ones like the amazing Millau Bridge in southern France) get built, hospitals are staffed, schools hold classes. Europe has generally caught up and in some cases surpassed us in per capital income without having primal fear as a huge motivating factor. Part of what is missing in Europe is the huge amount of violence that is part of the fabric of American life as people in dire straights here turn to drugs and violence as means of misdirected problem solving.
I like our looser society where at least some people can go to out of the way colleges and rise to the top of their fields, where innovation is embraced and welcomed. A society where rules are defined as the be all and end all can be stifling, especially to an American raised on the idea of always pushing forward to make your contribution, large or small.
For the Republicans right now, the bugaboo of the socialist state is that it spends itself into the ground. Well, that could be true, but the problems faced in Europe now are closely related to our own recession and the near financial collapse cause by our financial smart guys on Wall Street. It is kind of off based to blame the European style of government for their problems when the worldwide recession had its roots right here in America.
European countries, it should be remembered, piled socialism on top of their existing social and cultural practices. To the extent that they suffer from economic and social problems, the roots of those difficulties can be seen in cultural matters even more than socialism, per se. In Greece, for example, you can get a law degree if you like, but you may not practice law unless you get the permission of existing lawyers within your region. This system of exclusion applies to many forms of employment, including truck drivers who pay up to half a million dollars for licenses to operate their trucks. England, France, Germany and other countries have various systems in place that are designed to keep people in their place and control competition, so a young person in Europe learns quickly that to operate in his home country, he is going to have to conform to expectations. All of this limits innovation and growth. These inhibiting factors are not socialist, they are cultural. (I forgot, though, the Republicans don’t do nuance.)
In this country, we pay a huge price for the ideal of unlimited opportunity and the concept (which is not a fact) of a classless society. Many people are rootless, living without purpose or guidance and often turn to drugs, alcohol and violence to express their frustrations.
Living around and watching people in areas with limited employment opportunities, it is easy to conclude that a large percentage of people find it difficult to live without some consistent guidance. The more settled countries of Europe provide cultural instructions: here is your place in society. If you function within that space and go to work, you won’t have to be concerned about the harsher aspects of life, like not affording health care or being driven into dire poverty in your old age. This kind of implied social contract has kept peace on Europe for the better part of seventy years.
If anyone advocates for government problems here, we have to be aware that most are easy targets for rip offs. The amount of fraud and near fraud that is involved with our Medicaid and Medicare programs is easily in the many billions every year. In the rural south and parts of Texas, people routinely try to steal Social Security benefits by claiming work disability and then getting a job along with the benefits, or just stop looking for work entirely, even when they could do some types of work. There isn’t much public protest. I would venture that probably one in four people in East Texas knows someone on disability who shouldn’t be collecting the money. These same people turn around a denounce socialism and government programs and vote for right wing Republicans. What would happen if their preferred form of welfare were taken away?
The challenge, it would seem to me, is to find how we can provide better for American citizens without imitating the European system. For the American right, the harsh realities of the marketplace are supposed to provide all of the answers. They don’t, but the right keeps harping on it as though they do. The market place is brutal in the extreme, it cares not for human flesh nor human emotion. To the market, a person’s death is yet another business opportunity.
Where is the balance in our larger society? If Wal-Mart, our largest private employer, is going to pay workers bare minimum wage and count people who work 28 hours a week as full time, what can be done to change the life situation for those workers? If the choice is between the government does nothing to help people versus socialized benefits, then, facing that stark choice, most people will opt for at least a minimal dollop of socialism. That’s what has happened so far.
When problems were allowed to fester for too long, when the aged would go without medical care and die in great numbers or bankrupt their offspring to pay for medical care, the people, in the form of their government, stepped in. While almost all government programs are subject to abuse, overuse and cost overruns, the public has consistently said we want those programs because they are vital in helping people, many of whom can’t help themselves.
I don’t want socialism or even a creeping version thereof. I don’t want cancer patients dying while sitting at a bus stop, either. I don’t want old people starving to death in bad housing conditions. I don’t want bodies in the streets where ambulances go around merely to pick them up for burial. I want a society that operates with a sense of fairness, balance and proportion. Big business has no interest in social justice and fairness, it is all about profit and more profit. Big business cannot make a just society for us. Who can?
Doug Terry
4.4.11
|
|
