Regarding Socialism
JoeUser Forums
Regarding Socialism
“The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil.”
“The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development...”
“It is necessary to remember that the planned economy is not yet socialism.”
Albert Einstein, in his essay Why Socialism?
It never ceases to baffle me how a nation that ostensibly cherishes liberty and equality continues to ostracize both the prerequisite ideology for attaining social prosperity and those who adhere to this philosophy. In American society, socialism is derogatorily dismissed as morally reprehensible, caustically debased as irreconcilably redundant. The most vocal critics of socialism prey on fear and prejudice, thriving on ignorance and chaos. Their relentless and licentious slanders against socialism has tainted America with venomous deceit and turned rational humans into unthinking slaves to conformity, deafening all pleas to reason. Confounding the matter is the confusion between communism and socialism, as well as comparison to the “National Socialists” and the USSR. I am greatly disturbed by the complete lack of delineation and sheer apathy of most Americans in this regard. Nonetheless, as I am convinced that ignorance is the true source of this dilemma, I will attempt to provide my plea for socialism; as we have an overabundance of capitalists I will refrain from endorsing contrary ideologies for the present.
To understand socialism, you must first understand capitalism. Capitalism is defined as an economic system “characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods” and socialism is defined as “any of various economic or political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” What this means is that under a pure capitalist society, all goods and services are privately owned, whereas a socialist society (there is no such thing as “pure” socialism- either it is socialist or it is not socialist) is where the means of production and distribution are collectively owned, usually but not always in the form of governmental property.
This is an important distinction: many capitalists assert that socialism needlessly redistributes property and “robs” hard working individuals of their possessions, but this is not the case. The inherent flaw in capitalism (from a socialist's viewpoint) is that corporate ownership of the means of production (factories, mines, etc.) and distribution (wages) of wealth is not only morally reprehensible but grossly inefficient (ironically, capitalists assert the same about socialism) as the intrinsic nature of a corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders, rather than minimizing human suffering or environmental damage; simply put, corporations do not have public welfare as their highest priority, being formulated to maximize the capital gain of a select few. Therefore capitalists seek maximal profits in minimal time, inflicting capricious destruction of life and land (ironically leading to lost revenue, as in the case of the BP oil spill) and colossal wealth disparities in society; the latter culminates in what Marx described as the breakdown of capitalist society as the bourgeoisie find themselves deprived of wealth.
The 2008 financial crisis is a prime example of this- when Clinton deregulated the banks in 1999, he triggered a prodigal upsurge in spending that culminated in the cataclysmic financial crisis and the current recession. One cannot help but notice the similarities between this recession and the Great Depression; both were preceded by a period of ostensible wealth that was accompanied by great disparity in social strata, ultimately leading to a sudden drop in spending, which in turn leads to widespread economic collapse as the illusion of prosperity collapses inward.
One must always remember that socialism was formulated at a time of intense disparity between social strata. Helen Keller endorsed socialism after learning of miners becoming blind from coal dust; John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, the two richest men in modern history, amassed their staggering fortunes during the “jungle capitalism” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; the board game Monopoly was designed to emulate the ruthless competition on Wall Street and the complete lack of regulation that it entailed.
Even a cursory study of that period amply demonstrates the perils of unrequited capitalism, and yet America obstinately refuses to reform, despite the fact that nearly all first world countries have adopted some form of socialist policy at one time or another and continue to possess substantial labor (socialist) parties. I am convinced that this obstinacy stems from residual fear of Communism dating from the Cold War era. If this is the case, then future generations will undoubtedly learn from the errors of the past.
For socialism to function, the entire society must be directed towards the greatest social and ethical objective- namely, the endorsement of universal prosperity and the marginalization of individual suffering. As the government ideally exists to protect individual rights and enable healthy social, economic, mental and physical development, it is often made the instrument of socialist agendas, but for governments to function, they must represent the will of the enlightened society. This enlightened state is the very definition of a utopia and is presently incompatible with any form of government aside from a republic, including classical democracy; as majority does not necessarily imply accuracy, democracy, while theoretically perfect, does not account for the rather poor judgment of the average uninformed individual, to say nothing of the inefficiencies of assembling each and every citizen for any and all legislation. Republics were assembled for precisely this reason, the theory being that so long as the society as a whole could exert its will upon the delegates their loyalty would remain to the state. For a republic to function as intended, three conditions must be met. First, the citizens must be capable of freely making enlightened decisions; second, the elections must accurately reflect the unhindered decisions of the people; third, the elected officials must have no conflicting loyalties, that is to say, they must owe their office solely to the will of the people.
The first condition requires all citizens to have a simple yet well formulated understanding of current affairs, as well as a clear understanding of both their own philosophy as well as the ideologies of the electoral candidates. This implies a well established means of dispersing information, which in turn requires the legislative freedom to individual as well as social discourse. At the same time, social accountability is required to maintain the integrity of pertinent information; while I am entitled to freely share information, I must also refrain from spreading false information, as this sows discord and confusion, and harmony and perspicuity are required for the good of the state.
While it is impossible for one human to detail the ideology of another autonomously, it is possible for citizens to provide the means by which a philosophy can be formulated- the higher reasoning of humans is not natural to us, as it gradually coalesces over the entirety of our lives. The early stages of the human lifespan are the most critical to this process, and as such, providing rudimentary education for all citizens during their youth is vital to the survival of the republican state.
Comprehending the philosophy of a delegate becomes rather straightforward when the individual is well informed and well educated, and so no further tools are required to ensure this necessity aside from the free diffusion of information and the ready accessibility of academic instruction.
Superficially, the second prerequisite of a stable republican regime implies only a well organized and fully transparent election process, however, astute readers will note the word unhindered, which is crucial and, again, often overlooked. Starving men are easily manipulated by candidates who promise bread, and so the state must ensure the proper security, health and sustenance of its citizens so that their decisions may remain unhindered.
The third requirement is the most vital, and is also the most difficult to attain. Irrespective of the will of the people, power always corrupts, and human nature is largely consistent. While there undoubtedly exists sublime individuals virtuous enough to rule wisely of their own accord, most humans require extrinsic motivation to retain such high levels of fealty to the state. The concept of the republic is grounded in this fundamental law of human nature and is intended to circumvent it with democratic institutions. The greatest danger to a republic is intrinsic corruption for this very reason; the complexity of a republic lends it greater stability and consistency, but also renders it less receptive to reform, and so the founding institutions are far more integral in a republic than a monarchy. Republics are highly susceptible to plutocratic regimes; as commerce is the only major avenue of power outside the state (the military is generally comprised of citizens who tend to possess greater liberties than feudal levies and education is nearly universal among citizens of a healthy republic) it is also the only major source of corruption. By corruption, I mean the degeneration of a functioning republic into a discordant republic, or a republican state that is no longer harmonious with the will of the people.
This is why socialism is essential. By limiting the power of commerce to oppose the will of the state (which in a functioning republic is, by definition, the will of the people) the intrinsic security of the republic is assured.
With this in mind, let us now turn our attention to American society. Wealth disparity is inevitably present in any capitalist system, but that does not render it impossible to ameliorate its effects to a degree. There are two major methods of doing this. The first is to create social programs to counteract the effects of poverty in the lower class, and the second is to tax the upper class. Social programs are generally more potent, but some taxation is required to sustain the state. I personally favor a progressive, nonlinear taxation of the top fraction of a percent: fifty percent of a billion dollars is five hundred million dollars, a considerable sum, but it still leaves half a billion for the former billionaire to play with; ten percent of one million dollars leaves nine hundred thousand dollars, or about five to ten years of salary for the top twenty percent; ten percent of two hundred thousand dollars is twenty thousand, a small sum by governmental standard, but rather enormous by average American standards. Generally speaking, I find the very existence of billionaires in our society repugnant. Though several of the more noteworthy billionaires are noted for philanthropy, the fact that anyone could amass such a sum while most of humanity starves is morally reprehensible and is a clear indication of the evils of capitalism.
Regardless of ideology, there exists a pervasive sense of social unrest in today's society. This too, is another sign of the unhealthy state of government. I am convinced that capitalism is to blame; the slightest concession to the capitalist leads to greater wealth disparity, which triggers greater concessions as the capitalist exerts an exponentially increasing influence on society. The most pressing concern for our generation is the dissolution of the capitalist system, for it has persisted well beyond social, economical, and environmental tolerances.
