When Is a Socialist Not a Socialist?

When Barack Obama was running for President, the Republican Right branded him a “Socialist.”  They have also branded Obamacare as “socialized medicine.”  These claims were so ridiculous that neither Obama nor anyone else ever took the time to set the American people straight on the meaning of these words and the lie they spoke as applied.  Thus for many, the terms stuck.

Now, because of Bernie Sander’s run for the nomination, and his self-identification as a Socialist or what he sometimes refers to as a Democratic Socialist, it is critically important for the American people (and Sanders!) to understand what these words mean before even starting to think about which candidate they prefer.

First, the meaning of Socialism:  “A system of society in which the major means of production are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.”  This definition is from Webster’s and is basically identical with other sources.  

Why government ownership?  The theory is that government is the desired owner because it represents all of the people rather than just a few and so decisions about production and distribution will be made in a way which better meets the needs of the broader society.  Capitalism, on the other hand, where the means of production are owned and controlled by private companies or individuals, makes its decisions on what is produced and how it is distributed based solely on what is in the best interests of the company and its owners/shareholders.

Neither Barack Obama nor Bernie Sanders has ever called for industries, for the means of production, to be owned by or controlled by the government.  Therefore, neither of them are Socialists nor do they advocate Socialism.  

Yes, I know that Sanders identifies himself as a Socialist at times, but he’s not.  I have the feeling he just likes the sound of the word, that it confirms he’s for the people and against big money, and it sets him apart.

The term “Democratic Socialism” is still Socialism as defined above, but the system of government is democratic, that is, representative.  So again, neither Obama or Sanders are or advocate Democratic Socialism.

Well what is Sanders then?  Sanders, like the European countries he often refers to, is a Social Democrat.  I know the semantics may seem confusing, but the differences are important.  

“Social Democracy” refers to a political democracy in which a capitalist system of ownership and production is regulated by the state to make it more reflect the public good and the state helps those who need help with various forms of aid, such as public aid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.  Webster’s also defines it as a state that combines both capitalist and socialist practices. 

So guess what?  The United States is a social democracy, certainly since the Depression.  Only the most radical right-wing Republicans want a purely capitalist state where there is no government regulation (and also no government aid to industry) and no government help for those in need.

The difference between today’s mainstream Republicans (radical has become mainstream for them), Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders are really differences of degree, albeit great, along a continuum from little government social involvement … that is action to promote the public rather than private good … to significant government action to promote the public good.

Hillary wants more government action to help those in need, but does not want to disturb the capitalist model.  Sanders is willing to disturb the capitalist model where necessary to provide for the public good, for example, universal health insurance.  Likewise, Hillary is less willing to closely regulate the financial industry while Sanders wants rather strict regulation of that industry.  

The example of health insurance is perhaps the easiest way of clarifying the distinctions.  In the strictly capitalist model, health insurance is provided by private for-profit insurance companies and is bought by individuals or companies on behalf of employees.  The government is not involved at all.  There would be no such thing as Medicare or Medicaid.  

Even Radical Republicans don’t dare go that far.  They would prefer to remove the government from any programmatic involvement and rely on private insurers, but still provide funding through some type of voucher or income tax credit program.  Which would provide more profits for private insurers.

Bernie Sanders wants universal health care with the government being the single payer, easiest to understand as expanded Medicare for everyone.  This is the system that is in place in most European countries and Canada.  This could fairly be called socialized medical insurance, but the medical delivery system otherwise remains as is.  People can in most cases opt out of this system and choose private care if they so choose.

What Hillary wants is Obamacare.  This is a system that still uses private insurers and so it cannot be called socialized medical insurance because the insurance is not provided by the government.  But the government both regulates and provides subsidies so that those who cannot afford the insurance can still obtain it.  It’s better than what we had before, but it’s a clunky system and there are lots of shortcomings just from my own personal experience.

Bottom line.  The whole “Socialist” or “Democratic Socialist” harangue is a red herring.  

It would be helpful if Sanders started getting his terminology correct and made the point expressed in this post that most everyone regardless of political party is on the same continuum, just at different points of the spectrum.  We are a social democracy, even if not a very progressive one.

This does not lessen the differences between the parties or candidates.  But it does remove scare terminology from the debate and instead places the question clearly where it should be … how much help should the government provide its citizens, directly or indirectly?  Is health care a basic right that everyone should have?

Healing Our Nation, Healing Ourselves

In my recent post, “The Problem Isn’t Capitalism, It’s Our Society,” (October 8, 2015), I noted that the social problems in all modern societies (and most ancient ones, for that matter) don’t stem from their particular economic system, whether it’s capitalism or socialism or communism, regardless how much people rant and rave.  History has shown that changing the economic system does not change the basic nature of a society’s problems.  It typically just replaces one class of elite with another class of elite, one unequal structure with another unequal structure.

What then is the root cause of our societal problems?  And how do we make progress in solving these problems?

The root of our problems is that our society is not a community, meaning that it is not a culture in which everyone has a respected and valued role to play.  Instead, we feel that most people are not entitled to respect, that they have little value, that they are certainly not our equal, and that they do not deserve to be treated with dignity and kindness.  It is a culture of me/us v them.  This lack of community affects the family, the workplace, the smallest village, the state, the country, even the community of nations. 

That in a nutshell is the nature of the problem.  All the ills of our society … poverty, homelessness, workplace conflict, family conflict, civil strife, even war … stem from this basic lack of humanity in our interactions with others. 

Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify what I mean by a “lack of humanity.”  Humanity is defined by Webster’s as “being kind to other people and animals.”  Inhumanity, the opposite, is defined as “being cruel to others.”

In common usage, however, we have a much narrower concept of inhumanity.  For most of us, inhumanity implies a horrific act, a barbarous act, like the ISIS beheadings, or even the tortured conduct at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War.  

But as the definition clearly states, anything that is cruel to others is an example of inhumanity.  And mind you, this is from Webster’s, not some religious or spiritual text.  Combining that definition with the definition of cruel: any behavior that causes physical or mental harm or pain is cruel and thus inhumane.  Before we can make progress in solving society’s problems, we must acknowledge and accept this definition.

Using this definition, acts that man endures at the hands of his fellow man - whether in war, civil conflict, or everyday life situations such as in the workplace or even within the family - that are hurtful and painful, that fail to respect others, their equality, and the right of all to live with freedom and dignity … all of these acts are examples of inhumanity.  Yes, even acts you might view as somewhat innocuous in the workplace or at home, if they cause mental harm, are examples of inhumanity.  Without question, discrimination and bigotry are examples of inhumanity.

Aware of this definition, one begins to realize that inhumanity is almost more the norm of human interaction than humanity.  Thus the efforts of those, there’s even a foundation, to promote “random acts of kindness.”  How sad.

How do we find a solution to this problem?  How do we bring humanity back into human interaction?

We begin by noting that while this is not a new problem peculiar to the modern age, it is not a function of human nature.  If we look at communal societies such as indigenous groups that still exist, or Native American communities before they were devastated and corrupted by the white man, we see communities in which everyone had their place, everyone was valued and respected, everyone felt secure even though, in the case of Native Americans, there was some private ownership.  

But when mankind moved from communal societies to societies based on the individual as the organizing unit, something significant was lost in the transition … a sense of security.  And it has gotten worse over the centuries as civilization/technology has “progressed” and we have become ever-more disconnected from people and more connected to material things.

But I do not believe that all is irretrievably lost.  True, I don’t think from a practical perspective that it’s possible to have a true communal society in a nation as large and complex as most modern nations.  But since I don’t think there is an inherent contradiction between a capitalist economy and a sense of community, the question becomes - how to create the feeling and advantages of community while still having an economy that has the individual unit and private ownership as its basis.

Since our society is based on the individual, not the commune, the answer will also have to be based on the individual.  If the goal is to change our society and the world, it will have to be done one person at a time.   Some leadership from authority figures and the culture would help, but ultimately it comes down to the individual.

As noted above, what was principally lost in the transition to an individual-oriented society was a feeling of security.  When people feel secure, they have the psychological ability to be kind to others and respect others.  To give of themselves for the benefit of others and for the common good.

On the other hand, when people feel insecure the natural psychological tendency is to protect oneself, which devolves into seeing others as a threat, creating a me/us v them dichotomy.  In that situation one is not kind to others and one does not give of oneself for the benefit of others.  But the damage caused by insecurity goes even deeper than that.  When we feel insecure, we do not offer even ourselves kindness and respect because we do not feel worthy.  There is no happiness in our heart.  Thus the current state of affairs.

I have written in previous posts how insecurity is the source of all of our problems.  See “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity” (1/7/13) and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War” (1/10/13).  

For some, or perhaps many, readers this will all sound like “new-age gobbledegook.”  But bear with me.

Since I am positing that the solution to our society’s problems lies with the individual, before going any further, I ask you to ask yourself a question:  “Am I happy?  Am I truly happy?”

If you can look deep inside yourself, past your ego, and answer that question, “yes,” then more power to you and you are ready to start, if you haven’t already, treating all people with kindness and respect.

Unfortunately, most of us cannot answer that question, “yes,”  because we are troubled, we feel conflicted.  We are insecure.  It’s not that we don’t experience moments of happiness, but do we feel deeply happy?  No.

This is true regardless of one’s status in life.  Many people think that once you’ve made it, have money, have power, that you’re home free and experience happiness.  But that is usually not the case.  Regardless how strong our ego, regardless how successful we are, we don’t experience true happiness because we are at bottom insecure beings.  We have never been taught to open our heart and embrace all aspects of ourselves.  

We have never been taught  that we have everything we need within ourselves to be at peace and experience happiness.  Instead we’ve been taught that we need to be what we aren’t or need to have what we don’t have.  And the higher we achieve or the more we obtain, the more it seems we obsess about retaining what we have and obtaining even more

This is what must change.  If one person learns to embrace himself and know that he has what he needs inside himself to be at peace and experience happiness, then he will not only change his own life, but the life of all those he  comes into contact with because he will now relate to those around him very differently … he will offer them joy, kindness, and respect.  The more who change, the greater the impact.

Now, it’s a well known fact that most people will not undertake change for the benefit of others.  No matter how often people swear to do this, it just doesn’t work.  Most people will only undertake change for their own benefit, and even that is very difficult, so strong are our habit-energies.

So here’s the next question I want to ask you.  Would you like to be truly, deeply happy?  Would you like to be free of feelings of insecurity?  Would you like not to obsess about what’s going to happen to you tomorrow?

If your answer is, “yes,” then read on.  Despite years of negative programming by family, peers, and the culture, this is more within your reach than you might think.

The process is quite straightforward.  But it does take a lot of work to achieve as you are changing the habits of a lifetime.  Here are the basic steps:

1.  Become aware that all your feelings about yourself and the world around you are a result of your learned experience.  Now, most people would say this is as it should be because that’s how we learn.  However, learning facts and learning judgmental values are two very different things.  

You may be familiar with the Rodgers and Hammerstein song from South Pacific that says, “you’ve got to be taught before it’s too late, before you are six, or seven. or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate.”  Well, that basically is true for all feelings and perceptions.  Even everything we feel about ourselves is what we’ve been taught.  If you feel bad, or incompetent, or ugly, or the opposite, it’s what your family, your peers, and the culture has taught you.

None of these words describe who you and others really are; these are just labels we have been taught to apply.  They cover up the reality of people yet for most of us these labels are the only “I” and “them” that we know.  How many children are told over and over that they are bad or stupid?  How many are told that others, such as blacks, are dangerous, slow, and lazy?  And so these children come to identify themselves as bad or stupid and they identify others as dangerous, slow, and lazy with the harmful results that follow both for themselves and those around them.  How sad. 

The labels we apply to ourselves and others may just be just a product of the mind; it’s what we’ve been taught.  But they are no less powerful and cause us and them suffering.  It doesn’t matter whether the labels are pejorative or superlative, they cause suffering.

The oft-quoted serenity prayer says, “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”  Those are truly words to live by.

We can’t change the way the world is.  But we can change how we relate to ourselves and to others … the labels that we automatically apply to everything we experience. That is totally within our control, difficult though it may be to part with habit-energies that have formed over a lifetime. When we stop applying labels and see ourselves and others as they truly are, not caricatures or stereotypes, a new world of possibilities opens up.

This is why Nina Simone wrote “To Be Young, Gifted, and Black.”  She wanted black children to hear that they are not stupid, but in fact gifted.  She wanted them to see their true selves.  Not the image placed on them by white society.

If you accept and acknowledge the truth of these statements, then you have made the first important step to in your own small way changing the world.

2.  Let your heart embrace all aspects of your being.  This is not something we are taught, either by family, peers, or the culture.  Quite the contrary.  We are made very aware of our faults, our failings, all the “negative” aspects of our character.  And so we learn not to love ourselves, not to respect ourselves; we are flawed, not worthy.  We become insecure.  We become very sensitive to perceived slights and wrongs and get angry or hurt, we tend to either withdraw or become an egomaniac.

Embracing all aspects of your being does not mean “indulge” yourself, giving yourself license to do things which may be harmful to yourself or others, but it does allow you to acknowledge these aspects of yourself and have compassion for yourself and for these tendencies, knowing that they are taught.  They are not you.

When we embrace ourselves fully we feel whole and so it removes the struggle, the internal battles, that tie us up and feed our anger, fear, and negativity.  Embracing these aspects of us greatly lessens their power. It may sound counter-intuitive, but when we, for example, fight our anger, try to rid ourselves of it, it actually strengthens our anger.  By embracing ourselves, these emotions instead sort of get smothered by love.  When we feel whole there is no reason to be angry. 

3.  Know that you have everything you need within yourself to experience peace and happiness.  Again, this is not what we’re taught by family, peers, or culture.  Just the opposite.  We are taught that we need all sorts of things … change who we are, how we look, obtain material things … in order to experience happiness.

But as in the first point, this is all stuff we are taught.  It is not a reflection of reality.  It is in fact by depending on things outside of ourselves for happiness that we are fated to experience endless disappointment, frustration, and psychological suffering.

This is not a refutation of John Locke’s famous poem, “No man is an island.”  It is not a call to isolate yourself and remove yourself from the world.  It is instead a call again to change how you relate to yourself and the world around you.

By not needing things, by not obsessing about things, by being able to say, “It’s great if it happens, but if it doesn’t that’s ok too,” the things we desire or want lose the power to frustrate us and cause us suffering.  It’s called non-attachment.

After becoming aware that all our feelings and perceptions are learned experience, a product of our mind, and not a reflection of our true selves … and after we allow our heart to embrace all aspects of ourselves … you will find that you become aware from within yourself, from your heart, that you have everything you need inside yourself to experience peace and happiness.

To summarize:  When you are aware that all your feelings and perceptions are taught, you will realize all the bull in our culture.  When you embrace all aspects of your being, you will find when you meet or even just observe others that you feel their suffering or joy, and you will feel compassion grow within yourself.  

When you know that you have everything you need inside yourself to experience peace and happiness, you will be able to go through your days without anything pushing your buttons.  You will be secure.  You will be aware of all things.  You will note the things that you can in some way change, but regarding those you can’t, you will be aware that things are the way they are because it’s just the way it is, your buttons will not be pushed, you will not obsess, you will not become agitated.

When you have reached this state, or even just begun the process of walking this path which is so different from the one you’ve followed in the past, you will find that you perform more and more random acts of kindness.  That you feel a sense of community with all people and have compassion for their state and suffering.  That you understand the value of all people, of all life, and that you respect all people.  

For you realize that people are the way they are and you are the way you are because it’s the way we’ve been taught to view ourselves and the world around us.  There are no evil people, just people who’ve been taught to do harmful things to others.  There are no failures, just people who have not been able to accomplish something that their learned experience drove them to do.  There are no lazy people, just people who’ve been beaten down all their lives by messages that they will not amount to anything.  There are no worthless people; everyone has something to contribute to society if given the opportunity; sometimes its intellect, sometimes its talent, sometimes it’s just a smile or their presence.  

And when you realize these things, you will support politicians who seek to change the fundamental nature of our culture, to create a sense of community, and to change the way we view government because so much of how people view themselves, respect themselves or don’t, feel they have opportunity or not, is a result of their interaction with government.  This is not an anti-wealth movement.  It is not an anti-business movement.  It is just a movement that says that everyone has their value and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.  

The Declaration of Independence states that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the purpose of government is to secure those rights.  So government action to improve educational opportunity, health care opportunity, job opportunity, and housing opportunity is necessary in order for all people to be able to truly experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to experience dignity and respect.   

Lincoln stated that we are a democracy “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  This implies both rights and responsibilities of citizenship.  Those who have been able to benefit from the system and gain wealth need to give their fair share to support the government’s efforts to provide all citizens with a meaningful equal opportunity to make more of their lives.  The wealthy will still be wealthy, but part of that wealth will now serve a meaningful function in the betterment of the common good.

The Problem Isn't Capitalism, It's Our Society

People often rant against the evils of capitalism … exploitation of workers, people in general, and the environment.  But the problem is not so much capitalism as the social structure in which capitalism has operated. 

In the United States. the structure has been one which exalted individualism and correspondingly had a laissez faire attitude towards business.  It was a conservative social context in which each person was pretty much out on their own.

It was only after the turn of the 20th century, when the excesses of the industrial robber barons became egregious to society, and during the Depression, when capitalism clearly failed to provide for the people, that the government stepped in.  It regulated private enterprise, became an employer of last resort through efforts such as the CCC and WPA that produced lasting accomplishments, and provided various forms of assistance to those in need.  

Those actions indicated a partial change in the social context … what’s been termed the progressive movement … into one where it was felt that government had to play a role to stop the excesses of private enterprise, to level the playing field between employer and worker as well as between producer and consumer, and to help those in need.  All for the common good, in keeping with the Declaration of Independence's dictum that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We still had a capitalist system.  But now there was an overlay of government regulation and action because it was realized that the profit motivation that lies behind all actions in a capitalist system would frequently not operate to protect the common good, meaning the wellbeing of all in society.   It is worth noting that corporations are a creature of the law and are granted their license because of the benefit that society as a whole should derive from their operation, not just for the accumulation of wealth by their owners.

In the years since the Reagan administration, however, the progressive movement has receded and the individualistic, laissez faire society has come to the fore again.  Most recently we have seen the Radical Right push to dismantle most of what the bipartisan progressive movement built to improve our society over the previous 100 years.

But even at its broadest expanse, the progressive movement was not all-inclusive.  We were never a community, except perhaps for a brief period during the Depression.  The difference between a communal society and an individualistic society is that in the former, every person has a role to play and every person is valued.  No matter how simple or mindless their role.  And if someone cannot play a role due to physical or mental infirmity, they are still valued as human beings who are part of the community.

Conservatives used to point almost with glee to the failure of Communist systems, not just economically, but especially as relates to the abuse of their own citizens.  But this is just further confirmation of the point made initially in this post, that it is not the economic system but the social structure that determines whether people and the environment are valued.

The experience of both the Soviet Union and China show, for example, that although ownership and the political/social structure changed dramatically, one elite just replaced another.  While the Soviet Union did in a limited sense live up to its Communist underpinning and provided for all the people, in both countries the political/social structure valued neither people nor the environment; both were exploited, just for a different end … not profit but state power.  Not surprisingly, the introduction of socialist capitalism in China hasn’t changed that.

In our society, and in every country around the world - for there are no communal countries - there are millions of people who are not valued.  Who do not have a place at the table.  And even most of those who are at the table, who help produce the product and are paid for their work, are not valued in any humane sense of the word.  They are just viewed as expendable cogs in the machine.

In short, we live in a society in which, while people may rant about the value of life in certain contexts … abortion, death with dignity, when human action collides with God-given directives …  they really place no value on life.  They have no concern or feelings of responsibility for the welfare, the quality of life, of their fellow citizen.   There is no sense of community.  The social contract is in tatters.

The problem of poverty and homelessness in the US is not due to a lack of resources.  The problem of racism and other discrimination is not one that is inherent in man.  The social problems we face are a direct result of the social system we have built.  And thus the answer to our social problems lies in rebuilding or redirecting our social system and reinforcing the role of government in advancing the common good.

I’m not talking about a utopia.  I’m just talking about a society that is humane, that values the life of everyone who is a member of the society … at a minimum everyone who is a citizen, but ideally everyone who lives here regardless of their status.  And finds a way to implement that humaneness by making everyone feel valued rather than feel like refuse, whether it’s through the educational system, housing, social services, whatever.  

Capitalism and a humane society can coexist and support each other.  They are not mutually exclusive.  But it implies capitalism with a social conscience, not unbridled capitalism such as was evidenced recently by several in-name-only pharmaceutical companies that bought existing low cost name drugs and then raised the price dramatically to an exorbitant amount, endangering people's lives.  It implies capitalism where maximizing profit is not the sole operating goal.

Bottom line, everyone … child and adult … deserves to feel like they are a human being and are valued and respected by others, whether it’s immediate family, peers, or the broader society.  So many people are broken because they have had life experiences that do not make them feel valued and respected.   And so they come not to respect or value themselves.  That not only harms them, it harms society; it is a drag on society.

This is a failure of society.  And only society can fix it.

It’s No Sin to Be Rich, BUT …

In recent years, observers in the United States have noted that the rich feel that they have no obligation for anyone else’s welfare.  In third world countries such as Angola (I just saw a shocking documentary about Angola, but the same could be said of many 3rd world countries, especially in Africa), the disregard of the rich for the poor is even more shocking because the divide is so clear and the poverty so visible and horrendous.

There is nothing wrong … morally, spiritually, ethically … with being rich.  Of course, there may be such problems with how one became rich, but that’s another matter and not the subject of this post.  This is about the moral, ethical, spiritual and civic obligations that come with being rich.

First, though, I need to define what I mean by “being rich.”  Rich is certainly a relative term.  By rich I don’t just mean fabulously wealthy … e.g. people who buy $50 million condos for their first or second residence.  (Incredibly there appears to be no shortage of such people in the global economy.)   

Webster’s defines “rich” as “having abundant possessions and especially material wealth.”  “Abundance” is in turn defined as “an ample quantity” or “a relative degree of plentifulness” or “extreme plentifulness.”

In the United States and other developed countries the dividing line between rich and not rich is a much finer line than the line between rich and poor in third world countries.  When President Obama was talking about tax rates at one point, he defined rich as anyone earning over $250,000 a year.  I would not be quite so conservative.  In 2010, the top 1% made $380,000 or more.  That clearly indicates a relative degree of plentifulness.  The top .09%, or 267,000 people, had an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more; extreme plentifulness.

For the purposes of this discussion, getting more exact than that isn’t necessary; you get the drift.  The point is that if one is rich in any country, one has a moral, ethical, spiritual, and civic obligation as a citizen of that country to help the government provide the poor, those less fortunate, with the basic needs of life … food, shelter, subsistence, and health care.  I should be clear … everyone has a duty to participate and help according to their means.  That’s what taxes are all about.  But the rich, because their wealth is abundant, should pay more, and the very wealthy should pay even more.

Why?  First, let’s dispose of one canard.  No one chooses to be poor.  It is not their fault.  It’s not because they’re lazy, as Republicans are fond of saying of late.  Yes, it is true that many do rise out of poverty, but not just through their sheer determination.  Whether a Rick Perry or a Clarence Thomas or a less extravagant example, they made it out because of the often happenstance assistance and guidance of people and often government programs, like affirmative action.  In third world countries, the intervening factor is often nepotism.  One should always remember the saying, “There but for good fortune go I.”

In most cases, someone is poor because of the way our society and economy are structured.  Whether someone is born into poverty and receives the poor education that the poor receive, live in a nightmarish environment, and have been told by society that they are worthless and bums.  Whether someone formerly middle class becomes poor because medical expenses force them into bankruptcy or the loss of a job makes them homeless almost from one day to the next.  Whether try though they may, over and over and over again, they can find no work.  These are all examples of how societal and economic structural issues cause and prolong poverty.

In none of these cases can the poor be blamed for their situation.  It is instead society that has failed them.  No child should be denied a good education.   No one should be denied safe and decent housing.  No one should be denied adequate food to keep them from being hungry.  No one who desires to work should be unemployed.  No one should be branded by society as worthless.  No one should be without a safety net when the circumstances of life turn against them through a major illness or the loss of a job.

If this is the result of a capitalist economy, then capitalism cannot be the sole economic force in a civilized society.  In such a society, there needs to be an adjunct social economy to provide for those that the capitalist economy would throw on the trash heap.  Even if we ever reach the point where there is true equal opportunity for all, some safety net would still be required for the elderly, the infirm, the intellectually-challenged, and those who face a catastrophe in their lives.

Which brings me to the other part of the response to the question, “Why?” … the moral, ethical, spiritual, and civil obligation.  Let me first speak to the civil obligation.

In the United States … and I will only speak to that as my knowledge is limited to the U.S. … this obligation is founded in our historical development.  In my book, We Still Hold These Truths, I devoted a chapter to the evolution of a social contract in the United States.  Let me quote from those pages:

“As the nature of the body politic and its political views changed during the course of the nineteenth century, there was a shift from the philosophy that each man was his own master and whether he succeeded or failed in the new egalitarian society it was to his credit or fault. The new philosophy instead recognized that many individuals were impacted by society-driven factors over which they had no control and which had a

significantly negative effect on their ability to make the most of their lives.

Especially after 1890, the reform movement gained strength, fueled by the extremes of poverty and wealth found in the country, as well as the general population’s dislike of

what it saw as the absolute power of big business, corruption scandals in government, and the violent suppression of strikes. The result over the next few decades was an American social contract with increasing emphasis on a balance of rights and individual obligations, and the role of government in leveling the playing field, with each person contributing to the government’s support according to his ability.”

Clearly, this was thought to be a civic obligation.  That’s a major reason why in this country virtually everyone pays their taxes.  Yes, they take advantage of every loophole that the law provides, but they do pay their taxes.  

But the idea of taxes being spent to help the less fortunate has grown out of favor among a large segment of the American populace, at the same time as the shift in political power has reversed itself and returned to the powerful, to the large corporations.  Social security is still supported because that is felt to be earned, but other programs … whether food stamps or health care or almost every program that supports the poor … are regularly attacked by the new Right.  Part of this new attitude is simple greed; the other part is the popularized myth that the poor are poor because it’s their own fault and thus are not deserving of government support.

The development of this civic obligation, while it was as noted above partly the result of a shift in political power during the 19th century, was based largely on moral, ethical, and spiritual teachings that go back to ancient times.  Every religion, every spiritual belief system, regardless of the cultural context and time has at its core a teaching of humanity, of concern for your fellow man.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and helping others through charity and other ways are universal teachings.

Why is this so?  It’s a combination of the spiritual and the practical.  As I’ve written before in these pages, we are all one, we are all children of the same God or the same life force.  What divides us is man made, not nature.  And so we should treat our fellow man with humanity and compassion.  Not just for the benefit of others, but for ourselves, as in the teaching, “Give and you shall receive [spiritually].”  

The practical is that every society, from the smallest primitive to the largest industrial is dependent on people working together, each in their role, to make the society function smoothly.  And so community leaders and belief systems have always fostered a sense of community, that we were all in this together, that when one had the good fortune to have more he gave much away to those who had less, understanding that “there but for good fortune go I.”  

Even after the advent of the industrial revolution and capitalism, people understood that the poor were not just deserving of being cared for and helped, but needed to be for the good of all.  And so most developed countries, including the U.S., embraced some degree of socialism to counter the loss of community brought about by the move into cities, fragmentation, and capitalism.

The current state of affairs, where the rich care only for themselves and no one cares what happens to the poor, is a recipe for cultural disaster and collapse.  Just viewed coldly from an economic standpoint, the reason why our economy has been pretty stagnant is that the broad mass of people, as opposed to the rich or well-off, don’t have the ability to purchase like they used to, and so the engine of our consumer economy has partially dried up.  

Over time, if this continues we will get weaker and weaker economically.  And as inequality grows, the nation will become morally and spiritually weaker as well.  All of this is on top of the degradation of our environment, of the eco-system that is our life support, which degradation is related to this issue of responsibility and yet separate.  I certainly have no ability to predict the future, but I’m glad that I won’t be alive 50 years from now.

I have written over and over on these pages that the current state of affairs, in almost all particulars, cannot continue without disaster for our children and future generations.  What it will take to wake us up, I don’t know.  Whether we have the capacity to change our perspective and habits, to in many ways go back to the future, I don’t know.  But these are issues that need to be discussed in all parts of the body politic … in schools, churches, and government.

The Socialism Canard

Every time Democrats propose having the government provide assistance to those in need or regulate business, the Republicans scream, with their throat veins bulging, “This is Socialism.”  And a large segment of the public, like a hypnotized subject, nods their head and agrees that this is terrible.  It’s only one step away from Communism.  It is against what makes America great.

To listen to the Republicans, one would think that they were against any government spending or action that helps others or in any way interferes with the market place.  That, however, is not the case.

Republicans are very supportive of the billions of dollars that the government spends, either in the form of direct payments or beneficial tax laws, that provide American corporations, especially big business, with government subsidies.  They are also very supportive of government regulation/interference that supports corporations, such as elements of the farm bill.  NOTE: Almost all government farm subsidies go to large corporate farms.  The embattled family farmer benefits hardly at all.

The only difference between the spending and regulation they support and the ones they don’t support is that the former benefit big business while the latter either benefit the average American or protects him by restricting the unfettered ability of big business to act as it wills.

This is hypocrisy.  But the immorality of their stance is even worse. To argue against measures that protect the average American or helps those in need while supporting spending and other measures that help those who are not in need is to take a stand which is immoral.

“Ah,” they say, “but cutting back on such spending or measures will harm American business on which the economy depends and will result in the loss of jobs.”  Any attempts to cut back on these items, or imposing new costs on business, are labeled, “job killers,” by Republicans.

But that is not true.  What is true is that if such subsidies are cut back or new costs imposed, corporate profits will be reduced (unless they raise prices) and thus shareholders will be impacted by lower stock market prices for their shares. 

I am not against corporations making a profit and benefitting their shareholders.  But many of these companies have profits at such high levels that the benefit to the larger society of cutbacks or new regulation/costs far outweighs the reduced profits to industry.  For example, many of our largest, most profitable corporations pay almost no taxes through the loopholes that they enjoy.

The cost to the American taxpayer of these corporate subsidies is unconscionable, especially at a time when the American middle class and the poor are being asked to make sacrifices in order to reduce the government deficit.  It is obscene that our middle class and poor are asked to shoulder the costs of providing subsidies to those who typically already have more money than they know what to do with, other than spend it on more luxury.

The American social contract has traditionally (since the early 20th century) required all aspects of our society to support the greater good, each to its ability.  That concept of fairness and the greater good has been so denigrated over the course of the last few decades by the Republican Party that Republicans in government should hang their heads in shame.

Government and business both have their place in American society and in our economy.  It is past time, however, to correct the balance between the two.

Why Should the Public Pay for Industry’s Costs of Production?

A for-profit business has to figure its costs of production in establishing a price and maintaining a sufficient profit margin to warrant being in business.  This includes all inputs into the production process.  However, for many if not most American businesses, this does not include the costs of rendering all byproduct outputs from the production process harmless to the environment.  

There are certainly measures that are required by regulation, but they are minimal relatively speaking.  When any efforts are made to require more stringent measures, the common outcry from industry is that the measures are too expensive.  And so government typically relents and the pollution or other damage continues, with the environment being damaged, sometimes irrevocably, sometimes to be cleaned up at the taxpayer’s expense.

Before any product is allowed to be processed or manufactured, why isn’t it required that a business provide an environmental impact statement indicating the measures it will take to insure that any potential impact is mitigated to the point that the process is harmless to the environment.  If a business cannot with a sufficient degree of certainty make such a statement, it should not be allowed to proceed.  (The former phrase is in italics because industry routinely makes such bold statements without there being any rigorous research or data backing up the statements.)

The obvious case in point is hydraulic fracking, but the same principle applies to coal mining, electric generating plants, chemical plants, and many other industries where one wouldn’t necessarily think that toxic discharges would be a problem.  No industry should be allowed to despoil the environment.  And the public should not have to pay for mitigation measures that should be considered costs of production.   

If such a system is not put in place and the government/taxpayer ends up paying, then isn’t that a form of socialism that big business and conservatives so abhor?  Why is it only socialism to these people when the government helps those who are in need, but not when government either directly or indirectly subsidizes the cost of doing business?

This is but one more example where corporate interests usually trump all others because of the power they have through the money they donate to politicians and the money they spend lobbying for their point of view.  Those who speak on the public’s behalf are drowned out by the shear magnitude of corporate power over the process.