The longer I
live, the worse things get (I swear there’s no cause-and-effect relationship
here).
It’s not
politics. Co-opting a quip from Oklahoma’s favorite son, Will Rogers, “If you
don’t like the political climate today, just wait a while.” The pendulum swings
back and forth, and bitter partisanship has always been a part of politics;
although, only in recent years has the bitterness and animosity come out of the
proverbial “smoke filled rooms”.
And it’s not
that the bitter partisanism is out of the closet and infecting the general
population through social media (although it is). Nor is it even those who hide
behind the anonymity of social media, sniping away at anyone who dares disagree
(although many do that, too).
My concern is that
so many people (and in my biased view it seems to be coming more--but not totally--from the right
than from the left) redefine things to match their personal biases, and then proceed
as if those redefinitions are universal and absolute. In that contrived absolutism,
truth is measured, not by any objective or verifiable standard, but by their
redefined reality. In other words, if I disagree with it, it’s not true.
That
contrived absolutism not even denied!!! In fact, it’s flaunted! Early in the current administration’s
tenure a spokesman for the President said—on live TV—there are “alternative
facts.”
If I disagree
with it—or if I simply don’t like it—it’s “fake news.”
If you say anything
often enough, people start to believe it.
For me, the
most problematic redefinition is of the word, “socialism.” What so many call
“socialism” is not really related to socialism. For example, conservatives
generally imply that anything involving government is, ipso facto, socialism.
In researching
the word, I discovered that “socialism” describes a wide range of social and
economic systems, with a correspondingly wide range of governmental involvement
and non-involvement. The concept of
socialism evolves, constantly adding sub sets. Some economists say pure
socialism has never been practiced.
Bottom line:
invoking the label “socialist” or “socialism”, without layers of qualifiers, is
virtually a worthless exercise in meaninglessness.
The issue was
clouded even further during the 2016 political campaign, when Senator Bernie
Sanders self-identified as a “Democratic Socialist.” Millennialists (born
between 1980 and 2000) quickly identified with his model.
A Forbes
article says Bernie’s approach isn’t socialism at all.[1]
Millennials’ attraction to it emerged out of what they perceive as the failure
of capitalism on all but the top financial levels. The article notes that even
the Nordic countries Sanders touts as models of “Democratic Socialism” are more
free market than the US.
Capitalism has
not failed. Systems don’t succeed nor fail. People succeed or fail. As one of
many economic systems, capitalism[2]
is merely a tool with no intrinsic moral or ethical value. On paper, it appears
to many (including me) to be a superior system, when applied with integrity. But, while “any system will work, if
you’ll work the system,” it also is true that every system is vulnerable to
corruption. Glenn Reynolds, an opponent of socialism, says, “Under capitalism,
rich people become powerful. Under socialism, powerful people become rich.”[3]
While
millennials like to toss around the idea of socialism, they also like to
consume; they like profit and entrepreneurialism, and many dream of owning
their own business. Those preferences fit no known definition of socialism.
In the minds of
millennials and others (including me), the current application of capitalism, given
its absence of integrity, has not provided the equitable opportunities its
proponents peddle.
Capitalism is said
to reward hard work; and yet, a new economic stratum called the “working poor”
demonstrates that, in capitalism, hard work is not always rewarded equitably. It becomes increasingly
difficult, even when working 40 hours—or more—each week, to provide safe housing,
utilities, healthy food, basic transportation and health care. Many elderly,
whose generation set the standard for hard work and productivity, now must
choose between food or medicine. But capitalism has not failed. The failure is
on those who abuse and manipulate the system for their own profit, without regard for how their manipulation
hurts others!
Similarly,
socialism is a system—a tool. Nothing more. Its value is a measure of how it is
applied. Again, I believe it is inferior to capitalism. But too frequently what
is being called socialism today—by both its opponents and its advocates—simply is
not socialism.
Here are a few
things socialism is not:
1.
Governmental involvement is not de facto socialism. In socialism, the
government may or may not own and control the means of production and
distribution. There’s a world of difference between the government owning the means of production and
distribution versus the government regulating
those same means.
2.
In practice, socialism has not been about
sharing. It’s been about coercion.
3.
Taxation is not socialism. Every governmental system, good, bad or indifferent, requires
taxation.
4.
Social Security and Medicare are not socialism. They
are managed and administered, but not
owned (that’s the key), by governmental agencies. They are funded in
exactly the same way as my private pension and insurance plan. The difference
is that the funding is through enforced taxation. Either way, the consumer
pays.
The following
definition of socialism is consistent with every definition I find, and is more
comprehensive than most: “Socialism is a political (or economic, your choice)
system in opposition to capitalism. The difference is who owns the productive
assets. Under capitalism it is the capitalists: investors discrete from both
the labor and the organization being labored in. Under socialism, some form of
the people or labor own those same productive assets. Ownership could be
direct, or through some system of government—but that's the difference.
Socialism means some collective method of the ownership of productive assets.
... A Credit Union is a socialist organization because it is collectively
owned.” [4]
It has nothing necessarily to do with
government.
Government
involvement may be good, bad, or indifferent; but it is not ipso facto socialism. The misuse of the
word is driving an ideological wedge deeper and deeper into the festering wound
of disunity that increasingly describes the heart of America.
Let’s at least
have a common vocabulary before we slap each other in the face with our labels.
That’s the way
I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
[1]
Tim Worstall, “Bernie's Democratic Socialism Isn't Socialism, It's Social
Democracy,” Forbes, May 17, 2016. Worstall is a Fellow at the Adam Smith
Institute in London.
[2]
Actually, I prefer the term, “free enterprise,” which is different from
capitalism, although derived from the same roots.
[3]
Glenn Reynolds, “Don’t Be a Sucker for Socialism,” https://www.wltx.com/article/news/nation-now/glenn-reynolds-dont-be-a-sucker-for-socialism/101-197592708
[4]
Worstall, op. cit.
No comments:
Post a Comment