A day or two ago, a friend showed me a link to an article on a site called “Addicting Truth,” or “Addicting Info,” or something like that. The link was to a post that was written to supposedly teach Republicans about “real” socialism. It was as rife with ignorant assumptions about Republicans and conservatives as Free Republic is rife with ignorant assumptions about Democrats and liberals. The article pointed to fire and police departments as “Democratic Socialism,” and used that as a launching pad to campaign for state paid post-secondary education. As a “proof,” it pointed to Europe as a shining example of how it ought to be.
The author of the piece described this “Democratic Socialism” as a political system that is fundamentally democratic as to the people’s voice, and is a mix of socialism and capitalism. The first clue regarding the author’s core intent and beliefs is that socialism forms the basis; it’s just that some capitalism is allowed in. It is that fundamental position that I take issue with. Don’t try to pass it off as “it’s just a name, who cares” because that ignores the elemental fact that it illustrates. That position starts with socialism as its foundation and adds capitalism only if necessary, and thus is aligned with those policies that tend toward the government being the great problem solver, equalizer, sugar daddy, and thence, God. That line of think is, in my experience, typical of people who call themselves “liberal” or “progressive.”
The author here proposed to teach Republicans that the current application of the system that the Republicans supposedly hate is really pretty sensible. It ended up, then, attempting to deny the fundamental truth of socialism – that there is no private ownership of anything, because it all must be yielded to the power center (typically the government) to be distributed. The fact that the current application that the author cites does not go that far does not remove that fundamental truth.
The author’s argument chided Republicans for recoiling at the thought of taking it all from the rich to give to the poor, claiming that Democratic Socialism does no such thing. In fact, Democratic Socialism only does no such thing as it is currently applied. There is no mechanism within that system whatsoever to prevent it from running completely amok. Well, amok to some, complete fulfillment to others, I must believe.
As the author left it, his/her argument implies that Republicans, if they had their anti-socialism way, would not have fire departments or police departments. It makes no impact on the author, apparently, that it is a fact that it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this implication is outrageously false. Well, at least to the most casual observer who is not blinded by hatred or distain for the other party/philosophy. Then again, I suppose that observer cannot be honestly described as “casual.”
The issue in America today is not actually whether or not to adopt socialism, nor is it whether to adopt capitalism. At issue is whether America shall return to being a capitalistic system with some necessary socialism applied or shall become a socialistic system with a bit of capitalism applied. When I was younger (born in the mid-50s), it would have been outrageous, and laughably so, to suggest that our fundamental system in the US was socialistic. It was capitalistic, and that was known by all. What kept it so was the idea that we are all individuals, responsible for ourselves, with worth and purpose individually. We often team up to gain a better effect, to utilize a benefit of coordinated action in this or that scenario, but the fundamental existence of each of us is as a free agent individual.
Socialism cannot long exist in the presence of insistent individualism. Socialism requires group existence, and more, it requires group exclusivity regarding value. It requires that there is no value in individual effort or existence outside the group. In short, you have to belong to be worth anything; only that which is done for the group matters. Now, the author of the piece that launched this blog entry does not, today, push socialism that far. I want to be clear about that. However, by shifting the basis of our nation’s desired system from capitalism with some socialism as necessary to socialism with some capitalism as necessary, the author achieves more than any argument against Republicans can point to.
The fundamental truth is simple. If we are indeed individuals, responsible for ourselves, of value of and on our own, with freedom to join or remain apart from any effort and still be honorable people, then our fundamental system is capitalistic in nature, and we may well add socialistic elements as necessary. Police and fire departments are good examples. Public schools are also good examples. If, however, we only have value and can only function as a part of a group, then only a socialistic system can meet our expectations. I almost said “meet our needs” but socialism, as the philosophy that most understand, exists for the purpose of acquiring and retaining power by meeting far more than the needs of life.
The ignorant assumptions about Republicans (and by logical extension, conservative people) that mentioned at the outset, can be all found in some sub-set or break-out of the idea that Republicans want a system that is purely and totally capitalism, and to do not recognize the need for an appropriate application of socialistic programs. This assumption is… well, I don’t have polite words for anyone who willingly believes this. Perhaps they’d like to buy a bridge I know of.
So what leads someone to want to slip the foundations of America from capitalism (with a little necessary socialism) to socialism (with a little necessary capitalism)? I think it’s simple, honestly. They don’t (1) know that they are doing all that, and/or (2) care if they did know they were. You see, my experience to date tells me that well meaning, intelligent folks get to the place that the author wrote from by trying to do good things for people who need it. They simply lose sight of the underlying principles that must be preserved when these good things get done, or they think that principles are silly and don’t matter. Both of these failures arise from looking solely at the end of an effort, and failing to be concerned with how one gets there. That is, as long as the hungry are fed (for example), who does it and how the money was obtained to fund that is of little concern. In short, it is a form of the ends justifying the means.
Oddly enough, when one does value the means, a much better solution generally appears. Welfare, for instance, would then provide for the down and out and for a way up, without becoming the refuge of the willingly lazy. There aren’t any of those, might one tell me? Don’t bother, I’ve personally seen way too many, with my own eyes. If you really believe there aren’t any of those, then you need a reality check, stat. To get back on the point, there are programs that are socialistic in nature that need to exist for the common good, and ought to be paid for from the common treasury. They ought not, however, be allowed to threaten the fabric that America was founded on; the sense that individualism is the core and cooperative effort is laudable and voluntary for the most part. Note, a nation that is fundamentally capitalistic will not have these programs here, there, and everywhere. They will have to be truly necessary, actually required, and not merely a good idea to get someone elected or to keep someone in power. That is the other reason why these attitudes are shifting in America. Socialistic thinking is popular because when the rubber meets the present American road, it boils down to “gimmie, I don’t wanna get my own” as opposed to “I worked for it with my hands, my brain, or both, and honestly earned it.”
The sad thing to me is that “gimmie” really is so much more popular than “I worked.” I wish it weren’t true, but I have seen it, little by little for a long time. I also wish that one of the major two political power centers in America wouldn’t exploit that truth for their own gain, but I have seen that for a long time, too. Both are observed facts, and both sadden me deeply.
So, once again, I hide my uniform a little deeper in my closet.
Al
Posts
