It will be helpful to read by first post on socialism before reading this one.
Socialism has been defined by different dictionaries in different ways. In the past, it has been defined as a preamble to communism and sometimes as a synonym of communism. Soviet socialism was undeniably communist. Marxist socialism was communism before the term communism was coined. National socialism became Nazism. Democratic socialism is generally what we call socialism as it now exists throughout Europe (but no one today considers European socialism to be communism). Socialism in South America is often closer to some form of communism because of South America's jerky history of military rule and government control of wealth (however often without the wealth being redistributed to the needy).
But through most of it, the notion of socialism indicates transfer of money from some who have ample to those deemed to be needy for whatever reason(s). The reasons for this transfer of money usually is the result of compassion, the desire for a stable society, heightened notions of equality/human dignity, etc.
Today's America is already well along the socialist path. There are many American social programs that take taxpayers' money and administer it to others in some way or another. Some of the programs do not appear to be socialist in any way, yet they are by any definition. Some programs shock us because they give money/benefits to the seemingly (and perhaps very clearly) undeserving.
My hope for a continuing American socialism is based on the notion of shared responsibility for others who are in need (there is nothing original about this). If others are truly in need, most of us accept this notion. It is when we perceive that others who receive help from the government and who are undeserving, lazy, unwilling to work, unwise in their personal decisions, foolish with their money (or that of others) that our outrage surfaces.
I would like to see an American socialism that truly addresses needs for the unfortunate and needy with a minimum of abuse.
So I will begin discussing social programs with the hope of parsing out the details that are involved in the preceding paragraph (ie who is unfortunate, what are the abuses and remedies for them). Discussing social programs in a one-by-one approach will break it down to specifics we can discuss precisely without getting off track.
But first, your thoughts on what socialism is today interests me. After all, I cannot expect you to accept straight away what I have written above. But I do hope that you will see that we must not reduce socialism to some nebulous notion of nascent communism. (How's that for alliteration?)
It has become something else. If we don't call our efforts to care for the the needy some form of social program, what do we call these efforts? Many hate the word while using it to describe programs of which they approve (social security, [some and various] social services, socialized medicine (veterans' health care and Medicare are examples of this).
Regardless if you care to comment, my next post will address loopholes in the system that Nick and I encountered. It is important to close these loopholes as part of an effort to assure that American socialism would be superior to previous or current attempts at it by other societies.
1 comment:
What most conservatives fear is that government will become overly dictatorial and authoritarian. There is much evidence that the government is such already. All forms of socialism that have existed thus far have not achieved the desired goal, and most have have sunken into some form a depravity. Only western Europe has successfully stayed away from such an end, probably because the integrity of the vote has remained intact. Nevertheless, western European socialism has failed in terms of fiscal responsibility. As far as I can determine, there is no western European nation that is without debt. Debt is the poison that kills all forms of government, but socialism is even more susceptible than capitalism. Also, there is the problem of administering all these various social programs. The public sector continues to grow in terms of size and power. The public sector demands more and more while the private sector continues to sacrifice to meet the demands. This public sector, i.e., bureaucracy, becomes bloated and cannot easily be reduced. The overhead for administering social programs, no matter how wonderful they may be, becomes untenable. Greece is a recent and good example of what will happen.
In essence, the public sector becomes the ruling class and the private sector becomes the masses that serve the increasingly voracious ruling class.
While the stated goal of socialism (as you define it) is admirable, I believe that human nature will always prevent its perfect achievement. Nevertheless, I am eager to read your upcoming posts on this subject.
In summary, I have the two following doubts about socialism.
1. Fiscal responsibility. (No debt).
2. Public sector aggrandizement (the metamorphosis of "civil servants" into pampered "civil masters")
Post a Comment