By Tom Kando
The astute reader will see that this title is a spoof on Joe McCarthy’s 1950s Communist witch-hunt.
Amazingly, many people have been bamboozled into believing that (1) people like President Obama are “Socialists” and that (2) Socialism is a sin. Things were different at mid-century. When I grew up and went to high school, most of us knew that:
(1) the Western World had made progress in the 20th century because of Socialism, i.e. things like progressive taxes, labor unions, social security, medicare, universal health insurance, unemployment and disability compensation, and aid to families with dependent children.(2) All the affluent western democracies had thriving socialist parties, counterbalancing their conservative, Christian and pro-business parties. These left-of-center parties were called Labor (Britain), Social Democratic (Germany), Socialist (France) Democratic (US), or something else. They all boiled down to the same thing.
(3) Socialism was good. Communism was bad. Communism was a totalitarian and extreme form of Socialism which had gone haywire, for example in Russia under Stalin.
(4) Examples of fine socialist leaders who did good things for their countries included President Franklin Roosevelt in the US, later President Mitterrand in France, Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown in Britain.
(5) Unions were the sine qua non which finally enabled the working man to achieve a decent life in the 20th century.
We knew all these things. They were true.
But now, the political world has become weird. Somehow, the label “Socialist” has become toxic. This is very strange. When demagogues like Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh accuse someone (E.g President Obama) of being a “Socialist,” the word is so dreaded that the accused desperately denies being one. “No way! How dare you accuse me of being a Socialist!” This sort of argument-by-name-calling was Senator Joe McCarthy’s forte. He put the living fear into his opponents by simply calling them “Communists.”
What I don’t understand is why people have accepted this. Why people have forgotten the distinction between Socialism and Communism. Forgotten that in every civilized, free, democratic country, socialist parties are among the major ruling parties. Maybe America’s victory in the Cold War and the demise of Soviet Communism, have erased the distinction between Socialism and Communism, in people’s dumbed-down minds.
I can understand why the rich see socialism as evil. But why have millions of little people, maybe a majority of Americans, swallowed this canard? The canard being that socialism is bad, that taxes are what hurts the economy, that unions and the government are bad for the country.
Take the on-going struggle over health care reform: The brain-washing has already succeeded: Most people already agree that a single-payer, government-run health care system would suck. No matter that this is precisely what they have in France and all the other places whose health care system is far superior to ours. The fear-mongering “Do you want government bureaucrats to make the medical decisions?” has worked. People don’t even realize that currently it is Insurance bureaucrats who make those decisions. At least, the government bureaucrats’ decisions would not be determined by the profit motive, as are those of insurance bureaucrats...
Maybe the word “Socialism” is so hopelessly tainted in this country that we might as well jettison it. Maybe we need to use another word with less stigma, to denote the policies pursued by progressives such as President Obama. How about Social-Democrat?
Of course, we already have a Democratic Party. And you know what? Our Democratic Party is our socialist party, just like Labor is Britain’s socialist party, the SDP is Germany’s socialist party, and so forth. If you are a Democrat, you are a socialist - maybe moderately so, maybe extremely so. Be up-front about it.
leave comment here
2 comments:
Tom,
There has historically been a huge disconnect between ideals of socialism and realities of human nature. As a rule socialist plans have destroyed economies or greatly limited human freedom and happiness. They generally encourage dependency rather than production.
I would say that I believe in "co-prosperity" and "common cause." Co-prosperity would aim at the development of an economy without huge disparities in wealth. Common cause would recognize that we are all part of one human family on planet earth and our activities impact everyone else.
The main problem with traditional forms of socialism is that they rely on the government to stimulate an economy. This is something that government, by its very nature of channeling power through laws that regulate and redistribute, is incapable of doing. It is like asking the central nervous system in the human body to eat and exercise. There are other organs that must be directed to do this.
Economies develop when citizens are free to improve their lot and not so hampered by taxation, or tempted by redistribution, that they lose the incentive to work to improve their own life.
You can compare a fair and productive economy to a highway system and its regulations. The highway system provides a framework for people to travel when and where they want. The traffic rules are intended to keep traffic flowing freely, smoothly, and safely. A properly functioning economy would be similar.
Governments need to similarly encourage economic flow that is fair to all. However, any attempt by government to force people to travel down certain roads, or give only certain classes of people access to the highway thwarts human happiness. Governments do not know what you want more than you do.
Labor unions served to make things more fair, but they were motivated by workers and society, not by government. Under Roosevelt, developing the regulations on the SEC and providing a federal guarantees on bank deposits enabled the system to function more smoothly.
However, many of Roosevelt's experiments with socialism simply delayed the depression several more years than necessary. I fear Obama is repeating both the good and bad aspects of Roosevelt's administration because he, like Roosevelt, never really understood that a government of the people leads to greater happiness than a socialist plan that aims to redistribute existing wealth rather than stimulate new and cleaner wealth.
I appreciate GLA’s feedback. His remarks are thoughtful and difficult to disagree with. I particularly like the analogies of the Central Nervous System and the Highway System.
I also very much like terms such as “Co-prosperity” and “Common Cause.” If that’s what you want to call the more equitable economic system towards which the world should move, you have my vote.
And that is precisely the point of my post: My comments were not so much about the substance of Socialism (although I did interject my obvious preference for a certain degree of Socialism), but about the use of words and labels as instruments of power, as tools to influence public opinion. I suggested that the word “Socialism” has lost its appeal, and that it is now used as a weapon, at least in America.
I don’t really want to debate the pros and cons of Socialism. That would be a never-ending conversation, as is the never-ending competition between the Left and the Right.
As to what “Socialism” really is, let me just say something not very scholarly (even though I could bore you with scholarly stuff): I see this phenomenon as a continuum: That is, the extent to which you favor collectivism and government intervention in the economy (the essence of Socialism), is a continuum. For example, we have our Republicans, our Liberal Democrats, and our Blue Dog Democrats, in-between. And then you also have people like Hugo Chavez, way out in Left field. How much of a socialist one is, is a matter of degree.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!